No Peace Between Socons and the Rest of the GOP
It’s a marriage made somewhere south of heaven and north of the infernal regions. Joined at the hip and at each others throats for most of the last 30 years, social conservatives and the rest of the Republican Party can’t seem to help themselves in forming circular firing squads when something like the Todd Akin foofaraw erupts. The fact that the GOP has lost only three presidential elections in that time frame is remarkable considering the quadrennial bloodletting in the primaries and the barely concealed platform fights that threaten to break into open warfare over social issues.
When the Todd Akin story broke, there was an immediate call from party regulars, most of the internet right, and the conservative punditocracy for the hapless congressman to take a very long walk off a very short pier and slip back into a well-deserved anonymity, leaving the race to someone who wouldn’t shoot himself in the head when aiming for his foot.
But something happened on the way to Akin’s withdrawal party: a bevy of social conservatives rallied to his side and insisted that his toxic remarks about rape and idiotic notions of female biology were, at most, a minor irritant and nothing for the “establishment” to go ballistic over.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was almost nonchalant about Akin’s nuclear bomb of a gaffe. “We’re talking about someone who misspoke,” Perkins said. I suppose that’s one way to put it. Another way to put it would be to say that Akin is a scientific illiterate with 19th century notions of rape and the towering lack of judgment not to know when to keep his ignorance to himself. “I used the wrong words in the wrong way, and for that I apologize,” Akin said. The problem is that it is impossible to apologize for being stupid. Nobody is buying the “I misspoke” defense because it was crystal clear — and will be made more so by Democrats from now until the election — that Akin believed what he said and the fact that he was informed afterward that he was wrong doesn’t cut it. “Now you tell me” isn’t a defense either.
Akin still might have withdrawn had former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee not rallied to his side and encouraged the candidate to leap off the cliff with the rest of the social right. Huckabee’s statement is a mind-boggling mixture of denial and spite.
The Party’s leaders have for reasons that aren’t rational, left [Akin] behind on the political battlefield, wounded and bleeding, a casualty of his self-inflicted, but not intentional wound. In a Party that supposedly stands for life, it was tragic to see the carefully orchestrated and systematic attack on a fellow Republican. Not for a moral failure or corruption or a criminal act, but for a misstatement which he contritely and utterly repudiated. I was shocked by GOP leaders and elected officials who rushed so quickly to end the political life of a candidate over a mistaken comment in an interview. This was a serious mistake, but it was blown out of proportion not by the left, but by Akin’s own Republican Party. Is this what the party really thinks of principled pro-life advocates? Do we forgive and forget the verbal gaffes of Republicans who are “conveniently pro-life” for political advantage, but crucify one who truly believes that every life is sacred?
Who ordered this “Code Red” on Akin? There were talking point memos sent from the National Republican Senatorial Committee suggesting language to urge Akin to drop out. Political consultants were ordered to stay away from Akin or lose future business with GOP committees. Operatives were recruited to set up a network of pastors to call Akin to urge him to get out. Money has changed hands to push him off the plank. It is disgraceful. From the spotlights of political offices and media perches, it may appear that the demand for Akin’s head is universal in the party. I assure you it is not. There is a vast, but mostly quiet army of people who have an innate sense of fairness and don’t like to see a fellow political pilgrim bullied.
What’s next, Mike. “We are the 30%”?
So despite the fact that GOP heavyweights from Mitt Romney down to Senator John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, were urging him to withdraw, Akin dug in his heels thanks to single-issue fanatics who see the campaign against the candidate as a personal affront, an attack on their issues. No doubt socons have a right to be paranoid. There are many in the party who wish that the economy and budget were front and center with social issues taking a back seat to the concerns of the vast majority of Americans who care about jobs. Now, apparently, the GOP has been forced into a debate on abortion — or at least Mr. Huckabee and his allies have placed the party in a position where they will be forced to defend the “no exceptions” abortion plank in the platform. The fact that only 20% of the country agrees with that stance means that as a practical political matter, the argument is a loser from the get-go, regardless of its “morality.” (Hint: Most people don’t like being branded “immoral” for holding a position different from social conservatives.)
The ultimate problem is that social conservatives are essentially for big government. Not just in social policy, but every aspect. GWB, alas, was only slightly better than Obama, quite possibly the 2nd worst president in history (those two made Jimmy Carter look good).
Beyond that, I really doubt they are that big a block – much of the really socially conservative people in the US are blacks, who just aren’t going to vote Republican.
This. Big government, “compassionate conservative” statists. Far too many of them, at least.
And yet, you can’t recognize that Todd Akin isn’t one. I suspect you just aren’t knowledeable regarding Akin.
Please. PLEASE.
When you hear something in the media, and then find PJ Media commentators agreeing with it, step back a pace and take a breath before your fingers fly across your keyboard.
You might even open a new window and just dig a little into the subject. Doesn’t it bother you…just a tiny bit…that so many of the PJ Media bloggers jumped on exactly the same bandwagon as the obviously-Leftist-Media?
That doesn’t make you take a step back, all by itself? Maybe….just maybe…people you assume are Constitutionalists really aren’t?
This is why I call them Nationalist Progressive Socialists. They’re PATRIOTIC. It suckers Constitutionalists into believing “that guy’s just like me”.
No, he’s not.
Obama is an Internationalist Progressive Socialist. He wants the U.N. to run the world.
George Bush is a Nationalist Progressive Socialist. He wants the U.S. to run the world.
Both want government to tell each of us how to live our lives. Nationalist Progressives are running the Republican Party.
Why do you think Newt Gingrich has interview after interview where he says, “Well, I really consider myself more of a progressive.” He’s not saying “I’m for progress.” He’s saying “I believe you can force people to change. Central Planners can run society. Beaurocrats know better than individuals what things should cost.”
Agreed. Social conservatives would switch sides very quickly and without much contrition. They are a wobbly alliance.
Social conservatives apt to switch sides at the drop of a hat? Not any that I know. They would no more vote for a Democrat than they would for Attila the Hun.
These so cons about which you speak are either incredibly politically naive or just plain stupid if they imagine there is a home for them with the Party of Death.
Social Conservatives most certainly would flock to the Democrats if the Democrats started fighting abortion and defending marriage while the Republicans decided they want nothing to do with us. And if neither party will have us, we’ll start our own. We started the Republican Party for the purposes of abolishing slavery; if the Republican Party is too far gone to save, we’ll start a new one and let the Republicans go the way of the Whigs, because like the Whigs they refused to address the moral issues of the day.
Yes! And don’t get me started on the stupidity of the SoCons. Why would any supposed conservative be talking about anything besides the economy? This idiot took an easy win and turned it into a fiasco.
But can there be any free market economy with out personal responsiblity? Can thre be any personal responsiblity without a sense of morality (right/wrong)? As a Both Con (fiscal and social) I see both going together, and not really seperable. I do however understand that most people can only see the obverse and not care about the reverse of the coin at any given time.
With that said I will be voting for a little R and R from our current policies.
I think free enterprise does need to be guided by moral principles such as honesty, industriousness, and responsibility for our own actions, but how does a moral opposition to abortion affect the free enterprise system? I have read a lot of economic philosophy and the pro life position has never been in any of those readings. Maybe you can enlighten me on how this works. ABO2012
You are speaking of Romney, correct? Akins said nothing that cannot be explained by FACTS.
That the MSM choose to spin it to the 0bumblers advantage is understandable. That a bunch of RINOs tried to tar and feather Akins and run him out of town on a rail is not.
There are no Socons. There are just conservatives and Republicans. If you are not socially conservative, you are not conservative. If all that matters to you is the economy, you are a Clinton democrat, AKA RINO. Pre-Clinton conservatives were mostly fiscal conservatives.
Clinton used that fact to move the Democrats onto common ground with the (R)’s. Slick Willie’s genius was finding the middle ground between two diverse parties.
I dare you to call Billy Blue Dress a conservative.
What you RINO’s can’t seem to get your mind around is that electing moral conservatives will solve the fiscal problem along with dozens of other problems.
I live in Missouri. Akins will win. Not because he is such a nice guy but because McCaskill is such a clunker.
Murdering an unborn child is never the answer. It matters not what the question was.
as long as they can keep the economy on everyone’s mind, the republicans have a good chance to take all three houses. They gain nothing and lose everything by going off-topic, which is why the democrats are harping on it so much.
Akin needs to step down not because he’s a social conservative, but because he’s a moron. The sooner he STFU and goes away, the sooner things can get back on track. He’s already done enough damage, and if he stays in the dems will ride this donkey until election day and probably right back into the white house.
Sorry, but Akin said what he said in the stupidist way possible. That’s inexcusable in the media climate we inhabit. No, it’s not fair, but neither is life or did your mother decline to drill that lesson into your head?
I could stand with Akin is all he said was the part about legitimate rape. That could be easily countered as the left having vapors over something that could be easily spun to make hay over nothing. I think we can all agree on that.
But to say that your body tries to shut down in response to rape on top of it? Even as someone who has a body that is very sensitive to lots of stress and knows how that can affect a woman’s cycles, what he said is a stretch to defend. You can’t go from something that sometimes happens when you get under a ton of stress to something that happens almost all the time when you get raped easily enough to make that remark defendable.
Add the two comments together and it’s just too much. Akin should do the pragmatic thing and step aside. And I say that as someone who mostly agrees with his pro-life stance.
nonsense, if the women’s body gets abused during rape it quite often rejects eggs etc. If you think that a woman’s body does not react to high stress you are delusional. Women soldiers, athletes, etc. frequently have a hard time getting pregnant because of the stresses involved with their lifestyle. If you don’t think getting raped can be the most stressful thing a woman can face, I suggest you go do a term in prison some time.
The social conservaticve have only one thought. Think as I do or else.
Oh, BS. The fact that there has been an alliance of competing views on issues that matter to social conservatives put that ridiculous claim of yours to rest.
I agree with you, stoicheion, wholeheartedly. Here’s a quote I picked up one year ago from another commenter over at spectator.org: “Moral squalor and fiscal immorality go hand in hand.” His name was Derek Leaberry, and he still posts there from time to time. He is so right, and so are you.
The fact of the matter is that orthodox Christianity, not the country-club variety, is viewed as hopelessly ignorant and foolish and obstructionist to the more “enlightened” goals of not only our elites but of our run-of-the mill drones as well.
Do take a moment to see what Diana West has to say about this Akin brouhaha today at her website: http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2216/The-GOP-Akin-Problem-Is-Worse-than-They-Think.aspx
Wrong, stoicheion. There are no facts to support Akin’s(and your assertions). This is the problem. I hope you are right about the Missouri Senate race, because I am coming after you with a pitchfork if this idiot allows the Communists to maintain control of the Senate. ABO2012
The “facts” support Akins as much as they support AGW. There IS statistical “evidence” (yes, sneer quotes) that adrenalin could be a contraceptive. Certain birth control chemicals can trigger an adrenalin rush. It is being researched as we type. It has yet to be determined if the chemicals act to prevent ovulation, or if the chemicals trigger the adrenalin, which blocks ovulation or acts as a spermicide. Akins only “crime” was getting ahead of himself.
Plus this flies in the face of the current liberal response to rape, which is to relax and enjoy it. Liberals DO NOT want any fighting back. On anything.
You better upgrade your arsenal when you come for me.
Actually, the theory that fighting rape produces adrenalin and acts as birth control is beside the point.
That unborn baby has committed no crime worth the death sentence. Abortion IS MURDER. Period. Abortion is NEVER the answer, no matter what the question was.
Haji can’t shoot.
Well, you must know more about Missouri politics than Missourians. Sure, it makes sense to me. All those people who were going to vote for Todd Akin will CLEARLY now vote for Claire McCaskill. Yep.
Oh, and don’t forget that Romney isn’t competent to run his own campaign. See, Todd Akin is actually directly responsible for the success or failure of Mitt Romney. Todd Akin “shares” responsibility with all politicians for their success and failure.
Right? Becuase Old Soldier, you believe in personal responsibility, right? An old soldier like you doesn’t believe in that Progressive tripe of “shared responsibility”. Oh no, no, no. You’re too smart for that. You’re a “Conservative”.
Calling people that you want to vote for your side “stupid” is poor policy. Republicans can’t win without the social conservatives. That’s a simple fact. Demonizing people who you need isn’t very bright.
What Akins said was undeniably stupid. Since when has stupidity been a disqualifier for elected office? Biden? Quayle? About half the members of Congress (and Obama)?
They don’t seem to understand that if a centralized government continues to expand these social issues will increasingly be interpreted by nameless bureaucrats, interpreting regulations written in vague language to suit the collective. Let us first decide how much government is too much government. Let us decide if liberty and private property still matter. Let us not get sidetracked.
We have a 4 year old, but otherwise fairly accurate indicator of how big the socon block is: in 2008, Huckabee got 22% of the delegates. That’s the tail that demands to wag the dog.
Agreed
I always thought that SoCons wanted Freedom of Rel so they could practice what they believe. What they really want is to force all of us to practice what they believe. If they can’t have all of it, they will stay home and not vote, giving the Choice crowd the chance to force all of us to do the libtard dance.
I would rather get where we can each practice what we believe, not be forced to pay for other’s abortions, to be free to discuss my opinions, and not be persecuted by the government PC police.
R & R should be strongly supported as a chance to shift toward freedom. Aiken should have gotten the message and let another run. It’s fine that he believes that all Abortion is wrong, but on a practical matter can we work to minimize Abortions rather than give control to the side that wants more and more of it.
Define minimum.
Oh wait, Ayn Rand already defined it for you: potential vs. actual.
Define a potential human being.
The anonymous post here is mine, but I needed to go eat something.
Sperm and eggs are potential human beings. Everything from a zygote to a geriatric is an actual human being.
If so, I would bet that babies are dying every 10th time the toilet flushes at my house.
If immoral-cons need socon votes, and socons need the GOP to advance their interests, could you show me an example of anything the socons have gotten from the GOP in the last 30 years? Looks to me like the alliance has outlived its usefulness, 28 years ago. Please stop referring to the Founders as pre-Libertartians. Do you understand that the 1st Amendment was passed to prevent the Fed govt from interfering with States’ officially-established religions? That blasphemy (against Chritianity only) was a Common Law crime, punishable by death? That sodomy was also a capital offense? That some States restricted voting to those who would take an oath affirming various Christian doctrines? The Founders were men who understood that no human society had ever existed without religion. As modern Europe rejects religion, their birthrate approaches zero, and they are soon to be displaced by people who do take religion seriously (Mohammedanism, unfortunately). Ayn Rand was a sociopathic freak, and Whittaker Chambers’ review of one of her novels with the phrase “everywhere we hear the words — to the gas chambers, quickly” was exactly right. Rightists can never trust Libertarians, because any time the choice is brought down to the individuals’ personal anti-social perversion (cut the cr*p, we all know that’s what’s behind it all) vs. government programs, his individual kink will win every time. The idea that totally immoral people can live together in peace is a fantasy making Marxism look like Adam Smith. And Adam Smith, a religious man, wouldn’t have let a Libertarian within a mile. Economics is a part of human society, and a minor part, at that. Want to take a poll of Omaha Beach survivors and ask how many risked their lives for capitalism? Interestingly, it would be about the same percentage of Russians at Stalingrad who risked their lives for Communism (Great Patriotic War, remember?). Of course, no Libertaian would dream of risking his life for anyone else, so they won’t be represented.
I like you, Jacobite; I’m going to make sure I always read your comments — you have important things to say.
@Galt
“What they really want is…” Sound a lot like a Prog there, don’t you. Who the h… are you to say what “social conservatives”, ie 20% or so of your fellow citizens, “really want”. Maybe we “SoCons” really want a seat at the table and a fair opportunity to be heard? Maybe we really believe abortion is morally- clearly not legally- murder? Maybe that’s an argument worth making?
Akins was blabbering a bunch of nineteenth century prejudice with the body shuts down/legitimate rape BS, and he ought to get out. Don’t paint the whole
pro-life movement with his stupidity, and please refrain from using your prejudices to place friendly fire on folks who you probably agree with on 70% of the issues. That is really stupid.
And yet it is the Left and libertarians who are clamoring for government to get out of the bedrooms…by have the governments endorse behavior that goes on in the bedrooms.
Newsflash: Government wasn’t involved in abortion until Roe v. Wade and it wasn’t involved in gay marriage until the turn of the century.
But its “socons” that want big government.
Reagan is considered to be in the Socon club, was he just as much of a failure as GWB?
It also is something to hear Akin being denounced for his ignorance on science from people who ignore what biology has to say on when human life begins. Hint: It’s at conception. So just keep this in mind if you’re going to skin Akin alive for his ignorance about science. (I’m not going to defend his horrible communication skills.)
Now, we can start the conservative civil war right now or we can try to win the elections. It seems that plenty of you who despise the socons seem more interested in the former than the latter, so what will it really be with you? How about not taking potshots at a significant portion of the movement and limiting your criticisms to Akin’s inability to communicate effectively, at least until after the election?
Yes, Kansas is an unholy mess because of the leftists and the big government soc-cons who think you can legislate morality. All to often their aims collude.
I’ll be honest, I’m a conservative in my social views and I’ll argue that way all day long, but I draw the line when it comes to legislation. The law does not make anyone free, and I’d much rather be free and independent than anything else. Not only that, but I truly believe that God wants you to choose to be a moral Christian and live correctly of your own free will. Trying to use the law to compel redemptive behavior is cheating and immoral IMO besides. That’s why I say I’m conservative who leans libertarian.
Yes!
No. Some things are moral issues that are basic enough to require support in law. Robbery, rape, murder. Murder- that consists of the unjustifiable killing of one of our fellow humans. And an unborn child is… one of us? Worth considering the idea?
By the way, avoiding harm is not “redemptive behavior”, and punishing those who do harm isn’t either. Usually it’s called justice.
Which is why I say there is no such thing as a social “conservative” to begin with.
You can be conservative socially, but the moment you insist on making others behave the same way you stop being conservative politically, and leap right on over to the government control side of the spectrum, no matter how restrained you want to be on spending, or how much behavior you say you want to exempt from government control for now.
If you are socially conservative, proselytize as you please, but don’t knock excessively at my door.
And how does your definition apply to people who want to use the government to prosecute murder? Or to enforce contracts? Are they advocates for government control too?
Rick Moran and other Nationalist Progressives are great at branding others with made-up phrases and improperly used words.
“Social Conservative” is usually code for “Nationalist Progressive”. These are the folks who would legislate their morality onto the rest of us, just like the Internationalist Progressives are trying to do (see the last 4 years).
Why do Nationalist Progressives, who are just as Progressive as the “Social Conservatives”, try to draw a distinction? They both want to use government to force their philosophy on the rest of us. It’s because they can use it to divide the citizenry.
Neither group is “Conservative”, which is short for “Constitutional Conservative”. Constitutional Conservative folks have started calling themselves Tea Partiers to force the distinction back into the lexicon. Progressives will attempt to coopt the Tea Party handle, eventually, if they can’t frighten it out of existence by calling us Radical Extremists, Children, Intolerant Racists, Stubborn, or any number of ad hominem.
Guys, we have to stick to the labels that are correct. It’s critical, otherwise we’ll end up with this nonsense hung around our necks, just like the Progressives have taught the world that Nazis were actually “Right-wing”.
No, the farther Right you go, the closer to Anarchy you get. The farther Left you go, the closer to Totalitariansim you get. Nazis (National Socialist Worker’s Party) were union thugs turned into a Socialist political movement. That’s distinctly Left-wing.
But ask any teenager which side of the political spectrum the Nazis were on, and you’ll get the backwards answer spoon-fed to them by their Worker’s Party….I mean, “union” teachers.
Breeze through the comments here. You’ll see Progressive after Progressive trying to tar Constitutional Conservatives with the “Social Conservative” brush. Most of us don’t want a theocratic government. That’s you guys. Whether you use Christianity, Islam, or Atheism as your relgion of choice.
There’s a real run on dumb comments here. Is this what Libertarianism is? I again point out that proscriptive law- the you shall nots, is necessary to any polity. No murder, no theft, no breaking contracts. The whole Bill of Rights is basically aimed at these negative rights. Returning to a clear understanding of those rights is as essential to finding fiscal sanity as it is to returning to social sanity.
The arrogance from those trying to disown social conservatives while claiming that they represent “real” conservatism sounds like a bunch of lefties sitting around a bar-room table congratulating themselves on how smart they are. This isn’t conservatism, it’s self appointed elitism every bit as obnoxious as the worst of the lefties. Is this what Libertarianism is- another nobody’s as smart as us(and I’m righter than you) bunch of snobs?
If social conservatives want more government on some issues and libertarian leaning conservatives want less, the US constitution allows a workable solution. Social Conservatives, in local communities where they are the majority, should be be able to vote for more government involvement in their lives. People who disagree can choose to live in a different community with different laws. Most metropolitan areas are already sorted into areas with good schools where people raise children and almost child-free areas populated by singles. The problem is we’re using the big dumb federal government to apply one size fits all policies on a very divided country.
Social conservatives do have a valid complaint about unelected judges invalidating the laws they do get passed at the local and state level. I would hope that all Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians can agree to work together to get more judges that follow the constitution.
And the largest percentage vote for the Libertarian Party candidate for Pres was what?
The frustrating part of this is that there are social conservatives who essentially want to lose. They would rather lose than compromise, and know damn well that with that attitude they’ll never win, never have to govern anything, never had to make decisions, never be responsible for anything. This is much of the Republican Party here in California, where if they ran on a *political* and *financial* conservative platform, might stand an iceberg’s chance in hell of getting elected. Instead, they insist on running as social conservatives, with the understanding that their stance will have little if any effect on abortion law, or anything else: but they have to be in the minority, so that they can whine about how the evil Democrats are doing Bad Things to the country.
It makes you want to weep. The country’s going over a fiscal cliff and we’re going to talk about when abortion is proper, and whether Republicans are misogynists. Did Obama hypnotize this Akin idiot, or bribe him?
I think the Devil bit him in the ass.
“It makes you want to weep. The country’s going over a fiscal cliff and we’re going to talk about when abortion is proper, and whether Republicans are misogynists”
Well then, why dont the whining “moderates” of the GOP just S.T.T.U. about these utterly meaningless, mionor and insignificant comments being manipulated by The Left, and just move on?
You folks are hypnotized by The Left, and go into convulsions whenever they wiggle their latests shiny object of distraction…
They are playng YOU like a fiddle…
And its really annoying to watch YOU GUYS fall into their trap,
Because YOU GUYS lack the courage to stand up and say:
“so f*cking what, we dont care, got bigger fish to fry, nice try to deflect the issues of the day, you dirty Partisan Media propagandists”
This is their game David… if it wasnt THIS comment it would be Trevon Martin, or whatever else they and their enablers “claim” is “the” defining issue.
Forming the circular firing squad to kill one of our own, is a power YOU GIVE TO THEM by not recognizing this reality.
Oh, and P.S…
The REASON the country is going off a financial cliff, is because of the twisted “compromise” in Basic Morals…the left pulls, and you follow, just to “show how reasonable” you all are.
16 trillion in debt, because people like you are too afraid to be percieved as “all trailerparkie” by The Beautiful People on Left you secretly adore.
Root ’83 has one of the best d*mn posts of the day.
I am very discouraged to read all the scathing comments about socially conservative patriots here, including the ridiculous comments that they want to “legislate morality”. I suppose that argument can be made, but I’m not sure where it ends since we as a country also legislate rape. It’s the pagan barbarians and islamists who believe that conquered women, and unattended women, are fair game for conquest, possession as property, and rape. Without social conservatives, rape itself as a crime does not exist as a concept!
So whether you realize it or not, our entire society and the constitution is based on judeo-christian principles. If you met a few christians who you don’t like, use your thinking cap. I have seen football games with players who didn’t know the rules, players who broke the rules on a regular basis, players who intentionally used legally valid rules to hurt others, referees who missed calls, referees who made obviously biased calls, coaches who were inept, or taught their players to cheat, or sought to win at all costs no matter whether it compromised their integrity, their players’ safety, or the safety of the other players. I’ve seen various forms of the above in peewee, Pop Warner, High School, College, and Pro Football. That doesn’t mean I don’t “believe” in football! Apply this construct to whatever resonates with you, whether that be NASCAR, Baseball, Basketball, Music, Art, Sculpture, Literature, Quilting, Antiquing, Dungeons and Dragons, or whatever floats your boat. Idiots, cheats, posers, amateurs and folks stumbling their way through all exist. Yet I don’t denigrate or discount sports, art forms, hobbies, or belief systems based on the actions of some of the people who participate in them, but on the prevailing majority of participants and/or the integrity of the form itself. Therefore I can say that I enjoy some sports such as football, while generally feeling that boxing is corrupt, even while acknowledging that football has its (often significant) problems. I can say that I enjoy rock and roll music (despite some misgivings about some of it), while generally feeling that punk and rap have been co-opted by ugly forces. Yet while believing punk is generally unhealthy, I acknowledge that my teen-age step-son and his mormon teenaged friends and their local punk rock band are a nice group of young men. I don’t really enjoy their music, but perhaps young men like that are the ones to reclaim that genre from the ugliness that prevails in it.
If you buy the media bs that we are all Westboro Baptists, then I don’t know what to tell you. I would suggest basing your opinions on your observations of christians in the real world, and by applying a reasonable standard of human frailty as in all other areas of life, instead of basing it on the oh-so-breathless media portrayals of those who struggle and obviously fail.
For the record: I think Akin is an idiot, and should have dropped off the ballot. We don’t owe our vote to social conservatives who don’t possess the aptitude for leadership, and we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that making progress towards our goal of defeating Obamacare and rolling back government over-reach will do far more good than standing “firm” on some misguided notion of principle.
I hope a write-in vote can save the seat.
>>there are social conservatives who essentially want to lose.
Blaze o’ glory. Akin standing over the wreckage of a Democrat-majority Senate heartily thanking those who helped him in the fight well fought, and declaring that while he may have been a political loser, he was a moral victor. Get your barf-bags ready.
David W. Nicholas
The frustrating part of this is that there are social conservatives who essentially want to lose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dumbest comment I’ve read today. You don’t even know who a “social conservative” is. You think anyone who doesn’t think like you is one.
Yeah, people WANT to lose. That makes perfect sense! And look, you’ve got a lemming right below who will agree with you. Genius.
Compromise has been part of the problem. People respect leaders who are uncompromising. Do you think Alexander the Great was a terrific military genius and one of the greatest “leaders” in history? Did he get where he was by compromising? “Oh yes, I’ll send my forces home and we’ll talk about it…”
Right.
You live in a fairy-tale world made up of the worst possible solutions. Everyone sit in a room and come to a consensus where everyone dodges responsiblity and we end up with a “solution” (assuming we come to one at all) that involves the least amount of risk to all parties.
Look, if you want to be sheep, be sheep. Just don’t offer your ding-dong opinion.
Christ died on the cross for our sins and now we are suppose to die on some cross for Todd Akin’s sins? What denomination of Christianity is that? I never heard of such a thing before. Bless him, but I think Mr. Huckabee needs to go back and read his Bible some more.
The reason we are going off hte cliff is because we have become an immoral and perverted nation.And now the amoral RINO’S want to dump any remaining virtue overboard so they can be more like the reprobate Democrats.
‘But as Klein points out, the Akin matter is a different story. The man revealed himself to be singularly unfit for office.’
I would bet you a poor mans $20 that Phillip Klein has never uttered the same words about our present corrupt criminal in Chief who has done more to irreparably damage this country.
That leaves a heavy indictment against every backstabbing Republican calling for Akins summary removal.
Why haven’t you cowards called for the removal of the Destroyer in Chief?
I already know the reason ,You’re hypocrites (including Hannity)
When the RINO Rick Perry tried to use religion to seduce the socon republican base it backfired on this latest con man so soon after the last RINO globalist Bush who successfully conned the stupid Christian voters for eight years have the RINO Romney soon to be nominated by the RINO Party.
The evangelicals are nothing but cheap and useful prostitutes for their vote to the Republican party and prostitutes are supposed to shut up and obey the pimp.
That’s what the Akin story is all about.
I don’t know Christians are in bed with a party which wants so bad to be like the democrats that you can’t tell them apart ?
I gave up long,long ago after bring lied to by these devious lying politicians and have come to the conclusion that the right wing is as corrupt as the left wing of this ugly vulture.
Conflating the dismissal of Akin’s idiotic position regarding a woman’s internal reproductive defense apparatus with amorality is a stretch at best. He may be a devout anti-abortion advocate, but he’s still an idiot. And this post is idiotic.
+1
Suppose I’ve hired a new salesman that a really great guy. Fine upstanding family man, honest as the day is long, has substantial sales experience in a smaller market.
Problem is that his first week on the job he said some really ignorant and offensive things during a presentation to a long term client that will likely cost me a substantial amount of business.
Do I keep him on because he’s a good guy?
Or do I fire his ass and get a new salesman to mend the damage and get back the clients that he pissed off?
You figure those are the only two choices?
How about option 3: you hire a guy who tells the customers that there’s practically no difference between your product and the competition’s. Their price is better, in fact. (But he’s got a really smooth delivery.)
Or option 4: you just leave his position unfilled, and all the stock sits in the warehouse unsold as your company bites the dust.
Mike Huckabee is about promoting Mike Huckabee…as always. Akin is just a handy prop.
What else would you expect from Huckabee; the man who gave us McCain in 2008?
No, ROMNEY gave us McCain in 2008. If Romney had endorsed Huckabee, or even just stayed in the race to the Convention, Huckabee would have been the nominee, and given the TARP fiasco, probably would have won, too. “Obama voted to bail out Wall Street!” is a powerful rallying cry, but one McCain couldn’t possibly use because he voted for it, too.
“The man revealed himself to be singularly unfit for office.”
Akin made a serious error in what he said, which goes beyond “misspoke,” but did this part of the interview really reveal that he is inept and “singularly unfit for office”? If this criteria were rigidly applied to all candidates for the senate and an occasion selectively targeted when they made a serious error, then none would be fit for office. It is a fact that no one is perfect. Even the most competent, hard-working and principled people mess up in life, both in word and deed. Clearly by using selective criteria we will justify the rejection of candidates simply because we disagree with them on one or other point and not because of their competency.
While I may not agree with Akin on this issue, there is another more serious issue that we would probably agree on. The highest estimates of abortions that are carried out for rape victims are around 8% of total. This means, that in at least 92% of cases of abortion, the woman or girl has got pregnant as a result of consensual sex. This number is huge by a factor of more than ten. When the mother or both biological parents decide on an abortion to get rid of the unwanted child this highlights their irresponsibility. A child should be conceived in a loving lifelong commitment of a man and woman to one another, welcomed with joy and raised responsibly. When a child is conceived outside of this commitment and abortion is used as a means of birth control, then it simply indicates the selfishness of the couple. They want the gratification or pleasure of sexual intercourse but with no further responsibility.
When the state advocates abortions and pays for them, it fails to encourage responsible sexual behavior and robs people of their accountability. This is what is really demeaning – not the refusal to pay for and encourage abortion as a means of birth control for irresponsible people. Once this issue has been honestly dealt with we will be better able to grapple with the more vexing issue of abortions in the case of rape or incest. The fury over Akin actually distracts from addressing two consequential but related issues: the huge number of unnecessary abortions annually and of many children born out of wedlock – both linked to a selfishness and a lack of responsibility of the individuals involved.
“The highest estimates of abortions that are carried out for rape victims are around 8% of total. This means, that in at least 92% of cases of abortion, the woman or girl has got pregnant as a result of consensual sex.”
All that that means is that women consent to sex a lot more than they are raped. It has nothing to do with whether or not rape can or cannot result in pregnancy. Akins, in an unguarded moment showed his honest belief that rape cannot result in pregnancy. And yet the statistic you quote shows that that is wrong. Akins is ill-informed, and handed the other side an issue they wanted to run on. for both those reason he needs to go.
And just because the Huckster is prolife doesn’t make him any less of a nanny-stater.
Though you read my comment you failed to address any of the three main points I made. I do believe that I expressed myself clearly.
Please follow the logical and plain sense of the language.
Children born out of wedlock have always been with us. It’s not a new phenomenon. Probably most people personally know of such a situation, and it is not a campaign platform to run on.
My point is that Akins is scientifically illiterate, and handed a huge Democratic talking point (they want evidence of a “war on women”.) We can do better.
Abortions from rape cannot be anywhere close to 8%. Its a lot harder to fertilize than that. Rape and Incest make up about 1%.
Huckabee might be morally right, but politically he is dead wrong. From what I have read, Akin isn’t that sharp, regardless of what he said about rape. He seems about on par with Joe Biden, which is not a happy spot to be in these days. I think Akin should go simply because he can’t win. And this year, more than any other year in our lifetime, we need to win. Sorry to have to be blunt about it, but it’s a fact. We must take control of the Senate to repeal Obamacare, and losing Missouri is not the way to do it. Akin needs to go for the good of the country and if he’s too egotistical to see that, then he really does deserve to be called a LOSER.
Stand up, Libertyship, and take a bow.
Where most everyone else is getting lost in the weeds, you have shown how truly simple this matter really is.
This is not about Todd Akin, even though he obviously thinks so. And this is not about the GOP, nor is it about standing up to the left.
This is about avoiding the certain suffering that will come from Obamacare.
This is about avoiding the collapse of Medicare and the resulting fiscal train wreck.
This is about avoiding the certain harm that will come from more leftist Supremes.
And so on…
Sorry to be blunt, but specifically we do not need Todd Akin.
But… we most likely will need that Senate seat.
And with him already down 10 points…
What this is about… is America’s future.
And, of course… that of your family.
Read my lips: We don’t care. As far as I’m concerned, if we can’t win running on social conservatism, we deserve what the Democrats will bring on us.
myth,
“If we can’t win running on social conservatism, then we deserve what the Democrats…”
Yes, but that’s not the point. We can unapologetically run on social conservatism, but that does not mean that any social conservative deserves our vote. I know many fine social conservatives who would made terrible elected leaders. That’s not a knock on them, it’s just a fact. Akin’s gift is not politics or leadership, at least not at a national or state level.
Who ordered this “Code Red” on Akin?
…that’s the problem, Dingleberry. Nobody did. The revulsion was immediate, heart-felt, reflex and across the board — excepting only the most pious — and it still is. And Huckabee and his nanny-staters can’t stand it.
Obama is now in better shape than a week ago.
Brilliant GOP performance all round, as usual, led by a fruit loop and backed by a catastrophic failure to control the damage. Rs have forgotten how to win. What’s left, a smug sense of entitlement, a silly grin and a dab of perfume?
Hint: Most people don’t like being branded “immoral” for holding a position different from social conservatives.
Amen. I am far to the right on all issues fiscal and foreign, but I absolutely will not allow my rather moderate social views to be defined and legislated by ‘social conservatives’ who pretend to hold all the keys to the kingdom and must, as a matter of conscience, bludgeon us all into conformity. What the hell do you think a conservative is?
You can be sure I’m not alone: the vital votes of Independents and alienated Rs and Ds — across the spectrum, in other words — are evaporating as we speak.
One glimmer of hope: the good people of MO are not as half-witted as the folks on display round here. May they get on the phone early and often.
You’re certainly not alone.
It’s why despite my conservative views on economics and foreign policy, I’m an Independent rather than a registered Republican.
With my pro-choice views on abortion (up thru the first trimester anyway), and my support for same-sex marriage, I would not be welcome in the GOP. This saddens me, because I would really like to work within the GOP to advance economic freedom, limited government, strong national defense, support for Israel, rollback of Islamism, etc.
But given the reaction I’ve gotten on other conservative blogs to my pro-choice and pro-gay marriage views, I think I had better stay out of the GOP. I don’t need daily abuse like that.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, the GOP used to have a socially libertarian wing that advocated for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and which was pro-choice on abortion. They were forced out–told to get out–and that’s that.
And you’re not alone, sinz54. This column and comments are like a breath of fresh air.
Huh, funny, but because of people like you, I stay out of the GOP because I am essentially pro-life and anti-government imposed redefinition of marriage for all although I support civil unions for all. I just get too much flack for being a Christian and unapologetic about it even though I’m really pro-tolerance/anti-PC and anti-legislation, pro-fiscal sanity, pro-national defense, pro-Israel and anti-Islamofascism. It also could be something to do with my belief that I shouldn’t have to pledge my allegiance to any party too. I’m also fiercely independent and always have been.
“that’s the problem, Dingleberry. Nobody did. The revulsion was immediate, heart-felt, reflex and across the board.”
Oh I’m sure it was very reflex.
The Republicans reflexivly tried to expell him and the Democrats reflexivly tried to push him closer.
That’s the core here. Politics. Nothing more.
Who’s pretending? Pope Benedict actually DOES hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven- a gift Jesus bestowed on Peter that has been passed down to his successors, most recently Benedict.
No, that won’t fly. You’re pretending. You also seem to overlook that Akin is Presbyterian not Catholic. To you all Christians look the same, maybe?
Well, not exactly: a good Catholic can believe in the power of metaphor and imagery, sometimes no doubt divinely inspired, even ineffable, but without any of the literal, fundamentalist bling found in Doofusville (well to the south of the place Presbyterians call home, somewhere near the spot where Rapture rockets are born).
Recall how those keys have been in some very foul paws over the years. Would you also argue that the BorgiaNo, that won’t fly. You seem to overlook that Akin is Presbyterian not Catholic. To you all Christians look the same, maybe?
Well, not exactly: a good Catholic can believe in the power of metaphor and imagery, sometimes no doubt divinely inspired, even ineffable, but without any of the literal, fundamentalist bling found in Doofusville (well to the south of the place Presbyterians call home, somewhere near the spot where Rapture rockets are born).
Recall how those keys have been in some very foul paws over the years. Would you also argue that the Borgia popes were annointed custodians for us all? Or would you have us ignore the fact that the definition of ‘doctrinal matters’ — on which notions of papal infalliblilty are based — has fluctuated more than the weather? Do you believe that Benedict ex officio has an open hotline to heaven? Hell, he doesn’t even believe that himself. popes were annointed custodians for us all? Or would you have us ignore the fact that the definition of ‘doctrinal matters’ — on which notions of papal infalliblilty are based — has fluctuated more than the weather? Do you believe that Benedict ex officio has an open hotline to heaven? Hell, he doesn’t even believe that himself.
Yikes! The turbo-scrambler must have be on overdrive. Ignore above. Here’s hoping the decoder ring is twisted correctly, try this:
No, that won’t fly. You’re pretending. You also seem to overlook that Akin is Presbyterian not Catholic. To you all Christians look the same, maybe?
Well, not exactly: a good Catholic can believe in the power of metaphor and imagery, sometimes no doubt divinely inspired, even ineffable, but without any of the literal, fundamentalist bling found in Doofusville (well to the south of the place Presbyterians call home, somewhere near the spot where Rapture rockets are born).
Recall how those keys have been in some very foul paws over the years. Would you also argue that the Borgia popes were annointed custodians for us all? Or would you have us ignore the fact that the definition of ‘doctrinal matters’ — on which notions of papal infalliblilty are based — has fluctuated more than the weather? Do you believe that Benedict ex officio has an open hotline to heaven? Hell, he doesn’t even believe that himself.
Pastor Mike hath sinned. Again. Jesus will forgive him; the rest of us will not be so understanding.
As usual with Rick, skip his post and read the comments. The Huskster keeps endorsung establishmebt candidates. Few care what he thinks.
We Americans and British once had a goal, to rid the world of Nazism. We made common cause with Soviet Russia. The German army lost 3 million in Russia and the Russians lost 6 million soldiers. Had the Russians made an early deal with Nazi Germany we British and Americans would have landed in the Normandy in 1944 facing 2 to 3 million more German soldiers. We would not have won!!! The defeat of a country inflicting mass murder necessitated, as Churchchill more or less said, a deal with the devil.
There are some 1,250,000+ abortions in the US each year. The Obama mandate is supposed to accomodate any woman with an unwanted or unplanned pregancy. According to the Guttmacher Institue (pro-abortion) there are more than 2,000,000 unplanned pregnancies each year in America. This means that Obamacare, potentially, could augment yearly abortions upto 3,250,000 per year. Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare. The result should be less abortions or, at least, a renewal of discussion.
I, from a Catholic point of view, hold abortion for a “mortal sin” or, simply, “murder”. What should I do if I happened to find the “Mormon” or Romeny evaluation of mass murder to be, well, not the exactly the one I want, though doing something to limit. Should I be a purist and simply vote for (at least not against) Obama? If Soviet Russia had not taken care of so many German soldiers how many more deaths had we Allies expeienced? And if we do not take care of Obama? What is the moral of my tale?
I in no way allow Huckabee or Perkins any claim whatsoever to being more anti-abortion than I. The strategic goal of the upcomming election is to defeat a certain mass murderer (from my standpoint), not to mention a centralizing leftist of extreme proportions. That is the goal–one we all share in, though perhaps at times for different reasons. Should some stalward co-fighter make a statement that weakens the forces against Obama, he should be removed if he does not freely remove himself. I remind the reader that the most effective general we had, Paton, was removed from duty because he slapped a shell-shocked soldier–and rightly so. (Later on he was granted, with worry, a second chance.) Huck and Perk are simply letting their “hate” for a secularized world (a dislike I share) to stand in the way of effective political strategy that would enable amelioration, though not perfection. If we fail to realize an effective strategy, we will be faced with an Obama victory as the WW II Allies would have been left with a triumphant Hitler without Soviet help. Bite the bullet and shoot the correct enemy! And if someone loads his gun falsely, get him of the firing line.
If social conservatives seriously weaken the campaign against Obama, in the name of high ideals–that they truely hold, then those such as Huckabee, Perkins and the rest will have de facto contributed to a continuation of the pre-infant slaughter (among other immoralities and false policies) that I fundamentally oppose. Willy/nilly, they will have contributed to the further institutionalization of what which they hold to be sin. And that is more than just being stupid!
Most women are not going to take the same views on abortion as Akin or Huckabee, and that is a simple fact of life.
They don’t like the idea of being forced to give birth when certain circumstances are involved like rape, incest, or their own health and well-being.
All men have a mother, many men have wives, and a lot of men have daughters.
The vast majority of these men are good and decent people, and likewise would not dream of forcing those they love to undergo a pregnancy resulting from the above noted circumstances.
It goes beyond that, however, in that these men also at some level are going to have an instinctive tendency to try to protect those they love – and in this particular argument they will want to protect these women in their lives from people with views like Akin’s.
This is why there was such a gut level negative reaction to Akin’s clearly espoused beliefs on the subject, and why that reaction was so immediate even on the political right.
No memo was necessary. I certainly don’t recall receiving one!
Akin and his allies are just flat out being foolish and are not convincing anyone over to their side of the debate. If anything, they are pushing people in the opposite direction and are too willfully blind to acknowledge it.
As for any similarities between Ryan’s voting record and Akin’s voting record, you can have the same result but with different paths to getting there, and it is now up to Ryan to distinguish those differences.
I say go with Palin’s approach and get a third party candidate lined up, complete with a Romney/Ryan endorsement.
Anyone who willingly even stands next to Akin on a stage should be very publicly ostracized as a way of insulating the party from further damage on account of this fool.
The problem with third party is that there is no one in MO with a name popular enough to make that work. I don’t think there is even with Sarah behind them. You would need both a popular name, the support of the GOP and the TEA Party (and those two are still at logger heads in MO) and some serious PAC money to make a run at it. I don’t see it happening with what exists right now. In all honesty, MO had a weak field to begin with. Our greatest strength was Claire McCaskill.
I’d suggest that, given the notoriety now associated with Akin, any non-McCaskill candidate replacing him on the ticket or running as a third party candidate would have an immediate publicity advantage.
The left will go up the candidates posterier with a flashlight and a magnifying glass looking for ‘gotcha material’ while simultaneously denouncing the new candidate as evil in some way. The left will see this alternate candidate as a threat and act accordingly.
The SoCons will go ballistic if their cherished candidate doesn’t get the full support of the Republican party apparatus. This will likewise lend name recognition to this third party candidate.
If the Tea Party puts a bona fide candidate on the ballot, and if Romney / Ryan actually grow a pair and endorse this Tea Party candidate over the state Republican establishment candidate, then I would say that candidate would have a fine chance of winning.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, they can’t simply boot Akin off the ballet – but the Tea Party could undoubtedly pull together an ad hoc campaign in sbort order around a decent candidate.
Face it, they are the only ones in town who can actually pull it off! Then if Sarah Palin endorses this new candidate, well your name recognition issue goes away overnight.
The only hazard of course being that the anti-McCaskill vote could be split and give her a win.
Of course, Akin could always look up and read the writing on the wall (wonder who gets THAT Biblical reference!), figure out inside that enfeebled brain of his that it is better to retire and allow another to defeat McCaskill – and THEREBY GUARANTEE A PRESIDENT ROMNEY COULD SIGN LEGISLATION REPEALING OBAMACARE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SUBSEQUENTLY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF FUTURE ABORTIONS………or he could insist on continuing his path to defeat and continue being a drag on the rest of us and ensure that the practice of abortion gets a huge assist via an enshrined and fully implemented Obamacare.
If he does, the hatred he and his supporters will endure the rest of their days will be such as he’s never imagined before, and the split between those of his views and the rest of us will be irreparable and subject them to a status of having no leverage whatsoever in the nations politics.
There are two separate issues here:
First, Akin didn’t misspeak. He believes that abortion is wrong regardless of the circumstances. But his belief was not good enough for him so he put forth some scientific hokum to “justify” his position. He lacked the courage of his convictions to simply state what he believed and then accept the fall-out for his “no abortion” position. He’s a gutless idiotic who failed to see the parallels with the AGW crowd. Phony science doth not equate to integrity.
Second, the GOP created the situation with its vague “pro-life” platform. If you believe the “pro-life” platform means “no abortions under any circumstance” then that’s what it means. If you think it means “no abortions except on every other Tuesday” then that’s what it means. The GOP doesn’t articulate what it means because abortion is a phony political issue and the GOP is “pro-life” simply because the Democrats are “pro-choice”. Abortion policy at the national level hasn’t changed in the decades that the GOP has been “pro-life” because abortion is a massive fund raising issue for both sides.
In a lot of ways the GOP is as “pro-life” as it is “conservative”. The terms always appear during campaigns but never seem to manifest themselves in actual policy. Why it’s almost like it’s just one big con…
I will say that I agree with the “pro-choice” crowd, that abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It shouldn’t be a matter for public funding because government should never fund the taking of a life without due process. In addition, public funding means public discussion. If you’re spending my money then I get a say in how it’s spent so public funding of abortion makes it a matter “between a woman, her doctor, and me” and I’ve really got no business being in the room.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the brouhaha isn’t over his position on abortion. The brouhaha is over his junk science. That crackpot theory about magic veejeyjeys was gratuitous, and contributes nothing to the debate. All it does is expose him for the ignoramus that he is.
You can have an intelligent debate over abortion. But not with that numbskull.
The “brouhaha” should be over his tactical stupidity and lack of agility in an interview situation. Someone in the GOP forgot to give him a NOT NOW YOU IDIOT lecture after his primary win.
We can resume these social issue arguments in 2013, and not fall for the traps that the MSM and Democrats are laying like so many IEDs.
Akin is an incredibly stupid man, and his supporters are selfish morons when you consider the greater context of this year’s election.
It’s depressing. The guy is an idiot. He can cost us the Senate and maybe the White House.
If that happens, it proves some fools are invincible.
The problem with Akin is that he lost control over his mouth which is easy to do for all of us. I understand that. What I don’t understand is that he didn’t realize that all he had to do was run a self disciplined campaign, stick to the talking points and be awarded his Senate seat in November. He was unable to accomplish that very easy task and that defines him, in my book, as a looser.
The problem with too many of our conservative and libertarian candidates is a severe lack of street smarts. Think of Sharon Angle. She was doing just fine against Shabby Harry until her campaign ad portraying all Hispanics as MS 13 types. When I saw that I knew she was a looser and guess what, Shabby Harry is still in the Senate and the damage he has done is beyond measure.
Isn’t it the socons who joined with the progressives and other Marxists to give us the Prohibition…who agreed with the progressives to distort the Commerce Clause beyond recognition to give us the war on drugs? Isn’t it the socons who have no problem with supporting some intrusive government bureaucracies that ‘care’ for the poor and who ‘nudge’ us to do the ‘right’ things (e.g., compassionate conservatism). Thanks for nothing you enemies of freedom.
Holy crap, pal. It is one thing to like a martini before and a glass of wine with a meal, but now the socons are Marxist, or at least they were almost a hundred years ago? You are either drunk right now or you are the troll I have suspected you to be. And you aren’t the only one. You’ve got company above.
Ad hominem…typical!
Socons are still teaming up with Progressives and using drug prohibition to build up incredibly powerful militarized federal police forces. I’m not a recreation drug user, but the consequences of the drug war they are waging far outweigh the benefits.
Holy crap, pal. It is one thing to like a martini before and a glass of wine with a meal, but now the socons are Marxist, or at least they were almost a hundred years ago?
The SoCons are directly descended from the same medieval thinking that gave rise to Socialism and Marxism is the nineteenth century. So no they aren’t the same, but they definitely are close cousins.
All have a suspicion of market forces that destroy traditional forms (values, communities, social order), the profit motive (selfishness), and support Communitarian ideals over liberty. They all believe that a strong authority is needed to structure society (government or god) and that rampant individualism leads to chaos and death.
The strident anti-abortion position is actually a much better fit with socialism than it is with a small government-individualist philosophy.
Wrong Josh. The socialists and Marxist came directly from the liberal side of the world. Prohibition was a joint venture though and a sad moment for Conservatives.
The war on drugs should be ended and let natural selection take care of the problem with the government not only staying away from the war on drugs but also staying away from paying for the aftermath of legalization. After the die off all will be well right?
Akin has shot himself in the foot and is not salvageable. There is a reason that the democrats poured millions of dollars into the Akin’s coffers for the primary.
No, he’s not completely wrong. There are some soc-cons. Not all by any means, I’m a soc-con to some extent myself who isn’t one of this group I’m about to describe, but there are some who believe that they can use the government to enact God’s will on earth. Huckabee has been on record in the past as holding that belief. He’s on of them, and that’s why I will never vote for Huckabee. The reality is that those types of soc-cons, we’ll call them “compassionate conservatives”, will occasionally cross over to work with Progs and they did ally to ramrod Prohibition through.
I think we’d all do ourselves some good by calling this group of soc-cons “compassionate conservatives” from now on.
They’re not “compassionate conservatives.” As others have posted, they’re socialists; religious socialists. Yet the gent in the reply for #1; “stoichelon;” said if you’re not a social conservative, you’re not conservative. That’s baloney.
Yes it was.
In fact the “progressive” movement started among the social “conservatives”, who gradually expanded their demands for social control until they became indistinguishable from national socialists, from which many just jumped all the way to being international socialists.
Oh well, Sam, if you say so it must be true. And here I thought the progressives tended to be anti-religion all this time, you know with their antisemitism and odd views on the at least 3000-year old concept of marriage and all. Thanks for setting me straight.
Yes, what you say is essentially correct. The sad thing is that most of us on the conservative/libertarian spectrum are “socially conservative” compared to today’s Democratic party and the progressives. Of course, any rational person is going to be to the right of the outright depravity of the left, but that isn’t enough for ardent social conservatives. I am especially enraged by Huckabee and Santorum openly ridiculing libertarians. While not an ardent, doctrinaire libertarian myself, I am happy for the existence of the ideology, and have no use for big government “conservatives.”
But what to do now? We have a pivotal election to win. Do we isolate the socons entirely? Not smart. Should Missourans who don’t like McCaskill vote for Akin anyway? The answer there is yes, if he doesn’t drop out. They should also vote fro Romney/Ryan in any case, no matter which way they go with the Senate vote.
This is the way to answer the attacks on Republicans over the Akin matter and the other nutty stuff the Demunists reach for in their desperation. “The Corner” gets it. Why don’t you get it, Rick? And please don’t Tony Perkins or social conservative us; that’s simple BS. It’s RINO against conservative and feeling vs, thinking at the heart of this disagreement.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314853/gawker-and-bain-and-caymans-kevin-d-williamson
People, please remember that those who feign anger at Mr. Akin for his statement will gladly commit acts that make his statement seem practically benign. These people want to control your whole life from cradle to grave and decide who is born and who dies. They seek power and are willing to lie, deceive and coerce their way to such power.
Mr. Akin said what he believes and spoke the truth. So you seek his destruction and for your efforts you get Mrs. McKaskill…
Do not forget that you are playing with the future of your children and grandchildren. Vote for free speech and liberty to have free thought. Surely Mr. Akin is not beyond education. But to seek his destruction is completely stupid.
Do not cut off your nose to spite your face…
“Do not cut off your nose to spite your face…”
Funny, I thought that’s what Akin and his supporters were doing….
Seems like a great opportunity for a third-party candidate, if it’s not too late.
It’s too late right now. Post-inauguration is when the real work starts. For now, time to hold your nose and help the deeply unlikable Romney. It’ll be close, given the caliber of many of his supporters. How on earth you fortify yourself against the forehead-slapping Luddites, those dismal so-called so-cons, I do not know. Verbal abuse and derision work for me — you won’t get through to them, though it drives them away and may make you feel better. Maybe a boot up the ass? George Orwell’s jackboot might ring a bell here’n'there, though we’re talking truly dense material.
My sentiments are similar. There is a “war on,” and we need to win it. I will still take Akin over McCaskill for brutally simple practical reasons.
Yup, just like the Democratic party. You make a definition for yourself and declare it “truth”. Those who don’t accept it are stupid, and you are morally obliged to destroy them.
@Rik: Well, so-cons have declared ‘truth’ since forever — hell, most of ‘em act as if they were there when Moses came down the mountain. Few do well in daylight; most are now well on the way to being branded pariahs. With a few honorable exceptions, so-cons face a bleak future; time has passed them by, compounded by widespread popular revulsion.
If Romney had balls, he’d call their bluff at the convention. The evangelical flare-ups of the last week are designed to carve out a negotiating position for Dingleberry — all Romney has to do is say no, if he can find the courage or decides to pout (he can be petulant, as we know). One way or another, we’ve got to get him in the WH. He can then be dealt with in detail.
Regardless one’s political leaning. Any candidate who can’t recognize the political midfield is walking into doesn’t deserve to win. Just watch Obama speaking from his hart when he doesn’t have the teleprompter.
‘YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT’
With the MSM we have, every word a Repub says is a minefield and every stupid and hateful thing a Demunist says ia an opportunity for a plenary indulgence. The Akin matter was a nit until a lot of RINOs, driven by anything but common sense, made an end-of-the-world scenario out of it. Wise up for God’s sake.
ia = is
Copy editor, you’re fired.
Here’s where I’ll jump in with my one objection to Rick Moran:
>>the Democrats have mostly managed to stifle much of the loony left
To some extent they have, because of the helpful MSM breezing over “They gon’ put y’all in chaaaains” and such. But also on the left, there’s actual agreement on the loonier utterances. Democrats truly believe that Republicans would enslave Black Americans if they could get away with it.
What Republicans have, on the other hand, is a true schism. And Rick Moran is right on every damn thing he says about that.
I like the bloggers on PJ Media and think some of them are pretty smart, and I usually agree with them. I have watched Mike Huckabee since he was a governor of Arkansas; in some ways he is a liberal, not a conservative at all.
But Rick Moran and the bloggers on this article sound like people with an ax to grind who don’t know what they are talking about and don’t much care.
Regardless one’s political leaning. Any candidate who can’t recognize the political midfield is walking into doesn’t deserve to win. Only hard core Ideologues can make such idiotic statement. Just watch Obama speaking from his hart when he doesn’t have the teleprompter.
‘YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT’
If Akin has half a brain cell he should quit politics all together.
This war was not started by Mike Huckabee. It was started by those self anointed kingmakers in the Republican establishment who took it on themselves to force the duly nominated Senate candidate in Missouri to step aside. When they started full scale artillery attacks on their own candidate, that started the war. Now, imagine this, these people are playing up the fact that a poll now shows Akin’s lead has gone and he trails. After three days of making this anti-TARP, pro-life, 97% ACU rated congressman into a devil, they trot out polls showing his support has shrunk. Maybe it would rise if they stopped trashing their own guy, who has shown the way on limited government votes throughout his career.
The tone and tenor of this article is why there is a war. Akin is not idiotic, and didn’t say anything idiotic.
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/7986/akino.jpg
President Patrick Obama doesn’t know an admiral from a lance corporal and a candidate from a senator.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2192643/Barack-Obama-botches-rank-Navy-SEAL-William-McRaven.html
Let’s concentrate on getting this fool out of office and into community service where he can do less harm.
It is astounding that Patty Murray got away with “al Qaeda daycare centers” while Akin’s idiocy is apparently disqualifying. It’s not fair for sure.
But Akin is the new Sharron Angle-Christine McDonnell. It’s a formula for losing which apparently makes some people feel good. If you want to make more Libertarians keep nominating people like Akin.
In our biased-Left media environment, running a conservative with crank views just confirms everything they are saying about the Republican Party 24-7. Formula. For. Losing.
Incidently, MurrPatty Murray didn’t get off Scott=free. You know about it and have reminded us about it.
But let us remember the central fallacy of this issue. This one”
People who say or are accused of saying things that are untrue or unpopular are NEVER elected.
Akin said something untrue or unpopular.
ERGO (courtesy of RINO logic): The Republicans will not be elected to the majority of the Senate and Romney will not be elected President.
This is your point in a nutshell. It is in a nutshell because it is nutty.
She basically did get off scot-free. George Nethercutt ran a serious challenge against her after that, and she still won by something like a 10% margin. Now she’s the senior senator from Wash, on her 3rd term, and essentially is there for life. That’s scot-free if you ask me.
So, snorky, the first proposition of the syllogism is fallacious? Thank you.
Dude. Since nobody ever ‘splained the fax of life to you, here there are:
1) Donkeys can say anything stupid, outrageous, or even criminal that they feel like, with no consequences.
2) Elephants can’t.
That’s the way it is. Go ahead and cry about the unfairness of it all.
You’re barking up the wrong tree, there, Beagle. The job of Republican spokespersons and media people is to show how the Demunists every single day say and do worse things than Tony Perkins and Rick Moran ever dreamed of.
I don’t care about what Akin said. I wasn’t planning on voting for him anyway because who reminds me of a snake.
That said I do so love how fast people put SoCons (like myself) on the chopping block. Makes me really happy to be an independant. I’d hate to think that I was donating towards the crap they’re spewing about us.
So it’s nutty to point out Akin just took a seat from almost sure to win to probably not with one comment? Then he “apologized” by claiming he got “one word” wrong.
He’s not done yet.
It’s not as though control of the US Senate is important or anything. Egad.
Akin is not going to win and nothing I said has anything to do with that. I don’t get the seppuku approach to electoral politics some socons seem to embrace.
“So it’s nutty to point out Akin just took a seat from almost sure to win to probably not with one comment? Then he “apologized” by claiming he got “one word” wrong.”
Well, thanks for pointing out again, and again, something that has been pointed out over and over, something that has broken all records for lede space on that great aggregater of truth and beauty, Memeorandum.
Why don’t we; in the unforgettable words of the organization that was formed to stand by the oh so honorable Bill “I use my cigar instead of my ween when I don’t have sex with that woman, nor a single time, and then I lie to the American people and commit perjury” Clinton: “MoveON”
Sorry, that anon was me.
F— the Huckster.
The start point of a coherent position on abortion is the essential humanity of the unborn. Either it is human or it isn’t. If it isn’t, who cares what you do to it or with it? If it is, then it enjoys the same protections and rights as any person, regardless of the circumstances of its conception or the wishes of the majority.
I don’t support abortion under any circumstances. That includes rape, and for the same reason that I wouldn’t support execution of a son/daughter for the crimes of their parents.
What if we as a society were to decide that Jews were not really human and … uh, wait…maybe blacks…urrr, well…just pick some group and make your own analogy.
That doesn’t mean I don’t think Akin isn’t a political idiot, BTW.
You should consider the possiblitly that something is often repeated by many people because they find it relevant, important, or even dispositive in the particular case.
Not sure where you’re headed with Clinton and whatnot.
I’m not going to the mat for a guy who doesn’t have a rudimentary understanding of female plumbing.
I’m sure you’ve heard the one about the Democrats spending millions to get Akin nominated, right? Probably cliche and passe (and other gratuitious French words, can’t do accents) at this point.
Frankly, I don’t care if he understand female plumbing or not. That’s between him and his partner. I’ll settle for somebody who has enough sense not to just make up crackpot theories and blurt them out to the hostile press.
In my mind, whet he did was no different than if he started in about how 9/11 was a controlled demolition. Some things are so crackpot that they are grounds for summary judgement.
In the interests of moving on, I am not trying to pick on you, you’re views are obviously shared by many, including Krauthammer and Rick. You just happened to be there when I arrived. But the fallacy is still a fallacy, see the fallacious syllogism above.
Clinton’s perjuries and fetishistic practices, and feeble attempts to lie his way out of them, are much worse than Akin’s words, much much worse. Now Clinton (since the lie-on of the Senate, who it seems had oh oh committed a homicide by negligence, is gone) is “Mr. Democrat.” The standard bearer of the entire Demunist party of the people. And the feminists “stood by their man.”
Their and “Get me a free diaphragm and 50 gross of condoms please” Fluck’s shock and awe at Akin’s words are merely a grand charade [pronounce charade in the french manner...it sounds a lot better].
Resolved:
1) The donks get away with this level of stupid and outrageous all the time.
2) It doesn’t matter. Deal with it.
Clinton’s perjuries and fetishistic practices, and feeble attempts to lie his way out of them, are much worse than Akin’s words, much much worse.
Nonsense. Clinton’s foibles were *personal* issues, affecting Clinton and only Clinton. Akins words, if this continues to expand, will at minumum lose a senate seat and potentially torpedo Romney’s candidacy thus affecting the balance of power in an election year.
Yeah, Fred, you genius, these are the same thing.
(Where the f* is the eye rolling “are you f*ing serious” icon on this site?)
“Akins words, if this continues to expand, will at minumum lose a senate seat and potentially torpedo Romney’s candidacy thus affecting the balance of power in an election year.”
(1) Duh, thanks for helping “expand” them.
(2) I didn’t know engineers could predict Missouri elections. Thanks, now I know.
First off.
I don’t think this is all social-conservatives. I simply do not believe that social conservatives are made up of a singular block of voters.
That said, the problem that the Akin backers don’t seem to understand is, they don’t NEED Akin. The pro-life position, is a mainstream viewpoint! They should have plenty of advocates to choose from, so they don’t need to hold onto this one guy that insists on putting his foot into his mouth all the way to his knee.
+1
Exactly! You can have an intelligent discussion of the abortion issue, or you can say stupid shiite. Akin CHOSE to take the latter route.
Also, maybe someone can explain this.
Though it is possible to mount a principled defense of no rape exception to abortion prohibition – the child is innocent of any crime, unborn are humans with right to life, and so on – Akin didn’t do that.
He instead came out with some pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo with bogus claims to nonexistent authority. Then he apologized half-heartedly and inadequately. So crummy he had to do a TV commercial of apology.
Unless you are trying to hurt support for your position, why would you support that guy?
If Claire McCaskill wins in November, who is to blame? {start circular firing squad}…{end circular firing squad}. Insert text at ellipsis.
If she wins, my very good friend, she will have had the help of RINOs who are keeping this silliness on the front burner and of hysterical libruls who have nothing but scandal to contribute to the reelction effort of their failed hero.
What they should be doing is apologizing to this country for putting this totally unprepared and unqualified radical leftist in office.
Circular firing squad this.
The fact of the matter is that the “rest of the GOP” are little better than traitors in our midst. All you who sneer at the Socons are just playing into the Left’s hands. Someone says something stupid, the Left attacks him, and in order to look “moderate” and “reasonable” the RINOs jump right on board the bandwagon. The Left will almost always defend their own, even when he’s stupid, wrong or they hate him, simply because he is on the same team, and guess what? it wins.
There is a reason that Obama (the worst president in history by a large margin) has 40% approval, and Bush (who was middle of the pack at worst) had approval ratings dipping into the low 30′s. This reason is that the lefties who hate Obama will still defend him when we attack him, and will always put us on the defensive no matter their own feelings. The Right on the other hand consistently turns on their own and goes along with the narrative. If we had circled the wagons properly like the Left does then we would have long since won almost all these issues. But now everyone is afraid to speak up because they know that the Left will attack them and the Rinos will jump right on board and throw our people under the bus.
And finally you can all feel self righteous about this (“do we really want this guy to win with his level of stupidity” or “he can’t win so let’s put in someone else”)but are missing the point. He only can’t win because of the shallow Rinos who hear one stupid sentence and immediately turn on the “crazy Socon”, rather than sticking by our guy. And no matter how stupid he may be, how low brow and religious and redneck and all those other things the fact of the matter is that he is better than a Democrat but none of you care about that, you would rather give up the seat then see it go to someone who isn’t Pure of Heart in the Rino sense meanwhile attacking the evil “Socon Inquisition” who apparently does the same thing. Talk about hypocrisy.
If I were a Missouri voter, I would vote Akin over McCaskill in a heartbeat. The problem is that Akin’s stupidity will be used against other Republicans and conservatives to the detriment of both.
Nobody can furnish examples of the stupidity of Agnew or Quayle (aside from the “potato” set up), but those two will forever live on in the lore of American politics as dunces and/or diabolical crooks. It’s not fair, it’s not even correct, but it’s reality.
Akin’s mortally wounded from a self-inflicted shot. Hopping up and down about the unfairness of it won’t bring him back to life.
I am a Missouri voter. I will be voting against Claire. I will vote the candidate that has the best chance to defeat her. Right now, that is, sadly, Akin. I will do it with the understanding that if he does get elected through some miracle, he will vanish onto the back benches of the senate and be marginalized. If we put Claire back there, we risk putting Reid back in power and that makes things untenable.
For me, the choice is clear. I don’t like it, but it’s clear.
This,
“…the help of RINOs who are keeping this silliness on the front burner…”
…is ridiculous.
Akin is the gift which never stops giving. The proof of every Maureen Dowd or HuffPo stereotype of the Taliban Rethuglican. As I said at the beginning, the media environment is not fair to conservatives, especially Christian conservatives. I’d agree with many of them that leftists attack Christianity mercilessly in a way they never do other religions.
Having said that, you play in the sandbox you were thrown into. Akin’s statements will now live on for decades as proof of everything negative the media has been pushing forever it seems. Since Reagan’s second term at least.
“RINOs” are rightly distancing themselves from Akin’s crackpottery using the fastest means of transport at their disposal. No reason to torpedo the entire party. See where I’m going with this? Japanese ritual suicide, war analogies, destruction, death… (Imagine my right hand is making an “L” on my forehead)
Read #35, anon, this kind of stuff is what real Republicans should be using their energies on. DNC Cair, DWS, deliberately lies. Worse she says that’s OK for the higher truth, the ole nitwitted Rigoberto Manchu dodge.
Common, be trollericious. Emphasize even more clearly the fact that you are a Muffington, Dowd, TPM fan.
“(Imagine my right hand is making an “L” on my forehead)”
I tried but I can’t. I see you with it where the cold snows blow, in the Uppa US.
You give far, far much deference to these Lefty Media Trolls, and thats what gives them their power.
These comments were minor, meaningless and insignificant. The only reason they “keep on giving” is the utterkly Spineless RINO-ism the media knows they can play like a fiddle.
The deer in the headlights fear to push back, and say “seriously…who really cares?” or as the Gipper might have said “there you go again” with your bait and switch.
This is a cynical Media Invented Game, and instead of calling it what it is, you cave and do EXACTLY what they want. Remove the person/issue/ while profusely appologizing, and SWEARING youre not at all “all trailerparkie” like THAT guy. In other words, you surrender, and they win, scoring just as many (no more) points for their side by controlling the narrative.
They’ve played you fearful “moderates” with all stick and no carrot for 40 years now, hows that working out? Its limp-wristed cowards like you, who NEVER have the balls to call them out on their game, who got us stuck where we are…
Perpetually seeking the approval of the Beautiful People who HATE US NO MATTER HOW OFTEN WE CAPITULATE TO THEIR DESIRES.
How can you fight against something, when youre not even willing to acknowledge is existance?
That’s a home-run, Root ’83, out-of-the-park perfect.
For heaven’s sake even Anderson Cooper gets it. DWShultz thinks it is AOK to deliberately misquote a newspaper story to scare the hell out of some young women.
http://www.therightscoop.com/brutal-anderson-cooper-obliterates-dnc-chair-over-her-lies-about-romneys-stance-on-abortion/
The net result of Mr. Akin’s dubious theories has been posted on Rasmussen: Akin 38%, McCaskill 48%. The gentleman has rendered himself unelectable. Don’t blame the left in his case, he accomplished this feat all by himself. Nobody wants to vote for a wacko.
“Nobody wants to vote for a wacko.”
Yeah, I wouldn’t vote for Claire McCaskill for that exact reason.
“Don’t blame the left in his case, he accomplished this feat all by himself.”
He didn’t build that himself. Don’t be modest. He had an army of DC, New York and Chicago RINOs to help him.
Sorry, me again.
No, its the net result of a Media Inspired, phoney “controversy” and a limp-wristed run and hide RINO reaction/capitulation to leftest demands…
This was a tempest in a teapot, and having your OWN PARTY side with the enemy is why the poll numbers are like that.
You give an inch, they take a mile.
Appeasement to Bullies.
Cowardess
And you wonder why the call us Nerds, and steal our lunch-money, and laugh at us all the time?
Akin was an idiot, and he should have resigned, but the vitriol coming from the party apparatus is stunning. There are actual criminals in the congress who have actually committed crimes while in office and non of these Republican mouthpieces don’t have the fight to show one tenth the anger in the direction of their opponents. Instead they save it all for their allies. Would Scott Brown every speak as strongly against Elizabeth Warren as he has against Akin. No! Akin is an easy target that wins you kudos with the media, for the moment.
Didn’t you RINOs learn from John McCain that trying to court the media won’t help you. It won’t less then the damage they will do to you once your inconvenient to the movement again. Didn’t we learn from Trent Lott that no matter how many sacrifices you give, it won’t sate them. Akin is a distraction, and the Republican party is falling right into it. Let it go!
You hypocritical non-SoCon “Libertarians” are no better than the Democrats, and you deflect by trying to accuse the social conservative straw-man you’ve invented to burn in effigy every time you think something is threatening your dreams of a libertarian fantasy. You have the same Utopian delusions as most Democrats.
Look, I have no love for Mormonism. I think that every tenant of their Religion is absolutely wrong, but the Mormons themselves are wonderful people. Good, hard working, moral people. I would rather have a Mormon in the White House than a socialist. I’m willing to put aside my differences for the greater good an vote for Romney (who is still a big government guy). I think Huckabee was wrong to embolden Akin, but I understand his position. We are all going to need to put aside our social differences and get the Obama Crime Syndicate out of office.
“You hypocritical non-SoCon “Libertarians” are no better than the Democrats, and you deflect by trying to accuse the social conservative straw-man you’ve invented to burn in effigy every time you think something is threatening your dreams of a libertarian fantasy.”
And what are you doing? Stop generalizing and projecting. Both parties are big tents. Many libertarians are merely opposed to a totalitarian state, and that seems to be the trajectory we are on.
As I have said elsewhere, if it is Akin vs McCaskill, I vote Akin. That said, if Akin loses or detracts from other conservative campaigns, who is delusional? Who wins? Is it would-be socon public servants who pave the road to hell with their good intentions?
I’m amazed at this thread, but instead of trying to untangle some weird currents I’ll just add my own.
I think Akin’s stance against abortion in case of rape is looney, but he seems a fine sort of gentleman generally and since his position is NOT going to prevail into law in any case, I like what I know about him. His garbled statement was already qualified as he made it, and I would just shrug and support him and his corrections and “apologies”. Not that there is any room or role for apologies in political campaigns.
Let’s look at three conservative radio hosts.
I think Rush has this best understood. His personal reaction and judgement is that Akin should go, but he also seems to understand the other side. Good on you, El Rushbo. Hannity has publicly and personally *instructed* Akin to drop out for the good of the party, or something. I think Mr. Hannity needs to get over himself. Larry Elder, of all people, is defending Akin, and sees the hue and cry as a bunch of scared Republicans acting like PC liberals.
It’s Rush who said what I also believed, it was PERHAPS good cover for even Romney to call on Akin to resign, good politics but maybe both disingenuous and – cowardly.
So, can he actually win? Well he was certainly damaged by the REPUBLICAN response to his remarks. So, is that *now* reason for him to step down, because of the REPUBLICAN establishment reaction rather than the general electorate’s reaction? I dunno.
I just want to say, when an issue comes and people like me and Larry Elder are forced to find ourselves allied with Huckleberry, something has gone very sideways.
Do you care about how his self-admitted stupid statements are affecting other conservatives? The conservative movement is weak with unmarried women. Do you think Akin’s statements will help with them?
You think that would have changed if he would have dropped out? Romney is portrayed that he is personally responsible for a woman’s cancer death. That is what the real problem is. You feel hurt by Akin’s comment for giving that ammunition to our opponents because no matter how bad Obama is we all feel like we are clinging for dear life to the slim hope of beating him. So, you want to crucify him for that. No punishment is seemingly sufficient from what I’ve read. I agree he should have stepped down, and the Republican party as publicly and loudly disavowed him. His resignation at this point is almost meaningless, except for the possible chance of getting someone else in there.
Was there anything that was going to help the GOP’s case with unmarried women no matter what? At some point, we’re going to have to move on because the longer this is dwelt on, the longer it will continue to poison everything. Akin has been castigated and impoverished. At some point, he’ll have to be left to either doom his race or see reason on his own. Harping on it constantly only keeps calling attention to it and making it an issue. It’s the economy. It’s the economy. It’s the economy.
And Democrats can deftly tie abortion to the economy with their fearmongering.
“Hey women! Having a baby means you’ll doom your career and NEVER become a big-time CEO! You hear that, the ReThugliKKKans don’t want you to earn a good living, they want you barefoot and pregnant!”
A lot of people don’t care about the overall economy, just their own PERSONAL economy (finances).
This battle has been going on for over 40 years and my question is simple
“How is that working out for you”.
“Conservatives” lose votes every year, and lose MORE votes every year fighting over something most voters consider to be old news and settled law.
Like it or not this distracts from the most important topics of the day:
Wars, Debt, and our loss of Liberty.
Bush won because he was a social conservative not because he was a fiscal con. McCain lost because socons didn’t trust him (and because Bush wasn’t a fiscal con)
This election, socons will back Romney but I suspect they’d back Barney Frank if he was the GOP nominee to get rid of 0. (OK I’m exaggerating but just a little)
Get rid of Roe and tax-funding of abortions and the abortion issue goes away for fed elections. That’s a nice compromise. Why don’t you get behind it?
Bush was also running in very different environment. The economy was good and people could afford to worry about social inssues.
Bush won because he was a social conservative not because he was a fiscal con. McCain lost because socons didn’t trust him (and because Bush wasn’t a fiscal con)
Seriously?
McCain lost because the co-cons kept derailing the campaign message on energy with idiocy about gays. When GOP candidates lose it’s directly the result of so-cons usurping the message.
What is astonishing here is that none of you idiots seem to have any concept of math. The electorate is roughly divided at 50/50, and math says that to win you need to attract votes from the opposition’s pool. The GOP doesn’t win elections appealing to the so-cons. (NEWS FLASH: Romney is running for US president, not president of the republicans.) You LOSE elections by appealing to so-cons. You WIN elections by attracting voters, not by chasing them away with implicit support of statist so-con issues. When the majority of the country is AGAINST so-con issues, you can’t run on these and expect anything other than getting stomped (and frankly, rightly so.)
Math? That’s hard.
So, when Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” so-con he
A. Won
B. Lost
Most Americans identify themselves as
A. Pro life
B. Pro choice
(free clue on this one)
In his successful presidential bid, Barack Obama
A. Supported gay marriage
B. Opposed gay marriage.
Multiple choice, only hard for idiots. How did you do RandomE?
Bush *never* ran as a so-con, he ran as a moderate. So-cons are statists wanting to use the power of the state to impose their will, and frankly even more totalitarian than the far left. Voters don’t vote totalitarian. In the US there has **never** been a so-con statist who became president.
Polls that purport to show personal viewpoints are unrelated to views on the role of government. Easy to prove, too. These same polls are used by the pro-life people in (red state) south dakota to claim widedpread support for abortion ban, so every election cycle they have a ballot measure to do so. And every election cycle — in a state where due to church attendance the percentage of purported supporters is even higher than the national poll you link to — the abortion measures not only fail to get the necessary votes, they fail by roughly the same margins mentioned in the article, i.e. 70/30 or so. If you totalitarians can’t win in a place like south dakota where everyone goes to chuch, you certainly can’t win on a national level.
In sum: all your poll are belong to us.
The pro-life position as presented by statist so-cons isn’t well thought out. First, assume a ban on abortion manages to pass — in real life women get on planes and go to where they’re legal, and nothing changes other than venue. Cheap, too; flights are inexpensive enough that the middle class can afford them. The so-cons achieve zilch. The pro-life position is trumped by the existence of aircraft.
Second, an abortion ban is equivalent to slavery; a women who doesn’t want to be pregnant is a walking incubator against her will. Any so called right to life isn’t a right to be a parasite. The “state’s rights” argument re slavery was settled in the 1860′s, so the ‘state right’ argument so-cons try as a silly disguise for their totalitarian intents at enslaving females is DOA.
Lastly, you so-cons like to take credit for Reagan’s victories after the fact, and this gets annoying after a while. The secret to Reagan’s success was the Reagan Democrats, the vast number of slightly left moderates who found they had more in common with Reagan’s vision of America than the pessimistic twits th DNC was offering at the time. This is how elections are won; you get the moderates from the opposition to vote for you. The problem is that you so-cons see Reagan’s ability to attract the democrat moderates as YOUR victory, as if Reagan could have never won if not for your will. For you totalitarians, this has now become an entrenched belief. What nonsense.
I’ll tell you what, Bill. I am a proud GOP voter, always have been, and I would vote for Obama any day of the week before I would allow you wannabe totalitarians to be within smelling distance of power. The nastiest and most worthless political group to exist is the social conservative bloc. Get the f* out of my political party and take your statist aspirations with you.
To say that those of us who want to protect a human being with a beating heart and a growing brain are “statists” is really a perversion of the term. It is the statist who don’t believe in the rights of the individual.
It is also a perversion of the word — and a rather laughable and obvious one — to apply it to those of us who don’t want to expand a function of government to those who really don’t need it such as giving two men marriage benefits solely because they partake of anal sex.
And while polls are not definitive it is far more grounded to cite one to back a point than a hand-waving, unsupported assertion (Bush is not a so-con, pro-lifers are a small minority, people want gay marriage etc.) Of course, that is what is the bread and butter of the left. If you do want to leave the party you are well on your way to achieving the outlook to allow you fit in with the Obama supporters.
Referendum questions regarding abortion, by the way, are usually so extreme and poorly worded that I myself would not have voted for the ones I’ve seen.
Most Americans don’t like abortion and don’t want it used as birth control. Yet, abortion as birth control is the status quo. Changing this status quo is a so-con thing and when articulated properly is a quite successful election position.
Romney, btw, is running as a so-con. Paul Ryan is a full-bloodied so-con. I guess you get to vote for Obama-Biden this time.
To say that those of us who want to protect a human being with a beating heart and a growing brain are “statists” is really a perversion of the term.
You seek to impose your religious belief via government control and regulation, and you don’t see this as statist in any way? I’m guessing your blood brothers in the Taliban have the same deer in the headlights “what me?” look when it’s pointed out that they’re statists as well. They impose their religious belief on others via government control and regulation. Must be your heroes.
anal sex
So there we see it for what it is. You’re a bigoted religious kook pretending to be a concerned patriot. Frankly, I scrape stuff off my shoes that’s better than you. Join the democratic party. It’s where you belong.
Loss of liberty is exactly what we social conservatives are fighting against. We believe the right to live and the right to practice our religion freely, in public, and to raise our children in our faith without being undermined by the government are sacrosanct, and if these rights are not secure, who cares about private property?! You know what? I say let it be. We deserve to lose all of our liberties if we will not defend the vulnerable from being murdered.
I would prefer Akin to be gone but if conservatives do not end this strange tendency to circle the firing squad we are never going to stop the totalitarians.
What Akin did was utter one stupid sentence. What Bill Clinton did was actually rape a woman (and wave his wing-wang at a woman he just met and used law enforcement officers to pick up women etc.) The Dems backed Clinton to give him the presidency twice.
I don’t think we should forgive rapists but we should forgive stupidity.
That’s the point, isn’t it. Ideological differences versus criminal ones. The Republican party leadership and Legislative member pile on Akin but have nothing to say about the actual crime being perpetrated by those on the left. All the same Republican who voraciously attacked Akin will never raise their voice to the opposition. That makes them hypocrites, no matter stupid and out of touch Akin was. Heck McCain and Rubio just got off the defend Huma Abedin express. Fast and Furious? The border? They’ve all got next to nothing to say, but let someone make a dumb statement, and it’s war, don’t-cha-know?
What amazes me is that 5 days later we are still talking the stupidity of Akin (for which to totally agree) and not giving ANY attention to the problem. If you consider yourself a SoCon, don’t you think you should try to come at the issue from a solutions perspective.
Akin was wrong, pure and simple. Stress, whether trauma induced or not does NOT predict a woman’s ability to get pregnant. What it does do however is point to a hollow position as destructive as the quick to end it and hide the obvious issue left.
FACT: 25k to 30K per pregnancies from rape occur a year – count ‘em folks, that’s a minimum of 50K to 60K victims. Heck we give more attention to 15 cases of West Nile virus than we do these victims.
Did you know that despite the horrors of rape, that the buzzard retains ALL parental rights to the child? Did you also know that in most states, DNA testing is required to even start a legal proceeding to change that fact? Or, how about the fact that the costs of the test are 100% borne by the victim?
If we want a real SoCon discussion on this topic that serves to advance your “moral” position, then DAMNIT start talking real solutions and not just your precious pinheaded position on life. THAT’s why AKIN must go, he’s proven himself to be no more than the rest – a stuffed shirt with feigned morality.
FACT: 25k to 30K per pregnancies from rape occur a year – count em folks, that’s a minimum of 50K to 60K victims. Heck we give more attention to 15 cases of west nile virus than we do these victims.
Did you know that despite the horrors of rape, that the buzzard retains ALL parental rights to the child? Did you also know that in most states, DNA testing is required to even start a legal proceding to change that fact? Or, how about the fact that the costs of the test are 100% borne by the victim?
If we want a real SoCon discussion on this topic, then DAMNIT start talking real solutions and not just your prescious pinheaded position on life.
Our precious pin-headed position on life? My aren’t you a neat little bigot? My faith in so-called conservatives is getting thin. If that’s your attitude towards people who are religious, or just have an an honest respect for our fellow human beings, what makes you any better than the d… commies in the demo-crat corner? The absolute demonizing of “so-cons” by a lot of folks on this thread is really disgusting. Where is this crap coming from- who are you, leftist trolls, libertarians, a bunch of anarchists?
I am truly amazed. This is not an argument to return to Constitutional rule, it is a call for the same kind of secular humanism that the left stands for- just an argument between those who want to rule through statism and those who want no rule because they think they’re so smart they will rule by force when there are no laws. That is not what this country was founded on!
What’s funny about this is that I would have held my nose and voted for Angle, McDonnell, and probably would Akin. I’m not the guy you need to convince. Despite my libertarian and secular humanist subversive tendencies I’ve only ever voted for the now-extinct conservative hawkish Jacksonian Democrat. I voted Libertarian for President once decades ago as a protest. Young people should throw their vote away on making a statement in order to get a movement going. I just fill in R as lesser evil and go back home these days.
Moreover, nobody cares what RINO anonymous Internet commenters think. This is like blaming the ‘Islamophobes’ for the ongoing global jihad. It’s hard not to notice a guy self-immoating like a Buddhist monk on national TV.
This says it better than I ever could: http://wadingacross.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/quit-yer-belly-akin/
For those who believe they can win elections without “social conservatives”, have at it. Good luck with that. Also, there is no such thing as a “social conservative”. There is a conservative, period. This means conservative social & fiscal policies & ideas. Each affects the other. A Godless immoral nation won’t prosper fiscally (take a look at the last four + years) & a nation which is fiscally irresponsible (the big spending RINO Bush years come immediately to mind) is morally deficient. Life is about much, much more than accumulation of money.
“There is a conservative, period. This means conservative social and fiscal policies and ideas.” Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I was raised by conservative Republican parents & grandparents who leaned the value of a dollar by living through the Great Depression and World War II. None of them would ever dream of trying to tell someone else what their religious beliefs should be.
The “social conservative” agenda; anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-gay, etc.; is all about imposing their religious beliefs on all of society. One can’t claim to be a small government & fiscal conservative with one hand; but the other hand is advocating for big government intervention in citizens’ personal & private lives.
Yes because insisting Federal funding, i.e. taxpayer dollars, to abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood be stopped, and believing that states have a right to determine the legality of abortion is “advocating big government.”
About 3% of Planned Parenthood money is used to fund abortion services, none of it federal money. 97% is used to fund other health services, primarily for women. So, you’re saying that PP should thus receive no federal grant dollars? 3% of services provided makes PP totally an “abortion organization?”
Mitt Romney now supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, or mother’s life in danger. Or something like that; he’s flip-flopped a few times in the past 18-20 years. Are you giving money to his campaign even though he supports limited abortion rights? Or not? If you’re going to maintain consistency, you won’t vote for Romney either.
“States have a right to determine the legality of abortion……” Guess you haven’t read Roe v. Wade. States can regulate abortions after the first tri-mester. Bottom line is simple: 15-20% of the population, according to many polls over the years, oppose all forms & types of abortion. I don’t see where 20% should be able to dictate religious views to the remaining 80%. That does run afoul of the 1st Amendment, among other problems.
Not true in the slightest. 37% of Planned Parenthood’s funding is abortion-related.
In your mind, a state wanting to ban abortion runs afoul of an amendment whose sole purpose was to protect that state from Federal Government interference, and you want me to take your opinions seriously?
Are you suggesting that advocating for overturning bad law like Roe V Wade, on the grounds that it takes power away from the states, is the work of a theocratic boogeyman? That because only 20% of the population (no reference cited by you) believes in fully banning abortion, that’s justification enough to keep said, unconstitutional bad law in place? Whose the big government champion?
Do you get bored burning straw men?
These are the people we entrust to manage our nation? Who have no idea of priorities? Prefer to spend energy and passion about some foolish comment from a minor player in the game about a subject of more than a little importance to the nation. Play to the gallery which hoots and hollers the loudest without consideration their outrage is overwrought and in no way rationally relevant to the subject.
What about some outrage for statements made by a major player, entrusted with our whole nation. This man Obama who gives evidence daily since his apostasy that he is not to be trusted with anything material to the safety and principles of the nation. Who also is known to have made stupid, ignorant, tactless and generally offensive comment.
MORE importantly, crucially for the integrity of this nation are the statements published for the world to see in Obama’s AUTObiography. Published while he was SENATOR, praised and prized as a life’s true journey in which he says he was born in Kenya.
More than 16 years later the statement CHANGED ONLY AFTER he became Democrat candidate for President to birthplace in Hawaii. No outrage for this, at the very least, insult to the entire American People and the Constitution on which their laws of the nation are based.
Did he and his team assume Americans neither know nor care that the Constitution, Article II, requires for legitimacy the President must be a natural born citizen. ONLY the President.
Senators nor Congressmen nor Judges are bound to that requirement in the Constitution. Did we not learn during his campaign for President that Obama is Expert in Constitutional Law?
THE TIMING of the CHANGE of his self-advanced, while Senator, birthplace in Kenya to Hawaii when candidate for President more than 16 years later would make any self-rspecting observer wonder about the strange convenience of the Change.
Especially now with the evidence of his amateurish and destructive actions in management of his office. The CHANGE strangely convenient for the Democratic Party hierarchy’s plans for the nation.
Some people have published reservations and questions about these and other disturbingly disrespectful of the laws of America actions by Obama and his team-mates. To the horror and outrage of other sensitive and offended persons/groups who seem to believe their personal feelings are more important than the safety of the nation. Who seem to care little they have a nation in which “No man is above the law”. That the law in the USA IS constitutional on which ALL other laws must be justified.
Not nearly important enough to get excited about, right? No shouting screaming outrage at the “insensitivity” of it all, right?.
Even by people in the game as those described in the article who have other priorities than the integrity of the laws and thus the safety of the nation. Who prefer to climb onto a bandwagon pulled by the very people they should be opposing.
Good job, jojo. Speaking of outrage, where is the public outcry over Obama’s advocacy of infanticide?
Killing babies is just peachy, to this crowd of moral degenerates, but saying that human life in the womb is worthy of protection, regardless of its conception circumstances, is now the biggest, most vile thing that can be uttered.
It’s little wonder that America is on the road to collapse. Her moral fiber is in tatters and what remains of it is ripped to shreds at every turn, trodden underfoot, and spoken of as something despicable and remarkably retrograde.
er, immolating
See also, hanging oneself, going down with ship, moral victory but ten point loss.
OK, I change my mind. Akin is not only the lesser evil choice, but what he said should not disqualify him from winning. Heck, give him money from the RSC or whatever.
…Let some time pass…
How’s he doing now?
Akin is running to represent Missourians yet we have a lynch mob from all over telling him to quit. Akin has honorably represented a congressional district for years and has had tremendous support because of his principled conservatism. I am insulted as a Missouri voter to hear the vile, hateful, moronic attacks on Akin – and these are from so-called Conservative Republicans. If you disagree with the man’s opinion, fine. If you don’t like the way he answers media questions, fine. However, stop making yourselves look like barbarians in the process. Missourians will likely rally behind Akin if you just shut your mouths and publish the facts about the two Missouri candidates for Senate. We Missourians didn’t want Obama in ’08, we don’t want him in ’12, and we certainly don’t want McCaskill to be re-elected.
Well said. States rights my ass. The same people declaring So-Cons the problem for sticking up for him, think they have a right to dictate to him to drop out using the national Republican money apparatus they normally decry for keeping down their mythical third party.
Heah heah. Yes, right.
We Missourians didn’t want Obama in ’08, we don’t want him in ’12, and we certainly don’t want McCaskill to be re-elected.
McCaskill is up by 10 points as we speak. So much for your emphatic attempt at making your rather silly opinion look factual.
Akin has a history of saying stupid things. He’s toast now. A Tea Party independen is worth a shot against the two losers being offered.
That’s about the long and short of it.
Akin is toast in the Republican party…he will never be forgiven for dissing Romney/Ryan…nor should he.
Is it his right to hunker down and dig in? Yep….and its their right to disown him if he does. We can balk all day long about the double standard…it was there before Akin’s goodball comments and it will be there after. What matters is the country…and taking the White House and the Senate. If Akin were to take one for the team and pull out…he may yet have a place in the party….
He could get lucky and win…and flip to being an independent…and agitate the Republicans for 6 years….and embarrass himself and his state….But the media will use Akin against the national ticket and other campaigns…He gave them the ammunition. He did the damage…and no apology will suffice. Life isn’t fair, and politics is the place where the least fairness exists…if at all….especially if you are a conservative and a Republican.
Maybe Akin can be convinced to bow out for the good of the country and the party…stay in the House or simply retire. There is no future in the United States Senate for him….especially now when he has more friends on the other side of the isle…just by hanging around.
Baseless blame and ugly attacks don’t tarnish Akin’s reputation. It’s a shame you feel capable of judging a man and his career when you obviously only read filth.
Florida Town Buys 9-Ton Emergency TK-4 Tactical Vehicle to “Provide Residents Extra Protection During Hurricanes” Submitted on 08/23/201
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-23/florida-town-buys-9-ton-emergency-tk-4-tactical-vehicle-“provide-residents-ex
In response to those that insist on defending Akin.
The republican criticism of the man does NOT originate out of fear of running on a pro-life platform. The criticism is that the man approached an incredibly sensitive subject, without the slightest “hint,” of delicacy.
I shouldn’t have to say this, but rape is an insanely emotionally charged issue, and Akin’s words on the issue were not only ignorant but profoundly insensitive. Now, I could have forgiven that IF he had come out and apologized for his insensitivity, but he didn’t. Instead he apologized for his choice of words, which is an incredibly famous non-apology apology.
Additionally, the man has not only hurt his own campaign, but hurt HIS OWN CAUSE in the process. A week ago the man stood a better than even chance of winning, and now not only have his chances of winning gone down the tubes, but he’s cost Romney his lead in Missouri state. It doesn’t matter if he’s been a loyal pro-life advocate or not, protecting the unborn is a bigger issue than any man.
If you NEED to retire a man to promote your agenda and protect the unborn, you do it. You do not circle your wagons and protect an obvious liability. You find a new spokesman and move on, period!
“…no hint of delicacy.”???? Yes, let’s be mindful of the sensitivities of everyone in the political game and be delicate with those “emotionally-charged” social issues…….I admire a man for being passionate about his beliefs and has the courage to lead by his principles. I am less angered by Akin’s one lapse in an interview than I am by people so quick to judge his entire character by one sentence. How nice and “big tent” of you.
Delicacy towards woman, but more importantly, delicacy towards rape victims. Akin’s comments were dismissive and clearly insensitive towards those most likely to be affected by this issue.
There are a million ways you can advocate for the pro-life position, but the very first rule in that book is to tread with extreme care when the subject of rape is brought up. Akin did not take care, and “hurt his own position.”
Seriously, get out and actually talk to people. In the past week I’ve talked to women that would never vote pro-abortion in a million years, who were non-the-less horrified to the extent that they would never vote for this man.
If you offended pro-choice WOMEN, then you KNOW you’ve screwed up royally.
Pardon, pro-LIFE women. Sorry for the mental hiccup.
Todd Akin is not the hill anybody should want to die on. Especially when the Repeal of Obamacare is on the line.
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. Matthew 6:1″ Akin, just like, Santorum, couldn’t help himself. Temptation and sin come in several disguises. The discomfort, I think, that some Christian Americans have with socons may be rooted in this Bible verse. Many of us believe that our personal faith is strong enough to beat the odds in cases of our health, finances, success, whatever. Maybe a strong Christian woman may have the faith that her body would spare her a pregnancy due to a horrible rape. But that is not something to be discussed casually in the public square. This man said it in such a matter-of-fact way that he caused disgust to even those who agree with him. This man tread upon people’s privacy. Socons shouldn’t be calling on their candidates to be martyrs. Conservatives want to win back the Senate as well as the Presidency. We’re not looking for our candidates to be crucified. If he wins it will be despite his stupidity. I hope he was a good conservative representative and knows what he’s doing, because he certainly didn’t demonstrate this.
According to a report in the Daily Rash, in an apparent effort to enhance his image, Todd Akin says he wants to make rapists pay more child support than non-rapists pay. http://www.thedailyrash.com/todd-akin-pledges-to-double-rapists-child-support-payments
Oy vey.
The annoying thing about Huckabee’s support is that he has no skin in the game, he’s not running for anything and has nothing to lose. If Akin drags down other Republicans in close races in MO and elsewhere, or even the national ticket, Huck doesn’t care. He is burnishing his cred with his own base of fundamental evangelicals who don’t even understand why Akin was wrong.
He could have just kept his mouth shut.
Is there any way that we can jettison the over-the-top religious loons? Really, it’s a one way street with them. Those of us who are economic conservatives basically ALWAYS go along to get along, and never get the reverse in return. We coalition with these guys, put our own social issues and opinions on the back burner and let them call the shots in that area. They are often close to big brother and ideologically extreme. We vote for a party that has planks in it’s platform with which we disagree, sometimes vehemently, to keep the coalition together. But they rarely, if ever, return the favor. Could they, just this one time, just once, have compromised with the rest of us? These buffoons are literately going to bury us in the upcoming election. As an Independent Economic (NOT Social Issues) Conservative/ Libertarian, I’m really looking for another group. I don’t want to make nice anymore with these religious zealots. Anybody got any ideas? Could we peal off enough moderate Dems to get something going in the middle?
As a matter of fact,before Roe-vrs Wade, Govt had gotton into regulating abortin by banning it,Many Foundling Hospitals and “babyfarms” murdered infants. Many “Mid Wives” performed abortions. Not that this was a good thing, but the Scriptures are unique for the time in opposing abortion.
Just as we finally realized that Slavery was wrong, we finally began to outlaw abortion at the end of the 19th century.
Now for Akin: The public can oppose Sibalius’s anti-Catholicism without opposing abortion Step by step. Trotsky made the right comment for Akin. “Everyone has the right to be stupi..but you abuse the priviledge.”
When you wake up this November morning wondering how Obama got reelected, I’ll tell you. It’s these idiot socoms. This gun-totin’ libertarian is forced to vote for the executioner of American citizens (Al-Zkowi and his 16-year-old son)because he couldn’t turn his back on the civil rights of his gay sister and sister-in-law. I hate these sanctimonious bastards with their supernatural sexist 2,000 year-old claptrap trying to legislate how I live.
Well, we know where your loyalties lie. You care more about approving of perversity than preserving your liberty. Good riddance, and may posterity forget that you were our countryman.
“approving of perversity…..” Thanks for sharing, yet again, your personal religious views. And if the so-called so-cons take over, what of liberty then? Mandatory church attendance on Sundays? Mandatory tithing to their churches? No more access to contraception?
No, no, and maybe. I reject the notion of ecclesiastical courts having jurisdiction over criminal matters precisely because I would not want to be judged by a Protestant over matters of religion, and I’m sure they would not want to be judged by Catholic bishops. It was for this reason that we passed the First Amendment. As for contraception, I believe that contraception is evil and contrary to the practice of medicine, and for this reason as well as freedom of religion, no doctor should be forced to prescribe it, nor should any pharmacist be forced to fill that prescription, nor even any pharmacy forced to carry it. I have no intention of seeking an outright ban, but if nobody is willing to distribute it, well, that’s just the free market at work. It’s just like drug legalization: you can make cocaine legal, but that doesn’t mean you’ll find any reputable pharmacy willing to sell it.
#53 by Pocolimmo…… +10 Sadly, the big tent for the Republican party envisioned in the 1980s by the late RNC Chair, Lee Atwater, is long gone. And it’s equally sad to watch candidate Romney pander to the zealots. At one time, Romney was a common-sense conservative. No longer.
And there is no compromise with these guys. If you’re not totally against any form of abortion, you’re automatically the enemy. If Obama gets re-elected, I suspect there may be a civil war within the Republican party. Like you, I want my party back.
#55 Kowboy. Well said. I’m not sure I totally agree on the drone taking out Al-what’s his name. But your last sentence rings true. The so-cons really aren’t conservative. How a faction that wants to use big government to impose their religious views can be called “conservative” is beyond me. And I’ve wondered why no one has sued over the imposition of anti-gay marriage laws in various states. Being opposed to gays and gay marriage is a religious view; and said laws violate the 1st Amendment.
Look, it’s quite simple. Republicans have (had?) a good chance of taking control of the Senate and White House as long as they focus on the core issues: (1) presenting a viable solution to fix the economy, and (2) promising to repeal Obamacare. Everything else is off-message.
Now the question is, does Akin’s herp-and-derp on abortion help or hurt the Republican cause? Going by the polls, it hurts massively. The objective is to control all three houses, and everyone needs to be on-message and working together for that to happen.
Bringing up abortion at this time only distracts from the message and doesn’t help in any way. Whatever you think of abortion, you have to accept the fact that Roe v. Wade is currently settled law and isn’t changing overnight.
Win first, fix the economy and repeal Obamacare, then start worrying about ancillary issues. If the economy keeps going the way it is, it won’t matter because no one will be able to afford an abortion any way.
You won’t need abortion. You will see little bodies wrapped in blankets dumped on the roadside. Once we are a third-world nation………
Northeast ethnics are generally more verbally adept than people from other parts of the country.
Chris Chistie, Rudy Guliani, Peter King, Al D’Amato, Michael Savage, Dennis Prager, Howard Stern, Bill Bennnett,
If FOX had to dump all their Long Island spud Irish — they would go out of business — Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Megan Kelly, Greg Kelly, Bian Kilmeade.
A NE ethnic would not have made such a clumsey statement, unlike the thick-tounged Akin.
The real problem is the old axiom about absolute power. I am fairly confident that Romney will win and the GOP will get the house and a narrow majority int the senate. If that happens, watch all hell break loose in the GOP. Instead of cooperating to get things done they all agree on (fiscal matters, etc.,) they will all be pushing their own agendas because they will feel invincible. GOP versions like the health care “Lousiana Purchase” will be all over the place, or nothing will get done. Then it will be back to a Dem senate in 2004.
The only hope is this – many conservatives don’t like Romney – they see him as a flipper who will say anything to get elected. But however he does it, he gets things done. He is a great negotiator and mediator, and I believe may be the glue that holds the party together. We’ll see.
If the socons are smart, they will put their agendas on hold for a while. If the GOP attacks fiscal issues first and gets the country on a better path, the GOP will be stronger in 2014, and THEN they can start on the social stuff with greater impact.
Here is one voter who is in favor of free market Capitalism.
I could care less about trying to influence anybody concerning religion, abortion, gay rights, of many other personal and in most cases religious issues.
I believe the law is the law. It should have nothing to do with how somebody believes this or that.
Let get the economy of this country working. Thats it.
If you have some kind of social issue. I am going to leave you alone. Thats your business. Stay away from my family. Stay away from my wife and female chidren.
My religion or lack there of is my business. Stay away from my hospital, my doctor, my advisors. Go take care of your own. If you want to live in a society where you are told what to do and what to believe then leave America and live some other place.