GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/07/yes-todd-akin-hurt-us/trackback/

  1. We need to do a better job of defense?

    Heck no. We just need to laugh in these peoples’ faces and call them what they are, which are dirty stinking liars, mooches, and tax cheats.

    From this point forward, every single Obama Party candidate should be accused of murder and tax fraud. Every single one.

    There is no reason to be civil. Since the media is going to lie and scream that Republicans are uncivil regardless of what we do, then there is no reason to moderate.

    The reason why is very simple. Mitt Romney was more than civil and got nothing but disrespect for it; meanwhile, screaming lying Obama insists that all Republicans are murderers and rapists and got away with it.

    The rules have changed. Since the Obama Thug Party doesn’t respect civility and neither does the electorate, there is ZERO reason to practice it.

    #WAR

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 5:22 pm - November 7, 2012

  2. ND30, glad to see you get it. A sociopath only interprets civility as weakness. When do you think the testicles will for the progressive wing of the Republican Party will drop?

    Comment by rjligier — November 7, 2012 @ 5:25 pm - November 7, 2012

  3. Disagree. I see this more as a sign of the frivolousness of the electorate, or their determination to vote for Obama (on the basis of His race, their being ‘takers’, Romney not closing the sale, or whatever).

    Akin was a nobody who said nothing. A more serious or issue-focused electorate would have more or less demanded that the media and campaign ads focus on the issues, i.e. the nation’s real problems.

    Speaking of which: Biderman nails it: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-07/biderman-obama-worst-fiscal-president-ever

    He explains why, IF the Dear Teleprompter’s second term is like His first, He will go down in history as “the worst president ever”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 5:26 pm - November 7, 2012

  4. #2 corrected
    When do you think the testicles will drop for the progressive wing of the Republican Party?

    Comment by rjligier — November 7, 2012 @ 5:26 pm - November 7, 2012

  5. (#3 – Disagree with BDB’s theme “Yes, Todd Akin hurt us”, I mean.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 5:27 pm - November 7, 2012

  6. Yes, Mitt Romney hurt us

    Comment by Kyle — November 7, 2012 @ 5:30 pm - November 7, 2012

  7. I just wonder how many on the left think children who result from rape should be hated, despised, and abused by society. It is kind of the natural end point of their attack on conservatives who believe that all life, even life that results from a criminal act, is precious.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 6:07 pm - November 7, 2012

  8. Akin’s remarks were strongly condemned by some Republicans. Mitt Romney said they were “inexcusable, insulting, and frankly, wrong.”and called for Akin to step down, as did Paul Ryan.The National Republican Senatorial Committee said that “if he continues with this misguided campaign, it will be without the support and resources of the NRSC.” Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Akin’s remarks were “totally inexcusable” and “wildly offensive”. Conservative commentators Sean Hannity, Charles Krauthammer, and Mark Levin all called for Akin to step aside, as did the editorial teams of the Wall Street Journal and National Review,and nine sitting US Senators, along with all four former Republican Missouri Senators: John Danforth, Kit Bond, James Talent and John Ashcroft and also serving Missouri Republican Senator Roy Blunt. Fellow Republican Congressmen and Senate hopefuls Jeff Flake and Denny Rehberg further added their names to those calling for his resignation.Republican super PAC American Crossroads announced it would be cutting off all aid to Akin’s candidacy. Wiki

    Comment by rusty — November 7, 2012 @ 6:09 pm - November 7, 2012

  9. I’m Christian and decidedly pro-life on the issue of abortion, but ugh, I just hate seeing Republicans run candidates like Akin even when they are able to win. Although blue states are different, I don’t think opposition to abortion hurts the GOP nationally or purple states, much less red states. But pro-life candidates have to be extremely careful and deft in how they deal with the abortion issue. Although I certainly hope that devout conservative Christians with pro-life views are welcomed as candidates, they need to extend their appeal to people who are less motivated by social issues or even somewhat opposed. Let’s face it: Todd Akin looks, acts, and talks like someone who just took a time machine from a 1950′s Southern Baptist convention to the modern day. Even if he doesn’t make the idiotic rape-as-natural-contraceptive gaffe and is able to win in a conservative state—and he probably would have wongiven McCaskill’s unpopularity—as a senator, he was bound to enforce negative stereotypes about the GOP’s supposed stridency, stuffiness, and religiosity. I don’t just want candidates who are acceptable to white middle-class straight married Christian men like me. Who does the Todd Akin-type appeal to outside of that demographic? I want candidates that at least 50% of the electorate wants to vote for. We can’t rely on Democrats running awful candidates like McCaskill. And we certainly can’t have candidates so awful they can’t beat someone like McCaskill in a state so red that Obama didn’t even contest it.

    The rape and abortion question has no purpose except to trip up pro-lifers. No one can seriously argue that we are on the cusp of enacting a national ban on abortion in the case of rape, or even in general. Pro-life candidates need to be ready for such questions and point out how far the question is from the problems the nation faces.

    Comment by chad — November 7, 2012 @ 6:12 pm - November 7, 2012

  10. Ace of Spades made some good points today about why Romney lost last night. I don’t agree with all of his remarks but those in his Reason #8, I do. I think this part is especially apropos for Republicans to get through their heads the next time they think about running similar candidates:

    “It was one thing for One Lone Nut to say he’d pass a law forbidding a raped woman from taking Plan B immediately after an attack (which is a standard current treatment). It was another thing when Richard Mourdock turned this from One Guy Popping Off to a Widely Held Republican Position. [...] Let me offer this observation: If there’s something you believe, but have no chance whatsoever of passing into actual law, then it’s really not a political belief. Politics is not philosophy. It’s about passing (or repealing) actual laws with actual real-world coercive effect.”

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 6:18 pm - November 7, 2012

  11. No doubt that Akin should’ve dropped out and let someone like Jim Talent run… someone with a good chance of winning. Akin is a fool – and a selfish one at that (so he would have made a pretty good politician. Go figure.)

    But the blame doesn’t lie with Akin or with Romney. The blame lies with the electorate drawn in by silly issues (Big Bird, The Pill) and no skills in arithmetic. I actually heard some woman interviewed who stated her fondness for Sesame Street and her desire that her daughter have Sesame Street… I’d have asked the woman if she thought if Big Bird was worth saddling her daughter with immense debt and a reduced standard of living.

    Commentators say that voters are turned off by talk of entitlement reforms… as if the problem will simply go away if no one talks about it. The truth can be scary so we just talk about birth control pills instead (the chances of contraception being taken away by conservatives is absolutely zero – but it makes a good target for morons).

    The best defense is a good offense – a cliche but no less true. The GOP could learn a thing or two from the Dems and from Saul Alinsky.

    I got a tweet today quoting George Will from back in Sept… the gist was that if the GOP can’t win in this environment, it should find another line of work.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 7, 2012 @ 6:27 pm - November 7, 2012

  12. From the Ace

    I’m pro-choice. I’ve said that. So you can take this advice as advice from an “enemy” (and generally, I concede you should ignore advice from an enemy).

    But I’m telling you, honestly, I cannot conceive of a political strategy better guaranteed to keep abortion on demand legal for perpetuity than spokesmen for the pro-life cause talking up forbidding even the morning-after pill immediately after a rape. Rather than talking up the easier case to make, they go right for the most difficult imaginable one.

    And scare the shit out of any woman who doesn’t fancy the idea of carrying a rapist’s baby to term, coerced by the power of the state.

    Comment by rusty — November 7, 2012 @ 6:28 pm - November 7, 2012

  13. But pro-life candidates have to be extremely careful and deft in how they deal with the abortion issue.

    Why?

    Why should THEY have to be “careful and deft”? Their position is that life is precious and that, regardless of the circumstances of its conception, it should be protected, treasured, and allowed to live.

    Obama’s position is that it should be left to die in a broom closet. The Obama Party considers babies a “punishment”, and demands that society pay for promiscuous idiots like Levi who openly state that coercing women into sex (aka rape), having sex when you’re drunk, and “forgetting” your condoms is perfectly OK.

    Which is more socially acceptable?

    Why are you cringing like a whipped dog on this? Call out McCaskill for what she is, which is a sociopath who will leave a baby to die in a broom closet and simultaneously screamed for higher taxes while cheating on hers.

    You. Do. Not. Get. This. The media will lie about Republicans regardless of what they do. The Obama Party will lie about Republicans regardless of what they do. They. Are. Sociopathic. LIARS.

    The answer here is not to pander to liars and sociopaths. The answer is to call them what they are and force them to report it. Akin could have easily said that McCaskill wants to push abortions and force churches to pay for abortions because she receives kickbacks in the form of campaign donations for every abortion performed, and it would be true.

    Make the choice clear. If you want more abortions, you want McCaskill. All she wants is abortions. She wants children killed. She wants babies left to die in broom closets. She loves seeing abortions go up because she gets more money from abortionists and abortion organizations when it happens.

    This is the truth. Why won’t you use it? Own your position, and ATTACK.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 6:37 pm - November 7, 2012

  14. #10 & 12: Ace makes an excellent point in #8… if it can’t be done as a matter if law then shut up.

    Surgical abortions consequent to rape (as opposed the morning-after pill) are exceedingly rare but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make for an excellent opportunity for demagoguery.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 7, 2012 @ 6:38 pm - November 7, 2012

  15. We need Mormons and conservative Catholics to move to New Mexico, Vermont, New Hampshire, Nevada, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, Delaware in large numbers and start reproducing like rabbits.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 7, 2012 @ 6:45 pm - November 7, 2012

  16. You could certainly do that, NDT. As a pro-lifer myself I’m tempted sometimes to follow such advice. Abortion is wrong. Period. However, is the end goal to save lives or win a political victory? If it’s the former than the approach we’ve been on for 40 years now has failed miserably and pro-lifers are losing ground. Time to try something different.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 6:47 pm - November 7, 2012

  17. Obviously, leftists don’t think children born of rape deserve love or societal acceptance.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 6:51 pm - November 7, 2012

  18. “the blame doesn’t lie with Akin or with Romney. The blame lies with the electorate drawn in by silly issues (Big Bird, The Pill) and no skills in arithmetic.”

    It’s hard to argue with that. Although, maybe a little lies with Romney. ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 6:54 pm - November 7, 2012

  19. My personal position re. abortion is that the first two trimesters are none of the government’s business. As technology improves and survival rates for increasingly premature babies also improve, future abortions (in the distant future, perhaps) will be mostly unnecessary from any point of view except those who want to kill because they can. We may reach a point whereupon pregnancies are frequently outside the mother in artificial wombs.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 7, 2012 @ 6:58 pm - November 7, 2012

  20. However, is the end goal to save lives or win a political victory? If it’s the former than the approach we’ve been on for 40 years now has failed miserably and pro-lifers are losing ground. Time to try something different.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 6:47 pm – November 7, 2012

    Sure, JohnAGJ.

    Let’s pander to liars and sociopaths like Barack Obama and back away from the abortion issue completely, so that liars like Sandra Fluke and her disgusting ilk can scream that anyone who opposes abortion in any way supports rape, and that if you don’t agree with forcing churches to pay for abortions, you want women to be raped.

    What do you think that will do to the number of abortions, hm? Do you think people will be more inclined to support abortions if opposing them means you endorse rape?

    You don’t understand the problem. Sandra Fluke and her fellow abortionists are not rational people. They are murderous sociopaths who like killing children and who profit from killing children. You keep acting as if Sandra Fluke will see reason, when the answer is that both she and her Barack Obama are mental cases who see absolutely nothing wrong with leaving a screaming, helpless baby to die in a broom closet.

    You cannot get Sandra Fluke to oppose abortion. You cannot get Sandra Fluke to stop aborting babies. So your answer is to withdraw and let Sandra Fluke continue to spread her lies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 7:01 pm - November 7, 2012

  21. Ignatius, interesting idea of artificial wombs. Back in the day, during a presentation to a class of Physician Assistants, the idea of transferring a zygote from birth mom to a surrogate was discussed. Wonder where that technology has advanced? Many women can conceive but carrying a child becomes an issue for some and a biological miscarriage occurs, wonder if science is closer to the transfer from bio mom to a surrogate

    Comment by rusty — November 7, 2012 @ 7:08 pm - November 7, 2012

  22. No, NDT. That’s not my idea at all. Perhaps this is the wrong day to talk about moving forward for some folks. About all I can say is that if you prefer to double down and continue losing on this issue, as well as the whole shebang, be my guest.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - November 7, 2012

  23. rusty,

    Good question. I haven’t researched the topic — just throwing it out there. As a Republican, I wish the issue of abortion would go away; perhaps science will step in where political will cannot. And I’m not sure I’m entirely comfortable with the prospect.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 7, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - November 7, 2012

  24. Drop Social Issues Altogether.

    Let what people do with their own bodies what they will. Let each religion decide what marriage to recognize and make ALL marriage tax benefits / penalties be decided by a civil union. Let women make choices about their own bodies. If you feel abortion is immoral, fight against it through non government means. Conservatives will often lose on these arguments but often win with the limited government argument. The fact is as long as we have candidates fighting for the Tony Perkins endorsement republicans will always have a struggle to win.

    Leave those issues out of government and make them a family choice. Then you would have this voter and probably many more like me.

    If the social conservatives spent their money they spend on elections on anti-abortion counseling / adoption services instead of trying to elect candidates like Akin, republicans might have the presidency, senate and the house.

    Comment by mike — November 7, 2012 @ 7:32 pm - November 7, 2012

  25. One more thing
    Stop with the “takers” “moochers” and “welfare addicts” nonsense.

    This type of talk only hurts small government arguments. Because the reality is there are “takers” on all sides and welfare / social safety net is good governance and here to stay.
    Why? Because its good governance.

    We need solutions that keep these social safety net institutions but do so without kicking the can down the road like Ryan’s horrible voucher plan and instead make those programs viable. This includes tax increase, cutting military, ending corporate subsidies AND making these programs more efficient and cutting them so they only help people in need and not allow people to live off them.

    My hope for these 4 years is the republican house goes along with Obama on some of the above but ONLY if they are coupled with real and credible cuts in programs.

    Comment by mike — November 7, 2012 @ 7:51 pm - November 7, 2012

  26. Funny how no one ever tells the left to drop the social issues. No one ever tells the left not to use government to force their views on everyone else. But the social right is supposed to unilaterally disarm and accept the tyranny of their “betters”

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 7:58 pm - November 7, 2012

  27. I totally agree that Akin hurt the GOP-his remarks were just plain idiotic and ignorant.

    Anyone hear Ryan defend his position on abortion? He does so eloquently.

    That said, I think all pro life republicans who are questioned about their opinion on abortion should take the Newt Gingrich method and turn the question around-when he was interviewed on this (or it may have been Mourdock’s) he asked the pundit why they didn’t ask Obama about his pro infanticide vote when he voted multiple times against the infant born alive act, or some of the other extreme left opinions.

    When Americans are polled on the issue of life, most of them are generally uncomfortable with elective abortion after the first trimester and very open to all sorts of restrictions after that point. The electorate isn’t nearly as liberal on the issue of abortion as many in the democratic party are.

    Also, I personally believe that abortion is only moral when the life of a mother is threatened by a continued pregnancy. However, politically I just don’t think this is a viable position. Since liberals almost always go to the extreme when debating abortion, I will ignore the extremes, and happily trade them rape and incest exemptions if they will move away from their extreme positions.

    Ideally I would love to see abortion policy as something decided at the state level, but I think the nation is too far past the Roe v Wade decision for that to ever happen. I think the smart abortion policy is to wittle away at the extremes, but the democratic party is unwilling to even do that much-they demand all abortion all the time.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 8:03 pm - November 7, 2012

  28. But pro-life candidates have to be extremely careful and deft in how they deal with the abortion issue.

    Why?
    NDT, I definitely get your point. But just because I feel the pro-life position is very much the right position, I still have to accept that a great many people have qualms about it. Some of them are based on misinformation or selfishness. But some of those qualms are based on legitimate, natural concerns. If I want to reach someone who disagrees with me, I do think it’s important to be careful in how I say what I say. It’s not because I’m being timid or defensive but rather because I think it’s the best way to change minds. It’s just like with tennis; the point is to hit the ball with the right amount of force and at the right angle, not to hit it as hard as I can. All the same, if someone else is asked the same dumb rape question, then I think a Gingrichesque pushback against the questioner would be refreshing. And it’s true that it’s completely unfair how pro-lifers are always asked tough questions about their positions when hardcore pro-abortion pols like Obama get a pass. Someone able to turn the tables into forcing the pro-abortion candidate to describe his or her own out-of-the-mainstream position, well, yeah, I wish we would have a candidate like that.

    Comment by chad — November 7, 2012 @ 8:06 pm - November 7, 2012

  29. “You don’t understand the problem. Sandra Fluke and her fellow abortionists are not rational people. They are murderous sociopaths who like killing children and who profit from killing children. ”

    Haven’t visited here for a while, but I thought the last couple of days would be a good time to check in. I assume ND30′s medical providers have been meeting to determine how to adjust the anti-psychotic meds, but obviously there are still problems with the right dose.

    I have no doubt with ND30 as lead political advisor and Gay Patriot as chief pollster at the “Decision Desk” you will all come up with a winning strategy in 2016!

    Comment by Brendan — November 7, 2012 @ 8:23 pm - November 7, 2012

  30. “Obviously, leftists don’t think children born of rape deserve love or societal acceptance”

    V the K

    Democrats is the party of Roman Polanski. Yes, in the case of a woman raped the baby is worth zero, the woman must be glorified because she made the most obvious choice and the rapist gets rewarded with multiple oscars.

    This is the democratic party, the party of the unrepentant rapist Clinton (and his accompliced wife), the party of Ted Kennedy and his criminal accompliced family.

    If the above mentioned can scream about war on women with that track record and NO FUCKING BODY is able to retort in fashion, might as well declare 1 party state tomorrow.

    Comment by susan — November 7, 2012 @ 8:25 pm - November 7, 2012

  31. #24: mike – the problem with “social issues” is that most of them cannot be divorced from governing and finance.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 7, 2012 @ 8:40 pm - November 7, 2012

  32. Leave those issues out of government and make them a family choice. Then you would have this voter and probably many more like me.

    Comment by mike — November 7, 2012 @ 7:32 pm – November 7, 2012

    Why mike, what a hilarious, side-splitting, outright crock of sh*t.

    Because we know full well you have no problem whatsoever with government punishing and forcing religious beliefs, government forcing churches to pay for abortions, and abortionist organizations spending taxpayer dollars to elect pro-abortion politicians who support leaving babies to dies in broom closets..

    Meanwhile, you want me to stay out of your bedroom, but in that bedroom you insist on bug-chasing and then sending me the bills for your disability and your tens of thousands of dollars in medical care annually.

    So since you support and endorse all of these things and the Obama Party that pushes them, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t really care about any of what you were blathering about; you just want other people to shut up.

    That makes you a hypocrite. But we already knew that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 8:55 pm - November 7, 2012

  33. One more thing
    Stop with the “takers” “moochers” and “welfare addicts” nonsense.

    Comment by mike — November 7, 2012 @ 7:51 pm – November 7, 2012

    Why mike, what another laugh-a-second crock of horse manure.

    Because that IS what you call people like you who endorse and support the Obama Party and its giving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to drunks and adult babies.

    Moreover, we’re very well aware that your whines of “corporate welfare” matter nothing when it involves lining the pockets of Obama donors at taxpayer expense.

    So since you support and endorse all of these things and the Obama Party that pushes them, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t really care about any of what you were blathering about; you just want other people to shut up.

    That makes you a hypocrite. But we already knew that. Twice over.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 9:01 pm - November 7, 2012

  34. If I want to reach someone who disagrees with me, I do think it’s important to be careful in how I say what I say. It’s not because I’m being timid or defensive but rather because I think it’s the best way to change minds.

    Comment by chad — November 7, 2012 @ 8:06 pm – November 7, 2012

    Mhm.

    Meanwhile, who got the votes yesterday? Oh, that’s right; the party that screams that, unless you support leaving babies in broom closets and forcing churches to pay for abortions, you’re a rapist.

    So are you a rapist, Chad? Barack Obama says you are, and 52% of the country agrees with him.

    At what point in time are you going to get tired of being called a rapist, a racist, a murderer, etc.? As I pointed out above, preening and posturing is useless; hypocrites and bigots like mike and Brendan have already demonstrated that they’ll force you to pay for them to sit around in diapers, for them to bug-chase and infect teenagers with HIV, and for their fellow liberals to have unlimited abortions at the Catholic Church’s expense.

    At some point in time, you’re going to have to stop playing tennis and start playing hardball. Recognize that people like mike and Brendan are mentally, emotionally, and intellectually incapable of detaching themselves from the Obama tit. They are welfare addicts, looters, and moochers, and they have not a shred of decency or concern for you other than taking every last dollar you have and demanding that you earn more, then spitting on your beliefs and calling you a racist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 9:07 pm - November 7, 2012

  35. Stop with the “takers” “moochers” and “welfare addicts” nonsense.

    But it’s still okay for leftists to call us “racists” and “haters.”

    lower-case-mike loves him some double standards.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 9:24 pm - November 7, 2012

  36. Of course, V the K.

    Lower-case mike wants to make darn sure that nobody, nowhere, dares to criticize people who abuse the welfare system and take money for themselves when they’re perfectly able to work.

    Because that’s how he lives, and on what he lives.

    That’s really the only logical explanation. For Obama supporters to openly endorse and support welfare fraud, especially when such fraud takes away from people who legitimately need it, means either that they are malicious liars who want to or are exploiting the system themselves, or ignorant fools who were taken in by a charlatan who protects just this kind of abuse.

    I don’t think they’re that stupid, so malice and the fact that they’re engaging in fraud themselves is the only logical explanation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 9:34 pm - November 7, 2012

  37. :) Yeah, it’s just pretty sad. And while I think much of Pres. Obama’s support comes from people who don’t care about abortion or who even disagree with him, even people I’m friends with on FB have totally bought into all of the WoW crap, just as many believe that anyone who disagrees about SSM is bigoted or hateful. Of course, none of these friends would actually say that I am at war with women—they see how I treat my wife and daughter—and inasmuch as I am opposed to SSM (it’s complicated), I don’t think they would actually say I’m a bigot. But throw me into the collective grouping of Romney voters, and I am one of those awful people that must be ridiculed and trashed in snide FB posts. I think liberals think that sanctimony is something that can only exist on the right. But even when friends more conservative than I take positions I disagree with, they tend to be quite gentle in how they share those positions, doing so without questioning the character or intellect of those who disagree. Many of my liberal friends are similarly courteous, but some of them turn the judgmentalism up to 11 when sharing their positions.

    Comment by chad — November 7, 2012 @ 10:43 pm - November 7, 2012

  38. You are all crazy. Who in his right mind is going to tell a rape victim keep that baby or we’ll send you to jail. You are not better than the Taliban.
    Stop letting crazy people run for your party. I can’t understand your sympathy for this crazy sob.

    Comment by George — November 8, 2012 @ 12:07 am - November 8, 2012

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

    Pick candidates more ready to fight back against the smears who don’t have the mindset and mouth to actually qualify rape or essentially boil it down to a blessing in disguise when it results in pregnancy. FIFY, Dan. (Which is how this post started, yet devolved into a tenuously connected conclusion about fighting back. Huh?) Republicans could actually own the Abortion debate if they were to unify under the umbrella of anti-abortion unless pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, and/or endangers the life of the mother. Period. The ambiguity brought on by the disparity of opinions is harmful and weakens the party. I guarantee if Republicans were able to agree and clearly express that message, sans exceptions or pandering to the fringe right, they could easily turn the debate against Democrats by focusing the issue on their defense of second and third trimester abortions not involving rape, incest, or the life of the mother, and make them look like bloodthirsty cretins. Perhaps I’m wrong. But, it’s not like capital punishment is a cut-and-dried issue, either.

    True, Democrats seized upon the Republican’s weakness in this instance and exploited it to generous ends. The Democrats demonized the Republicans, because the Republicans let them. You can’t blame the Dems. You have to blame the Republicans for providing the vulnerability to begin with. People like Akin and Murdock aren’t going to change their spots. What you need are Tea Party candidates who empathize with those guys and agree with them, but are nonreligious (or whatever) enough that the issue isn’t a priority for them. If lowering taxes, cutting spends are the issues, then allow them to be the issues. But, you can’t own those issues until you make them #1 and dedicate yourself them like no other. To take the bait or discuss social issues is a distraction that will lead you on the road to despair. And the lesson doesn’t seem to get learned. Not in the 90s, not after 2010, not 2012.

    If Republicans are always going to be talking about abortion to small or large degrees, to own the issue requires the aforementioned unity and/or stealth, leaving no room for penetration. You either need smarter Akin’s or find people who are more reasonable at heart (i.e. can accept the basic principle that no woman should be forced to go through a pregnancy brought on by rape, incest, or may result in the termination of her life). My guess would be that the latter is the clearer, more dependable way to go. And it doesn’t require moral relativism. It’s inhumane to force a woman in such situations to go through with a pregnancy. At least, it’s less humane than a woman who voluntarily had sex, got pregnant, and wants an abortion. It’s a bigger person to go through a pregnancy she doesn’t want, especially involving factors out of her control and/or may jeopardize her life, but that should be essentially her choice, should it not? This doesn’t seem like a tough question to me, yet the Republican party can’t seem to come forward with a definitive ‘yes.’

    And, dare I say it, there’s more potential for consistency. As it appears, there is some serious moral relativism going on within the party’s ranks on this issue. If you want to have your religious beliefs, fine. Just be aware that if you allow them to trump your ability to govern (which some may say are intrinsically connected, I guess if you’re willing to ignore that you’ve been voted in office to govern a whole people, many of whom are nonreligious) , you’re screwing yourself, your party, and the people who voted you in to represent them.

    Fighting back against the smears? You’re missing the point, Dan: the smears are preventable. And it takes a party who can see the bigger picture to recognize that.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 12:57 am - November 8, 2012

  40. CORRECTION:

    Pick candidates more ready to fight back against the smears who don’t have the mindset and mouth to actually qualify rape or essentially boil it down to a blessing in disguise when it results in pregnancy.

    *Whoops* Not sure why the strike was removed.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 12:59 am - November 8, 2012

  41. Well, there you have it. The strike is there in the live preview section and then disappears upon post.

    SO:

    Pick candidates

    DELETE–> more ready to fight back against the smears

    INSERT–> who don’t have the mindset and mouth to actually qualify rape or essentially boil it down to a blessing in disguise when it results in pregnancy.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 1:00 am - November 8, 2012

  42. SHOULD READ: It’s a bigger person to go through a pregnancy she doesn’t want, especially involving factors out of her control and/or may jeopardize her life, but that should be essentially her choice if her circumstances were out of her control, should it not?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 1:04 am - November 8, 2012

  43. SHOULD READ: And it takes a party who can see the bigger picture to recognize that TO BE SUCCESSFUL FOR THE LONG HAUL.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 1:05 am - November 8, 2012

  44. Regarding abortion, the right should just keep repeating logical arguments based on science and ethics. This is a mass-murder, and the only way to stop it, in my opinion, is to prove that. If you are going to play “hardball” on this issue, at least make sure you aren’t going to undermine your own cause by trying to articulate your position clumsily and in a way that is easy to demagogue.

    One more thing
    Stop with the “takers” “moochers” and “welfare addicts” nonsense.

    This type of talk only hurts small government arguments.

    If there is anything that I find more annoying than passive aggressivism, it is a concern troll.

    You are all crazy. Who in his right mind is going to tell a rape victim keep that baby or we’ll send you to jail. You are not better than the Taliban.

    LOL. At least George doesn’t even try to make his comments sound the least bit intelligent. I like the honesty, George.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 8, 2012 @ 1:07 am - November 8, 2012

  45. Republicans could actually own the Abortion debate if they were to unify under the umbrella of anti-abortion unless pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, and/or endangers the life of the mother. Period. The ambiguity brought on by the disparity of opinions is harmful and weakens the party.

    Speaking of concern trolls….

    The problem the Republicans have is that they are always listening to people on the left who are worried that the Republicans are too “extreme” to win elections, so they nominate moderates. Even though the moderates lose, they keep doing it, because they keep listening to those annoying people on the left who only want to “help” the GOP. Unapologetic, conservative principles are all the right needs. So take your concern trolling and shove it, Cinesnatch.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 8, 2012 @ 1:17 am - November 8, 2012

  46. Rattlesnake, okay.

    *shrug*

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 1:24 am - November 8, 2012

  47. From the Republican platform:

    “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

    This “unapologetic, conservative principle” is not worth forsaking reversing the national debt and creating jobs. You can’t keep your cake and eat it too. You have to make choices. It’s what, dare I say, reasonable adults do. Abolishing capital punishment represents an “unapologetic, Christian principle,” yet it fails to register a sliver of a tremor on the Richter scale. Go figure. You might want to check out The Bible’s views on abortion.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 1:35 am - November 8, 2012

  48. This “unapologetic, conservative principle” is not worth forsaking reversing the national debt and creating jobs. You can’t keep your cake and eat it too.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Abolishing capital punishment represents an “unapologetic, Christian principle,” yet it fails to register a sliver of a tremor on the Richter scale. Go figure. You might want to check out The Bible’s views on abortion.

    Was I talking about Christianity? I’m not a Christian. I have no moral issues whatsoever with executing murderers. Killing innocents, however, I do, because they are innocent.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 8, 2012 @ 1:42 am - November 8, 2012

  49. This “unapologetic, conservative principle” is not worth forsaking reversing the national debt and creating jobs.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 8, 2012 @ 1:35 am – November 8, 2012

    Says the Obama puppet who supported and endorsed a massive runup of the national debt and demonizes any type of corporation that actually employs people as evil.

    You don’t care about jobs or deficits, Cinesnatch. You just care about demonizing the successful and using government to loot others. You’ve run up the debt already and destroyed jobs, and you have no intention of stopping. That’s why you supported and endorsed Obama.

    Meanwhile, Cinesnatch, as for smears, it is hilarious that you expect us to believe that people like yourself who shrieked that Sarah Palin was guilty of attempted murder and that Mitt Romney was responsible for murdering a man’s wife actually base your smears on anything Republicans actually do or say versus simply a bigoted and irrational hatred of Republicans, period.

    And let’s put this bluntly: you’re sociopathic baby-killers who not only support leaving screaming newborn babies in broom closets to die, but actually state that coercing a woman into sex, aka RAPE, is no worse than watching too much reality TV or buying expensive coffee.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 1:53 am - November 8, 2012

  50. 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

  51. 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

  52. 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

  53. 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

  54. 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

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

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

  56. 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

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

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

  58. 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

  59. VTK said parents meaning mom and dad.

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

  60. 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

  61. 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

  62. 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

  63. “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

  64. 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

  65. 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

  66. 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

  67. 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

  68. 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

  69. 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

  70. 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

  71. “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

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.635 Powered by Wordpress