Gay Patriot Header Image

Yes, Todd Akin hurt us

Conservative friend on Facebook said she heard a lot of radio ads tying the GOP to Todd Akin’s crazy comments on rape. Even though Akin apologized, that seemed to resonate. It created an image of a party indifferent to rape. That was just part of the Democrats’ effort to make the GOP an unacceptable alternative.

Perhaps, that caused voters disenchanted with Obama to stay home yesterday.

And this reminds us yet again that the Democrats won, not so much by selling their ideas, but by demonizing our party.

We need do a better job of defense. And pick candidates more ready to fight back against their smears.

Share

71 Comments

  1. ND30, okay, what if I were to buy you an expensive coffee? Like $6? Or In n Out burger? I know you like that. There’s one off the Embarcadero.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 2:11 am – November 8, 2012

    LOL. How generous; the moocher who lives off my tax receipts is offering to buy me something with them.

    And why on earth would I want anything to do with someone who has already proven repeatedly that not only can he not be trusted, but that he’ll openly endorse and support lies about other people?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 2:29 am - November 8, 2012

  2. ND30, I have a full-time job. And I pay my taxes. I don’t make much (right now), but I can afford paying coffee or burgers for you once.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 2:36 am - November 8, 2012

  3. So, Vince, in your view, children born as the result of rape deserve the hatred, scorn, and abuse of society. They do not deserve to be loved, like other children, because of the criminal acts of their parents?

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2012 @ 5:37 am - November 8, 2012

  4. My personal position re. abortion is that the first two trimesters are none of the government’s business.

    I think one of the worst things the court did when deciding Roe v Wade in the 1970’s was create out of whole cloth the trimester thing.

    If abortion is going to be legal, it should only be legal as an elective procedure before viability. Science has moved forward a lot since the 1970’s and babies born in the second trimester often survive and lead happy lives.

    Also, one thing social cons can do rather than push to overturn Roe v Wade is to eloquently state the case and change minds. Pro abortion people hate crisis pregnancy centers, because they counsel the pro life position. They also clearly and rarely know what happens at them beyond counseling pro life, because they often accuse them of not caring about the baby. I have spent my adult life talking with and volunteering and donating to these centers. Almost all of them provide parenting support classes, support groups, and they also provide various baby clothes and other items. It is basically a lie of the left that pro life people do not care about children after they are born.

    As for rape-some interesting realities.

    1. As often as not women who seek abortions after being raped have a worse emotional and psychological outcome than those who choose to continue their pregnancy.

    2. Women who are raped often feel pressured to get an abortion, even if they don’t feel comfortable, because those counseling them make them feel like there is something wrong with them if they don’t choose abortion.

    3. In cases of incest/statutory/pedophilia rape, as often as not it is the perpetrator who is forcing the abortion in order to hide the evidence of what is happening.

    Basically-abortion in cases of rape and incest aren’t always the best long term choice. It is these stats that those who are pro life should be talking about, not making up science out of whole cloth (eg Akin’s comments).

    Oh, and one thing the GOP needs to recognize is that on any issue they are always going to be held to a higher and different standard than the democrats. Some thing goes for outspoken conservatives in other industries.

    Simply compare how Patricia Heaton is villified, but few people make a huge deal out of Whoopi’s ridiculous “it wasn’t rape rape” statement in defense of Roman Polanski. Whoopi’s comment was about as stupid as Akin’s, but she still works for ABC and continues to run her mouth on The View.

    Comment by Just Me — November 8, 2012 @ 8:13 am - November 8, 2012

  5. Buckley rule: nominate the most conservative candidate that can get elected.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 8, 2012 @ 8:28 am - November 8, 2012

  6. VTK > Criminal acts of the parents? A woman who has been raped is not a criminal.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 10:00 am - November 8, 2012

  7. The rapist would be the other parent, Cinesnatch. (Duh.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - November 8, 2012

  8. VTK > Criminal acts of the parents? A woman who has been raped is not a criminal.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 10:00 am – November 8, 2012

    There are several entertaining things about liberals trying to use the rape exemption:

    1) Rape is listed as the reason in less than 1% of all abortions, yet is used to justify demanding unlimited taxpayer funding and support for the other 99% of them.

    2) Obama-endorsed and Obama Party activist organization Planned Parenthood uses and demands MORE taxpayer dollars to provide abortions for underage minors without parental consent and without notifying the police, all of which breach any definition of rape.

    3) Obama and his supporters don’t believe that rape is a criminal act in the first place

    4) Obama and his supporters regularly call for the rape of conservative women.

    5) Obama supporters and Obama Party officials like Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong demonstrate that the Obama Party and bloggers like Pam Spaulding openly support and endorse making false claims of rape in order to get back at white males who they don’t like and to advance their political careers.

    Any one of these would be sufficient evidence to indicate that Obama Party members who try to use the rape exemption are hypocritical at best. All five of them taken together indicates that Obama supporters really don’t care about rape and in fact openly support rape if it advances the Obama Party’s goals, narratives, and convenience.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 4:05 pm - November 8, 2012

  9. VTK said parents meaning mom and dad.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 7:22 pm - November 8, 2012

  10. My original comment addresses the lack of consistency in the party. Unite and you migh end up owning the issue. The current strategy isn’t working.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - November 8, 2012

  11. VTK said parents meaning mom and dad.

    Just as I said. The dad would be a criminal (the rapist).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2012 @ 7:56 pm - November 8, 2012

  12. LOL…..here I post five examples of the Obama Party’s obvious and blatant lack of consistency when it comes to rape, and every single one of them goes right through your head and back out again.

    Consistency is irrelevant to you, Cinesnatch. You’re simply making up excuses for your vote for the party of forcing churches to pay for screaming babies to be left in broom closets because thirty-year-old “students” don’t want to bother with having to tell their multimillion-dollar trust-fund sex partner that he has to pay for and wear a condom.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 8:00 pm - November 8, 2012

  13. “They do not deserve to be loved, like other children, because of the criminal acts of their parents?” VTK didn’t write “fathers,” he wrote parents.

    Not only that, but sperm donors, in this case by force, are not “parents” or fathers. They’re sperm donors. Parents are those who parent (raise a child).

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - November 8, 2012

  14. Much to Vince’s surprise, and outside of his experience, women can rape men.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 9, 2012 @ 7:55 am - November 9, 2012

  15. Much to The_Livewire’s surprise, and outside of his experience, women who rape men are not likely to get an abortion.

    But, there’s logic for you.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 9, 2012 @ 9:45 am - November 9, 2012

  16. Isn’t it cute how Vince likes to try to avoid the question?

    Vince takes issue with V’s using Parents (I’m sure if V had written ‘parent’ Vince would try to avoid answering the question by saying V was implying there was only one rapist, ever.)

    Stop digging Vince, you’re beclowning yourself.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 9, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - November 9, 2012

  17. If “parent” A rapes “parent” B, BOTH *parents* in this equation are *not* criminals as VTK’s wording implies.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 9, 2012 @ 8:33 pm - November 9, 2012

  18. You infer, it’s pretty clear to anyone with a shred of decency that V ‘implied’ nothing of the sort.

    and you’re still not answering the question.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 10, 2012 @ 10:18 am - November 10, 2012

  19. The_Livewire >>

    Keep in my mind, that V the K was responding to excusing a woman from abortion in case of rape. He was referring to a criminal act (rape), which resulted in pregnancy and led to what he saw as another criminal act (abortion). If a woman raped a man, got pregnant, and terminated her pregnancy, nowhere in this scenario is the male “parent” a criminal.

    V the K’s use of “parents,” broken down:

    Man rapes Woman. He is a criminal. Woman gets pregnant from the act and chooses to abort the baby. She is then a criminal.

    Hence, “So, Vince, in your view, children born as the result of rape deserve the hatred, scorn, and abuse of society. They do not deserve to be loved, like other children, because of the criminal acts of their parents?”

    He is referring to an aborted fetus as the result of “criminal acts,” acts being plural (rape and abortion).

    And, in V to K’s eyes, the “criminal” acts are equal.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 10, 2012 @ 12:11 pm - November 10, 2012

  20. If the question is, “They do not deserve to be loved, like other children, because of the criminal acts of their parents?” V the K first has to explain how it’s criminal for a woman to go through with a pregnancy that was forced upon her. And, since he chose to cherry pick my original comment, he can also explain how it’s criminal for an incest survivor to abort a fetus that was brought on by incest/rape. And, while he’s at it, he can explain how it’s criminal for a woman to choose living over going through with a fatal pregnancy. But, I suspect V the K has abandoned this thread, so those questions will go unanswered.

    There are lots of people/entities that *deserve* to be loved, that don’t. Society isn’t fair–a mantra for conservatives. It’s a conservative principle to deal with the hand you’re dealt. And, as I hope you’re aware, while everyone and everything *deserves* to be loved, not everyone and everything *receives* love. Take for instance, a contingent of those who are actually born. If everyone who was born was actually receiving love, I doubt abortion would even exist.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 10, 2012 @ 12:24 pm - November 10, 2012

  21. “So, Vince, in your view, children born as the result of rape deserve the hatred, scorn, and abuse of society. They do not deserve to be loved, like other children, because of the criminal acts of their parents?”

    V the K is addressing an aborted fetus as a result of pregnancy brought on by rape: “They do not deserve to be loved,” therefore aborted. With “Hatred, scorn, and abuse of society,” V the K is referring to abortion. “Children Born” : conception.

    He’s deliberately ambiguous, misappropriating language, as to avoid the original question: Why should a woman who has been raped carry a child full-term? He *can’t* answer the question. He *can’t* come right out and say: A woman who has had a man *forced* on her MUST be *forced* again to carry through if a pregnancy results, because the fetus’ rights trump hers.

    Yet, he, nor most Republicans who are against abortion across the board, can’t come right out and say women who are raped should be forced to carry a child full-term if a pregnancy results. Why is that? Perhaps it’s because it’s ludicrous, inhumane, and disrespects the rights of the already living woman in question. And, yet, to acknowledge this, along with instances involving incest and the life of the mother, would create a slippery slope.

    But, hey, as long as the Republican party hangs onto this issue, they’re more than welcome to hold the party back from attracting sensible adults seeking intelligent discussions about government spending, taxes, the national debt, and entitlement programs. [Insert snarky comment about being a liberal who doesn’t really care about those issues here.]

    In the meanwhile, have fun with your selective interpretation of V the K addressing women who rape men, get pregnant, and decide to abort the child. You know, because it’s such a prevalent part of the national conversation concerning abortion.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 10, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - November 10, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.