That didn’t take long. The DNC is already hanging Todd Akin’s idiotic “legitimate rape” comment around Romney’s neck in a fundraising blast today:
Now, Akin’s choice of words isn’t the real issue here. The real issue is a Republican party — led by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan — whose policies on women and their health are dangerously wrong.
I’m outraged at the Republicans trying to take women back to the dark ages — if you agree, join me in taking a stand for women.
Really, it’s deeply concerning that Republicans continue to support legislation that is, quite literally, dangerous for women.
Mitt Romney famously says he would “get rid of” federal funding for Planned Parenthood if he had the chance. His running mate, Paul Ryan, was one of more than 200 Republican cosponsors of a piece of legislation that would have narrowed the definition of rape.
Republicans have a major problem on their hands, and not just because this could destroy the possibility of a Republican majority in the Senate, as John and Jonathan explained earlier. If Akin steps down from the race but keeps his congressional seat, Democrats will continue to use him as an example of the House GOP’s alleged extremism on abortion. They’ll make him the face of the “war on women” they claim is taking place in congress — which they’re trying to tie to Paul Ryan.
This clearly has the Romney campaign spooked, since Mitt Romney issued a second repudiation of Akin’s comment today:
In a phone interview this morning, Mitt Romney told National Review Online that Representative Todd Akin’s recent comment on rape is “inexcusable.”
“Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong,” Romney said. “Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive.”
Romney’s doing the best he can under the circumstances. But the Democratic Party is anxious to run on anything other than Obama’s record, and it’s going to milk everything it can out of this scandal.
Ryan & Akin are joined at the hip, n nRomney is a moderate liberal pretending he's hard right,so when an idiot like Akin,speaks out,it forces Romney to return to his moderate persona.
Both are Republicans. Other than that fact, do you have any evidence even remotely supporting your fantasy that "Ryan & Akin are joined at the hip"?
Actually they are both opposed,in all cases,to allowing an abortion for a raped impregnated victim.
You have a very broad standard for joined that the hip. nIf that's your criterion, every Orthodox rabbi is also joined at the hip with Akins. nWhile we're at it, all of them inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. n
And they co-authored a "personhood" bill. nRyan is a bit more self controlled;that's the difference.
Nowhere in Ryan's personhood bill is there a prohibition against abortion in case of rape. Or at all. His bill simply leaves it up to the states. n nAnd nowhere in that bill does it say that rape seldom results in pregnancy. n nIt seems that you are deliberately taking Akins' ignorant and controversial statement and falsely claiming that anyone who agrees with Akins on any issue must be as ignorant as Akins is. n nThere's a name for that. As a matter of fact, there are several. You might want to remember that not everyone is as dumb as you think they are.
Scandal? The anti-science feminists need to be marginalized. They need to be ridiculed when they engage in anti-intellectual balderdash. Women rarely get pregnant after rape. The scientific evidence seems clear on this point. We can no longer allow politically correct ideologues to dominate out national conversations. The contempt for rational thought and scholarship is perhaps now the norm. This morning's "scandal" is most disturbing.
I recommend that Dave T be allowed on talk tv/radio coast to coast
I see that Senators Johnson and Brown have called for Akin to remove himself from the race. Whether he does or not, it is hard not to contrast the repudiation of Akin by other Republicans – including the Romney campaign – with the failure of Democrats to police their own idiots. Of course, their idiots are a little higher up in the hierarchy.
Our own idiots? What has Todd Akin said that is so stupid? Where is your evidence to support this allegation? You seem afraid of the feminist crazies. We are supposed to capitulate anytime a radical black or feminist engages in anti-intellectual rhetoric. This cannot continue.
What did he say that was stupid? "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that thing down." You want evidence that that is stupid? Are you suggesting that only feminist crazies disagree with that statement? I honestly don't understand your point. nHey – I'm pretty darn conservative, anti-abortion, blah blah blah. I don't care what feminists think about this – if they think Akin is a moron based on this comment, I happen to agree with them.
The evidence is quite clear that a rape victim is so stressed—that pregnancy is highly unlikely. Why are you so lacking in knowledge? What happened to you? I'm serious. Your point is not rational.
Apparently the pregnancy rate from rape is the same as the pregnancy rate from unprotected consensual sex, something Akin's comment does not take into consideration. Could you point me to contrary evidence? Otherwise, it would appear I am being quite rational.
*I* can — try the emergency room protocol of every hospital I am familiar with. n nIf a woman who has been raped and goes to the ER, they do quite a bit to help her avoid both a pregnancy and a STD. They do some pretty invasive stuff and they do it to truly reduce the risk of pregnancy.
It will continue unless you get conservative-minded people in positions of power in the first place.
Excellent.
What will it take to get the DNCC to pull rexford's funding?
Ryan is Aiken. I don't think you can win an election with 0% of the women's vote.
I do. n nNever forget that much as how men had daughters, women have sons. Much as how Title IX passed because the (male) Senators loved their daughters, an increasing number of women are starting to realize the plight of their sons, whom they love every bit as much. n nHence a pro-guy candidate very well could win with 0% of the "womens' vote" — if he/she/it did three things — first, increase male turnout to that of female turnout; second, got almost all of that male vote; and third, got a good chunk of the mothers' votes. n nThis would consist of (a) the married woman voters, (b) the single mothers with sons — whose biggest issue is the sheer terror of their sons either getting into drugs and/or "being killed in some stupid gang thing." and (c) the women working full time who either (1) would rather be spending more time at home with their kids or (2) have kids — who would like to keep their professional reputation and their standard of living but hate having to work so many hours. n nFolks, on the macro scale, biology *is* destiny and while women will gladly pull the 'all nighters' in college and 50-60 hour workweeks in their early 20s, when they get into their 30s, it isn't fun anymore. Men are willing to do this to provide for the family, women more want to be home with the family. Much like a left-handed person can learn to write with his right hand, women can work full time just like men but most really really don't want to. n nHence a candidate could tell the feminists to go &&&& themselves and write off all the so-called "women's vote" and still win IF he/she/it got the mother's vote and the "nester" vote.