CBS: Sources say Akin might quit if he doesn’t get early support

posted at 4:01 pm on August 22, 2012 by Allahpundit

Yeah, well, on Monday there were also sources whispering to prominent conservatives on Twitter that Akin would be out on Tuesday. One of the salient facts about this guy is that, for a sitting congressman, he appears to be unusually cloistered from the party’s leadership: Not only is his family running his campaign, but if you believe Mark Halperin, GOP bigwigs had trouble even getting him on the phone yesterday. What do “sources” know in a case like this?

But here you go anyway. Hope springs eternal:

If he stays on the ballot, Akin will have to rebuild without any money from the national party and with new misgivings among rank-and-file Republican voters who just two weeks ago propelled him to a comfortable victory in a hotly contested three-way primary.

But, says Andrews, “Two sources tell CBS News Aiken’s real strategy here is to hang tough — for now — and see if that wins enough money and support to stay in the race. In others words– his final decision to stay in–may not be final.”

In a potential sign of his strategy, Akin appealed Tuesday to Christian evangelicals, anti-abortion activists and anti-establishment Republicans. He said he remains the best messenger to highlight respect for life and liberty that he contends are crumbling under the big-government policies of President Obama.

Ed noted earlier that Akin was notably noncommittal about staying in the race when pressed on it this morning. If there was any huge groundswell of support for him among social conservatives, we should have seen it over the past two days as “party bosses” — Akin’s term for basically the entire Republican Party and conservative commentariat — piled on him to drop out. His online fundraising haul as I write this, after two days of relentless national media coverage: A shade over $25,000, a drop in the bucket in a state where the NRSC was prepared to spend $5 million on his behalf. Speaking of which, the next deadline is approaching:

Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is closely watching another deadline: Sept. 11, the date on which its $5 million ad buy was scheduled to begin to blister McCaskill from then until Election Day.

If Akin stays in the race at that point, the NRSC plans to scrap the ad buy. But if the party committee were to cancel the ad buy and later rebook it on behalf of a new candidate, the NRSC would have to pay for the ads at much higher rates, costing the party significant resources that could otherwise go toward another candidate in a tight race.

All of which adds to a continued sense of urgency among party officials worried that Akin’s blunder could wash away their chances of a Senate majority in the fall.

Looks like I was wrong, then, about the NRSC eventually being pressured to step in on Akin’s behalf if he hangs in there. It’s not a simple matter of releasing the money they’d earmarked for him; it’s a matter potentially of either having to raise more or pulling funds earmarked for other competitive Senate candidates to try to drag him over the finish line. They’ve got three weeks to watch the polls and decide whether he’s worth gambling on.

As for what convinced Akin to keep going, it was … a robo-poll, taken in the immediate aftermath of his rape comments, before every prominent conservative in America called on him to quit and before a single Democratic attack ad has run.

Embattled Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin commissioned an automated-telephone poll Monday, which showed him in a statistical dead heat with Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, according to a source close to the congressman. That finding, along with a separate Public Policy Polling survey showing the race competitive, played a large role in convincing him not to withdraw from the race before Tuesday’s deadline.

Akin’s internal poll showed 90 percent of respondents were aware of the controversy, leading Akin to conclude he couldn’t fall much further.

How do you suppose he’ll fare among the 10 percent who aren’t aware of the controversy yet, bearing in mind that the margin in this race will be razor thin even in a GOP best-case scenario? The point of calling on him to drop out isn’t that it’s metaphysically impossible for him to win, it’s that with a strong Republican nominee it would be all but impossible to lose. Everything is stacked against McCaskill. Or was, before America was introduced to the fable of the Magic Uterus.

Here’s Paul Ryan in an interview this morning running in the opposite direction. Not sure how much good it’ll do him; sounds like the entire Democratic convention will be Akinpalooza now. Exit question for election lawyers via Matt Lewis: Can Akin and Ann Wagner trade places on their respective ballots?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

MITT NEEDS ELECTORAL VOTES IN MO TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY. ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO TURN OUT THE VOTE FOR HIM IN MO IMPORTANT INCLUDING WRITE-IN VOTING. AKINS GOTTA GO. HE’S AN EMBARRASSMENT AND WILL SUPPRESS THE REPUBLICAN TURNOUT.

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 5:05 PM

How much does this guy look like one of the evil characters from Scooby-Doo?

Pull off your mask Akins & tell us the Democrat you really are.

batterup on August 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Bernie Sanders will always caucus with Democrats.

There are only two conferences in the Senate: Republicans and everyone else. That’s why we need 50/51.

KingGold on August 22, 2012 at 5:02 PM

If GOP won MT, WI, ND and NE, it will be 50 R and 49 D and 1 I, hence my 50-50 split. If GOP wins VA , it will be 51 R, 48 D and 1 I. If Mack win in OH , it will be 52 R ,47 D and 1 I.

And what do you think of my suggesting Akin suspending , instead of withdrawing in MO when he realizes he has to step aside. That can mean GOP retaining the possibility of winning MO.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

BoxHead1 on August 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I was talking about how to respond to the effort of the Dems trying to tie the term forcible rape in the first version of H.R.3 to Ryan,

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I think the RR statement should of concentrated on the magic spermicide part and not the “abortion in cases of rape” comment. Millions of us are against abortion in all cases(excepting the mothers life) and that was not the issue/problem with Akin’s statement. They extended the battle field to their detriment.

BoxHead1 on August 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

How much does this guy look like one of the evil characters from Scooby-Doo?

Pull off your mask Akins & tell us the Democrat you really are.

batterup on August 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM

He’s Nancy Pelosi with hair forehead extensions.

Alberta_Patriot on August 22, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Make our day, Todd. Make our day.

J.E. Dyer on August 22, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Are we talking Galactically Stupid as in the Bugblatter Beast of Traal?

Because if THAT’s the case, we just need someone to put a towel over Akin’s eyes and he’ll assume since he can’t see us – we can’t see him … and he’ll drop his narcissistic a$$ out of the race.

;)

PolAgnostic on August 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Talk about throwing in the towel!!! Let’s do it!

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 5:15 PM

sounds like the entire Democratic convention will be Akinpalooza now.

My very liberal mother has voted democratic in all of the elections except one. She’s pro-life, but supports pretty much everything else the democrats do.

The one time she voted republican was for Reagan, in 1984. I asked her why, and she said, the democratic convention was very angry, with lots of mean people screaming about the right to abortion on demand. She doesn’t like mean people either, and most of the time convinces herself that the democrats are happy friendly unicorn people. That convention broke through the haze.

I still am pessimistic about this whole Akin thing, and I’m pretty sure it will hurt us, but I think I just spotted a glimmer of something in the distance. Could that be… Hope?

RINO in Name Only on August 22, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Can we all stop talking about this Ozark Mountain Hair-devil?

He is a distraction. An excuse for the libs to mock those bible-thumping, ignorant, neanderthal conservatives who hate women and all things science. Ignore the ignorant slob!

It’s still the economy. Let’s not be stupid by allowing the discussion to be about abortion!

MJBrutus on August 22, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Agree completely with all of this … but can’t resist a tangential question.

Are we talking Galactically Stupid as in the Bugblatter Beast of Traal?

Because if THAT’s the case, we just need someone to put a towel over Akin’s eyes and he’ll assume since he can’t see us – we can’t see him … and he’ll drop his narcissistic a$$ out of the race.

;)

PolAgnostic on August 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Scientifically speaking, if you wrap a towel around his head, you’ll be gripped by an uncontrollable urge to push him off or into something thus voiding the results of the test.

Alberta_Patriot on August 22, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I think the RR statement should of concentrated on the magic spermicide part…

BoxHead1 on August 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

That’s the Magical Vajayjay Shield, if you don’t mind.

The MVS makes the cervix impenetrable. It’s like a superhero. I hear that Marvel is even coming out with comic book.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Since when is 51 a magic number beyond which nothing else matters anyway?

Gingotts on August 22, 2012 at 5:04 PM

51 means Harry Reid is not majority leader and bury bills or block Romney’s initiatives automatically. We may not win every vote with potential switch from Brown or Collins, but the switch can be from the other side as well. And it is important to be able to get something going by getting risk of the obstruction from Harry Reid. If the agendas works , then we can add to the seat numbers in 2014 in mid term.

Is Harry Reid out as majority leader when it is 50 R, 49 D and 1I ?

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Did you mean to SHOUT in our ear like a maniac? It’s more effective if you do it like THIS, ’cause we’re hard of hearing.

Foxhound on August 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Dan Quayle was right

At least in the words of an article in The Atlantic.

Does anyone mention the important qualities he demonstrates? The media and culture ignore years of success in family and church because of one comment expressing an arcane theory about rape and abortion.

If only the moms of kids who are gunning each other down in Chicago or dumping them in dirty laundry bins had a man like Congressman Aken.

IlikedAUH2O on August 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

With Mitt in the WH, Ryan becomes the tie breaker on 50/50 votes. I think that would include votes to lead the Senate.

MJBrutus on August 22, 2012 at 5:21 PM

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM,
50 50 split hurts on the committee level, a tie makes it tougher to get bills to the floor.

rob verdi on August 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM

BoxHead1 on August 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Are we talking about 2 different things? The democrats are already tying Ryan to the term “forcible rape” over its temporary presence in HT #3. The are referring to the team Akin-Ryan, and saying Ryan was trying to redefine rape, when “forcible” rape is a legal definition used by the FBI, and legalese was employed in drafting bills.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Yeah, I don’t see how people can defend “no abortion, even if you were raped”. I understand the first part; fine. But the rape clause? That is awfully cruel to the victim.

lorien1973 on August 22, 2012 at 4:10 PM

The logic is that it isn’t the baby’s fault, and it would be even more evil to take a life. It’s not “she deserves to have to bear the child”, it’s “she and the child have both been placed in a horrible situation, which neither of them deserve, and as a society, we need to help them both through this ordeal.”

RINO in Name Only on August 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM,
50 50 split hurts on the committee level, a tie makes it tougher to get bills to the floor.

rob verdi on August 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM

50-50 split with Ryan as President of senate means majority control and control of committee chairmanship and therefore movements of bills.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Did you mean to SHOUT in our ear like a maniac? It’s more effective if you do it like THIS, ’cause we’re hard of hearing.

Foxhound on August 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM

OK YAH. HOW’S BOUT THIS:

MITT NEEDS ELECTORAL VOTES IN MO TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY. ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO TURN OUT THE VOTE FOR HIM IN MO IMPORTANT INCLUDING WRITE-IN VOTING. AKINS GOTTA GO. HE’S AN EMBARRASSMENT AND WILL SUPPRESS THE REPUBLICAN TURNOUT.

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 5:05 PM

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Is it asking too much of the Republican Party to stop dancing to the Democrats/Lib Media tune? A Republican says or does something dumb, the Dems/Lib media stage one of their utterly predictable s**t fits, and the Republicans fall all over themselves issuing denunciations and calls for resignation. EVERY. FREAKIN. TIME.

I live in Cong Akin’s district. I’ve never agreed with everything he’s said or done over the years but I do admire his convictions and sincerity. The “legitimate rape” thing was dumb, but the man almost immediately apologized and clarified his remarks. The correct answer to Charles Jackoff’s question of course would have been “No, I do not believe that abortion should be allowed under any circumstances. Next question”. That’s been Akin’s position since about forever and every Missourian knows it.

I think the national Republican party is shooting itself in the foot with its hysterical overreaction. Akin is a rock solid vote against Obamacare and the rest of the Progressive agenda. Given the proper support I think he’d still beat McCaskill handily. Conservative Republicans whined for years that Romney wasn’t the perfect presidential candidate. Well guess what, you’re stuck with him now. Todd Akin isn’t the perfect senatorial candidate either, but you know the saying – you go to war with the army you have.

RobertE on August 22, 2012 at 5:29 PM

AND, who exactly does Akin think is going to support and fund him (other than McCaskill and Huckabee of course)?

Pork-Chop on August 22, 2012 at 5:29 PM

RobertE on August 22, 2012 at 5:29 PM,
Do you consider some of his behavior in the least erratic since he spoke his views?

rob verdi on August 22, 2012 at 5:32 PM

And what do you think of my suggesting Akin suspending , instead of withdrawing in MO when he realizes he has to step aside. That can mean GOP retaining the possibility of winning MO.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If Akin is still on the ballot (which if he only suspends he would be), then the other two major candidates who ran in the primary cannot run against him, third party or otherwise. Actually the deadline for a third party candidacy has already passed, so there are only two ways to get another name into consideration. First, if Akin withdraws (but he has to get that approved by a court) — in that case I think the Republicans can select anyone they want, including Brunner or Steelman. Second, if he does not withdraw (suspends as you suggest, or keeps running or just has his petition to withdraw rejected) — in that case the only option is a write-in candidacy, but in that case Brunner and Steelman are not eligible.

My thought is that getting Bond or Ashcroft or Danforth to agree to run as a write-in will let Akin know that he really needs to get out because he absolutely will get no support from the party, which may clear the way for Brunner or Steelman if his petition is accepted. If it is rejected, a suspended Akin campaign would still let the write-in candidate, someone with massive statewide name recognition, run a credible campaign.

HTL on August 22, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Let’s not be stupid by allowing the discussion to be about abortion!

MJBrutus on August 22, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Well, if Preznit Choom is stupid enough to make this about abortion, he will probably wish he hadn’t.

stefanite on August 22, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Are we talking about 2 different things? The democrats are already tying Ryan to the term “forcible rape” over its temporary presence in HT #3. The are referring to the team Akin-Ryan, and saying Ryan was trying to redefine rape, when “forcible” rape is a legal definition used by the FBI, and legalese was employed in drafting bills.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:24 PM

But this is not what is wrong with what Akin’s said. The Dems might be trying to make this argument but we don’t have to help them. HT #3 is splitting hairs over what is an ok acceptable abortion ,but that issue is not the one Akin’s has created. We don’t need to go along with the Dem line of thinking here.

The Dems turn everything into a broader issue. See the FLukes BC comments. A speech about free BC became , to the Dems, an argument about whether BC can remain legal. A complete strawman. That’s a Dem technique. We don’t have to follow along.

HT #3 is only a problem because. in response to Akin, RR stated that they are OK with post rape rape abortions . That wasn’t the issue here. It’s about his dismissal of pregnancy caused by rape.

BoxHead1 on August 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM

grammer is hard

BoxHead1 on August 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I am not defending Akins in any way shape or form, but when I first heard about his comments, I couldn’t help but think he was getting some physiological facts mixed up – not just outright wrong – but mixed up. Then, I remembered my 8th grade health class and the video they showed us of the inside of woman’s cervix when having sex. I remembered that when the woman acheived orgasm, there was almost a suction action between the cervix and uterus (sorry if I’m getting too graphic here), and that this action was an evolutionary response to increase the probability of pregnancy. So, I decided to look up and see if I was imagining things. Lo and behold, there are is a debate on whether orgasm helps fertility by assisting in sperm retention. See this article:

The following quote is similar to what I had remembered:

They discovered that when a woman climaxes any time between a minute before to 45 minutes after her lover ejaculates, she retains significantly more sperm than she does after nonorgasmic sex. When her orgasm precedes her male’s by more than a minute, or when she does not have an orgasm, little sperm is retained. Just as the doctors’ letters suggested decades earlier, the team’s results indicated that muscular contractions associated with orgasm pull sperm from the vagina to the cervix, where it’s in better position to reach an egg.

So, to an extent, according to this theory, when a woman has an orgasm, she is increasing the probability of fertility. Now, here is where Akin is screwing up (and presumably the doctors he is talking to) – the assumption is that someone who is being raped is not going to experience an orgasm. Does this decrease the chances of pregnancy? I would suppose so, but no more so than a woman who doesn’t achieve an orgasm when engaged in consensual sex. So, to a certian extent, Akin is not entirely wrong – but he is wrong enough that to suggest that the female body is acting against the sperm of a rapist is utterly inane.

I still think he should quit.

studentofhistory on August 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM

stefanite on August 22, 2012 at 5:35 PM

If we are smart and keep it about the economy Obamandias will DEFINITELY regret it. Never give a sucker an even chance.

MJBrutus on August 22, 2012 at 5:41 PM

HTL on August 22, 2012 at 5:32 PM

What I was suggesting is the GOP get a well known, credible candidate in place as a write-in. When Akin face the fact that he has no chance at all and decided to step aside, he should suspend, instead of withdrawing his candidacy. Withdrawal needs court approval and has to survive democrat objections. Suspending and not doing anything means there is a 2 way race, even if Akin’s name remains on the ballot.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM

I heard Ann Coulter recommend a write in campaign for Kit Bond. Good reputation and record in numerous statewide offices and easy to spell.

MJBrutus on August 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Is Harry Reid out as majority leader when it is 50 R, 49 D and 1I ?

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

If Paul Ryan is the Vice President, he is.

And 51 still doesn’t mean 52 isn’t necessary. And nothing justifies yielding a race to an incumbent as unpopular as McCaskill whether it means 50, 51, 52, 44, 72 or anything remotely near any of those.

Gingotts on August 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM

What I was suggesting is the GOP get a well known, credible candidate in place as a write-in. When Akin face the fact that he has no chance at all and decided to step aside, he should suspend, instead of withdrawing his candidacy. Withdrawal needs court approval and has to survive democrat objections. Suspending and not doing anything means there is a 2 way race, even if Akin’s name remains on the ballot.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM

This is strictly your hatred of Conservatives showing.

Sure get your write in this is what will happen.

Write In will get 20%

Akins will get 25%

Clair will win with over 50%

Most of those that vote for Akins will not vote for Romney. Many in other States will see this for what it is the party elite forcing out a legitimate candidate and also not vote for Mitt.

Mitt will lose Missouri but also many other States.

Obama will win and keep the senate.

You told us Conservatives you have to hold your nose and vote for our RINO.

Now your song is completely different. Hell No I will not vote for your Conservative. But you still want us to vote for your RINO. Hell NO.

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I heard Ann Coulter recommend a write in campaign for Kit Bond. Good reputation and record in numerous statewide offices and easy to spell.
MJBrutus on August 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM

She got this idea from us on this site, MJ. We said it first right here.

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Ann Coulter: ‘I officially hate’ Todd Akin
…so does that mean she WILL or WILL NOT date him like she did leftist sewer-rat bill maher?

What do you call a person who is so stupid and out-of-touch with reality that he ignores the good, constructive advice of everybody and continues on his insane, destructive path of embarrassing himself with both feet in his mouth, while wreaking political havoc on a national level?

1. bumbling Bite-Me biden, 2. Todd Akin, 3. BOTH.

TeaPartyNation on August 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

BoxHead1 on August 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM

R&R had already responded to Akin. They need to get ready to respond to the ongoing maneuver of Fluke and the Dems tying Ryan to Akin and the term “forcible rape”, and alleging Ryan sought to redefine rape (google that if you did not the start of that game), when “forcible” rape is a legal definition used by the FBI. They do not go back to explain Akin and the God’s little shield, but point out “forcible” rape is a legal term used during drafting of the bill ( which Ryan was not the author) and not a value judgement.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM

u twist every argument Akin’s way. whasamatta u? can’t wait for more doodooto come out of his pie hole. he’ll put ol’ Joe to shame.

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Take a bow :-)

I haven’t been reading regularly.

MJBrutus on August 22, 2012 at 5:53 PM

In addition to him not being allowed to run for the U.S. Senate, he should also be compelled to give the name of the Dr. who provided the information he shared with the Country.

DDay on August 22, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Hate is a strong word…but I really really dislike that guy. Ryan having to defend the meaning of Forcibly is just sad.

tomas on August 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Now your song is completely different. Hell No I will not vote for your Conservative. But you still want us to vote for your RINO. Hell NO.

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM

How is Akin a conservative? Magic Uterus disciple?

the_nile on August 22, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Ryan having to defend the meaning of Forcibly is just sad.
tomas on August 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

he didn’t. he just said rape is rape and that’s it.

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Keep e-mailing him.

If you’ve ever donated to the FRC or have any ties with them, let them know you want Akin to withdraw from this race. E-mail and tweet Tony Perkins.

Ditto for Phyllis Schlafly and the Susan B. Anthony List. If you’ve ever donated to them, let them know you think Akin should be withdrawn and no money should be sent his way.

joana on August 22, 2012 at 6:04 PM

This is strictly your hatred of Conservatives showing.

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I do not hate conservative. But I do despise a moron like you, who is even dumber than Akin, if that is possible.

I was to respond to your epically stupid post in QOTD from this morning, but figure no one will read it. Here it is in its full lack of logic, idiocy, grammatical mistakes and factual errors.

This is just wrong.

Man won his election by the rules set in advance. As soon as he won the leaders of the Republican began the process of undoing a fair election.

I am sorry. I agree with others here originally only male landowners could vote for years conventions were used to choose candidates. But it is what it is. The man won fair and square.

Now if he Clair wins the truth of the matter will be she could be the vote to stop repeal because the Republican party would not accept the results of a fair election.

This is most definitely not Akin. He has been in the House for 22 years but no one mentions that. Sure Clair thought it would be easier to win against a Conservative Republican. But then too I remember Operation Chaos. Were Republicans voted for Hillary.

Sarah Pallin came off poorly tonight. She really should have called her candidate before going off half-cocked. Sarah Tilgman can not run now by State Law. Seemed Sarah was more into her running but that is not possible. Worse mistake than Akin made boot her out. I mean how stupid is Sarah Palin.

Making a point there. We all make mistakes. But we want to win we get behind the candidate that wins. Sharon Angle lost because Republicans ran ads against her after she won the Primary and when she was still winning they actually endorsed Harry Reid. How on earth does that make sense. Blame the RINOS in Nevada for Harry Reid the 51′st and most important vote he will stop everything if he can but he would unemployed were it not for RINOS.

I do not know Akin at all but this is just wrong. Change the rules as much as you want but accept the results of the game you set the rules for.

Like I said before this is not Constitutional. It is not right. It is the kind of thing done in Communist Nations all the time.

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Can a simpleton like you do simple addition and subtraction? Akin was elected to congress in 2001. Did drug or alcohol make you more stupid? It is hard to imagine anything that can, you cretin. And did your Special Ed teacher teach you what a comma is?

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

The fact that the question was even asked Gracie

tomas on August 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

My previous post didn’t post, so I’m going to try to bring some sanity to this whole argument. First, I think we need to get our heads on straight about what Akin was and was not saying. Akin was not saying that any woman who gets pregnant from rape is a liar. I think this is the democrats trope and we shouldn’t fall for it. What I think he was trying to do was decrease the importance of the “in the case of rape” issue when debating abortion. This is a common tactic amongst pro-lifers, and not entirely incorrect – pregnancies that are the result of rape are a small fraction of the abortions that occur and should not could the larger issue. However, this is not to say that it is not an important issue or one that should be handled with much more emphathy and care than Akin did. For this alone, I agree he should step down.

Now, as my previous post (which may or may not majically appear) stated, he really screwed up with his idea that somehow the female body can fight off impregnation during a rape. That is bizzar. However, I think it comes from a gross misunderstanding of actual female physiology and fertility (which, if he didn’t understand, he should never have commented on). There is a theory (which is debated) that female orgasm increases semen retention and therefore increases the probability of fertilization. An assumption that could be drawn (incorrectly) is that if there is no orgasm (as would be the case in a rape), then semen retention is reduced and the probability of fertilization is decreased. So, if Akin (and the doctors he talks to) make the assumption that this is the case, then they will claim that in a “legitimate rape,” i.e., one where there is no orgasm, then the probability of fertility is reduced.

The problem with this logic is that reduction of the probability of fertility is not the body “fighting against” fertility. Also, pregnancy due to rape occurs – that makes the issue an serious issue vis-a-vis abortion regardless of how many times it occurs. This is a lesson pro-lifers never seem to learn when they try to decrease the importance of the issue by citing its “rarity.”

Needless to say, Akin was stupid enough to discuss a scientific matter that he clearly had not researched. For this alone, I think he is a bad candidate and should step down from the nomination. Adding to the fact that it appears thoughtless towards rape victims (and especially rape victims who become pregnant), and his need to quit is eminently clear.

studentofhistory on August 22, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Can a simpleton like you do simple addition and subtraction? Akin was elected to congress in 2001. Did drug or alcohol make you more stupid? It is hard to imagine anything that can, you cretin. And did your Special Ed teacher teach you what a comma is?

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Crazies and mobys pushing for Akin.

the_nile on August 22, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Another important race – (CA) – Elizabeth Emken: Running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein –

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-morrison-emken-gop-california-20120822,0,2898340.story

Pork-Chop on August 22, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Another important race – (CA) – Elizabeth Emken: Running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein –

Pork-Chop on August 22, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Sorry, here in California, DiFi is a shoe-in. She won’t get the boot.

aunursa on August 22, 2012 at 6:21 PM

So he waits for the automatic withdrawal deadline to pass, and then realizes that he probably should have quit? What a jackass. Now he’s going to force the party to engage in a very ugly (and public) tap dance with the Dem controlled Secretary of State and courts to get him off the ticket. There’s no guarantee they’ll allow that to happen, and even if they do, they’ll certainly drag this out for as long as they can to inflict as much damage as possible, not only in regard to his brain dead statements, but also to prevent whomever replaces him from establishing a viable candidacy in the short time that remains.

Good work, you self-absorbed, pious horse’s ass.

JFS61 on August 22, 2012 at 6:21 PM

You can always depend on Allahpundit to push the Leftist point of view for all the pseudo Conservatives on this site.

FactsofLife on August 22, 2012 at 6:30 PM

The fact that the question was even asked Gracie

tomas on August 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

ok..well he handled it well….the less said the better. don’t try to explain or defend it.

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 6:33 PM

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-08-22.html

MISSOURI: THE ‘SHOW ME ANOTHER G.O.P. CANDIDATE’ STATE
August 22, 2012

We need Republicans out there saying, “Akin’s not our candidate; our candidate is Kit Bond.”

the_nile on August 22, 2012 at 6:34 PM

JFS61 on August 22, 2012 at 6:21 PM

You can get around the scenario by having the GOP recruits a well known and credible candidate in the very near future,and run him (and preferably her, if one is available) as a write in candidate. When the moron Akin realizes the hard truth and decided to step aside, the GOP can negotiate an arrangement with Akin … (retiring his debts , for instance, but no office or position) and he just “suspend” his campaign and stop running, without officially withdrawing. That will get around necessity of obtaining a court order or potential Dem objection and interference and still result in a 2 candidate race.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Talk about throwing in the towel!!! Let’s do it!

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 5:15 PM

.
I am googling the whereabouts of Ford Prefect but we made need a different hoopy frood if he is currently off planet.

PolAgnostic on August 22, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Keep e-mailing him.

If you’ve ever donated to the FRC or have any ties with them, let them know you want Akin to withdraw from this race. E-mail and tweet Tony Perkins.

Ditto for Phyllis Schlafly and the Susan B. Anthony List. If you’ve ever donated to them, let them know you think Akin should be withdrawn and no money should be sent his way.

joana on August 22, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Good point about emailing the Pro-Life groups.

Akin is setting back the pro-life movement with his unscientific word salad.

batterup on August 22, 2012 at 6:43 PM

How much does this guy look like one of the evil characters from Scooby-Doo?

Pull off your mask Akins & tell us the Democrat you really are.

batterup on August 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Asked and answered:

Todd Akin may well be a doppelganger version of Elliot Spitzer, with the addition of a blond comb-over.

Trochilus on August 22, 2012 at 6:44 PM

CBS: Sources say Akin might quit if he doesn’t get early support

That wouldn’t appear to be a poblem.

tom on August 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Scientifically speaking, if you wrap a towel around his head, you’ll be gripped by an uncontrollable urge to push him off or into something thus voiding the results of the test.

Alberta_Patriot on August 22, 2012 at 5:16 PM

.
Well, then we would just have to REPEAT the test …

Over and over and over …

… until he quits the race or is “unable to continue”.

On the upside, whether he goes “off or into something” we can be assured of two things:

A) he CAN’T get any uglier
B) with the towel in place, we won’t have to test the validity of point A

PolAgnostic on August 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Can a simpleton like you do simple addition and subtraction? Akin was elected to congress in 2001. Did drug or alcohol make you more stupid? It is hard to imagine anything that can, you cretin. And did your Special Ed teacher teach you what a comma is?

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

OK fine for 12 years he served in the House. He is well known. Paul Ryan sang his praises from the House floor when running for Senate. He won his seat fairly. Just as fair as Mitt Romney who massively outspent everyone and also benefited from Democrats voting for him.

One mistake and he must go.

No one felony and he should go but no criminal charges he should stay.

If we start forcing out every Republican the Left goes ape-shit over when they say something stupid we will force out all Republicans.

This is not about that at all anyway. The Party Bosses never wanted him and this is a Political Assassination.

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Does anyone in Akin’s vicinity have a severed horse head handy???

Putter on August 22, 2012 at 7:07 PM

The implication of Akin’s statement is that, if a woman becomes pregnant following a “rape,” then she must be lying. That is intolerable. Further, it is also ignorant on a galactic level. History is replete with millions of examples of women becoming pregnant following being raped by invading armies. You don’t even have to go back that far…just look at the Rape of Nanking and the children born to German women, who were raped en masse by the Soviets in the chaotic, final days of WWII in Europe.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I believe his implication was that pregnancy resulting from rape would be rare, solving the problem for us. IOW, there’s no need to address it in legislatin or create a rape exception to abortion restrictions.

Statistically, it is pretty rare, but Akins was trying to claim it was extremely rare.

No need to put words in his mouth.

On the other hand, he was implying that a lot of reports of rape are false. That is probably true. We’ve certainly seem some high profile accusations of rape that had no evidence. And if there were avortion restrictions, and an exception for rape, then the number of false reports of rape would certainly be higher than it is now. But I sure don’t know how many are false at this point.

According to our standard of “innocent until proven guilty,” absolutely no one should be convicted of rape without solid proof. But if you take that position, you will without the slightest doubt be accused of being callous to rape victims. So most politicians try hard to avoid the controversy.

But what if it’s a DA who wants to be known as tough on crime? Pandering to women who claim rape without evidence and then use it to justify abortion would have to be very attractive to a power-hungry politician.

tom on August 22, 2012 at 7:07 PM

This is not about that at all anyway. The Party Bosses never wanted him and this is a Political Assassination.

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Who the heck are “The Party Bosses”? Akin was the DC insider who had the most support of national organizations.

You’re nothing but a Moby who will always side by what’s more convenient to the democrats and throw logic apart. You can’t get basic facts right. And it’s laughable to see someone like you promoting party loyalty after months of bashing Republicans and saying they’re just like Democrats and conservatives shouldn’t vote.

joana on August 22, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Better option being floated: a loophole in Missouri law would allow Wagner and Akin to trade ballot places – not requiring any judicial approval.

Akin would save face and get his old job back.

Wagner, a female, would unite all party factions and crush McCaskill.

matthew8787 on August 22, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Better option being floated: a loophole in Missouri law would allow Wagner and Akin to trade ballot places – not requiring any judicial approval.

Akin would save face and get his old job back.

Wagner, a female, would unite all party factions and crush McCaskill.

matthew8787 on August 22, 2012 at 7:08 PM

seriously? who’s wagner?

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 7:12 PM

It’s all about him. What a egotistical crapweasel.

Wade on August 22, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I think the national Republican party is shooting itself in the foot with its hysterical overreaction. Akin is a rock solid vote against Obamacare and the rest of the Progressive agenda. Given the proper support I think he’d still beat McCaskill handily. Conservative Republicans whined for years that Romney wasn’t the perfect presidential candidate. Well guess what, you’re stuck with him now. Todd Akin isn’t the perfect senatorial candidate either, but you know the saying – you go to war with the army you have.

RobertE on August 22, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Now, you know that kind of logic only holds true when conservatives have to hold their nose and vote for a squishy RINO.

But then, that never happens!

tom on August 22, 2012 at 7:17 PM

CBS: Sources say Akin might quit if he doesn’t get early support

That wouldn’t appear to be a poblem.

tom on August 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM

He is well over his goal of 24K in contributions.

So he is staying in this.

Sorry Party Bosses you lose.

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 7:19 PM

seriously? who’s wagner?

gracie on August 22, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Ann Wagner a former candidate for RNC chair and is running for Congress in MO-02. Some want to use her to replace Akin because Steelman is ineligible and ID politics are teh awesomez. If he were to drop out and the ballots were changed properly, then it could work, but it would be a hassle as the GOP would have to replace candidates on two races instead of one. If it’s the write-in option, I think anybody other than Danforth or Bond would only do enough to split the vote for McCaskill to win with 42%.

Gingotts on August 22, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Two University of Colorado professors have devised a model to predict who will win the presidential election under current economic circumstances. The victor, they say, will be Republican Mitt Romney.

The model uses economic indicators from all 50 states to predict the race’s outcome. The forecast calls for Romney to win 320 electoral votes out of 538. It says Romney will also win virtually every state currently considered a swing state, including Colorado.

The professors who created the model, Ken Bickers from CU-Boulder and Michael Berry from CU-Denver, say it correctly forecast every winner of the electoral since 1980.

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21373080

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 7:24 PM

CBS: Sources say Akin might quit if he doesn’t get early support

…what???????????…so if the Democrats that voted for him this last week don’t promise to do it again in November and tell him now…he’s out?

KOOLAID2 on August 22, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Yes, gracie, Ann Wagner. See exit question from AP

matthew8787 on August 22, 2012 at 7:24 PM

24k should be enough to buy 4 or 5 ad placements. Assuming low production costs for the ad. The other side will run thousands of them.

This guy is DOA and because of his own stupidity. He’s a selfish, egomaniac, insane career politician. He’s going to put the foot in his mouth again.

joana on August 22, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Ann Wagner a former candidate for RNC chair and is running for Congress in MO-02. Some want to use her to replace Akin because Steelman is ineligible and ID politics are teh awesomez. If he were to drop out and the ballots were changed properly, then it could work, but it would be a hassle as the GOP would have to replace candidates on two races instead of one. If it’s the write-in option, I think anybody other than Danforth or Bond would only do enough to split the vote for McCaskill to win with 42%.

Gingotts on August 22, 2012 at 7:22 PM

I agree about the write-in, but you could have Brunner replacing Wagner on MO-2. He’s a former Akin blunder and major donor, he probably could get his support and appease the 500 crazies that are still standing with Akin.

joana on August 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Let’s follow the typical democratic party m/o on ‘gun control’ and just pass a law saying rapists must use condoms. Problem solved.

slickwillie2001 on August 22, 2012 at 7:28 PM

I agree about the write-in, but you could have Brunner replacing Wagner on MO-2. He’s a former Akin blunder and major donor, he probably could get his support and appease the 500 crazies that are still standing with Akin.

joana on August 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Well I’m not too informed on the details of the so-called loophole that allows for the two to switch places – would Brunner be allowed to take the new spot in MO-02, or would that have to be Akin…? Either way could be worked, but I’m also wary because I figure that every option has the added difficulty of whatever Robin Carnahan – the Soros backed Dem SoS – will throw into it. That loophole could make replacing the candidates easier, or harder, just not sure.

Then there is the added issue of turning Wagner’s district wide campaign into a statewide campaign on short notice. That won’t be easy. All that said, though I do appreciate the idea that positive avenues are being researched – I just hope the logistics are being taken seriously.

Gingotts on August 22, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I believe his implication was that pregnancy resulting from rape would be rare, solving the problem for us. IOW, there’s no need to address it in legislatin or create a rape exception to abortion restrictions.

That may be the reason for him wishing something foolish, but it doesn’t make it so.

Statistically, it is pretty rare, but Akins was trying to claim it was extremely rare.

38,000 pregnancies per year result from rape in the US. You may consider that rare, but to the women, it is not.

No need to put words in his mouth.

Honey, I have no desire to put anything in his mouth. As a survivor of rape, he lost me at “legitimate.” He doesn’t need any assists in committing suicide. He did quite a good enough job on his own.

On the other hand, he was implying that a lot of reports of rape are false. That is probably true.

So, on the one hand, he is implying a “fact” and, on the other hand, you are claiming that the “fact” is only “probably true.” IOW, you don’t know and he was stating a fact not in evidence. Both of you would be laughed out of court.

We’ve certainly seem some high profile accusations of rape that had no evidence.

Yes, we have. But, we should not start from the position of doubting women. The police do not. Investigators do not. They start with the premise that a rape was reported and look at the evidence, which they allow to speak for itself.

And if there were avortion restrictions, and an exception for rape, then the number of false reports of rape would certainly be higher than it is now. But I sure don’t know how many are false at this point.

Possibly and maybe probably, but understand this: There will never be a ban on abortion in this country that lacks a rape and incest exception. NEVER. Your position is in the minority…overwhelmingly.

According to our standard of “innocent until proven guilty,” absolutely no one should be convicted of rape without solid proof.

We aren’t talking about convicting a rapist in a court of law in this discussion. I am an attorney and understand the burden of proof.

But if you take that position, you will without the slightest doubt be accused of being callous to rape victims. So most politicians try hard to avoid the controversy.

No, you are conflating the two. Furthermore, you are operating under the mistaken and simpleton’s assumption that a rape trials can be conducted soon after a rape is alleged. If a woman had to wait until a defendant was adjudicated guilty of rape before she could have an abortion, there would be no need for a rape exception since, in almost all cases, the baby would have already been born and probably celebrating its first birthday by that time.

But what if it’s a DA who wants to be known as tough on crime? Pandering to women who claim rape without evidence and then use it to justify abortion would have to be very attractive to a power-hungry politician.

See above. Any idiot who makes such an argument deserves to find himself in the same position as Todd Akin.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 7:38 PM

lorien1973 on August 22, 2012 at 4:10 PM

If a woman becomes pregnant through rape and then murders her baby there becomes two victims-one of whom is also a killer.
Abortion should ONLY be to save the life of the mother.
ALL unborn are deserving of life-regardless of how hat life came into being.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 22, 2012 at 7:46 PM

It’s a little over two months out from the most critical election in United States history, and we find ourselves dissecting and redissecting the idiotic comments of a nimrod running for U.S. Senator in Missouri. The Ryan inspired momentum we were enjoying is now being stomped on by a single man on a self-righteous mission to acquit himself of what may or may not be unfair treatment.

Do we have time for this? Can we afford to pay for this distraction? Just how big a jackass and baffoon is this man?

The RNC and whomever else is necessary need to recruit a conservative….virtually any conservative who meets the basic legal qualifications to run as a write-in candidate, and throw all their weight and a s–tpot full of money behind them. Then hopefull this macaca to the exponent of macaca moment can pass.

Reggie1971 on August 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Republicans need to ignore what Akin is feeling or thinking about and just start NOW with a write in candidate. (My understanding though is that you could actually have the person’s name still printed on the ballot?)

If Akin resigns after collapsed support, awesome, but we can’t try to reason any more with an idiot/terrorist that’s willing to blow up everything for his own ego.

But this needs to be done THIS WEEK and before the GOP Convention. Find a candidate that’s well known and promise him the world (like kit Bond, John Ashcroft, etc) get the ENTIRE GOP to endorse (including Romney/Ryan) and you’ve put out this fire.

Is the seat salvageble? Maybe, but the main goal is making an example, the seat is lost if Akin is the only candidate, and it very well could cost us other Senate seats like Scott Browns.

The GOP needs to move QUICKLY.

BradTank on August 22, 2012 at 8:04 PM

ryan kept averting his eyes when they asked him about paying for rape victims abortions. he’s clearly not telling the whole truth. it must be a mutha to be a vp and have to carry the water for the presidential candidate.

renalin on August 22, 2012 at 8:23 PM

He is well over his goal of 24K in contributions.

So he is staying in this.

Sorry Party Bosses you lose.

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 7:19 PM

What a nutter!

The idiot is the Santorum equivalent of the fringiest Paulistinian. He wants Akin to stay in even though he is a near certain loser and could cause R/R to lose Missouri and has said that he will, under NO circumstances, vote for Romney in November.

Seriously, what good would a Senator Akin be with a President Obama?

None.

Tucking ‘fard.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 8:29 PM

All I ask at this point is that Akin refrains from using the David and Goliath analogy. I think it is coming, and when it does I know I’ll scream that it already happened and we were Goliath.

Actually he needs to take a lesson from the story of David. David screwed up badly when he committed adultery, causing God to turn from him and split his kingdom. David eventually begged God to forgive him and He did, but God DID NOT put his kingdom back together.

Lesson here: You can apologize and be forgiven, but sometimes you just gotta face the consequences of your actions. Akin needs to go…

Conservative Independent on August 22, 2012 at 8:42 PM

It looks like my earlier speculations on where Akin got his ideas from were wrong. USA Today has a good article explaining the background of his ideas about a woman’s ability to fight fertilization in the evevent of rape. The science mentioned in the article seems outdated. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-08-22/akin-rape-remarks/57216350/1.

Needless to say, I agree with Resist We Much that no matter how rare, or whether the female body can be less fertile in the case of rape, PREGNANCIES FROM RAPE HAPPEN, and they are traumatic and horrible for the victim. Even if you take the position that abortion punishes the innocent child, you MUST take into account the suffering of the woman and the fact that carrying the child can prolong the trauma. The manner in which Akin addressed this was neither empathetic nor caring (not to mention scientifically incorrect) The AP just put out an article that the Dems are now trying to paste Akin to every House member up for reelection. He is hurting the party, the presidential campaign and the pro-life cause.

studentofhistory on August 22, 2012 at 8:53 PM

studentofhistory on August 22, 2012 at 8:53 PM

A rape victim is an innocent-who should not have the right to MURDER her unborn child who is also innocent!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on August 22, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Barge Poll.

Do anything and everything to stay away from hot button issues like rape, insest, date rape, birth control, after morning pill, etc, etc,

it’s all just a moral trap the left throws out there.

avoid avoid —

good news – 16 trillion in debt today! ;> :>

amend2 on August 22, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Ah Jeez, anyone see the headline over at CNN.com?

“My rapist sued for parental rights”

The media is not going to let this go…

ccrosby on August 22, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Solution: write-in candidate — Kit Bond.

Akins is an effing moron and may take down our chances of taking back the Senate.

Conservchik on August 22, 2012 at 11:17 PM

People like Steve Angell are the ones who make me want to stay home from voting. I swear I’ve seen them before, in the crowd, at rallies held by Mussolini back just before WWII.

It would be nice if Todd Akin had a Mel Carnahan moment. Yes, I went there.

UODuckMan on August 23, 2012 at 1:19 AM

I believe his implication was that pregnancy resulting from rape would be rare, solving the problem for us. IOW, there’s no need to address it in legislatin or create a rape exception to abortion restrictions.

That may be the reason for him wishing something foolish, but it doesn’t make it so.

You were saying he was trying to claim that anyone who claimed rape and was pregnant was lying. He didn’t say any such thing. What he did say was a huge political gaffe, but there’s no need to put words in his mouth to try to make it worse. It’s dishonest.

Statistically, it is pretty rare, but Akins was trying to claim it was extremely rare.

38,000 pregnancies per year result from rape in the US. You may consider that rare, but to the women, it is not.

If all 30,000 of these are actual rape — which can not be regarded as proven unless there were 30,000 convictions. But let’s be generous and assume that all 30,000 pregnancies are verified to have occurred by rape. Let’s be even more generous and assume that all 30,000 of them are ended by deliberate abortion, not miscarriage, and that none of them are carried to term.

Even under those extremely generous assumptions, 30,000 divided by a million and a half is a rate of 2%. At the most generous assumptions available, that is still statistically rare. Obviously, the whole discussion of rape ignores 98% at least of all abortions.

No need to put words in his mouth.

Honey, I have no desire to put anything in his mouth. As a survivor of rape, he lost me at “legitimate.” He doesn’t need any assists in committing suicide. He did quite a good enough job on his own.

On the other hand, he was implying that a lot of reports of rape are false. That is probably true.

So, on the one hand, he is implying a “fact” and, on the other hand, you are claiming that the “fact” is only “probably true.” IOW, you don’t know and he was stating a fact not in evidence. Both of you would be laughed out of court.

First, there is no “both of us.” Second, your statement makes no sense unless he only made a single claim. He actually made several claims and implications. He claimed that rape resulting in pregnancy is rare, which is quite accurate. He said that a woman’s body in effect tries to “shut down” a pregnancy from rape, which was an overstatement of studies done that suggested that the trauma of rape made a woman less likely to conceive. I don’t have to accept those stuides as accurate to be aware that they are out there. He implied that many reports of rape are false.

Of these three, he’s right about the first one, that it is statistically rare. He’s probably right, though politically foolish, about the implication — not a fact that can be documented, but an implication — that many reports of rape are false.

The claim in the middle was necessarily wrong because he completely misdescribed what the study had concluded. I take no position on whether the study was accurate, or how accurate it was, as I’m no expert in that area. I find it unconvincing, and note that it is not accepted by OB-GYNs in general. I sure wouldn’t count on it being accurate. Even Akin has backed down from claiming that study is accurate.

We’ve certainly seem some high profile accusations of rape that had no evidence.

Yes, we have. But, we should not start from the position of doubting women. The police do not. Investigators do not. They start with the premise that a rape was reported and look at the evidence, which they allow to speak for itself.

A dispute of semantics. Since the accused is innocent until proven guilty, no accusation can be accepted as accurate until the facts have been determined. Until then, the facts are in doubt, by definition.

And if there were avortion restrictions, and an exception for rape, then the number of false reports of rape would certainly be higher than it is now. But I sure don’t know how many are false at this point.

Possibly and maybe probably, but understand this: There will never be a ban on abortion in this country that lacks a rape and incest exception. NEVER. Your position is in the minority…overwhelmingly

.

I’m not convinced there will ever be a meaningful ban on abortions in this country. If there is, I would expect to see large special interest groups pushing for broad exceptions that make the ban essentially meaningless, so that anyone who wants an abortion could get one by claiming stress or depression.

According to our standard of “innocent until proven guilty,” absolutely no one should be convicted of rape without solid proof.

We aren’t talking about convicting a rapist in a court of law in this discussion. I am an attorney and understand the burden of proof.

But if you take that position, you will without the slightest doubt be accused of being callous to rape victims. So most politicians try hard to avoid the controversy.

No, you are conflating the two. Furthermore, you are operating under the mistaken and simpleton’s assumption that a rape trials can be conducted soon after a rape is alleged. If a woman had to wait until a defendant was adjudicated guilty of rape before she could have an abortion, there would be no need for a rape exception since, in almost all cases, the baby would have already been born and probably celebrating its first birthday by that time.

You’re the one who’s making unjustified assumptions about what is in my mind. I’m not conflating the two. I’m contrasting the two. You missed that because you split my two paragraphs up and answer them separately. The point is the contrast between the natural desire to be sympathetic to a woman who reports a rape, and yet the need to not accept her claims at face value because false reports do occur.

In this case, the context is not a court of law over a rape charge, but whether any woman who claims rape under a (hypothetical) law restricting abortions but allowing them in cases of rape should automatically be believed.

As you yourself say, if you wait for a rape conviction before allowing an abortion because of a rape claim, there’s almost no way the abortion could be done before the trial. The only way I can see that happening is if the rapist short-cuts the whole trial with an immediate confession.

Let’s face it: abortion restrictions with an exception for rape will allow virtually any woman who wants an abortion to claim rape and get it. There’s almost no way such claims of rape would be credibly examined and proven before the abortion was allowed. Our justice system just doesn’t work that fast.

I’m not sure it’s a solvable problem.

There’s very good reason to fear that adding an exception for rape would gut any restrictions on abortion. We’ve already seen exactly that occur with the the reasonable-sounding exceptions for the “health of the mother.” Unfortunately, all it takes is a broad definition of “health of the mother” that includes any kind of claimed emotional stress, and it’s all allowed.

In fact, Roe v. Wade is not the reason abortion is practically unrestricted now. That honor belongs to the companion case, Doe v. Bolton, which established those broad exceptions to all abortion restrictions based on “the health of the mother.”

As for my actual position on abortion in cases of rape, I believe that killing the baby resulting from rape is morally unacceptable, even though I accept that it is horribly unfair to the rape victim to go through a pregnancy with a baby she didn’t want. Legally, I’m not sure there’s a way to craft a rape exception to abortion restrictions that doesn’t throw open the door wide to abortions based on false claims of rape, but if we ever get in that position it may be worth a try.

But I’d certainly be happy to get abortion restrictions passed with an exception for rape, and try to better address the problem of false claims of rape later, since it might well save a million lives a year.

tom on August 23, 2012 at 2:46 AM

He is well over his goal of 24K in contributions.

Steveangell on August 22, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Ludicrous goal; he is $3mil behind Claire in cash on hand. $24,000 is a legitimate goal for a state legislative race, not a U.S. Senate race. He lowballed his goal because he knows he’ll never get anywhere near the ballpark of what he needs or what a normal senate race could get. And now he’s 10 points behind Claire instead of 5 ahead. He Must Go.

alwaysfiredup on August 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2