Free Markets, Free People

The Todd Aiken fiasco and right ideologues

Missouri Representative Todd Aiken made one of the most ignorant and foolish statements of the year concerning rape and abortion has quickly spread across the nation.

Full stop.  That’s the story.  There’s little if any real debate that what he said was uninformed and ignorant.

For the most part, the right has condemned and disassociated themselves with Aiken’s statement.  Many have ask him to step down (I say that’s up to the voters of Missouri – if they want to punish the man, they can do so in November).  He’s likely given Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill another 6 years in the Senate.

There’s no avoiding the fact, at least for honest people, that what Aiken said was abysmally ignorant and not at all supported by science.  One has to wonder where in the world he got such an idea (and why he’s seemingly held it for so long).

But what has me torqued about the incident is nonsense like this:

Two top officials from the Family Research Council said the Missouri congressman is the target of a Democratic smear campaign and chided those Republicans who have condemned Akin.

Connie Mackey, who heads the group’s political action committee, said the group "strongly supports" Todd Akin.

"We feel this is a case of gotcha politics," Mackey told reporters in Tampa, where the Republican National Committee was gathering ahead of the party’s convention next week. "He has been elected five times in that community in Missouri. They know who Todd Akin is. We know who Todd Akin is. We’ve worked with him up on the hill. He’s a defender of life."

"Todd Akin is getting a really bad break here," she added. "I don’t know anything about the science or the legal implications of his statement. I do know politics, and I know gotcha politics when I see it."

Gotcha politics?  This wasn’t a case of “gotcha politics”.  This was ignorance that caused an unforced error.  Had he simply stated his opposition to abortion for any reason, he might have taken some heat from the other side, but it’s a stance he’s had for the 5 terms he’s been in Congress and it’s no big deal, politically.

But he chose to elaborate on the point with this faux-scientific nonsense about the body knowing if it is “legitimate rape” (instead of some playfully rough sex one assumes) and disallowing any chance of pregnancy.

The right, even the pro-life right for the most part, threw up their hands and said, “whoa, sorry, we can’t support that because it’s just not true”. 

Except for the boobs above.  Instead they “strongly support” Aiken. 

Really?  How!?  By flinging equally uniformed political poo and looking like total fools?  Even Aiken doesn’t support what Aiken said (given his apology):

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins fired back at Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, a leading moderate voice in the GOP who called Akin’s remarks "outrageous" and encouraged him to drop his challenge to Democrat Claire McCaskill.

"He should be careful because based on some of his statements there may be some call for him to get out of his race," Perkins said of Brown. "He has been off the reservation on a number of Republican issues, conservative issues I should say. His support among conservatives is very shallow."

Mackey said that Republicans calling on Akin to apologize or drop out should get "backbone."

A “backbone”?  The kind of blind and ignorant backing they call for is what causes many to call GOP the “stupid party” (of course it’s not the only reason).  One has to be an ignorant ideologue to support such a ridiculous call.  And that’s precisely what Perkins and Mackey portray themselves as (and call for the rest of the party to emulate). 

One final thing – again social conservative issues, which aren’t even on the public’s political issue radar screen, are being forced to the front and tripping up Republicans.  This sort of nonsense allows the left to dictate the topic du jure and avoid the economic elephant in the room.

Refusing to acknowledge the stupidity of the statement and throwing down on those within the GOP who’ve condemned it only prolongs the stupidity surrounding the incident and hands the left what it wants – distraction.

But that doesn’t matter to unthinking ideologues, does it?


Twitter: @McQandO

Facebook: QandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

74 Responses to The Todd Aiken fiasco and right ideologues

  • Speaking of ideologues….
    Various representatives of the media (the Democratic party) think Ryan probably believes what Akin does, I mean, he’s a Republican so…….
    But Akin?  Doofus.  If that’s the kind of thing he thinks we may be better off without him.   That’s the village witch doctor kind of crap science that has South Africa in an aids epidemic.

    • Did I say ‘may’?   I didn’t mean may, I meant, ARE.

    • Decorated except for FACE, regarding access to abortion clinics, the Senate has never voted on abortion, so this whole discussion about Akin is moot.

  • This is what I said yesterday about this mess—

    Yeah, this guy needs to be returned to the bullpen.
    Anybody this stupid and inarticulate…or ill advised in a Missouri Senatorial campaign…is not going to make a batter nervous.
    ANYbody with GOP associated with their name has to have all their neck-hairs stand up when something like “rape” is HINTED in a press setting. Either he ignored what he’s been taught, or he was too stupid to get good press people.
    And, yeah, we are not Deemocrats. There is NOT a DOUBLE standard. We HAVE standards, and they just DO NOT.
    Planned Parenthood is a BIG co-conspirator with child rapists, as anyone with a working brain knows. But they are abortionists, and abortion is the highest sacrament of the Collective, as we also all know.

    IF he leaves today, I think it is possible to replace him prior to the election, and he had two very close competitors in the primary that were BOTH better, interestingly enough.

    • Wait, weren’t we supposed to rally around him and…and…. claim his brain was hacked during the interview, or
      that he had a ear bud and someone whispered those words to him from the control booth and before he knew what he was saying he said them, and now that mysterious person can’t be found, but it’s all true!
      Come on man, let’s be Liberals for a while, just to see what it’s like.

      • OK.  Tried it for a few seconds.  Now I have to take another shower.  And disinfect.  And delouse.

      • Assume for the moment we can’t think of a good reason for him to say this (and I can’t) and that he’s just an idiot (QED) – the proper thing to do would be to bring up what an idiot Joe Biden is as a defense, no?

    • ” There is NOT a DOUBLE standard. We HAVE standards”

      Two words – Mark Foley

      This is pure political calculation, they can’t win with this guy, Republicans want to win, this guy has to go. This has nothing to do with principles. Republicans have stayed the course with much worse.

      If he stays in the race, Republicans everywhere will be saying Akin is an idiot, but he’s better than McCaskill.

      • Was it a David Duke election where they had to have bumper stickers saying “Vote for the Crook: It’s Important.”

      • Foley resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006 acting on a request by the Republican Leadership after allegations surfaced that he had sent suggestive emails and sexually explicit instant messages to underage males who had formerly served and were at that time serving as Congressional pages.
        Two words.  He’s gone.

        Akin is an idiot, but he’s better than McCaskill.

        Aiken is certainly not politically adept as, say, rapist Clinton or killer Kennedy.  But he would be an improvement over ObamaClair.

        • “Foley resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006 acting on a request by the Republican Leadership ”

          Foley resigned (without being asked) after Foley’s indiscretions were made public, but many in the GOP leadership and beyond were well aware of Foley’s lechery long before it became public knowledge.

          “Rep. Jim Kolbe confirmed a Washington Post report that in 2000 or 2001, his staff notified House leaders of inappropriate contact between resigned Rep. Mark Foley and underage pages.”

          Where’s those standards when the public is not looking? They don’t exist.

          • What Foley did was make passes.  Certainly wrong, but hardly on the same level as Frank running a brothel, or giving his boy friend a sweet birth  on one of the F-ies.
            And the reticence about dealing with Foley was over his homosexuality.
            PC at work, you lying moron.

          • Foley resigned (without being asked)

            That is another lie.  Which you could objectively know the truth about, so it is doubly a lie.

          • “That is another lie.  Which you could objectively know the truth about, so it is doubly a lie.”
            If I functioned like you, which thankfully I do not, I guess I would have to say that you have triply lied by lying, lying about lying, and then lying about me lying.

            What I prefer is just to suggest that you are ignorant of the fact of what was said. Haster said on October 2 that he Foley was NOT asked to resign.

            Here’s the quote…

             “I think Foley resigned almost immediately upon the outbreak of this information, and so we really didn’t have a chance to ask him to resign,” Mr. Hastert has said.

            Here’s the link:


            Apology accepted

          • Kirk Fordham, Chief of Staff to Tom Reynolds and former Chief of Staff to Foley, said that he was with Foley on September 29, 2006 when ABC confronted him with the explicit messages before they were publicized.[29] Fordham then visited GOP headquarters to inform Reynolds and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert; he returned with a one-sentence resignation letter that Foley signed. Hastert and Reynolds let it be known that if Foley didn’t resign, he would be expelled from the House. That same day, Foley tendered his resignation to Hastert as well as Florida Governor Jeb Bush.[30][31] Foley said in a statement, “I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent.”[32][33]

            You’re not just a liar, but a stupid, obdurate liar.
            Follow the references, moron.

          • “You’re not just a liar, but a stupid, obdurate liar.”

            Clearly Hastert claimed that he asked for the resignation, but just as clearly, he claimed prior to that, but after the resignation, that he did not.

            Was he lying when he said he didn’t or when he said he did?

            I would argue that his first statement was correct, he would have known on October 2 whether he asked Foley to resign, and said that he did not.

            Claims afterwards that contradict this are not credible.

          • Well, you stupid, lying PHUC…
            September is BEFORE October on my calendar.
            And the FIRST PERSON account of someone who hand-carried the resignation letter that Foley signed is pretty credible.
            You didn’t bother with the supporting reference either, did you idiot?
            What a pathetic, stupid, obdurate liar.

      • Whereas Bawney Fwank went on to serve for years after “bending the pages over” in the Library of Congress.
        Don’t EVEN start going there – the standard is so blatant you’ll be very sorry if you continue down this path.

        • I am sure you believe that Looker, but that doesn’t stp you from being wrong.

          The Congressional Page scandal had nothing to do with Barney Frank (who had a different scandal, which was investigated, and he was found not have done anything wrong except fix some parking tickets).

          The Page scandal involved two reps, one Republican and one Democrat. The Republican had sex with an underage female page and the Democrat had sex with an underage male. Both were censured.

          Both ran for re-election, the R lost, the D won.

          • Ah, you’re right – Studds the Dem from Mass, and some dude from…Iillinois? Ohio? eh…the Republican (it was a flyover state to me at the time  🙂   )  And the state sent Studds back to serve till he retired in the 90’s.
            I apologize to Barney, and eat a healthy helping of crow for my half-cocked and incorrect (wrong) declaration.

          • Nobody’s perfect.

            I make my share of mistakes, just nowhere near the volume Raggy accuses me of.

            That is part of the reason I do this. Reading is informative, but nothing helps a person understand and remember information like the debate process where everything you say can be challenged.

  • Huh…

    “There’s a reason why Democrats spent over $1.5 million trying to help Akin win his three-way primary. He was the most conservative candidate in the field — and the most unpredictable one. He shook up his campaign staff late last year. He recently released a head-scratching and jumbled campaign ad. And Democrats have already launched a microsite highlighting his controversial statements that won’t play well with moderates. (“America has got the equivalent of the stage III cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in,” Akin once said.)”
    THAT’s interesting… I’d say they spent their money well, if corruptly.

  • “THAT’s interesting… I’d say they spent their money well, if corruptly.”

    McCaskill was given the money to win her Senate election, apparently, she thought the best way to do that was to go up against Aiken.

    Looks like she was right.

    Corrupt? Sure, fine. A fairly common strategy, but I won’t argue it’s deviousness.

    • You ARE aware that, weak as Aiken was and is, he was up 11% against ObamaClair.  Right?

      • “You ARE aware that, weak as Aiken was and is, he was up 11% against ObamaClair.  Right?”

        Absolutely, the calculation was apparently that of the potential opponents, McCaskill had the best chance against Akin.

        Early polling indicates Akin may STILL be leading albeit by a tiny margin now.

    • Do the ends justify the means here?
      And he may still win. This is early days and Claire may muff the play by pushing too hard on it…

      • Another reason for closed primaries, I think. We are better served by two strong candidates than by gamed candidates.

  • Let the voters decide.  Clinton did rape a women and he is speaking at the democratic convention.

  • No, Aikin has to go. I don’t want him on the GOP side. If he runs I hope McCaskill keeps the seat.
    He gets elected they’ll use him to hang us forever

  • Here’s what strikes me. The guys underlying position, that abortion should be a crime under ANY circumstance, was almost certainly not informed by this ridiculous (albeit not uncommon) belief that women who are actually, really, honestly, and truly raped, don’t get pregnant. The rape doesn’t cause pregnancy idea was created to support the extreme anti-abortion position not the other way around.

    The thing is, the guy has not and will not change his position one iota, just the rationale he uses.

    But the scandal here is not the amazing lack of biological knowledge, hell, that’s almost a requirement, it is the use of the qualifier “legitimate”, that is what is so revoltiing to people. But the fact is that Republicans have been qualifying rape for a while. The only difference between today and yesterday is that it’s headlines news today.

    When Akin spoke with Huckabee, he said he intended to say “forcible rape”, not legitimate rape, which probably sounded like a better defense at the time, but actually inextricably (and more specifically) linked his idiotic beliefs with the GOP bill sponsored by Paul Ryan which would have redefined rape as only being rape if it was forcible rape, which of course would have put the government in the position of deciding who was raped and who was not (smaller government anyone?)

    But the blowup from this, especially because of the correction to forcible rape, is now going to be a linking of the bill Paul Ryan Co-sponsored to Akin’s opinion.

    Obama has already jumped on this meme:

    ” And so although these particular comments have led Governor Romney and other Republicans to distance themselves, I think the underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions or qualifying ‘forcible rape’ versus nonforcible rape — I think those are broader issues and that is a significant difference in approach between me and the other party.”

    I know most people here are libertarian or libertarian leaning, and as such, I know that reconciling the abortion question with the GOP mainstream is difficult. Like most people, most libertarians believe that abortion is awful, and wish that no women ever had one, and like a majority of Americans, they oppose having their money used for abortions. But they typically draw the line at what they wish women would do in cases of unwanted pregancies with using the force of government to force women to remain pregant under threat of imprisonment. There are of course exceptions, about 30% of libertarians are pro-life (according to Reason mag). 58% of self identified libertarians believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases compared to about 68% of self identified conservatives who believe that all or most abortions should be illegal.

    Extreme positions on social issues is where the GOP loses the middle, but it is also the only way to hold their base.

    For the record, I refuse to force women to be pregnant by force of law, but, if there were a means to provide for women who do not want to carry to term in lieu of abortion, I would be very much in favor of offering that option. There would of course be unintended consequences (but aren’t there always)

    • “but, if there were a means to provide for women who do not want to carry to term in lieu of abortion,”
      Uh, magic pixie dust?   Some of that Moon Pony fart gas the President thinks exist?   You go on about Aiken’s view on the biology, and then come up with this?    You abort them, or carry them to term – there isn’t a magical third alternative, and there never will be.

      • And this illustrates why this idiot needs to go ASAP. We’re drawn into this quagmire when the focus should be what a SCOAMF Obama is.

        • There’s no defense for Akin – the Dem’s will only want to keep him around so they can keep talking about it, and hell, they’ll talk about it even after he’s gone.  AND they’ll talk about it with who ever the GOP replaces him with, as if that candidate thinks EXACTLY the same think Akin did.

      • “You abort them, or carry them to term – there isn’t a magical third alternative, and there never will be.”

        There may not be, and I am okay with that, what I am not okay with is eliminating one of those options, but that is exactly what the GOP wants to do. I say fine, if you eliminate that option, it’s not free. I expect that would more of a deterrent to outlawing abortion than it would be to taking care of pregnant women, but as you say, TWO options not One.

        • that is exactly what the GOP wants to do

          Which, being from you, is an obvious lie.  There are SOME in the GOP who harbor that view.  They are not remotely likely to see it into law.
          As you know, but will lie about anyhow.
          MOST of the GOP, and a lot of Libertarians, want the issue returned to the states, which would NOT mean abortions are outlawed.

          • There are SOME in the GOP who harbor that view.

            It is in the GOP Platform…
            With no floor debate, the panel adopted language contained in the 2004 and 2008 Republican platforms that said an “unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life that cannot be infringed.”

            “MOST of the GOP, and a lot of Libertarians, want the issue returned to the states, which would NOT mean abortions are outlawed.”

            It would mean exactly that in every state they could get the votes. Before Roe v Wade 30 states outlawed abortion, some of these same states have created trigger laws that would immediately ban all abortions should Roe v Wade be overturned, many of the rest would quickly pass bills to ban abortions.

            Here’s the crazy thing, you seem to believe that the federal government is now in charge of abortion and you wish to move that responsibility to the states. I would argue that under federal direction, abortion decisions have been moved the INDIVIDUAL, and what you want to do is take it AWAY FROM THE INDIVIDUAL and give it BACK TO GOVERNMENT, whether it is state or federal is irrelevant. Would you feel better if a jackbooted thug stepped on your neck under state authority rather than federal authority, would your neck be any less stepped on?

            Since abortion is NOW an individual decision, the ONLY reason to want to change it is to remove that individual decision and allow it to be made by government.

            Small government?

          • More of your lies.  Put up the whole platform statement, liar.
            Next, put up the Deemocrat platform, which kinda supports Obama’s infanticide position, dunnit?
            And, yeah, if SOMEBODY BESIDES MOM had ANY rights, it would mean that those rights had to be weighed.
            Like small government does every day, all around the nation.  Which is one of its most organic functions.  Stupid.
            But, like with the pro-slavery jurisprudence, Roe has to create an extra-Constitutional class of human beings who have no rights.
            That is morally and rationally insupportable.  So, I would expect you to support it.

        • All I know is abortion isn’t a good form of birth control.  It’s not something to be done lightly, and I like to think it isn’t when it’s chosen.

        • And yeah, what Rag’s said – I don’t believe the majority of “GOP” voters is of the opinion you seem to think they are.  But it makes for a swell scare tactic to say it huh.
          How about if from now on I start saying all Democrats are in favor laws that allow sex with children, would that be okay with you?  I mean, after the defense of Roman Polanksi and “rape rape” and NAMBLA, what am I to think?  Get the point?

          • I see they took a stand on when a person is a person, instead of this bullshit idea that it’s just a blob of protoplasm, or maybe a puppy or goldfish until it magically becomes a human at birth.  Heh, and people laugh at Catholics for their belief in transubstantiation (full disclosure, bad hell bound lapsed Catholic going on over 40 years).
            Now, do I agree with their platform? pretty much not.  But at least they’re not playing semantic games about what’s a person so we can soothe our consciences for the cause of free love and the zipless F*ck.  It’s the primary problem I have with the idea of cloning people, until we decide what IS a person and enshrine the WHEN, we’d better avoid that or the consequences get pretty damn scary.

          • “I don’t believe the majority of “GOP” voters is of the opinion you seem to think they are”

            I certainly have not spoken to a majority of Republicans, so all I have to go on are this new fangled thing called statistical polling.

            I don’t believe there is a majority of Republicans that would outlaw abortion under ALL circumstances, polling bears this out.  68% of Republicans believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, but there are details in there, and less than 30% of Republicans support the position that there should be NO exceptions. However, that is the position of the GOP platform. The abortion language approved Tuesday endorses legislation that would say the 14th Amendment applies after conception. There is no room in that position for ANY exceptions.

            “How about if from now on I start saying all Democrats are in favor laws that allow sex with children, would that be okay with you?”

            I have never said ALL Republicans believe anything and I am not making this stuff up. Go look at the polls.

            I don’t blame you for wanting to distance yourself from the Republican position. I think most Republican strategists think it’s crazy, but there is an indispensible element of the base that would walk away (or just not show up) if it were not for the extreme position on abortion.

          • And in this ‘no language’ thingie you’re worried about with Republicans, you CAN show me the words where the Constitution guarantees privacy?  Abortion?  Yes?

          • However, that is the position of the GOP platform. The abortion language approved Tuesday endorses legislation that would say the 14th Amendment applies after conception. There is no room in that position for ANY exceptions.

            Yeah, that’s a lie, and you are a liar.  Every right we enjoy under the Constitution has some exceptions, and there would be those in the instance where the matter was returned to the States, where it belongs and always existed prior to Roe’s abomination.
            I really wonder why you bother with these stupid attempts at rank dishonesty.

          • And you’re….in disagreement…about these people trying to define when a person is a person….via the 14th amendment.
            can you tell me then, these lumps of protoplasm that magically become people at birth – is it possible that they could be goldfish?  Puppies?  Alien lifeforms?
            Sort of like most people pretending not to know where veal, or chicken breasts, or steak came from before they appeared neatly packaged in the grocery store eh?

          • Hmmmm.try this on for size – many Democrats believe that we shouldn’t have the death penalty, because of the chance that a person sentenced to death COULD in fact, be innocent.
            I gather that “chance” doesn’t apply to those lumps of protoplasm in so far as when a human is a human and not a goldfish.

          • This is REALLY simple, under Roe v Wade, who is the primary decision maker of whether a person will get an abortion?

            It’s the INDIVIDUAL.

            Without Roe v Wade, who would be the orimary decision maker of whether a person will get an abortion?

            It’s the STATE. (and states COULD leave this with the INDIVIDUAL)

            These facts lead to an incontrovertible conclusion, that supporting the reversal of Roe v Wade reflects a desire to take the decision AWAY from the INDIVIDUAl and give it to the STATE.

            It is irrelevant whether you believe a zygote is a person or not, what is relevant is that you believe that the STATE should make that decision. Right now, if you believe abortion is wrong, you are welcomed to NOT HAVE one, but the position reversing ROE v Wade is supported ONLY if you believe that the INDIVIDUAL should not make that decision.

            If you think the state should make the decision, you are by definition in favor of banning abortion by order of the STATE, since that is the only difference the reversal could make.

            Looker glosses over the fact that the GOP put into it’s platform that the GOP supports LEGISLATION that defines the moment of conception as the moment a human being with full 14th Amendment rights. That is just another way of saying that they want the STATE to decide this complex question for YOU.

            I don’t pretend to KNOW the answer, for me, the answer is yes, a person is person from conception. I just would not presume to decide the answer to that question for others.

          • Of course, since you said it, this is a complete lie.
            This is a matter of recognizing that MORE than ONE individual in the issue of an abortion has rights.
            It is a matter of correcting a completely unsupportable fiction in the law that ONLY a woman has any interests that the law can and should consider.  That there are MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS who have rights in the situation.
            What a complete, pathetic, stupid, and obdurate liar.

          • But there’s no language promising abortion, or privacy, in the Constitution, but someone found them ‘there’.
            You’ve decided because the Republicans didn’t SAY that it’s not always a complete no, under no circumstances, ever, end of story that is it ALWAYS no, under no circumstances, ever, end of story.
            So, sometimes there are words in the Constitution written in invisible ink, but when the Republicans want to do something, the words HAVE to be written in visible ink.
            Am I getting my point across here?

          • And NO, you could hardly say I glossed OVER it, I specifically said, they have come out and defined EXACTLY when a person is a person and want to enshrine that in the Constitution.
            As opposed to this, obfuscated, avoid the question, pretense, that we’re not actually killing humans, that we are in fact, killing, oh, I don’t know, nothing, or gold fish, or puppies, or alien life forms or cancerous cells when abortions are performed.  I hardly think I glossed over what I think is happening, I certainly asked enough questions wanting to know what it was we ARE killing if it isn’t humans that would lead even the simple to see what my own view were.
            I understand the inextricable difficulty here in protecting the rights of a woman, versus the rights of the person that is forming in her womb, I GET that it’s not an easily resolved issue, I GET it.  I know my choice, but it’s not a choice I can force on others.  But let’s not kid ourselves, it’s not magically a human after it’s born and something OTHER than that prior to birth.  So I doubly understand the issue with forcing a woman to carry to term a person that has literally been violently FORCED upon her.
            All that being said, we owe it to human rights to decide once and for all, when is a person a person instead of dancing around and pretending things because we don’t want to have to make very tough decisions about very difficult subjects, and THAT should not be left up to the individual states any more than SLAVERY should.

    • …forcible rape, which of course would have put the government in the position of deciding who was raped and who was not (smaller government anyone?)

      You mean just like now…and historically?
      Gawd, you are a moron.
      AND a demagog, to boot.  Like your idol.

      I think the underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions

      Please!  ObamaCare takes ALL KINDS of health-care decisions out of the hands of women AND men!
      Who do you think you are kidding here?

      Also, you lying phuc, NOBODY was “redefining rape”.
      The term “forcible rape” has been used FOR-FLUCKING-EVER, you moron.  Both as a legal term of art, and generally as part of our lexicon.
      But way to import Toilet Paper Mau-maus talking points.

      • “The term “forcible rape” has been used FOR-FLUCKING-EVER”

        Congress has gone back and forth on covering or denying funding for abortions in the case of rape, but NEVER before the proposed Ryan bill has the Congress qualified rape with with adjective “forcible”. The term exists in our lexicon, and it exists in state laws, but was never a qualifier for coverage of rape under Medicaid rules, until this bill, which if passed would have REDEFINED rape for the purposes of Medicaid funding.

        It’s not a difficult concept to comprehend, if you try.

        But I am glad you brought up the fact that it is a legal term, and you are right, it is. The definition is pretty simple, sexual assault without consent under the use or threat of force.

        What is more interesting are ALL the crimes that are NOT forcible rape. ”
        “Non-forcible sex offenses include sexual conduct with individuals that the law assumes are not capable of giving consent to sexual acts. Because of this legal principle, it is said that in non-forcible sex offense cases, lack of consent by the victim may be a Matter of Law. In other words, statutes will assume that underage, physically helpless, and mentally incompetent victims are incapable of giving consent to sexual acts and will not consider consent as a valid defense to the crime.”

        In other words, if a mentally handicapped person, a drugged person, or a child, were raped without a threat of violence, they would be excluded by the language of this bill. In a bizarre twist, by specifying forcible rape, aggravated rape would be excluded, which is worse, legally, in that also includes circumstances beyond the use or threat of force, such as multiple attackers, very young victims, or more extreme violence.

        Words mean things and the NEW addition of “forcible” to the defintion of rape in abortion funding meant something. Women are going to be deciding whether it means that Republicans don’t believe they were raped unless they have the scars to prove it.

        So here’s the thing, we know that every day we talk about the economy hurts Obama, and pretty much everything else helps Obama. So expect a LOT of talk about this. It was already part of the Obama strategy with ads and everything about Romney’s war on women. Obama is winning women handily in key swing states. In Pennsylvania, Obama leads him among females by a 59 to 35 percent margin; in Florida, 51 to 44; and in Ohio, 58 to 37.

        So what do you think the result of this national conversation is going to be?

        This is just horse race stuff, but seriously, do you think this is anything but a very bad day for the GOP?

        • It’s not a difficult concept to comprehend, if you try.

          Then why did you lie about it?

          In other words, if a mentally handicapped person, a drugged person, or a child, were raped without a threat of violence, they would be excluded by the language of this bill.

          Really?  Where is the bill, so we could see what is eclipsed in its language?  I certainly would not support a bill that failed to include drugging as an act of “force”.  Put up the bill, liar.

          • “Where is the bill,”

            That is the problem, the bill just included the words “forcible rape” without defintion. This would require one seek the definition elsewhere, and I have, forcible rape as defined in law does NOT include non-forcible rape.

            You’re a lawyer, show me where forcible rape defined in law includes anything BUT forcible rape as defined in law?

          • Well, I caught you an yet ANOTHER bald lie.
            The bill does not include the term “forcible”.  It was dropped.

  • Interesting how a man accused of actual serial rape/molestation of women — including in the Oval Office — is celebrated by Democrats.
    Sure, Akin’s a goofball.  But last I checked, Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, Kathleen Willey, et. al. weren’t molested by him.

  • But many Republicans believe like Akin, and they vote primarily on the basis of social  politics, and there’s a lot of them—maybe greater the 0ne-third of the Republican Party.  Believe me, I interact on these right-wing sites every day.

  • “Believe me, I interact on these right-wing sites every day.”
    And you still do not have a clue!

    • If by “interact” you mean, “I fly by with unsynchronized engines and drop little bags of poop on various sites”, then, yeah.

  • Eff you TAD. You want me to tell you what the left believes?
    Thanks Akin. These d*uches now actually think they have a point

  • And the rambling dips*it stayed in the race. Grrrrrrreat. In the Akin/McCaskill race, I’m rooting for cerebral hemmorage. For either of them. Or for me, save me the trouble of witnessing any further…

  • The biggest BS thing about this situation is that it gotten this much national attention.  Seriously, we suppose to treat Biden’s remarks like “there goes crazy uncle joey again”.  If he was Republican, he would have had his career ended a long long time ago.
    I disagree with some of Bruce’s assertion repeated not that many articles ago.  The Old media may not have exclusivity on what is said, but they still decide where to point the megaphone and still control the debate.
    For the Republicans, its one thing to distance yourself from the loons and party screw ups.   Its another thing to trip over yourselves trying to through a member under the bus giving legitimacy to keeping the story national and even extending its life.

    • Which makes this all the more infuriating. We KNOW the media is salivating to catch any GOP in a eff up so they can push the “war on women” meme. Political disaster aside* this guy Akin is too stupid to be alive. I expect him to stick his wet finger in a socket or take his toaster into the tub with him, he’s that level of stupid. We have an actual shot to kick the left in the nuts hard enough to rupture them, and we have a-hats like this creating trouble.
      *- The guys at Ace make an attempt to convince that even without this seat, the GOP has a fair shot at taking 50 in the Senate (which w/ Pres. Romney would give us the majority) but I’m skeptical.

      • Well, I’m with you, 51 seats would be better, and 51 seats occupied by people who AREN’T on the intellectual level of Aiken or Biden would be better still.   Magic anti-pregnancy genes.  I gather this guy is essentially unaware of the excessively dark parts of humanity’s long and often horrid history.

        • “I gather this guy is essentially unaware of the excessively dark parts of humanity’s long and often horrid history.”

          I have read that about 8% of all Asians are descendants of Ghengis Khan (very interesting science to figure that out), and I have a feeling that it was not consensual.

          Maybe it just wasn’t legitimate? Maybe they liked it just a little, so those secretions that stop rape pregnancy didn’t start secreting?

          That is the conclusion Democrats are gleaning (or advancing) from these kinds of statements. When people say real rape doesn’t cause pregnancy, a women who claims she was impregnated during a rape must be lying.

          No its not fair, no most Republicans don’t hold this view, and yes, there will be an attempt to paint all Republicans as holding this view, and it will be supported not by crazy statements about biology, but simple by the support of abortion bans.

          • “there will be an attempt to paint all Republicans as holding this view,”
            Heh, dude, since you’re doing exactly that a few comments to the north of this, I gather you’re speaking from direct experience.  Just a friendly observation – see that spade there?  It’s a spade.

          • Heh…!!!  (Can you say “spade”?)

          • I can!  And do so without the slightest hesitation since invariably I will always be referring (and ONLY be referring) to either a garden tool that some might call a shovel, or one of the suits from a standard deck of cards.  🙂

  • “Heh, dude, since you’re doing exactly that a few comments to the north of this, I gather you’re speaking from direct experience. ”

    Actually, I am. I used to be an activist.

    Lately, I realize this all pretty pointless and nothing is going to change as long as we fund our elections the way we do, so I argue for the entertainment value, perhaps old times sake.

    I have a question though, and I’m serious. Would you prefer that no one in this forum share the opposing point of view?

    I have participated on liberal blogs and it’s ponderous. I would peruse the posts, find something I disagreed with, and start the debate. Talking to people that agree with me is just dull.

    I try to be accurate, respectful, and entertaining, and I am sure I miss on all three points sometimes, but it’s never personal, and I there is not a single person I dislike for their point of view. Though there are a few I am not fond of for their manner of presenting their point of view.

    The funny thing is that unless y’all live in a bubble, or Georgia (McQ dig), you almost certainly know AND like people who have different political viewpoints, but manage to have civil conversations with them. Why does this need to be different?

    My best friends are cosnervatives, and we argue politics sometimes, but I am of a political junky, and they are not, so the result is that I am so much more up to date on what is behind the headlines, I crush them rhetorically. But it doesn’t mean their point of view is any less valid, it’s just not a fair challenge. I play here because people here ARE better informed and have the ability (though they don’t always exercise it) to make it interesting.

    Short version, I like to argue.

    • heh – good 🙂   So do I, though, sometimes, I’m, uh, not always… on top of my game.