Ed Morrissey @ Hot Air:
Yesterday, I made my first appearance on local TV since 2005, during the Adscam story that briefly made me a curious intrusion on Canadian politics. It’s not for a lack of invitations; KMSP has been asking me to appear for quite a while, but the timing has always been bad. Last night, though, the stars aligned properly and I made an appearance on the 9 pm news, for what was supposed to be a discussion about surviving gaffes in politics, which is the topic of my column today for The Week. Instead, Carrie Lucking of the progressive group Alliance for a Better Minnesota ended up debating Todd Akin’s comments, which is pretty much what I expected. Toward the end, I grew tired of hearing the term “gaffe” applied to Joe Biden’s “chains” comment, and explained the difference:
Minneapolis News and Weather KMSP FOX 9
Let’s be clear on both counts. Akin’s statement on the legitimacy of a rape claim being suspect in the case of pregnancy isn’t your garden-variety gaffe; it’s an exposure of some very muddled and factually-deficient thinking, for which Akin deserves all of the castigation he’s been getting. However, Akin wasn’t smearing his opponent or attempting to incite fear and hatred into a campaign to benefit himself. That’s what Joe Biden did with the “chains” comment, which as I wrote last week was no gaffe at all. It was a deliberate and malicious strategy.
Todd Akin has at least apologized for his boneheaded assertion. Neither Biden nor the Obama campaign has apologized for their smear.
Meanwhile, my column offers three reasons why the two incidents have had different impacts on the narrative:
“A woman’s right to chose,” has become transformed into another entitlement “insurance” program to cement Democrat votes. No matter what the woman chooses, the Democrats want to sure that she will not pay for her choice:
Safe sex? Let everyone else pay for the birth control.
Abortions? Let the government subsidize them.
What if she wants to have unprotected sex, Doesn’t want to get married, but decides anyway to pop-out out as many babies as her body can handle? Let everyone else support them.
Pregnant illegals? come on, Democrats we’ll make everyone else pay.
The Democrats have decided to remove all consideration of personal responsibility, their intent being that these women in gratitude will remain their loyal political puppets. If Republicans try change this, the Dem puppeteers yank the female’s strings and manipulate their marionettes to keep their elite masters in power. Just as they have been manipulating the poor, elderly and minorities with entitlements, so that this system of payola for votes continues to keep the “progressive” elite class in power.
NanG Romney will not defend this plank as written.The Dems WILL call him on it.
Retire05 One can name R Sleaze to match D Sleaze. We all know it. Waste of time.
Ditto Maybe you think women should take more responsibility for a rape that occurs?
@Richard Wheeler:
At one time I had a list of all the elected Congressmen/Senators that were guilty of a convicted crime. Since the press loves to represent the GOP as nothing but greedy capitalists who are willing to do anything to make a buck, I thought surely the GOP side of the list would be longer. SURPRISE There were more Democrats on that list than Republicans. Seems the DNC doesn’t do a very good job of policing their own.
You keep yaking about the GOP plank. Where is it? Where is the actual wording? It is always put out on the internet, the actual plank, approved by the plank committee and accepted by the delegates. Oh, wait, that hasn’t happened yet because the GOP convention hasn’t happened yet. So you are talking out of your lower orifice.
As to rape; a simple Google search would show you that rape, and incest, combined accounts for less than ONE PERCENT of all abortions in the U.S. and that is stats provided by the Guttmacher Institution with is also a part of Planned Parenthood.
Yes, women have a responsibility when then are raped. They have the responsibility to report the crime IMMEDIATELY and hopefully, put the perp away for a long time so he doesn’t do it to another woman. If they report that crime immediately, medical procedures are then done to prevent conception. Rape has been used for milliniums as a way to make women cower. No longer. Rape is no longer a disgrace heaped upon the woman who is raped. So yes, she does hold some responsibility for the prosecution of a criminal, not for the action of rape itself.
But the rape senario is all you liberals have to defend the murder of an unborn child. If you hold your hand on your butt waiting for the Dems to admit that a pregnancy is the result of 99% of two people exercising free choice, it doesn’t help the “pro-choice” rhetoric, does it?
I’m a Missourian. Akin SHOULD heed the calls to STEP ASIDE… HE blew the interview.. and the Senate race is TOO IMPORTANT, to let get blown by this deal… so he should go. Let Sarah Steelman take the spot. Akin, you’re acting JUST LIKE OBAMA here… thinking of YOU first, and NOT what the “better good” is…. shape up, then BOW OUT…. do the RIGHT THING…..
as an aside… I feel the PROPER penalty for rape. is Death. No repeat offenders.. with all the lewd gals out there today, Rape is NOT NECESSARY.. so if THEY do not care, why should WE?? Hang em.
@Hankster58:
If (and that is a big IF) you are a Missourian, you are a pretty well uninformed one. Missouri has a “sore loser” law. Steelman can’t get on the ticket now. She lost the primary.
Why don’t you just back any R that is on the ticket and dump Criminal Claire? Or do you enjoy watching your elected Representatives being lap dogs for Obama?
Retire 05 The Repub. plank as disclosed at next week’s convention WILL NOT provide an exception for rape, incest or life of the mother. You know it. I know it. Romney knows it.
Hankster Careful of that sweet talking MsRetire05. Hope you and family are well. Have you had a chance to see Chuck B. in or around ST. LOUIS?
@Ditto, #51:
I think an adult’s sovereign authority over their own body is a separate issue from what should and shouldn’t be covered by health insurance. It’s something fundamental. If you’re deprived of that most basic control, any pretense that you are free is a mockery. Freedom implies that you can make what others will consider to be an incorrect decision. I personally find abortion objectionable, but consider protection of the principle that the choice is based upon of far greater importance.
It seems to me that talk about taking responsibility for our actions and then living with the consequences has no place in any discussion that has to do with the pregnant victim of rape. Such a person has been deprived of her choice from the very beginning. It’s totally unacceptable for society to then deprive her of another, essentially taking from her all control. In addition to further reducing the power of the victim, this unintentionally confers an additional and lasting power on the rapist.
@Richard Wheeler:
No, I don’t know what the GOP plank says as it has not yet been released and I trust the opinion of the liberal press about as much as I trust yours.
@Greg:
Greg, in the case of rape, if a woman decides to KEEP the child she is carrying, do you disagree with that or do you think she should be required to allow a doctor to shove a Metzenbaum scissors into the back of that child’s head while it is still contained in her womb?
Choice implies that a rape victim can freely decide to continue a pregnancy, if that’s what her conscience tells her to do. Democrats generally believe that she should then be provided with prenatal health care, as needed. They even advocate extreme leftist measures, such as providing needy mothers and babies with prenatal and postpartum nutritional support.
Choice also implies that a rape victim can freely decide to terminate the pregnancy at a far earlier point than opponents of choice prefer to use in their favorite horror stories–without having to risk her life by resorting to the once-common services of some totally incompetent illegal abortionist.
@Greg:
That’s all well and good, Greg, but you are leaving out that liberal/progressives demand that everyone else pay for what you state that Democrats believe.
Tell me, Greg; What part did I play in a woman getting pregnant, either through her choice or by rape? Why do you expect me to pay for it? Or for that matter, why do you expect me to pay for a woman to use a contraceptive to prevent a pregnancy?
As I said, you are basically stating that government should not intrude on a woman’s healthcare choices, by insisting that the government intrude in other people’s private business, on her behalf. That’s not preserving freedom and liberty. That is shifting responsibility onto others, something that liberal/progressives are very adept at doing.
@Greg:
So tell me, do you support the idea of showing medical school created videos of actual abortions to 8th graders as well as having a speaker in their general assembly that explains the horrors of living with HIV/AIDs?
Yes, or no?
@johngalt:
Good point. I would also add that people are the victims of many other types of crime. Do progressives advocate replacing all the things that a person loses due to a home invasion robbery? How about if my car is stolen? Will the Democrats buy me another car? I don’t think so.
Gee, even the conservative 1/2 of the Romney/Ryan ticket is OK with Plan B.
The morning-after pill.
All Ryan has insisted on is that girls under 17 get a doctor’s prescription to obtain the “Plan B” morning-after pill, rejecting a Food and Drug Administration proposal that would have allowed them to get the pills on their own, over the counter.
So, IF they want it, they can get it.
Under Obama or under Romney.
What better thing to do if you are raped and want to avoid even the possibility of pregnancy.
Romney was the one who was astonished by Stephanopolis’s weird (just pre-Sandra Fluke) question about taking away birth control.
No one is talking about taking away anyone’s birth control!
It is a made up issue to distract Americans from Obama’s failed economic policies that are ruining this country.
Response to #56
If (and that is a big IF) you are a Missourian,
>>>>>Yes, I am, you calling me a LIAR??? I was Born in STL, and live in Central Missouri now. You need an ID??
you are a pretty well uninformed one.
>>>>> well excuse me, for not knowing all the election laws… Guess I’m not perfect like you are!!
Missouri has a “sore loser” law. Steelman can’t get on the ticket now. She lost the primary.
>>>>>> I’ll have to look into that. But, if Akin drops off, the LOGICAL replacement, SHOULD be the runner up… does the law, provide for a case like this, since you know it all??? What does a “sore loser” have to do with replacing a voluntary drop out??
Why don’t you just back any R that is on the ticket and dump Criminal Claire?
>>>> like who??? We don’t keep SPARE instant candidates on shelves here that i’m aware of…
Or do you enjoy watching your elected Representatives being lap dogs for Obama?
>>>>>Stupid Comment of the day.
Hankster, a couple of articles point out the real courses of action for you Missourians that don’t want Akin. One deadline has passed, but there is a second one.
The procedure according to the CQ’s RollCall.
Also, the CS Monitor points out additional details:
Lest the “write in” becomes necessary because additional pressure, or falling approval poll numbers for Akin, doesn’t make him wake up, take heart. We need only look back to 2010 when Lisa Murkowski pulled off a win for the AK Senate seat, away from a TP candidate, Joe Miller, via a write in campaign. Of course, AK’s strong Republican demographic made splitting the votes a lot easier there than in MO. McCaskill took the 2006 by 49.58%, so there’s less buffer for a split and a win.
It’s your State, and your representative, so I’m certainly not going to have the arrogance to tell you what to do. But I suspect you all are aware of the importance of the gain of a Senate seat.
BTW, Hankster, since the selection would be by the central committee, and Steelman and Brunner were only separated by 1% and 4596 votes, it’s hard to say who they would name as the replacement. Seems likely they would pick one of the two tho.
So if Akin did exit the scene, MO may have to be satisfied with Brunner as the alternate, if they picked the #2 candidate.
@Greg:
Others have already commented on the first part of your reply so I’ll cover this:
I never implied that a victim of rape is personally responsible for being raped or for it causing a pregnancy, nor did I take a position on the abortion of a pregnancy due to a woman being raped. So stick that strawman back in your barn.
Greg, you are the poster child here for “deviation from the subject,” and I will note that @you were the one who brought up the “woman’s right to choose” in this discussion. If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t bring it up.
@MataHarley:
I suspect that Akin is concerned for his political future, and may be holding out for Republican’s to make him some kind of conciliation deal in return for his agreement to withdraw from the race. (He comes across to me like a Blago type of politician.)
Dunno, Ditto. It’s possible. Me? My impression is that he’s suffering from a “deer in the headlights” phase, and thinks it’s not really a moving freight train coming at him full speed. If the polls and disapproval keep trending downward, my guess is he’ll step aside and MO will have to wait and see whether they put Brunner or Steelman on the ballot in his place.
@Nan G, #65:
From H.R. 212: Sanctity of Human Life Act (Note that Paul Ryan of Minnesota is a co-sponsor.)
If this bill were to become law it would not only open the door for the banning of all abortion rights, but also for the banning of hormonal contraceptives and IUDs, because one of their three common modes of action is to interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg. The same is also true of “Plan B” pills. I’ll cite the American Life League, a pro-life organization, as a reference.
I’m not sure how we can square Ryan’s very recent position statements with his sponsorship of the foregoing, or with his previously stated no exceptions position. It would appear that he’s taken to quick position reversals as the occasion demands, much like Mr. Romney.
@Greg:
Greg,
You are right on this:
I went back and re-read the article where I thought Ryan had voted for the Plan B morning after pill.
The article used ”he,” but switched which ”he” the writer meant midway though the article.
When I saw that ”he’ approved Plan B I missed where the writer started to refer to Obama rather than Ryan.
Sorry, for the confusion.
@Hankster58, there was an article just today from Politico’s Kate Nocera, detailing the replacement process and timing of an Akin withdrawal. Matters not who won the primary in the event he backs out, as long as he does it in a timely fashion.
Also, the ease of getting that court order is also mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs:
@ mata.. all the names you gave, would be good Candidates…. I liked Brunner, up until he went NEGATIVE, and started running an “Obama-esque” campaign…. Steelman has always been a good representative… She PERSONALLY replies to her e-mails! Emerson, Talent also good Conservatives.. Hartzler is kinda new, and don’t know a lot on her…
You DO know, Akin won, because the DEMOCRATS came out an voted him in, right?? In Missouri, you can vote EITHER party in the Primaries… so Dems, voted the Repub Ballot, to pick Akin, who polled WEAKEST of the three AGAINST McCaskill…. Note Akin won in the URBAN Areas…. Missouri’s DEMOCRAT stronghold areas…
Akin is acting as Self Centered as Obama now.. thinking of HIMSELF first…. The guy Blew an all but GIVEN WIN…. so he needs to go, before he does ANY MORE damage!! Note the NATIONAL focus on him.. the the attempts to link his STUPIDITY, to Romney/Ryan!! Akin has become a LIABILITY…. time he MANNED UP, and faced the music…
@Hankster58:
I don’t believe Steelman can run. I think Missouri has a “sore loser” rule. Also, I don’t think Missouri allows write-in candidates in the general elections. Talent and Bond had their day and need to stay out of it.
@Hankster58, it’s much like Oregon in that the majority of the State looks Republican by county elections results, but we’re all over run by the urban centers. Open primaries can really screw things up, but it is what is at the moment.
You Missourians have a bit more time to show Akin that his downward trend in approval and polls isn’t a moment in time, but an omen. In which case the process described above – with the central committee selecting the replacement candidate – takes place. Sixty-eight people will then pick your candidate, and it’s entirely possible it could be Steelman. It depends upon who those 68 men and women are, and who they may have supported in the primary, right? She is most certainly a strong possibility.
It’s a shot in the dark either way… stick with Akin because he won’t leave voluntarily (altho he still might.. he does have time, but it will cost him). Or take your chances on who the 68 committee members pick for you. Perhaps it’s a great time to call MOGOP and see where they are coming from on this. Are the two committee members from each district already preselected and in place? I notice their website hasn’t been updated since Akin’s hoof ‘n’ mouth affliction. I’d bet they are busy planning in the background as a just in case, tho.
The Party mouthpieces say they are “willing” to leave the decision up to Akin, himself. Of course the reality is they are forced to, unless the public pressure and resulting low numbers can slap Akin in to awareness. But geez.. what is this guy thinking? When the stakes are high, and you know you’re sitting with nada to work with in your hand, you seriously need to consider folding and cut the losses. If this guy thinks he can win and is determined to stay around – then loses – he’s pretty much toast in the State, and in the nation. Say goodnight, Gracie to any elected office. Few will forgive him in the event of a loss, no matter how close it would be.
I can’t believe he’s this crazy. My guess is he’s waiting to see if the hullabaloo dies down, and the numbers turn around. Or maybe Ditto is right… he’s holding out for some blackmail concession from the Party.
I’ll go along with most all of that…. and, as your last statement said, he might be seeking a “bone” for HIMSELF, if so…. then he IS, both EVIL, and NOT a CONSERVATIVE!! He’s a fraud…. and should have run as a DEMOCRAT thus! LOL!!
@ retire # 76… but they CAN me “appointed as replacements”…. too bad AK didn’t have such a law… When MURKOWSKI “ran TWICE”….
@Greg: @Nan G:
Thanks for the information. I’ll have to find time to read up on Ryan’s position in more detail, but one might expect that any competent principled politician in a democratic republic would understand the difference between what is morally acceptable and what is morally achievable in the short run in American governance. Pres. Lincoln (R) understood that the USA was morally obligated to end slavery in the USA. This was Pres. Lincoln’s (R) signature domestic policy objective. Pres. Lincoln (R) was however willing to entertain significant democratic compromise in order to preserve to Union in expectation of a future democratic consensus that would bring an end to slavery within the Union.
@Hankster58, the sore loser laws – or other states’ versions of the same are accomplished by simultaneous primary/general election filing – are common. I think all but a few have some version of it in the state.
The sore loser law is that the losing candidate of the primary can’t run as an independent in general elections.. hence the requirement for simultaneous filing for primary/general out of the gate accomplishing the same. But those laws are irrelevant to the situation. This is a GOP replacement candidate issue – and how they get on the ballot in Akin’s stead – not an independent party run.
If Missouri doesn’t allow write ins, the 88 write ins from the 2006 Missouri Senatorial election didn’t get the memo. If Akin stays in, anyone can be a write in, which also doesn’t conflict with sore loser laws. i.e. Murkowski, who lost the primary and ran as a write in. Not an independent.