Tag Archives: Todd Akin

Neal Boortz is right: “social conservatives” will cost the GOP more elections

republican logo

In a recent talk radio show, while filling in for Sean Hannity, conservative-libertarian Neal Boortz (the co-author of the FairTax) warned that Republicans will not recapture the Senate this year, because, says Boortz, they have an insatiable “urge to get into social conservatism”.

Boortz believes Republicans will once again prioritize social issues above all others, advocate radical no-compromise policies on those issues, and once again make stupid statements on these issues. He points to Georgia GOP Senate candidate Paul Broun as an example. (Broun’s most famous statement, other than his defense of Todd Akin, is his claim that evolution, embryonics, and Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell.”)

Shortly after Boortz made that statement, an avalanche of insults, attacks, and false claims was launched against Boortz from every “conservative” corner of the Net. His critics, and they are legion, claim Boortz is an “establishment liberal Republican” and a “blowhard” just trying to attract attention. They furthermore deny that social issues and radical socially conservative politicians like Akin and Broun have hurt the GOP in the past.

But no amount of denial and false claims can change the fact that Boortz is absolutely right: radical policies on social issues, and politicians espousing such policies, have cost the GOP heavily in the past, and will cost it even more elections in the future.

Why? After all, didn’t social issues mobilize millions of voters in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s to the GOP’s standard? Weren’t American voters overwhelmingly socially conservative in those times?

Yes – but those were totally different times, decades ago. To advocate returning to policies of long bygone eras enacted (or advocated) in a totally different society is to lead the Party to disastrous defeats.

Today, Americans are a completely different society than they were 20-30 years ago. The GOP’s problem is that it hasn’t changed with them.

17  ago, a vast majority of Americans opposed gay marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed with over 80 votes in the Senate and signed by President Clinton. Today, though, according to reliable pollsters like Gallup, a large majority of Americans approves of legalizing gay marriage and of DADT repeal. Banning gay marriage and gays from the military is a decidedly losing proposition supported only by a small minority.  Over time,  this small minority will shrink even further as older, more socially conservative voters die and are replaced by younger, socially libertarian voters.

As for contraception, support for its legality is – and has long been – so broad that most pollsters don’t even bother to ask the question.

On abortion, Americans are roughly equally divided, with the pendulum slightly swinging one way or the other from time to time. However, only a small majority supports banning abortion in all or most cases (per Gallup). So radical social conservatives’ position is again that of a tiny minority and a sure election loser.

The fact is that social issues are electoral losers for Republicans. The American people don’t want politicians to legislate morality anymore than they want them to legislate prosperity (neither of which can be really legislated, BTW – but that hasn’t stopped politicians from trying :) ).

The truth, therefore, is that – as Boortz says – Republicans will continue to lose elections by landslides if they continue to take radical positions on social issues. Or nominate radically socially conservative candidates like Paul Broun.

This truth has proven itself over and over again, even in “red states” like Missouri and Indiana where Republicans should win easily. All it took for GOP Senate candidates to lose there by landslides was a radical position on abortion and one stupid remark about rape. Not only did Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lose their races, they cost other Republicans (like Scott Brown) their races as well.

This is because the voters Republicans need to win over – siphon from the Democrats, to be precise – are suburbanites, most of whom are fiscally conservative but socially liberal (especially suburban women, and American women in general, who currently support Democrats by a large margin). Saying that abortion should be banned in all cases, that a raped woman should be forced by law to bear the child of her rapist, and that two loving people shouldn’t be allowed to marry based on sexual orientation, is an electoral loser with suburbanites, women, minorities, and youngsters.

Boortz’s critics claim this is just a call to make the GOP more liberal, more leftist, and more in line with the GOP Establishment.

On the contrary, if fiscal and defense, rather than social, issues were the conservative “litmus test”, the vast majority of the GOP’s Establishment and its past candidates (including Daddy Bush, Bob Dole, Dubya Bush, and Juan McCain) would’ve had no business being in the GOP, let alone being GOP presidential nominees. Nor would John Boehner have been Speaker.

It is social conservatives who have enabled these RINOs to hijack the party and the country. All these RINOs had to do to win social conservatives’ votes was to promise to work towards banning abortion and gay marriage, and social conservatives supported them, regardless of their lack of fiscal conservative credentials (to say it mildly). So-cons didn’t care that Daddy Bush denounced Reaganomics as “voodoo economics”, or that Dubya was a failed businessman. All they cared about were these RINOs’ useless promises on social issues. As long as the Bushes, McCain, Dole, and Boehner pledged to fight against abortion and gay marriage, social conservatives were willing to overlook everything else.

On social issues, the Bushes, McCain, and Boehner have solid records.

But if fiscal and defense, rather than social, issues were the conservative “litmus test”, those RINOs would’ve had no business being in the GOP. Ditto Eric Cantor, Rick Santorum, and Tax Hike Mike Huckabee.

Social conservatives protest that “social and fiscal issues are inextricably linked.” No, they are not.

In fact, trying to impose one’s preferred policies on social issues on the rest of the society is every bit as much a Big Government statist policy as trying to impose a health insurance mandate, a new tax, a soda ban, or a lightbulb ban. So-called “social conservatives” are every bit as much Big Government Statists as Michael Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio, and Nancy Pelosi. They only difference is what exactly their pet issues are. For “social conservatives”, it’s abortion, gay marriage, and contraceptives. For Bloomberg, de Blasio, and Pelosi, it’s lightbulbs, SUVs, soda, and fast food.

But these people are all the same: all of them want to take away YOUR right to do what you want with YOUR money, YOUR vehicle, YOUR stomach, YOUR body, and YOUR home.

As any real conservative will tell you, the ONLY legitimate purpose of any government is to protect our rights and our liberty against those who would take them away, whether that’s you, my neighbor, a religious group in my town, or the majority of the society at large. The only legitimate purpose of any government is to protect our rights and freedoms – and to let us live as we wish to, as long as we don’t threaten anyone else’s rights and freedoms.

Whenever a government goes beyond that purpose, it becomes Big Government – and a danger to people’s rights and freedoms, regardless of whether it tries to legislate morality or prosperity. (And Americans don’t want it to legislate either.)

Therein lies the problem with the two major parties: both want to take your freedoms away. The Democrats want to legislate the economy, while Republicans want to legislate morality. The Democrats want to dramatically limit what you can do with your money, while Republicans want to dramatically limit what you can do with your body. For the last four decades, both parties have tried to do that and look just how dramatically the size and scope of the federal government has expanded.

It is NONE of any government’s business to legislate whether you or I can use contraceptives, whom I can marry, and whether or not a raped woman can seek an abortion. It is NONE of any local, state, or government’s business – and NONE of YOUR damned business, social conservatives.

And just think about it: if abortion, gay marriage, and/or contraceptives were banned, that would require yet another government agency (or agencies), costing billions of dollars annually and employing tens of thousands of bureaucrats and agents, to enforce such bans. You think the IRS is bad and oppressive? Or that the NSA is? Just imagine what a National Abortion Police or a National Counter-Contraceptives Agency would do if social conservatives got their wish.

As for funding for abortion, the fiscally conservative answer is simple: end it.

Finally, social conservatives claim there is a “moral decay in America”, and that fiscal issues cannot be solved without tackling these problems.

To some extent this is true when you look at divorce, single motherhood, alcoholism, and drug usage rates. But instead of targeting these very real and very serious problems and formulating positive solutions to them, “social conservatives” have, in the last 4 decades, railed exclusively against abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, and DADT, and still continue to obsess about them, even though they are all lost issues.

So few Americans support banning gay marriage and contraceptives, or reinstating DADT, that these issues are, politically, irrevocably lost. As for abortion, it is legally lost because no Supreme Court, especially not one led by John G. Roberts, will overturn Roe v. Wade. If “social conservatives”  couldn’t get Roe overturned in the last 4 decades, they never will.

In fact, abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, and repealing DADT have not done any damage to America’s prosperity or well-being. Contraceptives have, in fact, helped stem the plague of STDs and unwanted pregnancies (they are highly effective at fighting both). Repealing DADT has saved taxpayers millions of dollars lost on discharging qualified, disciplined men who happened to be gay (and has not caused any turmoil in the military, contrary to grave predictions made in 2010).

Similarly, legalizing gay marriage has not done any harm to anyone. It has only increased people’s freedom by letting them marry whatever person they love. (A few decades ago, when bans on interracial marriage were being repealed, Southern “social conservatives” were saying exactly the same thing they clam today: that repealing the bans would threaten “the integrity of the institution of marriage.”)

If “social conservatives” were really concerned about America’s societal ills, like divorce and single motherhood, they’d be tackling them. But they don’t want to challenge the powerful divorce attorney lobby; instead, they prefer irrelevant issues like “gay marriage” and “contraceptives.”

Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone’s marriage, or to the integrity of the institution, in any way. Divorce – particularly no-fault divorce, now legal in all 50 states, is.

(BTW, know who was the first state Governor to sign legislation legalizing no-fault divorce in his state? Ronald Reagan.)

So Neal Boortz is absolutely right, and so.-called “social conservatives” (I prefer to call them social Big Government Nannies) are dead wrong. “Social issues” like abortion and gay marriage are sure election losers; they alienate suburbanites, youngsters, women, and minorities from the GOP; and advocating bans and legislating morality on these issues is every bit as much a Big Government Policy as banning sodas or SUVs is.

House GOP Doesn’t Listen Any Better than Walmart

New GOPOccasionally the wrong person takes a column to heart.

Earlier this month I wrote that Walmart doesn’t help its PR efforts when the company acts in a manner that only serves to reinforce its reputation as the Simon Legree of retail. (Details here.) In this instance an Ohio store had a display in the employee break room asking for donations to help other Walmart employees that had fallen on hard times during the Thanksgiving & Christmas season.

Asking employees who earn an average of $12.83/hour to contribute to other employees is a touching testimony to the innate decency of the Walmart workforce, but it also calls up unfortunate images of the widow’s mite particularly in comparison with the wealth of the Walton family.

The column concluded with a look at Walmart’s Associates in Critical Need Trust. This is a fund that dispenses up to $1,500 to employees suffering severe financial setbacks. (This does not include a bad losing streak in connection with the Powerball lottery.)

I liked the sound of that, until I learned that once again these donations are no skin off the Walton family’s stock certificates. This trust is funded by voluntary payroll deduction, again from the $12.83/hour employees.

And that’s when problems began at the Shannon household.

My wife announced that unless the Walton family stops being so selfish (they have $144 billion in Walmart stock) and makes a major contribution to the Trust we will be boycotting Walmart. Generally I have no problem with boycotts. It’s an individual decision that uses the market to bring pressure on a merchant. No government intervention required. Colonists did it during the run up to the Revolution.

For taste and political reasons, I never darken the door of Starbucks (homosexual marriage is “part of the corporate DNA”), Caribou Coffee (Sharia–compliant finance) or Chipotle (one of the nation’s leading employers of illegals).

On the other hand I’m also cheap, so I regularly shop at Walmart, in spite of linguistic encounters with Walmart employees that graphically illustrate what retail shopping is going to be like after John Boehner decides it’s safe to grant illegals amnesty.

The wife says Target is going to be the windfall beneficiary of Shannon shopping dollars in the future. But I have mixed emotions regarding that store, too. All too often in the Sunday advertising circular the clothes younger models wear contribute to the sexualization of tweenaged shoppers. Young girls are hard enough to shop for without major retailers urging them to dress like pint–sized Kim Kardashians.

This is not a problem encountered when viewing the frumpy models in a Walmart catalog. I don’t know for certain whom it is wearing those dowdy clothes, but most of them appear to be related to Fred and Ethel Mertz. Regardless of age there are no sex symbols in a Walmart catalog.

Besides the Target food section is mostly full of do–it–yourself yogurt mixes and it is about one third the size of Walmart’s. (Although, credit where credit is due, Target does carry Malt–O–Meal.) I do hate sneaking around behind my wife’s back. The fact that my future secret assignations are with a major retail chain and not a hoochie mama is probably a commentary on the dullness of my existence, but I plan to continue to visit Walmart.

On the other hand I won’t be visiting Republican members of the Virginia House delegation. Last week I wrote about the shameful Boehner/Ryan sellout they tried to spin as a “budget deal.” (Details here.) This capitulation raises taxes (fees), increases spending and negates the sequester.

Ryan is so proud of himself. The good congressman says he’s increased Pentagon spending by $2 billion, which means all the Coffee Colonels there can go back to using the Keurig instead of making do with Nescafe. In return for all this bounty Ryan agreed to let the Democrats increase their spending by $22 billion! That’s an 11 to 1 ratio and we’re on the short side.

GOP apologists talk about future spending cuts contained in the deal, but with these big spenders the cuts always remain in the future, just over the horizon, like a mirage.

You can’t bind a future Congress to a deal made today. Heck this Congress can’t even bind itself. Who do you think negotiated the original sequester?

Now Boehner is flush with positive MSM coverage and has declared war on the TEA party. He’s tired of having Obama hand him his hat, so the great strategist turns on his base. Now maybe Karl Rove will return his phone calls.

At times like this the favorite criticism of the TEA party centers on Senate candidates. The TEA party supported candidates that lost and that cost Republicans the Senate.

Establishment Republicans never foist a loser on the electorate. Just look at the great work being done by President Romney and Senator George Allen. Not to mention that paragon of tanning, Senator Charlie Crist from Florida. All these worthies are (or were, Crist became a Democrat this year) establishment Republicans with the full support of party elders.

The TEA party is not a monolithic closed structure resistant to outside ideas — wait that sounds like Boehner’s cabal — it’s a loosely affiliated collection of like–minded conservatives and tin foil distributors. (Just kidding.)

There is no national body that selects candidates. Local groups support local candidates.

The TEA party–backed candidate lost in Missouri because establishment Republicans in that state utilize a primary system that doesn’t have a runoff if no one gets 50 percent of the vote. That’s how Todd Akin becomes your nominee with fewer than 35 percent of the vote. Akin and his gynecological theories could have never won a runoff. The TEA party candidate would not have survived the primary if Missouri Republicans ran the party like Texas Republicans.

In Delaware, Christine O’Donnell was simply mislabeled. She would have had no problem winning as a Democrat. If Patty Murray of budget deal negotiating fame can win her first race running as “a mom in tennis shoes,” O’Donnell would have had few problems as “a mom who’s not a witch.”

Country club Republicans conveniently overlook the fact that TEA party energy is responsible for Boehner sitting in the Speaker’s chair today.

This wretched budget deal has now passed the Senate where Republicans with primary opponents voted against it as a sop to people like you and me. There was never a doubt as to House passage. If you want to see how your house member voted you can check here and here.

I’m sorry to say the deal passed with every GOP member from Virginia voting ‘yes.’ These Republicans are either too timid to vote conservative or they simply aren’t conservatives.

Regardless of the reason for their failure, I’ll be happily boycotting every one of these politicians until they’re out of office. No money and no votes from the Shannon household and I urge every conservative reading this to do likewise.

This is a boycott every conservative can get behind.

Dang! I Missed Todd Akin’s Keynote Address

Senate candidate Todd Akin, star of the Republican National Convention.

Senate candidate Todd Akin, star of the Republican National Convention.

Life for a Comcast customer can be so frustrating. I’ve just gone 10 rounds with my DVR and the cable guide’s “search” malfunction. And I sit here in abject defeat.

My goal was to program it so I wouldn’t miss Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s keynote speech at the Republican Convention. After all, this man has skyrocketed to the top of GOP intellectual circles with his reasoned discourse on the intersection between female reproductive organs and the criminal justice system.

Akin single handedly destroyed the Obama campaign’s communication plan. Instead of continuing to trumpet Obama’s successful record as an engine of jobs creation and economic titan, campaign flaks are now forced to focus on abortion, just like it was the 90’s all over again.

So you can understand why I didn’t want to miss the crowd’s ovation as Akin discussed ovulation. But now Akin’s moment in the sun has come and gone, and I missed it.

Instead I’ve been trying to decide where I went wrong in my initial judgment on Akin. Before the Washington Post, the New York Times and various broadcasting networks made him chairman of the GOP and Romney & Ryan’s running mate, I had considered Akin an egregious violator of one of the cardinal rules for political candidates: male politicians should never discuss a woman’s private parts.

Those organs are mysterious. A combustible mix of plumbing, hormones and resentment, somehow based on perceived male deficiencies in telecommunication and “understanding.”

Which means the specifics of reproduction have no place in a male’s campaign issue grid. Instead one merely acknowledges that babies are conceived through a process that will remain somewhat ill–defined [closely resembling the specifics of my father’s discussion of “the birds and bees”] and then move on to a stirring defense of the unborn child’s right to life.

When Akin said, “From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare … If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that down,” the comment allowed Democrats to focus on the outrage done to the first victim, the woman, and ignore the outrage they want to perpetrate on the second victim, the unborn child.

This Akin shuffle works to the advantage of “choice” supporters because there is a fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of Democrat insistence on abortion in the case of “rape, incest and the health of the mother.” (Republican fellow–travelers substitute the word “life” for “health” because even they agree “anxiety” on the part of the mother is not sufficient cause for abortion.)

That hypocrisy is found in the contrast between fervent Democrat opposition to the imposition of capital punishment on the rapist and the unyielding advocacy for the application of capital punishment on the unborn. What this does is visit the punishment for the crime of the father on the innocent child — a system of jurisprudence favored by Nazis and Communists, as has been noted elsewhere.

Pro–life supporters have trouble persuading the uncommitted public on this difficult issue because the rape victim is tangible and visible, while the child is at least initially invisible and potential. Fortunately a brilliant television commercial by the Susan B. Anthony List will, I hope, make our job easier.

The spot is titled, “How Will You Answer?” and it is found at: http://www.sba-list.org/ (on the home page click on “How Will You Answer?” on the upper right). The commercial showcases Melissa Ohden who is the survivor of a botched abortion. Her tiny body — or clump of tissue, if you are a Planned UnParenthood contributor — was casually discarded after an abortion. But Melissa was still alive and her faint cries touched the heart of one of the nurses who saved her life by literally removing her from the garbage can.

Ms. Ohden, as far as I know, was not the product of a rape, but she makes the point just the same. Life is life whether conceived in love, violence or indifference. These unborn babies deserve the same Constitutional protections granted to rapists. John F. Kennedy said life isn’t fair and certainly carrying a child to term after a rape qualifies as manifestly unfair.  However it’s nine months of discomfort for the mother as opposed to the eternity of death for the child.

Watching Melissa Ohden tell her story puts everything in perspective, whether the topic is babies that survive a late–term abortion — her specific issue — or those executed after a rape. The ad is currently running in Missouri where one hopes Akin will graciously let Ms. Ohden assume future responsibility for the topic.

As for me, I’m learning all I can about how to program my DVR. I certainly wouldn’t want to miss Akin’s speech at the inauguration.

In Deep with Michelle Ray – 8/23

23OPw

When: Thursday, August 23rd, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: What else? Legitimate rape, Capitalism hating musicians, and I expect @AiPolitics to swing by and help me actually take “out of the box” … out of the box and play with it for awhile. Rhetoric free fun for all!

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Liberal Math = Todd + Akin = Entire GOP

Screen Shot 2012-08-23 at 2.22.22 PM

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd thinks Mitt Romney is to blame for the Akin meltdown.  Yes, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and the entire Republican Party is responsible for what Mr. Akin said about ‘legitimate rape.’  It’s definitely not the media’s fault.  That’s “a chicken and egg conversation,” which Todd had with Laura Ingraham on her radio show on August 22nd:

Courtesy of Real Clear Politics:

Chuck Todd, NBC News: The entire political community should be held accountable for this, including the Romney campaign. They’ve lost some traction on the economy and I don’t know why.

Laura Ingraham: But you don’t think the fact that the most, not all, but most in the media establishment have spent the last 48 plus hours obsessing about the comments of one Republican senatorial candidate trying to tar the pro-life movement, Paul Ryan, all of it, with the comments of one man. You don’t think that gets in the way of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney speaking about economic renewal?

Todd: Well, this is a chicken and egg conversation. This is a distraction. I don’t think it’s a distraction you can quote, blame on the media on this one. It’s not media bias, it’s media, it’s what they’re covering, and the fact is we are under-covering the economy, we are under-covering — but you cover the campaign that is in front of you

This is classic liberal math.  It’s easy and stupid. Akin is representative of the entire GOP.  According to Gateway Pundit, the Obama team is starting to fundraise off of this equation. Leading the charge is Sandra Fluke–who penned this letter featured on Obama’s campaign website.

In a recent statement that was both factually inaccurate and horribly offensive, Republican Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said that victims of “legitimate rape” don’t get pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan tried to distance themselves from the remark—but the fact is they’re in lockstep with Akin on the major women’s health issues of our time. Just this morning, the Republican Party voted to include the “Human Life Amendment” in their platform, calling for a constitutional ban on abortions nationwide, even for rape victims. Several Romney supporters and advisers stood silently by while this vote took place, and the Los Angeles Times reports that the platform “was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.”

President Obama spoke out yesterday in response to Akin’s comments: “What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women.”

This controversy is not an accident, or a mistake, or an isolated incident. It’s a reflection of a Republican Party whose policies are dangerous for women.

There is a clear choice for women in this election.

I entered this national debate on women’s rights in February, when, as a Georgetown Law student, I testified before members of Congress on the issue of contraception.

Without knowing me or my story, Rush Limbaugh called me a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his radio show.

Many Americans stepped forward to tell me they agreed with me, and supported my right to speak out without being verbally attacked. President Obama stood with us.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand? He didn’t even condemn the remark, instead saying only: “It’s not the language I would have used.”

Since that moment, I’m even more resolved to continue the fight to make sure every single woman—and every man who cares about the women in his life—knows exactly what’s at stake in this election. The Republicans are frighteningly clear on these issues.

The party platform itself includes a “salute” to states that have pushed “informed consent” laws, such as those that force women seeking an abortion to first undergo an invasive and medically unnecessary ultrasound.

Just last year, Paul Ryan joined Todd Akin and more than 200 other Republicans in co-sponsoring legislation that would have narrowed the definition of rape, limiting which victims of rape were “legitimate” enough to receive financial assistance for access to abortion care.

Mitt Romney famously says he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood if he had the chance. And both Romney and Ryan pledge to go back to a system where insurance companies can discriminate against women and charge us more than men for the same health insurance.

Akin’s comments shouldn’t be surprising. But this isn’t about him—just like it was never about me.

President Obama has told us what he’s fighting for: “I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same opportunities as your sons.”

Republicans, led by Romney and Ryan, have made it clear that they want to make our decisions for us.

President Obama trusts us to make our own.

It’s as simple as that.

The narrative has shifted thanks to Akin.  Let’s give him a round of applause for this avoidable distraction that could cost us a Republican congress an much more less that 100 days from Election Day.  Drop out!

UPDATE:  If Chuck Todd seriously thinks the media isn’t to blame, then then he will be hard pressed to explain their obsession over Akin’s gaffe for 96 minutes over a three an a half day period.

As reported by Scott Whitlock of the Media Research Center:

The media obsession with a gaffe by Congressman Todd Akin continued on Wednesday and Thursday morning. The ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts and morning shows offered five additional segments, bringing the amount of coverage to a massive 96 minutes (and 45 segments) over three and a half days. The disparity between Akin and gaffe-prone Vice President Biden’s “chains” controversy from last week is now five-to-one.

The massive amount of coverage is obviously favorable to the Democrats, a point Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos underlined: “Mitt Romney hoping to shake off those controversial comments from Congressman Todd Akin about abortion and rape. President Obama and his team doing everything they can to make it stick.”

Reporter Jake Tapper helpfully parroted that the Democrats are “trying to turn [Akin] into Mitt Romney’s second running mate.”

He added, “The White House trying to link Paul Ryan to Akin because they both backed a bill that would have narrowed one of the few exceptions for federally funded abortions, from instances of rape to forcible rape.”

Akin As The GOP’s Biden

Yes, I said before that we should have just let the whole Todd Akin abortion nonsense blow over, and support him for the Senate. That would have been a viable plan, if vast numbers of the GOP hadn’t come out right away screaming for him to step down. We like to call the liberals “sheeple”, but like it or not, we’re not all that different. If GOP leaders and pundits hadn’t given in to the liberal media hype on this verbal faux pas, and did what Akin did in his initial apology – shifted the narrative back to the real issues – the polls might not have started tanking, as suggested here.

All things being equal, it wouldn’t have been the end of the world for the GOP to have their own little Joe Biden running around in the Senate. Bumbling politicians like that do have their place in this country – if nothing else, they liven up the news broadcasts, and give us something to laugh at from time to time. You know, there are whiny left-wing psychologists out there that say laughter is actually good for us! And let’s be real here. What did Akin do that was really so wrong, when you consider it in the entire conservative political landscape? The GOP doesn’t make an exception for abortions after a rape anyway. And as for the contention that women’s bodies have a mechanism to prevent pregnancy as a result of forced sex, Akin wasn’t completely off base – there is a scientific theory on it that is rooted in evolutionary theory at least a little. No, I am not suggesting that I condone or agree with what Akin said (nor do I agree with the GOP platform on abortion, for that matter.) What I am saying is that yet again, the GOP has dropped the ball, and allowed the Dems to control the narrative.

The proverbial ball is in Akin’s court right now, and I’m not going to editorialize on what I think he should do. Bluntly, I don’t think that he is paying attention to what anyone is saying on that anyway. What I will say is that the GOP needs to seriously think about what happens to the next Akin. Does the party throw that person under the bus like happened to Akin? Or does the party start getting the message out that when a Republican politician screws up, rule of thumb is that the party and pundits go in lockstep to protect them? Complain all you like about the Dems, but they’ve been doing the latter for ages, and – surprise, surprise – it works for them.

This isn’t a question about principles. It is a question about strategy. The only one talking about principles now is Akin, and he’s trying desperately to keep standing as the sand’s disappearing beneath his feet. But, that wouldn’t necessarily be the situation. We’ve been complaining about distractions being used by Obama to keep eyes off the major issues, and now? We’re feeding that fire, to the point where Mitt Romney had to finally chime in on the situation. I finished the last story I wrote on this with “It’s the economy, stupid!” This fight wasn’t worth fighting, and now, Akin should recognize he’s finished. He’s not going to be the GOP’s Biden. Sure, that might not seem a big deal, but he’s also a lost opportunity.

When life gives you lemons…. Akin’s “lemonade” would have been an excellent indictment against the continuation of Obamacare. But, instead of owning the situation, the right literally handed it to the mainstream media and left on a silver platter. In the future, we need to think about what lemonade we can make of the lemons our politicians hand us, before we let the left keep us from making the best of the situation. Is the GOP really out there to focus on the real issues, or are we going to pander to the left-wing distractions? Which is more important here:

I’m more concerned with the debt. How about you?

Yes, Todd Akin Should Go

Screen Shot 2012-08-21 at 12.01.38 PM

The Franklin Center’s Erik Telford and His Tweet About This Whole Debacle

Todd Akin, it’s almost unbelievable how fast your campaign went off the tracks.  To say that there are legitimate forms of assault is beyond ludicrous.  Then, to say if a pregnancy occurs, due to a legitimate rape, “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”  What does that mean?   And this wasn’t a gaffe.  As Michelle Malkin aptly said “there’s no sugar-coating or whitewashing this…it was ignorant, garbled nonsense.”

Here’s what he said again on the Jaco Report:

Charles Jaco: “Okay, so if an abortion can be considered in the case of, say, tubal pregnancy or something like that, what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or not?”

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.):“Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, ‘Well, how do you – how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question.’

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

“But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Todd Akin

It’s rational for any conservative to abandon Todd Akin.  He has greatly damaged our chances of having a Republican Congress this year and while I know the war on women is a farce; the left-wingers are going to have a field day with this.  With the Democrat-Media Complex, they’ll flood this story for weeks, distract the Romney/Ryan campaign, and give Obama a comfortable buffer from his dismal economic record.

This whole situation was avoidable.  Akin should have pivoted saying that the people of this state already know my position on abortion, but here’s the real focus of my campaign. I want to get out $16 trillion dollar national debt under control, reform our entitlement programs, restructure the tax system, and cut regulations to help small businesses thrive.  Something on that front.  Social issues aren’t at the heart of this campaign cycle.  Yes, people are passionate about these issues and because of that–folks can go off half-cocked.

Yesterday, I had a little hope that Akin would do the responsible thing.  Perusing through Ace of Spades–I saw that Richard Grennell and Erick Erickson indicated that Akin would drop out. Mark Levin also called for Akin’s exit from the race.

 

However, Mr. Akin defied us all, stayed in the race, and released a new fragrance  ad today called forgiveness.

Could this be Akin’s Chuck Percy moment?  Although Percy wasn’t slammed for making absurd comments about rape, he was in serious trouble in 1978 and released this ad pleading with the voters of Illinois to give him another term.

In all, this ad would have been more taken more seriously if it were released last Sunday and not today.   Akin should reconsider his decision not to step aside.  There’s still time!  The RNC has cut funding to the Akin campaign and Crossroads GPS has also run for the hills in the wake of this disaster.  Mary Katherine Ham of HotAir cited Phil Klein’s piece in her August 20th post about Akin’s future where he wrote:

Politically, a lot of the analysis as to whether Akin should drop out of the race has focused on whether he could still recover from this horrendous statement and win. A more important question is what kind of senator Republicans would be getting if he could hang on and they could gain a majority in the Senate. Anybody capable of making a statement as simultaneously offensive and moronic as Akin’s is likely to make more such statements. That means, even if Akin wins, he’s likely to embarrass his party for six years and undermine the pro-life cause.

Missouri Republicans have other choices. Both Sarah Steelman andJohn Brunner led troubled Democratic incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill in polls taken during the GOP primary, and both were closer to the Tea Party than Akin (Steelman was endorsed by Sarah Palin). If Akin drops out of the race by tomorrow, the Missouri GOP could still pick another candidate. Akin has caused enough damage already. He should do the right thing and step aside and make room for somebody else while there’s still time.

Lastly, the NRSC released this email, which was posted this morning courtesy of The Gateway Pundit:

Just a quick background update on the situation in the Missouri Senate race. While much of the press coverage has understandably focused on the statements by Republican leaders yesterday regarding Congressman Akin, I wanted to point out for your background that they have been joined by leading conservatives across the country who have called on Congressman Akin to step aside for the good of the party and the pro-life movement he cares so deeply about.

Below are just a few examples for your consideration:

  • · Radio/TV Host Sean Hannity urged Akin yesterday to reconsider running and reminded him that “elections are bigger than one person
  • · Radio Host Mark Levin similarly urged Akin to step aside saying this race is far too important to risk losing to the Democrats.
  • · Columnist/Radio Host Dennis Prager penned a column for Townhall.com calling on his fellow pro-life leaders to join him in disavowing Akin’s remarks.
  • · Columnist Charles Krauthammer on Fox News last night called Akin “toxic” and said “he’s got to go
  • · Radio Host Hugh Hewitt tweeted – “If Akin drops out and GOP wins Senate, he has career. If he stays in and GOP doesn’t win Senate, infamy and injury to prolife cause
  • · Author Ann Coulter penned a column in Human Events calling on Akin to do the right thing and step aside for the good of the pro-life movement
  • · National Review editorial board called on Akin to step aside, writing in part, “Akin is a stalwart conservative and an honorable man, we regret to say that he inspires no such confidence”
  • · Wall Street Journal editorial board also called on Akin to step aside, writing in part, “Having uttered one of the more offensive and ill-informed comments in recent years, Mr. Akin could cost his party a seat it is favored to win this November and thus possible control of the Senate.”
  • · The Tea Party Express called on Akin to step aside saying “It is critical that we defeat Senator Claire McCaskill in November, but it will be too difficult to achieve that with Todd Akin as the conservative alternative.”

I agree with Gateway Pundit that this is brutal, but it’s necessary.  We on the right police our own ranks and purge the un-serious, the insane, and the misbehaved, while the left fails miserably to keep their folks in line.  It’s a sign of accountability.  It’s the right thing that we blame Akin.  It would be even better if he steps down.  Todd, do the right thing.

Vote For Todd Akin For Senate

DonkeyHotey (CC)

First, I’d like to preface this with one thing. Before anyone gets the bright idea to start complaining about what I have to say here, bear in mind that I am not making these statements without some degree of experience in the matter at hand. I was date-raped in college. To be exact, the situation would undoubtedly meet the requirements of what Todd Akin considers “forcible rape”, since it was a violent situation, and the only reason why I call it “date-rape” is because I had actually dated my attacker. It wasn’t one of those “Oh no, I had sex with HIM?”, followed by after-the-fact claims that it had been against my will situations. I fought, and had the bruises to prove it.

DonkeyHotey (CC)


Now that you all know where I am coming from, let’s focus for a moment or two on Akin’s asinine statement. In case you missed it, I’m from Pennsylvania, so I’m not entirely unfamiliar with screwed up comments on the role of women, abortion, and all the other hot button issues to do with sexuality that get the religious right all in a tizzy. Before there was Akin, there was Rick Santorum, after all. I read Santorum’s manifesto, It Takes a Family, and bluntly, his “crazy” isn’t very far from Akin’s current nonsense. But it wasn’t Santorum’s undoing here in the Keystone State. What did him in had more to do with dollars, than religious nonsense. Why? Because we were all wise enough to know that dear old Santorum wasn’t in a majority on his wacko ideas about any of those religious issues. Even with the shift right, he still isn’t. And this time around, his religious views got him early victories, but his fiscal issues that screwed him here in Pennsylvania, came back to haunt him.

Enter Akin, and the race for the Senate seat in Missouri. No matter how wackadoodle the man is when it comes to issues like rape and abortion, he is still a better fiscal choice than his opposition. Call me silly, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the folks in Missouri aren’t any less intelligent than the folks here. I think they are smart enough to realize that in this election, they need to vote in favor of their pocketbooks, not their Bibles. Scream at Akin, and demand an apology or retraction of his silly statement about legitimate rape victims (whatever that means) not being able to get pregnant against their will. But, stop demanding that he step aside.

Seriously, this is not worth it. He’ll eat crow for this one way or the other, and even if he doesn’t, the bottom line is that there is no way he could ever cause a law against abortion without exceptions for rape victims to be passed. Bluntly, there are far too many big fish to fry before anyone even thinks about this on the Hill. If nothing else, take it from a woman who could have easily ended up in need of an abortion after a rape. Akin’s statement is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It was ignorant, and he should apologize for it. But, handing that seat back to Claire McCaskill over this is overkill.

I don’t know what Akin will do to make up for this, if anything. But, the priceless response would be an apology, and perhaps something about not bowing to Islam, and the practice of rape and forced conversion. I can dream, can’t I?

UPDATE: Akin did respond. Yes, he did say that he misspoke, and expressed his feelings of empathy for victims of rape. And, more importantly, he placed the focus back where it really belongs:

“But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We’ve had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs. That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats’ failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead.”

“It’s the economy, stupid!”