Subscribe via RSS Feed

Clarity

[ 39 ] August 20, 2012 |

Todd Akin wishes to clarify that he doesn’t have the appalling views he expressed yesterday. Rather, he has the appalling views the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States has sought to make part of the United States Code.

But surely Paul Ryan can’t have the grotesque views on women’s rights that he has consistently expressed. Look at those eyes! That hangdog expression! He’s learned his lesson! If Akin decides to spend more time with his family starting tomorrow I’m sure we can agree never to discuss this again.

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Boudleaux says:

    Now it appears Akin may drop out of the race.

    Can I be the first?

    Leave Todd Akin alooooooooone!

    • tonycpsu says:

      I don’t think he’s going to back down. Karl Rove may have taken away the Crossroads GPS credit card, but Akin can probably call in enough social wingnut money to stay afloat, and he’s got nothing to lose, since he gave up his House seat, and probably hurt his lobbying career with this controversy.

      The GOP voters in Missouri chose him, and I think he’s the nominee. Charles Pierce is right: MacCaskill’s the luckiest politician alive.

      • SamR says:

        We sure this means Akin loses?

        I just recall in 2004 Coburn blithering on about how they can’t let girls go to the bathroom b/c there’s so much lesbianism. Maybe not quite as offensive, but just as totally not true at all.

        Dem nominee was a Rhodes scholar and congressman named Brad Carson. Good candidate who ran a good campaign, including finding and releasing the “rampant lesbianism” insanity from Coburn.

        He lost by 11 to Coburn.

        MS isn’t OK, but its hardly a swing state anymore (2008 was a landslide, and MS stayed GOP).

    • Hogan says:

      Scott Brown is telling Akin to withdraw. Tony Perkins is telling Brown he best keep his yap shut if he knows what’s good for him.

      Who wants popcorn?

      • mark f says:

        On the Brown front, I doubt he’ll say anything more unless asked. I’d be shocked if he tries to parlay this into some sort of kingmaker status. It was just a quick and easy way to get some moderate cred in the midst of a tight race. He knows that’s his only hope; all of his tv spots right now are endorsements by pseudo-Dems.

      • MAJeff says:

        And Dana Milbank will soon be providing space for Perkins’ “reasonable” and “respected” talking points on Akin.

    • JoyfulA says:

      I’ve read that Mrs. Akin is the boss of the Akin household and that she will never ever allow him to back off.

    • DrDick says:

      The scary part is that, given that the far right talibangelical whackaloons have largely taken over the state, this could actually be a winning proposition for him.

  2. Patrick says:

    Get word to Rafalca to hide! I think the RNC is going to be in need of a horse head for some ‘convincing’ shortly.

  3. Furious Jorge says:

    That hangdog expression! He’s learned his lesson!

    Let’s buy him a present.

    Seriously though, Scott – are you in a competition with Jonah Goldberg or something?

  4. rea says:

    Ryan and his buddy Akin are also soft on the age of consent–they attempted to draw a legistlative distinction between “forceable” or “legitimate” rape and statutory rape–with the latter not being real rape. The kids consent, whether or not they’re old enough to consent.

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      Isn’t the gist of Akin’s efforts to clarify his ‘misspeaking’? — instead of ‘legitimate rape’, he really wanted to say ‘forcible’ rape (as opposed to the statutory and stupefactory kinds). As for pregnancy being a possibility only in those non-forcible forms, he admits it was a mistake to express it so loudly.

      That was the whole point of the Ryan-Akin bill (No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act) — it was designed to deny abortion after statutory rape, and leave it as an option only after forcible rape where it’s not necessary because pregnancy never happens.

      • ema says:

        How do they get away with denying medical care after statutory rape, legally? How can you have a statutory rape that’s not, in fact, a rape?

        • DrDick says:

          I don’t think that they actually accept that it is “legitimate rape”, which they define as violent forced rape by a stranger. Otherwise, the little sluts were asking for it and really wanted it, no matter what they say afterward. Frankly, I think it says a lot more about their own secret sexual depravity than the nature of women, but that is how they frame it.

          • herr doktor bimler says:

            How do they get away with denying medical care after statutory rape, legally?
            See, there you’re trying to classify “abortion” as “medical care”. Next you will be classifying ‘euthanasia’ as medical care too. It is the THIN EDGE OF THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

          • Kurzleg says:

            Just to add to the good Doc – and as I said in an earlier thread – another line of argument is that a child conceived via rape is part of God’s plan and ought not be fooled with.

  5. Jesse Levine says:

    Who here thinks the replacement,if any, won’t be worse?

    • DivGuy says:

      Worse? Probably not. It’ll more than likely be someone with lots of good connections in the Missouri Republican party. An establishment wingnut.

      Worse, perhaps, in the sense that they’ll be basically the same parliamentary vote for radical reactionary policies, but they’re much more likely to win.

  6. Seitz says:

    Here’s a question I’d like to see asked to Scott Brown, and Mitch McConnell, and others asking Akin to drop out of the Senate race (and forgive me if it has already been brought up):

    If Todd Akin’s comments are inexcusable and so despicable that he should drop out of the Senate race, should he also resign from the house? Why is it so awful for a Senate candidate to hold these views, but perfectly acceptable for a member of the house to hold these views? Certainly their pearl-clutching can’t merely be a function of politics and a winnable Senate seat, right? I mean, clearly these are men of sincerity.

    • Richard says:

      He already announced he’s not running for relection in the house so its sort of moot. He’s out out of the House in January if he withdraws from the Senate race

    • ironic irony says:

      I think we are missing the whole point here: they want him to drop out because his statements will hurt Repukes chances everywhere in every race- from the Senate races to the presidential race, not because they disagree with what he said. So, to them, it’s perfectly acceptable for him, as a member of the house to hold those views. It’s not okay for him to fuck up their chances. Notice how no one on the right wing is specifically calling his statements disgusting, but they are calling for him to drop out (due to politics, not because of what he said.

  7. efgoldman says:

    In 2010, the GOBP had the Senate majority locked up.
    Then they nominated Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Ken Buck, and Christine O’Donnell, ’cause their hearts were pure and full of Tea. And Lo! They had no internal “Shut up” gear and the Senate stayed with the Dems.
    And Lo (again)! It is 2012 and FSM has given the Dems Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock,and (maybe) Jeff Flake…

  8. TK421 says:

    Todd Akin should only say things that Democrats have no problem with, like “the president can order the death of an American citizen with no charges brought” or “the president can indefinitely detain an American without a trial.”

  9. Jim Lynch says:

    I just found out this morning that the Missouri Idiot is already in congress. And now this Ryan angle, with all it reveals.

    It just goes to show what happens when, over the course of a few decades, enough/too many gutless democrats have withdrawn from full throated defense of a woman’s right to choose. My hope is Ryan’s proposed law is thrown under the spot-lite. Or, in keeping with last week’s hysteria, “chained” under a spot-lite on 24/7 TV. Each party certainly deserves that degree of scrutiny. It might even serve to open the eyes of at least a few women who currently live in darkness.

  10. John Cornyn is the most incompetent campaign committee chair in recent memory. He proved that last time, completing losing control of the process and thereby (probably) giving away control of the Senate.

    But because it was a big Republican year for other reasons, they ended up picking up a bunch of seats anyone, and his colleagues didn’t seem to notice.

    And now he’s doing it again. Do you think Akin will be the last Republican Senate candidate to lose a seat that should have been a sure thing? I don’t.

  11. anyone should be anyway.

    Edit function would be nice.

  12. Rarely Posts says:

    The fact that Akin looks like the Red Skull in a poor disguise probably does make him a bad messenger for the forced-pregnancy argument that rape only counts if the woman fights to the death and/or manages to trigger her magic spermicide gland.*

    * Imagine evolution selecting for an internal spermicide gland. Yet another reason the wingers have to embrace creationism intelligent design.

  13. IOKIYAR(ight-wing) says:

    Please continue using your megaphone to keep explain:

    Republican Akin was Republican Presidential candidate Romney’s buddy Ryan’s co-author of legislation that would allow rapists to force their victims to have their babies.

    Republicans Ryan and Akin also partnered to redefine rape, which, while evil, is still eclipsed by their greater evil of giving rapists power to demand their victims have their babies.

    There needs to be a category of “Kinsleyian Truthiness”, as in ‘accidentally saying what you believe to be true even when it’s false.’

    Many right-wingers do in fact believe the disturbing falsehoods Republican Todd Akin was spouting.

    Many Republicans do in fact believe that rapists should be allowed to force their victims to have babies, those that might have felt differently are now (ahem) chained to militant religious fanatics that would force children to have their daddies babies.

    Worse, those same militant religious fanatics would then abandon that baby, that’s what the Republican Ryan budget does, signed on to by Romney: Abandon babies.

  14. Akin to be says:

    [...] forcible rape,’ Delano pointed out to Ryan. ‘What is forcible rape?’”“But surely Paul Ryan can’t have the grotesque views on women’s rights that he has consistently e….”“It keeps popping up because this is actually the position of the [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site