Senate nominee from Missouri Todd Akin is a feeble-minded moron.

[MandaJo]

@TokyoBayer

It gets better.Yup, them people who want to kill them babies, they’re un-American, I tell you.

Right. And all those people who didn’t run into the towers to see if they could find someone to save? That was the same as murder. Also, we need a law compelling bystanders to run into burning buildings. After all, it would save lives.

[NDP]

@Chefguy

This is also one of three Republican candidates presently running who want to repeal the 17th Amendment (Senators shall be elected by the voting public). The guy is a moron, indeed.

That’s another thing that bothers me about this guy (and I don’t even live in Missouri). One of the things I find amazing about this new wave of Republicans is their ability to take issues that people thought were settled long ago (e.g., the popular election of Senators) and put them back into discussion again.

Incidentally, how strong are the three senatorial nominees mentioned in the Colbert Report link running? Right now, Akin looks like toast but what about the other two (Hoekstra in Michigan and Mourdock in Indiana)?

[Beware_of_Doug]

Akin is eating crow but I’ll bet he has only solidified his good faith with the party base. They think crap like this all the time, so whether it embarrassed him or not, he surely established that he’s One Of Them.

[Bouncer]

@elucidator

Their problem is fairly simple. They grudgingly accept that instances of rape require special treatment* but are concerned about all the wild sluts who will later claim rape in order to get the abortion and all the free goodies that Planned Parenthood offers to promote abortions.

• Prick Santorum, of frothy lube fame, is an exception. He is of the opinion that pregnancy is a gift from God in all circumstances, and the victim should simply accept the joy that is hers. No, I’m not kidding.

I could dial up the snark “So.. a rape baby is god’s way of saying here’s your prize?”

But as much as I dislike Santorum, and disagree with him… he’s at least consistent. WYSIWYG with him, and there’s no question he does earnestly believe what he says. Maybe it makes me a little odd, but I can respect that, even as I oppose his views.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[YogSothoth]

@Jenaroph

Todd Akin Apologizes For 'Legitimate Rape' Remark, Won't Drop Out | HuffPost Latest News
“Ill-conceived.” Ha. If he legitimately didn’t think what he said was wrong, he clearly never would have conceived of it in the first place.

But once it was conceived, he had to say it. He doesn’t believe in aborting his words after conceiving the thought

[Paul_in_Qatar]

So the word is out there that Akin will drop out by the end the day tomorrow. Why should the GOP be allowed to keep putting up candidates until they find one who can win?

[Kobal2]

@Paul_in_Qatar

Why should the GOP be allowed to keep putting up candidates until they find one who can win?

Because the Democrats are allowed to do it too. Their loss for picking non-looney-tunes candidates to begin with and squandering their rights !

[The_Second_Stone]

Isn’t every Republican dimwit entitled to a spirited defense on this message board? Even the Brick man seems to be clarifying how far from correct The Honorable Gentleman from Missouri is on the particular debating point that he raised. Wouldn’t it be more respectable to teach the controversy here? In such a way that the suspect factual assertion and it’s diverse world view is put on equal respectability footing with what science knows the facts to be? Because isn’t science falsifiable by definition? It seems to me that all things being equal, that it might be a good thing for Rep. Akin’s statement to be true. And to borrow a line of reasoning from the great St. Anselm, something that is good must be true, because otherwise it isn’t really good.

We all declare here that science has proven Rep. Akin wrong, but have there been any peer reviewed studies that follow this exact point? If not, and there aren’t, then it is more likely that Rep. Akin’s statement is true than the retarded notion that lowering taxes on the rich so they can offshore their wealth in secret bank accounts makes poorer people here at home better off. And being more likely to be true than “trickle down” economics, wouldn’t all Republicans have a duty to proudly defend this issue than even “trickle down” economics?

[jebert]

In spite of what he said on “legitimate rape”, I fully expect Akin to stay in the Senatorial race. And it would not surprise me if he won in November. There are a lot of hard core Republicans in Missouri

[Chefguy]

@Paul_in_Qatar

So the word is out there that Akin will drop out by the end the day tomorrow. Why should the GOP be allowed to keep putting up candidates until they find one who can win?

The Romney camp will be sweating bullets until that happens. Ryan’s name is closely tied to Akin’s name on proposed abortion legislation, and I’m sure they want as much distance as possible from Akin and his flubs.

[elucidator]

If he stays in, he does so in defiance of Republican leadership, and kisses their money goodbye. Only way that works is flipping them the bird and rallying the Tea Party stalwarts. Plus, in all likelihood goes down in flames.

Not that Ms McCatKill is any great shakes, but the (D) counts here.

[ElvisL1ves]

And if that happens, the state GOP can still publicly disavow him, and draft a presentable write-in candidate.

[Equipoise]

@elucidator

If he stays in, he does so in defiance of Republican leadership, and kisses their money goodbye. Only way that works is flipping them the bird and rallying the Tea Party stalwarts.

Even the Tea Party doesn’t want him anymore (from the TPM link above):

Tea Party Express: Akin ‘Should Step Down’

The Tea Party Express, the nation’s largest tea party super PAC, is urging Todd Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race, citing the 2010 losses of tea party candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell to make their case in a press release Monday.

…

[fumster]

The Tea Party Express, the nation’s largest tea party super PAC, is urging Todd Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race, citing the 2010 losses of tea party candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell to make their case in a press release Monday.

So can we expect an “I am not a warlock” statement from Akin?

[WarmNPrickly]

Just to float a name, I wonder if Alan Keyes is busy with anything right now?

[Truman_Burbank]

I think it’s sweet that just about the only person standing by his side, encouraging him to stay in the race, is his Democratic opponent.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Truman_Burbank

I think it’s sweet that just about the only person standing by his side, encouraging him to stay in the race, is his Democratic opponent.

Why wouldn’t he? The worse the opponent, the better your chances of winning.

[woodstockbirdybird]

The Onion weighs in.

[BrainGlutton]

From The Nation: The Danger of Laughing at Todd Akin.

The short-term consequences of such an incendiary remark are predictable: Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill will trumpet the remark to her own political advantage, donations will spike to her campaign and the party committees will offer the remark as one more proof point of the GOP’s war on women. But the impact of Akin’s effort to redefine the terms of this debate reaches beyond this one race. In the multidimensional chess that shapes public opinion, the game is less about individual elections and more about a sustained effort to mainstream radical ideas. In the case of denying women control over their lives, there’s evidence that the bad guys may be winning the long-game.

Akin was Paul Ryan’s co-sponsor on a House bill just last year banning the use of federal funds for abortion except in cases of “forcible rape.” This term seemed laughably redundant since all rape, by definition, is forced. But this redefinition of rape was deceptively sinister. Statutory rapists often use coercion but not physical force. If the measure had passed, a 13-year-old emotionally manipulated into having sex with an older friend or relative would no longer be able to use Medicaid to terminate a resulting pregnancy. Nor would her parents be able to use their tax-exempt health savings fund.

While the measure was defeated, conversation around it introduced skepticism about whether all rape is created equal and what distinctions should be recognized by law. Instead of making him politically toxic, Ryan’s support of the pioneering forcible rape measure likely made him a more attractive vice presidential candidate to a Romney campaign needing to energize the right-wing base.

And whether or not Akin loses this cycle, his comments have already escalated the stakes. In his world view, the rape victim’s body will be the ultimate judge of whether a crime has taken place. If she gets pregnant, by Akin’s standard, her reproductive organs consented to the pregnancy, so she must have consented to the sex. This bizarre standard of innocence is reminiscent of medieval Europe, where the men in authority held the similarly scientific view that women guilty of witchcraft floated in water while innocent women would drown. Being cleared of witchcraft was of course not much consolation to the drowned women, though they at least got to skip being burned at the stake.

Akin’s comments appear an awful lot like step one in the GOP’s favorite two-step tactic to redefine the world around us: first, more extreme figures voice opinions that would never fly from more politically palatable ones. The right-wing echo chamber picks up those opinions in the guise of news coverage. Then, the more politically acceptable candidates shift their rhetoric to acknowledge the newly accepted opinion as reality.

[Kimstu]

@F.U.Shakespeare

In the early 1990’s, the Washington Post magazine ran an article on Jesse Helms, then US senator from North Carolina.

The author quoted an abortion rights activist who claimed that when she confronted Helms about the details of an abortion bill which made exceptions in the case of rape, Helms said, “Well you know that if a woman is actually raped, she won’t get pregnant”.

IIRC, Helms office denied that he said that.

It was scary, to think that a person that powerful was that ignorant.

But at least reassuring, that Helms was ashamed to have people know that he believed as he did.

I thought I remembered a couple other instances of Republicans trotting out this idea, and looks like I was right:

In 1995, Republican Rep. Henry Aldridge told the House Appropriations committee:

The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer, 1988:

The odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are “one in millions and millions and millions,” said state Rep. Stephen Freind, R-Delaware County, the Legislature’s leading abortion foe.

The reason, Freind said, is that the traumatic experience of rape causes a woman to “secrete a certain secretion” that tends to kill sperm.

Two Philadelphia doctors specializing in human reproduction characterized Freind’s contention as scientifically baseless.

What is shocking is that conservatives have been publicly embarrassed by ignorance on this issue several times in the past, and they still keep waving it around. Looks like we need a Public Service Announcement:

**DEAR REPUBLICANS:

THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT BEING RAPED THAT MAKES UNINTENDED PREGNANCY SIGNIFICANTLY LESS LIKELY THAN IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF UNPROTECTED INTERCOURSE.

SINCERELY YOURS,
THE REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY**