Maybe Some of Akin’s Loudoun Disciples Can Explain “Legitimate Rape” To Us Heathens

By Loudoun Insider

Religious warrior Congressman and now Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, who has employed several top Loudoun County Republican Committee activists with close ties to Patrick Henry College, has made the news with talk of “legitimate rape” .  From the linked article:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in a clip posted to YouTube by the Democratic super PAC American Bridge. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

I wonder if legitimate rape may occur if the woman is in a nightie – we’ll need to check with Dick Black on that one.  Guys like Akin and Black must really think women cry rape a lot – from the article – “Akin himself has suggested in the past that women may claim to be raped as a strategy during divorce proceedings.”  From that linked article:

Akin’s past includes praising a militia group linked to anti-abortion extremism in the 1990s and voting against creating a sex-offender registry in 2005. Back in 1991, as a state legislator, Akin voted for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to a May 1 article that year in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (via LexisNexis).

Akin and Black surely seem to be cut from the same cloth.  These old guys really know a lot about women don’t they???


Comments

  • BlackOut says:

    Nate, hard to do this, ” … it could give the GOP a chance to move from the social issues, which are really a distraction (in my opinion) from the issues that the voters care about this election cycle.” when it’s obvious a large number of GOP candidates consider this a major part of their calling.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “Nate, just curious how far do you think this will go and who gets to decide what qualifies? “…not going to tolerate any over the top comments from their candidates…””

    Ask Obama’s surrogates. They seem to be the best at redefining what is “over the top” and what isn’t.

    “Further are you advocating that candidates suppress what they believe or be threatened with party sanctions? Or is this more of a becareful warning, filter your beliefs we have entered the general election stage of the campaign.”

    No. Folks can say what they want. However, they need to be prepared to deal with the consequenses, both good and bad.

    And Liz, “And Ryan, your vp candidate, is totally for that. So nice.”

    Romney’s at the top of the ticket. On the other hand, when Obama was a state senator, he took issue with legislation in Illinois which would have made it a crime to kill a child OUTSIDE of the womb. And he’s at the top of the ticket.
    Look, there needs to be some middle ground on these issues (and I don’t know exactly what they are — not sure if anyone does). But if Ryan represents one extreme then Obama represents the other, in my opinion.

  • liz says:

    Link to that legislation please.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan

    This one is probably the most helpful:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/

    Following are Obama’s actions and votes on Born Alive. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.

    2001

    Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
    Obama’s “no” vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committee here, March 28, 2001
    Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90
    Obama’s “present” vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001

    2002

    Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
    Transcript of Obama taking credit for Christ Hospital’s Comfort Room in the IL Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, March 5, 2002
    Obama’s “no” vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002
    Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
    Obama’s “no” vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002
    Listen to audio from Obama’s 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a “burden” to a mother’s “original decision” to assess and treat them.
    Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a “neutrality clause” added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.

    2003

    Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
    Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.

    As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the “neutrality clause” from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means “Do Pass Amendment #1.)

    Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, “Do Pass as Amended.)

    Additional corroboration of Obama’s vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2

    For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008, Obama made this false assertion.

    But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama’s campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.

    The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.

  • liz says:

    Ah. The back-door anti-abortion bill, that was intended to make 2nd trimester abortions untenable for doctors and would have put OBs who did not perform abortions at risk when trying to make decisions about care for severely ill pregnant women.

    Thank you.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Liz, you asked for links and I gave them to you. I would imagine though that you’d have a tough time denying that Obama is the most pro-abortion president that we have had in our nation’s history (I’d imagine that you’d take that as a massive pro, while I would view it as a very troubling con).

  • BlackOut says:

    Nate, only you could turn a discussion about legitimate rape into a rant on Obama.

    You’re excellent at taking an observation/fact and then sayin’, “oh ya, but Obama/Democrats did so and so”. That’s fine but it doesn’t change the introductory premise or minimize it. Or challenge it for that matter.

  • liz says:

    Pro-abortion? No. No, he isn’t. He trusts women to choose.

    He doesn’t advocate that women who are pregnant get abortions.
    And he DOES advocate for affordable birth control and health care, paid parental leave, subsidized quality daycare, lower education costs, and all the other things I pointed out actually work to reduce abortion rates.

    I don’t think you can call someone who works as hard as he does to make the other options so attractive “pro-abortion”.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    BlackOut,

    First of all, there is no such thing as “legitimate rape” as far as I’m concerned. Rape is rape. Secondly, I appreciate the compliment….someone needs to point out the double standard that exists when it comes to the other side. Thridly, I’m not trying to change the introductory premise. In fact, I’m still waiting for Akin to announce that he’s withdrawing (he seems to be a bit stubborn on that and refuses to see the writing on the wall…..meh, give it a few more hours and he might come around).

    With respect to Obama, in my view, he’s been a disaster and has been one of the worst things to happen to this country in terms of policy, divisiveness, and seeking to “fundamentally transform” America. He knows that he has no record to run on and so he’s left with throwing all kinds of stuff on the wall in the hopes that some of it sticks. Democrats cannot talk about the economy or anything else that voters care about, so they’re trying to scare the voters witless by talking about social issues. Comments like the ones that Akin made are throwing gasoline on that fire. If you want to accuse me of shifting the conversation around (even through I’ve talked very frankly about Akin’s comments as well) then fine. There’s plenty of extreme views on the left as well — and they don’t tend to get as much air-time as those on the right. Hmm. Wonder why that is exactly.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Liz, as always (with the notable exception of Metro in Loudoun County) we will agree to disagree on the issues.

  • liz says:

    It was a notable exception, wasn’t it?

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Yes. Who knows? We might find common ground on something else, but the social issues aren’t going to be it.

  • BlackOut says:

    Good for Akin. Just read he’s not backing down and he’s not dropping out of the race. Now that’s a man that sticks by his beliefs. No kowtowing to anyone by this guy.

    Not good for Romney as this is going to drag right into the convention. We’ll see if he gets “silenced”.

  • Ben Dover says:

    “Democrats cannot talk about the economy or anything else that voters care about, so they’re trying to scare the voters witless by talking about social issues.”

    NateDogg614, I couldn’t agree more with your observation. Just yesterday I was cornered by a self-professed Democrat, and as soon as our conversation turned to the economy, he became Mr. Mush-Mouth, spouting all sorts of gibberish about Wall Street abuses, and Interest-Only Mortgages, and Irrational Economic Exuberance, and Credit Default Swapping, and Bank Stress-Testing, and Consumer Debt loads. You know, the boring stuff that no one really wants to hear about anyway when discussing the economy. For me, if you want to talk about the economy, it all comes down to one very simple sentence: “Where are the damn jobs, damnit?!”

    That’s all I need to say to ANYONE about the economy. “Where are the damn jobs, damnit?!” And, if they can’t answer me within about 5 seconds, I’m going to follow on with: “Damnit!!! Where are the damn jobs?!”

    Well, let me tell you – that nonsense that this supposed DemonRat (and let’s face it NateDogg, that’s what they are, aren’t they??) didn’t scare me in the least. Then, the sonofagun started pulling out all this social stuff, like abortion, and Welscare, and Chik-Fil-A being taken over by a homosexual board of directors, and some kind of GOP Death Panels for the elderly, and all of us having to eat Soylent Green, and so on and so forth, and after a few minutes I was totally scared shitless!! (Pardon my language, but I was damn scared!).

    In fact the fear that I experienced in that 20 minute time frame has me paralyzed to the point where I’m not sure if I can lift a beer bottle to my lips, which is saying something. I’m hoping that the fear subsides between now and November, but with this Akin thing happening and with people hating on Gov. Rick Scott from Florida, and with Jim Greer, Former GOP of Florida chairman’s indictment for embezzling $100K in party funds, I’m worried about the convention in Tampa – very worried.

  • Confused says:

    Oh, he meant to say “forcible rape” not “legitimate rape”, that explains it, right?

    Forcible = Legitimate

    OK, Todd

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/todd-akin-interview_n_1812052.html

  • Shiloh says:

    Nate – You said: “most voters are focused on jobs and the economy” and “I’m also of the opinion that the “war on women” is a distraction from issues that the voters are focused on, such as the economy, the debt, the budget and unemployment.”

    Nate, I don’t think you understand. For women, pregnancy IS an economic situation (whether it is an unwanted pregnancy caused by, for example, rape or a dearly wanted pregnancy). For women, pregnancy IS about the economy – her own personal or family economy; pregnancy IS about debt, her own or her family’s debt; it IS about the budget – her own or her family’s budget; and it IS about unemployment – when such things as the lack of affordable high-quality daycare make it difficult for her to hold a job. It IS about the economy and jobs when affordable birth control isn’t available and women have to suffer the consequences of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies which affect every aspect of their economic lives.

    So, Nate, this “war on women” isn’t some abstract thing which has descended from the ether – for women, it’s not a distraction, an esoteric, off-the-wall concept; it’s a very real part of every day, economic life, and cannot be separated from it.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    National Republican Senatorial Committee is pulling funding from Akin, along with some super PACs:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-todd-akins-rape-comments-abortion-is-back-in-the-campaign-spotlight/2012/08/20/c497bae4-eac7-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

    But he’s not going anywhere he says.

    What a mess.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Great piece in the WSJ:

    Todd Akin’s Sinking Ship – The Missouri Republican Tries To Lose A Senate Seat

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443989204577601781595726706.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    The Google headlines for Todd Akin make for some scary reading. But don’t worry he’s going to win this race “by the grace of God”.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    In all my life as a Democrat who supports NARAL and Planned Parenthood, I’ve never met anyone who’s pro-abortion. Everyone is pro-choice, but I’ve never heard one person say “I wish there were more abortions”. Contrary to the religious wingnuts, who seem to think we cruise around and when we spot a pregnant women we pull over and try and shanghai her to the closest clinic.

    Anyways, I’m sure that the current god, guns, gays and abortion social bullshit will seem as odd and borderline incomprehensible to Americans 100 years from now as Jim Crow laws and the women’s suffrage movement are to us today. I’m sure that they’ll have a hard time imagining how gays were once denied basic rights and women were forced to abide by the opinions of old religious men. Just as we can’t figure out why women weren’t allowed to vote and blacks were outright banned from many places or forced to be apart from whites in others.

    Well, I guess most of us, certainly not guys like Akin and the many, many Republicans who believe exactly the same as he does.

  • Ashburer says:

    Where are the Jobs? Try the big 3 automakers. Thanks to payed back government loan.

    Look at the jobs chart http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

    Recessions starts before Obama in office…ends 1.5 years later and employment is steadily getting better. We got out of the recession pretty fast.

  • Independent voter says:

    These crazy old, and not so old, white men (aka GOP Taliban) won’t be happy until all the women in the US are covered head to foot and walking behind. Oh, they’ll take way our drivers’ licenses too. What a bunch of crazies–and Akin and Black are the movement’s poster boys. Old farts running wild.

  • Dan says:

    It is clear that Almighty God is displeased with the Republicans for the shabby way they have treated that Godly man, Todd Akin. He is directing a hurricane at Tampa just as the apostate Republicans are gathering there. What further proof do you need of God’s displeasure?

    We know this is how God punishes mortals who hack Him off. So many Godly Republicans have told us so. Hurricane Katrina was God’s judgement on abortion and those icky homosexuals. Earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis are all used by God to demonstrate his displeasure on evil sinners. The Godly Pat Robertson even told us that the attacks of 9/11 were due to lesbian feminists and the American Civil Liberties Union. Civil liberties indeed! Believers know that the only liberties needed are those issued by God Himself (Through God’s Republican Party, of course).

    How can anyone doubt that Hurricane Isaac is God’s judgement on the Republican Party for its sins against His man Todd Akin .

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Dan

    By your own (obviously sarcastic) logic, where does that leave the Democrat(ic) Party?

    I’d say they are royally Fluked.

  • BlackOut says:

    God has summoned the hurricane to wash away those who doubt the wisdom of Akin. No one is to leave unwashed.

  • Dan says:

    Nate,

    Because of my close, lifelong relationship with the Almighty, I am very familiar with the Big Guy. I know, for instance, that God never, ever drinks diet beer (in fact, He considers it the work of Satan). He has always driven a GM car with a V8 engine (ok, a V6 in more recent times). And He has always been a registered Democrat.

    So, the rantings of the false prophets and various religious crackpots who have taken over the Republican Party aside, I don ‘t think the Democratic Party has anything to be concerned about. The Republicans, on the other hand, must have really torqued God off pretty good for Him to have aimed a hurricane at them.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Yep, I’m sure that God would approve of this. You know, seeing as how He’s a registered Democrat and all:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/23/President-Infanticide-Dem-Plank-Partial-Birth

  • Dan says:

    Speaking of Todd Akin and the Missouri Senate race, Claire McCaskill just tweeted:

    “Rasmussen poll made me laugh out loud. If anyone believes that, I just turned 29. Sneaky stuff.”

    How cynical of her! Why would anyone think that Rasmussen would put up phony numbers to drive a narrative and try to achieve something other than straight polling?

    Oh, wait! Yeah. Rasmussen has a long history of this sort of thing. The only Rasmussen poll you can pay any attention to is the final one of any given election cycle. That one has to be legitimate because that is the one that is remembered and compared to other pollsters. That’s the one that establishes their “credibility”. Earlier in a cycle they are the kings of driving the Republican narrative.

    It’s pretty obvious that Rasmussen is trying to assist the Republican effort to convince Akin to drop out. But they may have gotten a bit carried away with this joke of a poll. Sure, we all believe Akin is ten points behind. Wink, wink.

    I think even Todd Akin is smart enough to figure this one out.

  • Dan says:

    Nate,

    Forgive me, but I won’t be clicking that link. You want to link to a credible source of an opinion with which I may disagree and I’ll be happy to click on it and read all sorts of opinions on all sorts of issues. But breitbart.com? Really?

    Linking to sources with well documented histories of fabricating and lying to support wild claims and untruthful and unfounded allegations isn’t likely to strengthen whatever argument you may be attempting to make. And if persuadable folks then discover the nature of the “sources” you are directing them to they will think that you too have as little credibility as those “sources”.

    I have no desire to drive the traffic of the web sites of disreputable people like that.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    As a quick sidebar, it looks like John Douglass, who is running for Congress in the 5th District against Rep. Robert Hurt, may have, er, “hurt” his chances at winning the seat:

    http://jhpolitics.com/2012/08/virginia-democrat-seems-angry/

  • Dan says:

    Trackers are a fact of life in a modern campaign. It’s something every candidate should be aware of and treat largely like the weather. Why complain? You can’t change it.

    Swatting at the camera is never a winning move. Never.

    Having said that, Aren’t you the least bit curious to see more than nine seconds of that video? Wouldn’t a reasonable, objective person want to know why we were only treated to nine seconds? Why such a tight edit was needed to give the desired impression?

    The job of a tracker is simple. You follow the candidate and point a camera at him. That’s it. You don’t interact and you don’t attempt to provoke.

    Now, we have no way of knowing whether this tracker was trying to provoke a reaction. Maybe he wasn’t. But it seems to me that the point would be more powerfully made if the nine seconds we saw was proceeded by a stretch of video showing the tracker behaving properly and doing nothing to get a rise out of the guy.

    Until I see more of it than this very selective little edit I call bullshit on this one. Not that the candidate shouldn’t have controlled his emotions in any case. He should have. But I suspect these nine seconds don’t tell us anything like the whole story.

    That’s what made the “macacca” moment so astonishing. The tracker was just holding a camera and creating no controversy at all. He was just filming. And completely out of the blue Allen singled the kid out and made an ass of himself. A completely unforced error. If the tracker had been heckling Allen that would have somewhat mitigated Allen’s odd outburst.

    Call me cynical, but I bet dollars to donuts we will never see the video immediately preceding these nine seconds.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “Trackers are a fact of life in a modern campaign. It’s something every candidate should be aware of and treat largely like the weather. Why complain? You can’t change it.”

    I quite agree and candidates should anticipate it.

    “Swatting at the camera is never a winning move. Never.”

    I quite agree with that as well. Will it have an effect in this case? Seeing as how he’s not a Republican/conservative, I don’t know. If he was, the media would be on it like white on rice.

    “Having said that, Aren’t you the least bit curious to see more than nine seconds of that video? Wouldn’t a reasonable, objective person want to know why we were only treated to nine seconds? Why such a tight edit was needed to give the desired impression?”

    Yes, I would like to see the rest of it, actually.

    “The job of a tracker is simple. You follow the candidate and point a camera at him. That’s it. You don’t interact and you don’t attempt to provoke.”

    Agreed.

    “Now, we have no way of knowing whether this tracker was trying to provoke a reaction. Maybe he wasn’t. But it seems to me that the point would be more powerfully made if the nine seconds we saw was proceeded by a stretch of video showing the tracker behaving properly and doing nothing to get a rise out of the guy.”

    That is a perfectly legitimate observation. I will note, however, that it doesn’t look like whoever was holding the camera was engaged in conversation with him. Rather, he was talking to the other folks next to him. I agree though, we would need to see more of the tape.

    “Until I see more of it than this very selective little edit I call bullshit on this one. Not that the candidate shouldn’t have controlled his emotions in any case. He should have. But I suspect these nine seconds don’t tell us anything like the whole story.”

    Not calling BS just yet. But, just as you said, I’d like to see more.

    “That’s what made the “macacca” moment so astonishing. The tracker was just holding a camera and creating no controversy at all. He was just filming. And completely out of the blue Allen singled the kid out and made an ass of himself. A completely unforced error. If the tracker had been heckling Allen that would have somewhat mitigated Allen’s odd outburst.”

    Yearning for another one, are we?

    By the by, I did provide a series of links for you from National Review, Weekly Standard, Politico, and American Thinker (since Brietbart.com was not sufficient). I will admit that I was hoping to find out why you refered to Brietbart.com of “well documented histories of fabricating and lying to support wild claims and untruthful and unfounded allegations.” Could I trouble you for examples of that?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    ” I will admit that I was hoping to find out why you refered to Brietbart.com of “well documented histories of fabricating and lying to support wild claims and untruthful and unfounded allegations.” Could I trouble you for examples of that?”

    If you are provided examples, how will this change your thinking Nate?

  • NateDogg614 says:

    edmund,

    Depends on what the examples are. I will admit, that I think you have as much of a chance of changing my views on the important issues of the day as I have changing yours. Nevertheless, I am always interested in hearing what the other side has to say (even if I ultimately don’t agree with it) as we have to keep the diaglogue going from one side to the other.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Nate, it’s interesting that you refer to me as “the other side” since I give money to some Republicans currently and have voted for Republicans in the past — for president and other elected positions.

    “The other side” has a growing number of independent thinkers and people that don’t care for the odd blending of social “conservatives” (radicals in my view), and fiscal Randians (not conservative either).

    So while I appreciate you admitting I have little chance of changing your views, you really can save your breath. People romanced by dogma and ideology have views based in faith rather than reason — and I already know that.

    Only long walks in the desert will change your views…

  • NateDogg614 says:

    edmund, I was speaking in general terms when I was refering to “the other side.” Not you specifically. And I would suggest that there are independent thinkers on both sides of the spectrum. And it is not impossible to have views that are based both in faith and in reason — the two are not incompatable.

    Still waiting for examples regarding Brietbart.com…..

  • NateDogg614 says:

    I’m surprised that the Washington Post would report on this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/household-income-is-below-recession-levels-report-says/2012/08/23/aa497460-ec80-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

    But hey, vote for 4 more years of Obama and the odds of birth control being available on every street corner and abortion on demand, without exception, at every hospital will improve! Because, after all, that’s what the voters REALLY care about! Am I right folks? ;)

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I rest my case.

Leave Comment