Patterico's Pontifications

8/21/2012

Akin Stays in As Deadline Passes

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:56 pm



And he apparently sounded rambling and incoherent as he announced this. Ain’t it great?!

113 Responses to “Akin Stays in As Deadline Passes”

  1. Remind me: did we care about the Senate?

    Patterico (83033d)

  2. the Senate was on my wishlist but I’m a ask Santa for this I got inspired by one of them top o’ the page Hot Air links the other day

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  3. …sounded rambling and incoherent

    A number of blogs have posted transcripts and audio of an interview he had on Sean Hannity’s radio show this afternoon.

    Hannity, Akin, what now?

    He was rambling and incoherent on that as well. Also clueless. Akin cited a PPP poll that has him one point ahead of McCaskill as proof that the GOP establishment has blown this out of proportion. He seems to have deluded himself into believing he just used one wrong word.

    Hannity told him that PPP deliberately oversampled Republicans (+9) when even in 2010 the GOP never had that sort of edge (+3).

    The point went right over Akin’s head. Hannity might as well have been speaking Aramaic.

    The most appalling part is Akin has also deluded himself into thinking that we need “strong voices” like his to defend the values that make this country unique and have made it great.

    Got that? Congressman “legitimate rape” has convinced himself that he’s just the strong voice we need to articulate conservative values.

    So the appalling thing is that this isn’t the only gobsmackingly stupid thing he plans to utter between now and November.

    No wonder McCaskill backed him in the primary, and so many Dems crossed over to make sure he was the GOP candidate.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  4. he’s still going to win…

    it would be ironic though..

    EPWJ (8a4ca7)

  5. We’re trying to save the country, and this narcississtic jerk Todd Akin can only think about himself.

    Can’t someone like Trump just call him up and say, “I’ll give ya a million dollars if you withdraw.”

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  6. Tea party and hard working candidates won upsets in senate and state party elections in Texas. Why not in Missouri?

    He’s had to have said stupid shit before?

    BradnSA (980254)

  7. e-stone

    eh, Akin won a hard fought primary. He’s a fighter, and he cares as much for the country as the next guy

    EPWJ (8a4ca7)

  8. Via SondraK, by IowaHawk, the uniquely blessed:

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that.html

    MO are going to have to be adults, do their homework, and elect a third party firebrand.

    Brunner can self-finance, Steelman has Palin, let the games begin.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  9. The Republicans should organize a write-in campaign for their next best. They should be scrupulous: able to show they met the law’s requirements. And totally open about it. cf. Lautenberg.

    Brooks (aa033e)

  10. After he loses, I hope he follows the normal path for disgraced Southern gentlemen.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  11. Not only a write-in campaign, but full-bore support for the write-in. Romney/Ryan campaign for the write-in, lots of cash.

    Pass a resolution of censure at the Convention, and eject him from the Republican Caucus in the House.

    Oh, and please modify the abortion plank to allow for a rape exception, just so we don’t look like total hypocrites. This whole abortion thing is moot anyway. I’d rather worry about things we can actually affect than go though this pointless exercise time and again. We lost this one.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  12. I tried emailing him through his campaign website to urge him to withdraw from the race. But I got an error message back advising that his mail server was not accepting email. I presume it crashed; dunno what ratio the “resign” to the “hang tough” emails were, but I’d guess they were probably 20-to-1 in favor of “resign.”

    Some news stories I’ve seen have suggested that if he’s willing to absorb some costs, he and the party could still put up a replacement — an argument that the window hasn’t closed yet. I don’t know if that’s right, but I hope it is.

    Beldar (8e9db8)

  13. After he loses, I hope he follows the normal path for disgraced Southern gentlemen.

    Caught in stings involving underage boys in truckstop restrooms?

    Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b)

  14. ==Oh, and please modify the abortion plank to allow for a rape exception, just so we don’t look like total hypocrites. This whole abortion thing is moot anyway. I’d rather worry about things we can actually affect than go though this pointless exercise time and again. We lost this one.
    Comment by Kevin M — 8/21/2012 @ 11:43 pm==

    Thank you, Kevin. We are, indeed, looking like hypocrites. Taking it a step further, a Constitutional amendment to “ban” abortion can and will not happen in our lifetimes. It is a dead horse. Its presence in the plank is an utterly pointless exercise while being a costly political one. Yet, there it is–re-appearing every 4 years like clockwork–while Republicans say to independent voters (and to themselves) “oh, piffle, ignore that, let’s talk about the economy and the need for smaller less invasive government”.

    Surely on this issue the platform could address things that are within the realm of the possible. Like take a strong moral stand on the value of individual lives, the desirability of preserving life wherever and whenever possible, education to lessen the acceptance of abortion–most especially partial birth abortion, and reminding women (and men) that according to traditional conservative philosophy they, not the government, should be making the decisions about their own bodies, health, lives, and livelihoods.

    elissa (6fc3ac)

  15. Pious Agnostic, you’re thinking of MN Democrats.

    Well, OK, it wasn’t a sting. And it wasn’t a truck stop but a highway rest stop. But, still…

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  16. elissa, Kevin; the platform doesn’t specifically provide for exceptions in the case of rape or incest. But it most definitely allows for them.

    There’s nothing hypocritical about that plank. Akin’s convinced himself of something that isn’t true about biology in order to commit an act of moral cowardice; in order to not face up to the consequences of what he’s advocating. He’s convinced himself that it’s a non-issue since “legitimate rape” doesn’t result in pregnancy.

    But then the abortion enthusiasts have convinced themselves of something that isn’t true for the same reason. That what they’re killing isn’t a human being, and therefore it’s unimportant and a non-issue.

    It is of course a human life; it can be nothing else. An amendment that declares it to be a human life is just acknowledging an obvious fact. And I don’t think it’s political suicide since young people aren’t overwhelmingly pro-abortion. They’re much less likely to be so then older generations of women.

    So, no, the pro-life position hasn’t lost the argument. Not by a long shot.

    It isn’t hypocritical to declare a fetus a human life and declare that the states have the power to protect it. That’s just the argument since Roe v. Wade was so wrongly decided. The amendment doesn’t require the states to do anything. Lots of countries recognize that the fetus is a human life but still allow for abortion. In Japan, for instance, the form of Buddhism they practice recognizes that fact but they also believe the fetus is too young to be ensouled. Therefore abortion is an evil, but sometimes a necessary evil. And necessity in their view makes it permissible.

    What’s hypocritical is the state of our laws. Killing a fetus is a crime in a lot of states, when it’s done by a third party in the course of another crime. So the fetus is recognized as a human life. Just so long as the mother wants it. When she doesn’t, it’s not. That’s hypocritical.

    A fetus is a human life, not sometimes but all the time. I realize that seems unimportant to some people or that recognizing that fact is a bad move from the standpoint of political strategy. But it’s time to face reality. A country that can’t even acknowledge basic facts about reality will never be able to to set budget priorities.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  17. Pass a resolution of censure at the Convention, and eject him from the Republican Caucus in the House.

    I think these moves are a bad idea.

    Making more headlines about Akin is not likely to do the GOP any good.

    We’ve lost this race. That’s very frustrating and I wish Akin would drop out, but he won the primary. A write in campaign or endorsing the libertarian candidate sound like great ideas, but kicking the nominee out of the party sounds like overkill. That will lead to more infighting.

    according to traditional conservative philosophy they, not the government, should be making the decisions about their own bodies, health, lives, and livelihoods.

    This is a argument neatly avoids the entire argument about whose life and body an abortion affects. Indeed, when someone is interfering with someone else’s life, conservatives generally don’t mind the government having a law stopping that.

    I know your position is honest and sincere. I’m just saying that it doesn’t even get around to addressing the contrary opinion. This is one of those issues where both sides have simply picked different principles to stand on.

    The GOP is in a tough spot now, thanks to Akin, not the moderates, but the GOP ledaership needs to be careful about overreacting. Having a display of kicking Akin out of the party will turn off a lot of conservatives. Going back and forth on abortion is going to tick off more people, not less.

    I think if we’re stuck with Akin, the only official reaction should be that we do not waste funds on his campaign. Romney and Ryan and other leaders should endorse the best candidate who can win, rather than focusing on Akin at all.

    I did see a few mentions of that state’s libertarian candidate. Does anyone have an informed opinion about Jon Dine?

    Dustin (73fead)

  18. Akin’s convinced himself of something that isn’t true about biology in order to commit an act of moral cowardice; in order to not face up to the consequences of what he’s advocating.

    I agree. This is a great point.

    This is the toughest aspect of being consistent about the right of the unborn. We have identified a situation where the unborn’s interests and a mother’s can conflict a great deal. If we really think the unborn is a person, then killing them due to a very sympathetic mother’s interests is not right, but you have to accept something that no one wants: imposing something difficult on a victim of the ultimate horrible imposition (a rape).

    It takes courage to coherently explain this point from the pro life POV, and Akin tried to outwit that problem. That never works.

    the platform doesn’t specifically provide for exceptions in the case of rape or incest. But it most definitely allows for them.

    If so, we need to be more careful about trusting the MSM and democrat’s sophistry.

    Dustin (73fead)

  19. Also, what do y’all think of Ann Wagner?

    Dustin (73fead)

  20. Here is the exact text from the official 2008 Republican Party platform:
    Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendmentís protections apply to unborn children.

    — What’s being proposed this time around is nothing new or different, whatsoever. So, can we all stop freaking out about it?

    Icy (107527)

  21. ==So, no, the pro-life position hasn’t lost the argument. Not by a long shot.==

    -Nobody said it did, Steve. One can believe abortion is a moral and religious issue, be staunchly pro-life and live their life in that way, urge/teach/lead others to live that way, and fight against partial birth abortion–yet still not want early term abortion to be criminalized. A Constitutional amendment to ban abortion is not viable now or ever. You appear to be a smart man. You certainly know what it takes to pass a Constitutional amendment in this country. It is not going to happen.

    And please stop using phrases like “abortion enthusiasts”. It sounds as hostile and unreasonable and disrespectful as Surls does when he continually and incorrectly uses the phrase “Zimmerman fans” to taunt his fellow commenters with whom he disagrees.

    elissa (6fc3ac)

  22. Following the 1972 election when Nixon crushed McGovern, New York film critic Pauline Kael famously said, “How could Nixon have won ? Nobody I know voted for him !”

    I sometimes get the notion that the Todd Akin wing of the GOP may be as similarly insular as Ms. Kael apparently was.
    Akin has said several times during the past few days that he “knows” his constituents, and that he “knows” the voters of Missouri, and that he therefore “knows” this controversial episode he has incurred will not come back to bite him on Election Day.
    I imagine, then, that like Ms. Kael before him, he does not fraternize with too many people outside his own fellow travelers, or circle of friends, therefore he does not know how to accurately predict how they will vote.

    He probably won’t lose too many votes among the church choir, per se, but he’s gonna lose a lot of votes from among the percentage of voters who are secular in nature.
    There are a lot of voters who are apolitical, and a lot of voters who are ill-informed because they get their news by listening to the disc jockey at their favorite “morning zoo” radio station during their morning commute to work, and a lot of voters who can tell you the latest news about “The Bachelor,” or “American Idol,” yet cannot name a single justice on the US Supreme Court—and those are the voters whose collective decision tends to make or break an election result one way or the other.

    After Saturday Night Live, Colbert, Stewart, and the late nite talk shows on tv get done dragging his name through the mud, maybe he’ll finally realize he’s living in a bubble.

    Sadly, I don’t think any of this is on Akin’s radar.

    He’s going to lose to McCaskill, and he will inevitably depress the vote in Missouri for the Romney-Ryan ticket. Those electoral votes are vital to defeating Obama.

    There’s a reason that the McCaskill machine wanted to run against this guy in the general election—they knew he was capable of seizing defeat from the apparent jaws of victory.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  23. 12. Fortunately the Donks sexual tourism in MN is mostly confined to Minneapolis and the airport in Eagan.

    St. Paul is too working class to be an attraction except to the homies.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  24. 18. Again this is a States issue. Like Obamacare, commerce clause does not apply and other defenses like equal protection are strained.

    Spinning wheels hoping for one position or another to prevail nationally is insanity, hoping steadfastly for a different outcome.

    If Missou wants its women to get their abortions in East St. Louis in a store front clinic and bury the rest of their garbage in IL, then let them, for a government subsidized fee, naturally.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  25. One can believe abortion is a moral and religious issue, be staunchly pro-life and live their life in that way, urge/teach/lead others to live that way, and fight against partial birth abortion–yet still not want early term abortion to be criminalized.

    I know many who have that opinion, but it is a trickier position to justify than simply saying the unborn have the right to live.

    No disrespect intended, but a lot of times I feel like those with this position are too hostile towards the more consistent views (both sides).

    And what of Steve’s contention that the GOP plank doesn’t provide for or forbid these exceptions? If that’s true, then we’re being played against eachother.

    Dustin (73fead)

  26. Dustin,

    With all due respect to social conservatives, we fought the abortion battle long and hard. But the idea that there will be an Amendment, or that the Supreme Court will change its mind (only Thomas, Scalia and Alito might vote to overturn, and I’d bet none actually would) is unrealistic at this point in time. Three generations of women have relied on the abortion right and to change that now would take an act of God. Or two.

    And yet, here we are, our throats slit again with the same damn knife. And all we can think to do is sharpen it again.

    At what point do we say enough?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  27. Let us say that the following Amendment was presented to the States:

    1. The right of an adult woman to obtain an abortion during the first 4 months of her pregnancy shall not be infringed.
    2. Neither the United States nor any State is obligated to provide or fund abortion services.
    3. In all other aspects, the regulation of abortions is delegated to the legislatures of the several States.

    It seems to me something like this would pass Congress and the states, if not now, then soon. It has the advantage of removing the entire issue from the federal courts and allowing some local control, while not seriously impacting something now thought of as a constitutional right. It is also an exercise in correct Constitutional amendment; something we could do with more of.

    Just how bad an idea is this?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  28. Kevin M.,

    That’s the law pretty much in most of the world. When it come to abortions after the first trimester, we are the most murderous.

    nk (875f57)

  29. Do not bring China into the conversation.

    nk (875f57)

  30. We could call it the Akin Amendment if he doesn’t get out soon.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  31. “A Constitutional amendment to ban abortion is not viable now or ever. You appear to be a smart man. You certainly know what it takes to pass a Constitutional amendment in this country. It is not going to happen.”

    elissa – I agree 100%.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  32. At what point do we say enough?

    Comment by Kevin M — 8/22/2012 @ 8:18 am

    If you believe that abortion is intrinsically evil, the answer has to be never.

    In any case, as things continue to move toward the pro-life position, it’s exactly the wrong time to “say enough” even from a strategic political standpoint:

    More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

    Gender Agreement

    A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50% to 43%, while men were more closely divided: 49% pro-choice, 46% pro-life. Now, because of heightened pro-life sentiment among both groups, women as well as men are more likely to be pro-life.

    Men and women have been evenly divided on the issue in previous years; however, this is the first time in nine years of Gallup Values surveys that significantly more men and women are pro-life than pro-choice.

    Frankly, the hysterics the Democrats are displaying on this as well as other social issues (“…gone put y’all back in chains,” “…bring back the lynching tree”) means they, too, are aware they’re losing the argument.

    In any case, how can you imagine we can ever establish budget priorities if people like Obama refuse to acknowledge certain basic facts.

    As he did when he voted against bills in the Illinois Senate that would have defined infants who survived an abortion as human beings? Even when those bills had the exact same neutrality provisions in the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act that he later blamed, when he was caught out on his previous lies about his voting record, he would have supported?

    I think what you’re missing is that President Barack “I am my brother’s keeper” Obama and the “religious left” (a misnomer as they are merely statists who worship government and not God) are doing is trying to do is define their budget priorities as a moral obligation.

    Which is why Obama keeps trying to redefine the 1st Amendment as if it protected “Freedom of Worship” instead of what it says in plain English; Freedom of Religion.

    It’s they who have over-reached, not the GOP. What they are saying is that they are the ultimate arbiters of morality; that there is no higher authority than government. Or those entities that support the leviathan state such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (the self-designated authority on “hate”).

    I think it should be painfully obvious at a point in time when mayors and other elected officials arrogate to themselves the right to deny permits to businesses simply because the owners exercise their first amendment rights in ways that run counter to “Chicago values.” But we are in this budgetary mess precisely because the left has succeeded in promoting the idea that Planned Parenthood has a greater moral claim to the public’s money than the people who earned it.

    But they’ve gone too far, as I mentioned earlier. So now is definitely not the time to “say enough.”

    As they lose on their continued attempts to make their amoral “moral claims” to violate people’s consciences we can expect increasingly desperate language from them. That’s a reason to continue, not give up.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  33. 18. And please stop using phrases like “abortion enthusiasts”. It sounds as hostile and unreasonable and disrespectful as Surls does when he continually and incorrectly uses the phrase “Zimmerman fans” to taunt his fellow commenters with whom he disagrees.

    Comment by elissa — 8/22/2012 @ 7:13 am

    I’m curious, elissa. We have people like Obama who are so dedicated to abortion that they would rather see an infant who survives such a thing left to die in a linen closet rather than see it provided even with basic comfort care. Lest a law saying that such an infant has even basic human rights lead to the idea that the fetus in the womb has rights.

    That’s extreme on the national level. Although apparently not in the case of Illinois. Which is why that’s why he adopted it. Just like when he didn’t realize he would be politically viable on the national level he was pro-gay marriage. When he decided to run for a Federal elected office, he came out against gay marriage.

    His dedication to abortion went beyond merely supporting a right to choose. There is absolutely no reason why an infant who survives an abortion needs to be killed through deliberate neglect. No matter what one may claim about abortion and a woman’s life or health, once outside the womb the infant is a threat to neither.

    Yet Obama voted against bills in the Illinois Senate because giving any legal protections to those infants in his view threatened his ability to claim that the fetus had no rights and was not a human being.

    That’s extreme. Not even the euphemistically named “pro-choice” crowd could publicly support that position.

    So what would you call someone like Obama if not an abortion enthusiast? And why does someone who would, if it were up to them, leave an infant to die in a hospital utility closet with the rest of the medical waste deserve respect for their opinion?

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  34. If you believe that abortion is intrinsically evil, the answer has to be never.

    Yes, but why can’t this be handled in the moral arena, since there is NO solution in the political arena, at least for now.

    IOW, you have to GET hearts and minds to change. That’s a spiritual issue. You cannot FORCE hearts and minds to change, which is what the political movement is all about.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  35. We have people like Obama who are so dedicated to abortion that they would rather see an infant who survives such a thing left to die in a linen closet rather than see it provided even with basic comfort care.

    If the infant receives comfort care, does that not defeat the purpose of an abortion?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  36. Steve57–it was not my impression that you were addressing Barack Obams’s stance on abortion. His name had not been mentioned in your 6:40 comment. It was my impression that you used that phrase specifically to ding people on this very thread with whom you sought to argue or whose opinion you sought to diminish. I don’t believe I misread your intent at all, but if I did, I apologize.

    elissa (6fc3ac)

  37. Yes, but why can’t this be handled in the moral arena, since there is NO solution in the political arena, at least for now.

    IOW, you have to GET hearts and minds to change. That’s a spiritual issue. You cannot FORCE hearts and minds to change, which is what the political movement is all about.

    Comment by Kevin M — 8/22/2012 @ 10:04 am

    Exactly backward, Kevin. The GOP drive to move this back to the political arena is not about forcing hearts and minds to change.

    It is about simply rejecting the pro-abortion claim that the life that’s being extinguished is anything but a human life. If you read comments on a lot of the articles on news sites such as CNN, you will see a lot of people comparing fetuses to rats. I.e. just because “it” may be alive doesn’t make it human.

    This is more of lunatic idea in terms of biology than Akin’s idiotic belief that a woman who is raped won’t get pregnant. There is at least evidence that stress can and does cause spontaneous miscarriages.

    Which isn’t at all to endorse his comments. I condemn them; it doesn’t matter if some women will miscarry if they get pregnant after they’ve been raped. The moral considerations don’t change because of such things.

    But there is zero reason, none whatsoever, to believe that the life growing inside a woman is anything but human. That’s just a complete rejection of reality.

    That’s really the only way the GOP platform differs from your proposed amendment. It simply declares we get rid of the nonsense about what kind of “thing” a pregnant woman might produce. As if we’re living in the world of Sigourney Weaver and “Alien.”

    Other than that, it leaves everything up to the states as to how much or how little they decide to protect that life.

    It’s really only with that language that anyone’s conscience, those who believe abortion is evil, can be protected from the demands of others to violate it.

    As we are seeing. Which leads to the other point. The pro-abortion’s effort to fence this off from the political arena as exclusively the province of the courts and now HHS mandates is an effort to force people to obey an alternate form of morality. And by eliminating any dissenting voices (through intimidation and by ignoring the 1st Amendment) to force people’s hearts and minds to change over time.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  38. elissa, that was my intent. If you’ll note, I mentioned the Japanese attitude toward abortion as informed by their Buddhist beliefs. I would never refer to them as abortion enthusiasts.

    It’s just that some people are so radical when it comes to denying the fact that when we talk about abortion we are talking about a human life that they are outside the mainstream of even what you could call “pro-choice.”

    If someone can be so heartless as to deny a living, breathing infant medical or even comfort care because they refuse to acknowledge it as a human being out of pure political calculation, I don’t see how one can merely call them “pro-choice.”

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  39. 23. “At what point do we say enough?”

    When we’re comfortable with the status quo. Discarding mean and desperate little black lives, yeah, I can live with that.

    That is why Akin is so reprehensible. He’s arrived at a compromise that satisfies no one but seduces him into thinking he is Solomon incarnate.

    A sop to his constituents and a flag of surrender to his enemies.

    He is fighting for one reason alone, he’s had a taste of life inside the Beltway and he loves it.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  40. 32. If the infant receives comfort care, does that not defeat the purpose of an abortion?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 8/22/2012 @ 10:05 am

    It demonstrates that the radical pro-abortion crowd, the ones I call abortion enthusiasts, are lying about the stated purpose of an abortion.

    That is, abortion is to terminate the pregnancy.

    What do you imagine the purpose of abortion to be, Michael? To kill the “invader” even after the infant is no longer “invading” anything?

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  41. There is always the Statist Solution where, prior to conception, a license to pro-create has to be applied for from, and granted by, the State.
    All unlicensed pregnancies would be terminated, repeat offenders would be prosecuted as “Enemies of the State”!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  42. 32. Actually, the intent of O’Mengele’s law twice offered to the IL Senate, to exterminate survivors of failed abortions, was in his presentation, to protect and absolve the abortionist of incompetence and malpractice.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  43. Exactly backward, Kevin. The GOP drive to move this back to the political arena is not about forcing hearts and minds to change.

    Government IS force.

    Look, Roe was a mistake. Bad policy (at last as it stands), bad method of implementing policy. Courts make awful law when they invoke the Constitution, since they need to find principles and bright lines. Messy compromises require legislatures.

    But here we are, and the abortion thing is NEVER EVER going away. All you can do is piss people off and make them not listen to important stuff. It has gone on too long — most people have never known it to be otherwise. You might as well try to repeal Social Security,

    Before too long, the Republicans are going to have to choose: be competitive and drop this plank, or be another one of those “principled” third parties, left in the wake by the new small-government balanced-budget party that they could have been.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  44. *at lEast

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  45. “It demonstrates that the radical pro-abortion crowd, the ones I call abortion enthusiasts, are lying about the stated purpose of an abortion.”

    Steve57 – Now you’ve got me hopelessly confused. Based on the back and forth with elissa I thought you were tarring anyone who say supported first trimester abortion but was not as fervent about baby killing all the way up to birth as Obama as an abortion enthusiast. I would say u wer doin it rong with that categorization, ignoring the intellectual consistency of the position. Yet in the comment above, you just created a new subclass of the radical pro-abortion crowd, which seems to recognize the difference I am pointing out.

    Which is it?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. And yet, here we are, our throats slit again with the same damn knife. And all we can think to do is sharpen it again.

    At what point do we say enough?

    Comment by Kevin M

    You’ve got a point.

    And I don’t think Elissa is wrong on the practical side as far as political realities go.

    But there is an additional practicality. If the reaction to Akin is overkill, it will cause a problem with the big tent.

    Dustin (73fead)

  47. “principled” third parties….
    Here in CA the GOP is well on it’s way to competitiveness with Peace & Freedom, Greens, American Independent, and that perennial party-of-principle”, the Libertarians.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  48. Before too long, the Republicans are going to have to choose: be competitive and drop this plank, or be another one of those “principled” third parties, left in the wake by the new small-government balanced-budget party that they could have been.

    Comment by Kevin M — 8/22/2012 @ 11:00 am </blockquote

    Umm, no. Before too long no one will have to worry about being competitive. And you're living in a dreamworld if you imagine that there is any small-government balanced budget party that "could have been" that concedes the right to declare what our moral obligations are to the big-government out-of-control budget party.

    You might as well try to repeal Social Security

    I won’t need to repeal Social Security. It will repeal itself because it’s an unsustainable ponzi scheme.

    But again, you’re conceding the moral high ground to the big-government out-of-control budget party, who demands we demonstrate our moral purity by committing to a fiscal suicide pact.

    We have a moral obligation to seniors to spend ourselves into oblivion!

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  49. btw, I do not think saying ‘let’s vote for someone other than Akin’ is overkill. I think having some kind of ‘we need the GOP platform to include these kinds of abortions’ definitely is.

    For example, I think Kevin’s constitutional amendment would be received poorly by some the GOP needs in order to win.

    Dustin (73fead)

  50. Just goes to show how much the traditionalist frontier-spirit has devolved from a libertarian philosophy to one of a libertine philosophy – the Marquis deSade would smile.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  51. “For example, I think Kevin’s constitutional amendment would be received poorly by some the GOP needs in order to win.”

    Dustin – I think that’s correct.

    I forget which blog I was reading it on, but apparently approximately 25% of Democrats are “pro-life” and they attempt to soften the DNC plank on abortion each convention to a bigger tent position and are routinely rejected.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  52. For example, I think Kevin’s constitutional amendment would be received poorly by some the GOP needs in order to win.

    And received well by some that agree with the GOP on economics but are repelled by the abortion thing. And it’s not always zero-sum; there are those that can’t vote for either side because of this or that issue, and the Republican abortion position offends more than it attracts. Only 10-20% of people are against all abortions.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  53. Dustin – The bigger tent position being a Clinton era “safe, legal and rare” stance, not abortion on demand until the moment of birth.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  54. 40. “All you can do is piss people off and make them not listen to important stuff.”

    You just lost the argument doofus.

    I am for ‘targetted elimination’ of ecoterrorists inclusive of philistine political support of corn-based Ethanol, depriving millions who devote greater than 20% of their income to food.

    And in the coming decade of southern N. American drought and northern cold the corn price needs no support, let alone devoting 40% of the crop to flammable filler in our gasoline.

    These people, scorched earth environmentalists, are personified evil.

    They are wasting trillions prior to taxing trillions to no purpose other than extending misery.

    But since my worthy goal has no chance at all, I should just forget about it, abortion, Wall St., Broad St., DC corruption, ad infinitum.

    We must only fight that evil we can agree on, smoking, sugar in carbonated drinks, concussions in youth sports, apnea, and black roots.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  55. Actually, daleyrocks, those “pro-life Democrats” (a.k.a. Catholic Democrats that, unlike Biden & Pelosi, attempt to adhere to the tenets of their faith) are mollified by the “safe, legal & rare” language. Never mind that with the left there is a wink-wink nudge-nudge aspect to that “rare” part.

    Icy (107527)

  56. Dustin @46,

    You have it exactly right. We don’t need the GOP to propose a Constitutional amendment that protects certain kinds of abortions.

    Rather than set it in stone, we need to leave that up to the political process in the various states.

    We do however need a Constitutional amendment that does declare that the unborn are human.

    I’m not so naive to think that my views that abortion is wrong in all cases would necessarily prevail. But only an amendment so tightly worded as to leave no doubt that the fetus is human would prevent a state that wishes to gut the 1st Amendment would leave people free to follow their conscience and not force them to participate.

    Especially with godless blasphemers like “devout Catholic” Pelosi giving them the assist. She’s “devout” but proclaims that Catholics need to get over that “conscience thing.”

    Catholic health-care providers in particular have long said they’d have to go out of business without the conscience protections that Pelosi says amount to letting hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion.” Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing’’ that she insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic providers strongly disagree.

    Any public official who can declare their devotion to their faith while undermining it and denigrating its very purpose, i.e. to inform the conscience of its adherents, is capable of anything.

    If she can advocate forcing Catholics to violate their faith and participate in an intrinsic evil tehn she can advocate violating any principle. So the amendment would have to be worded to make it clear that she’s advocating ending a human life when she advocates violating the Constitution. Again.

    Also, the amendment Kevin proposes declares it a right to have an abortion up to a certain set time limit. As medical science advances, the number of weeks a fetus has to develop in the womb before it’s viable outside it decreases. I see no reason to set a time period in which the woman can have an abortion.

    Especially considering the fact that it isn’t just Michael Ejercito who believes the purpose of abortion isn’t the publicly stated justification; to terminate a pregnancy.

    You can terminate a pregnancy without killing the infant once it reaches the stage of viability. But that won’t do for some people. They need to not only end the pregnancy but make sure the infant is dead, dead, dead.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  57. Elissa: “A Constitutional amendment to ban abortion is not viable now or ever. You appear to be a smart man. You certainly know what it takes to pass a Constitutional amendment in this country. It is not going to happen.”

    But a lot of people don’t know this – they don’t know the legal situation regulation of abortion is in – and for years Democrats have been aiming appeals at people who are pro at least having abortion legal, counting on no Republican being willing to make a big speech or run advertisements explaining what the real situation.

    Sammy Finkelman (2178a8)

  58. Abortion is a practical issue on such questions as: (

    1) Paying for it in a situation where medical care (which this has been classified as) would otherwise be paid for, and if abortions are not generally paid for, what exceptions should be paid for.

    2) Abortion on military bases, or facilitated by the U.S. government.

    3) Funding or contributions to organizations that also provide or recommend abortion, both domestic and international.

    4) Actions or non actions against forcible abortion.

    5) Support or opposition to activities that some people classify as abortion.

    6) As a litmus test for appointments, even non judicial ones.

    And there may be others examples I left out

    Sammy Finkelman (2178a8)

  59. 42. Yet in the comment above, you just created a new subclass of the radical pro-abortion crowd, which seems to recognize the difference I am pointing out.

    Which is it?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 8/22/2012 @ 11:03 am

    I think the one can advocate for a right to have an abortion without being an abortion enthusiast.

    I believe such advocates are wrong. But they aren’t in the same category of people whose goal is dead babies.

    For example, when Sebelius defended the HHS mandate concerning contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients before Congress, she defended it as a cost control measure. Less pregnancies means keeping ObamaCare costs down.

    She said that due to the mandate the estimated cost to insurers is “down not up.”

    Ignore the fact that she was advancing an argument that’s a naked shell game designed to hide the fact that religious employers will indeed be footing the bill, since if paying for these services really did save the insurers money the government wouldn’t need to mandate they act in their own self interest.

    She was saying in no uncertain terms that less pregnancies, fewer children born, is a net positive for society.

    That’s a far cry from what the mainstream “pro-choice” advocates say when they express concern for the life, health, or “quality of life” of the individual mother or unborn child. They don’t claim that fewer children born is a net positive for society.

    I find it amazing that the “people not profit” crowd will point to a (fictional) balance sheet and advocate terminating pregnancies as a cost cutting measure. But they did. And clearly that means they have an agenda that goes beyond merely protecting a woman’s right to choose.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  60. What really irks conservatives are these specious arguments for moderation from blue state minorities.

    The goal, of course, is to make life tolerable for them at the coffee machine/water cooler. There is no hope that they will ever be part of a local or state electoral majority, short of a social conflagration.

    Yet they do not scruple to reveal their own moral tendons and sinews. Too risky that, to lose the bones and marrow of their cause, and be abandoned, a gelatinous mass.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  61. “I think the one can advocate for a right to have an abortion without being an abortion enthusiast.”

    Steve57 – Without attempting to speak for elissa, I believe that is all the acknowledgement she was seeking in comparing the terminology to Dave Surls’ labeling anyone believing George Zimmerman innocent based on the available evidence a “George Zimmerman fan.” The implied enthusiasm has no place in either position from my perspective when applied to the entire groups and just represents gratuitous insult.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. “I believe such advocates are wrong. But they aren’t in the same category of people whose goal is dead babies.”

    Steve57 – Liberals like to ignore the the corporate charter of Planned Parenthood says its mission is population control. Go figure.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  63. Abortion is not a practical issue. A society either has a soul or it does not.

    nk (875f57)

  64. daley–thank you for your supportive comment @1:44. That was exactly the acknowledgement I was seeking from Steve57 and exactly the point I hoped to make.

    elissa (a49632)

  65. Dustin – The bigger tent position being a Clinton era “safe, legal and rare” stance, not abortion on demand until the moment of birth.

    Comment by daleyrocks

    Right. The dems and the GOP have to be flexible.

    Right now, the country urgently needs to reform spending. Mitch Daniels was right (and practically crucified by some) for saying we need to put a lot of these other issues aside in order to work on spending issues.

    I think that’s basically what Elissa and you want. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression. That’s also what I want. I bet Steve agrees.

    On the other hand, I don’t want to be so cynical about things that I say we should pay lip service to issues of such weight as abortion (and none of y’all do either).

    So what do we do? Well, this is politics. And one of our most prominent politicians, a Senate candidate, handled the politics so poorly that we have this big problem that some think jeopardizes the presidential election (I do not) and control of the Senate (that one is valid).

    The abortion plank of the platform now is under a lot of scrutiny. I don’t think it specifically spoke to exceptions at all, and now the left will push and push until it does. They know that that will cost the GOP votes one way or the other.

    Thanks a lot, Akin. Elissa is quite right to note that this was not going to further the cause of a constitutional amendment. All it’s going to do is make it that much harder to get spending under control.

    Unfortunately, for all of Gov Romney’s strengths, I do not think he is able to make a powerful argument on this point. He has to be cautious of appearing to be too moderate (for GOTV reasons), and I think the left is keenly aware of this.

    But Paul Ryan… I think he could make the case that we have such an urgent problem with spending that we need to rally and focus on that and we need to be a little patient with many other important issues. Hopefully he can do this more effectively than Mitch Daniels did (not that I have any complaints about his handling).

    Dustin (73fead)

  66. “That was exactly the acknowledgement I was seeking from Steve57 and exactly the point I hoped to make.”

    elissa – Scary. You are welcome. I am usually only on the same wave length as Mr. Feets. Heh.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. “The abortion plank of the platform now is under a lot of scrutiny. I don’t think it specifically spoke to exceptions at all”

    Dustin – My understanding is that the platform has been the same since the 1980s and it is explicitly silent on exceptions because there is no broad agreement within the party.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  68. My understanding is that the platform has been the same since the 1980s and it is explicitly silent on exceptions because there is no broad agreement within the party.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 8/22/2012

    That makes perfect sense. It’s not as thought we are on the threshold of changing anything on this issue. It is a minefield.

    It’s a shame that Akin has driven us into that minefield and now left the party with the task of tip toeing out.

    It’s also a shame that Akin seems to be a decent man with a great background, but he is also in the business of politics, and he shouldn’t be.

    Dustin (73fead)

  69. What do you imagine the purpose of abortion to be, Michael? To kill the “invader” even after the infant is no longer “invading” anything?

    The purpose of an abortion is a dead baby.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  70. We have identified a situation where the unborn’s interests and a mother’s can conflict a great deal. If we really think the unborn is a person, then killing them due to a very sympathetic mother’s interests is not right, but you have to accept something that no one wants: imposing something difficult on a victim of the ultimate horrible imposition (a rape).

    what we should do is simply apply the Castle Doctrine to the womb.

    The unborn baby in this case got in by force, and as such has the same right to life as someone who intrudes into a house by force.

    And the fact that those unborn babies did not make the decision to intrude does not immunize them from the Castle Doctrine. Could intruders into homes immunize themselves from the Castle Doctrine if they were merely following the orders of someone who made the decision for them?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  71. 62. Mitch Daniels was right (and practically crucified by some) for saying we need to put a lot of these other issues aside in order to work on spending issues.

    I think that’s basically what Elissa and you want. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression. That’s also what I want. I bet Steve agrees.

    Comment by Dustin — 8/22/2012 @ 5:19 pm

    Dustin, I can’t agree because the spending issues are the effect. We can’t address them unless we address the cause.

    A country full of Sandra Flukes means out-of-control spending. As long as we can’t say “no” to her, and why, then we’ll never get spending under control.

    It’s like suggesting that all Dennis Rodman needs is a really good accountant to put him on the path to solvency.

    Uhh, no. That isn’t the problem.

    “Respondent Dennis Rodman is broke and cannot afford any additional fees,” according to court documents filed on his behalf.

    …He has a long history with Newport Beach, whose police were called to his Seashore Drive home in West Newport 80 times during the eight years he lived there.

    At the time his third wife filed for divorce, he listed his monthly expenses as more than $30,000, according to a 2004 article in the Los Angeles Times. Michelle Rodman listed her monthly expenses as $17,000.

    We are in this mess precisely because the Democratic party of Dennis Rodman’s have been redefining their wants as needs, then declaring their spending habits that supports their wants cum needs as moral imperatives that someone needs to pay for. And the role of “good conservatives” is to give up their principles, adopt the destructive progressive vices they’ve relabeled principles, and shut up and make it work.

    Or as Nancy Pelosi puts it, get over that “conscience thing.” (Ironic isn’t it that the Catholic Church believes in free will but any government run by Nancy Pelosi won’t allow it. Yet she claims that it’s the Catholic Church that’s oppressive [killing women] while demanding Catholics obey the dictates of government without question.)

    Jonah Goldberg has a pretty good post on the subject over at National Review.

    Sherpa Conservatism Watch — Saletan Edition

    Saletan writes:

    Maybe, like me, you were raised in a liberal household. You don’t agree with conservative ideas on social or foreign policy. But this is why God made Republicans: to force a reality check when Democrats overpromise and overspend.

    The term “Sherpa conservatism” comes from a piece I did a few years ago on Sam Tanenhaus’ book The Death of Conservatism. While an interesting book in parts (as Tanenhaus can be an interesting fellow), as political analysis it was fairly absurd. It was like a weatherman proclaiming the recent thunderstorm “the last rainstorm ever, because all we can see ahead in the ten-day forecast are blue skies.” Anyway, I wrote:

    Tanenhaus says that the high-water mark of good conservatism was roughly from 1965 to 1975. Not coincidentally, this was also the low-water mark of its political power, when conservatives critiqued the Great Society but lacked the power to do more than heckle. Good conservatives (or Burkean or Beaconsfieldian ones; for Tanenhaus the terms are interchangeable) should know their place and gladly serve as Sherpas to the great mountaineers of liberalism, pointing out occasional missteps, perhaps suggesting a slight course correction from time to time, but never losing sight of the need for upward “progress” and happily carrying the extra baggage for progressives in their zealous but heroic quest for the summit. And any conservative who doesn’t accept his role as Tenzing Norgay to liberalism’s Edmund Hillary will have nasty adjectives like “revanchist” hurled at him by Tanenhaus.

    We are in this fix precisely because of the Democratic party’s bait-and-switch. They played to people’s emotions and we all apparently agreed (“we” being those before my time; I never agreed) that the poor can’t survive without government largesse. Although actually the poor did get by due to private charities (there was a time when the majority of hospitals were charitable hospitals, for instance). Having gotten people to agree to submit to taxation to take care of the needy, all of a sudden everyone who wants something at someone else’s expense is redefined as needy.

    Now, Georgetown law school students are “needy” and the Catholic Church is threatening to kill them if they don’t purchase their birth control as they scrog their way to a law degree that cost over $63,750 per year during the 2009-2010 academic year.

    ‘Scuse me? If we don’t have the moral fiber to stand up to the people who are accusing us of attempted murder simply for saying “no” to that sort of naked greed on the part of the Sandra Flukes of progressive movement, then we deserve exactly what we’re going to get. Financial ruin.

    Liberalism is a moral disorder that redefines vice as virtue, and consequently denigrates virtue as vice.

    The Democrats are big on root causes when we talk about foreign terrorism. The root cause of our spending problem is easily identified. We’ll never fix the spending problem as long as we don’t challenge the immorality of these demands; that we underwrite people’s vices. Until then Nancy Pelosi and her ilk will continue to feel free to demand everything from your bank account to your property to your very conscience.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  72. I do know that the Amish and some of the Code Pink and LewRockwell.Com types can credibly and consistently argue that it is wrong for a girl pregnant by rape to have an abortion, as they oppose killing to defend a piece of land, let alone retaliate against an attack on your own land or to take someone else’s land. This idea is a reasonable extrapolation of their beliefs.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  73. They played to people’s emotions and we all apparently agreed (“we” being those before my time; I never agreed) that the poor can’t survive without government largesse.

    That idea was the justification for the European manorial system in the Middle Ages?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  74. Many people believe in pacifism, Michael. My father told me I was right not to bring my gun when I chased two car thieves out of our driveway: “We will not become killers over a car”.

    A rapist’s child inside an innocent woman’s belly is something entirely different.

    nk (875f57)

  75. A woman is not General Motors.

    nk (875f57)

  76. “It’s a shame that Akin has driven us into that minefield and now left the party with the task of tip toeing out.”

    Dustin – I disagree. I think it is the unnecessary, hyperventilating, overreaction by everybody and his brother feeling a need to comment publicly on Akin that driven us into the minefield.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  77. 66. The purpose of an abortion is a dead baby.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 8/22/2012 @ 7:07 pm

    If anyone was wondering what marks an individual as an abortion enthusiast, as opposed to a mere abortion advocate, I give you exhibit A.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  78. daleyrocks,

    I assure you that I did not arrange an interview with Aching and Wreathchild. Anybody else here, have?

    nk (875f57)

  79. Dustin – I disagree. I think it is the unnecessary, hyperventilating, overreaction by everybody and his brother feeling a need to comment publicly on Akin that driven us into the minefield.

    Comment by daleyrocks

    That’s not unfair, but I think Akin should have known that this is an issue requiring a lot more care to avoid that reaction. That’s politics.

    The reaction is the real reason this is a problem. I just take that for granted, which perhaps I shouldn’t. These days, a person like Akin misspeaking in an unfortunate way about an issue like this will lead to a pile on.

    Dustin (73fead)

  80. If anyone was wondering what marks an individual as an idiot, I give you exhibit A. Namely, Steve57.

    nk (875f57)

  81. 69.

    I do know that the Amish and some of the Code Pink and LewRockwell.Com types can credibly and consistently argue that it is wrong for a girl pregnant by rape to have an abortion, as they oppose killing to defend a piece of land, let alone retaliate against an attack on your own land or to take someone else’s land. This idea is a reasonable extrapolation of their beliefs.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 8/22/2012 @ 7:26 pm

    Only if you have the moral compass of Vlad the Impaler, Michael.

    67. what we should do is simply apply the Castle Doctrine to the womb.

    The unborn baby in this case got in by force, and as such has the same right to life as someone who intrudes into a house by force.

    And the fact that those unborn babies did not make the decision to intrude does not immunize them from the Castle Doctrine. Could intruders into homes immunize themselves from the Castle Doctrine if they were merely following the orders of someone who made the decision for them?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 8/22/2012 @ 7:13 pm

    A completely dishonest misrepresentation of the Castle Doctrine in order to justify an atrocity.

    How fitting.

    Of course, the baby didn’t “invade” the womb on anyone’s orders. And the baby didn’t exist at the time the man forced himself on the woman.

    This guy’s more of a loon when it comes to warped understanding of biology than that Akin clown.

    Here’s a hint, Michael: a baby doesn’t get “ordered” into anyone’s womb at penis-point. Male reproductive organs don’t work that way.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  82. 77. If anyone was wondering what marks an individual as an idiot, I give you exhibit A. Namely, Steve57.

    Comment by nk — 8/22/2012 @ 7:45 pm

    According to SPQR we’re supposed to cut you some slack because something hinders you from cogently making your points.

    I suggest you not be so eager to prove it, though.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  83. That’s not unfair, but I think Akin should have known that this is an issue requiring a lot more care to avoid that reaction. That’s politics.

    The reaction is the real reason this is a problem. I just take that for granted, which perhaps I shouldn’t. These days, a person like Akin misspeaking in an unfortunate way about an issue like this will lead to a pile on.

    I will pay $1.00 per word to anyody who parses this for me sufficiently to convince me that I do not have aphasia.

    nk (875f57)

  84. The unborn baby in this case got in by force, and as such has the same right to life as someone who intrudes into a house by force.

    A sperm got in by force. The baby didn’t *do* anything – by force or otherwise. This is far more bizarre than anything Akin said.

    Gerald A (f26857)

  85. Bite me, Steve57. Twice.

    Once for me, once for SPQR.

    nk (875f57)

  86. You’ll have to use your own mouth on whatever it is you want bitten, nk.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  87. I am not tye. I say, then say f___ y__!

    nk (875f57)

  88. rape baby baby don’t get hooked on me

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  89. I have no reason to be on this site. I am here by Patterico’s tolerance. Knowing that, I have no problem telling morons where to go.

    nk (875f57)

  90. I will pay $1.00 per word to anyody who parses this for me sufficiently to convince me that I do not have aphasia.

    Comment by nk — 8/22/2012

    It sucks that people reacted to Akin the way they did. It was over the top.

    But that’s politics, and Akin should be good at it if he wants to be a Senator, so I blame him too.

    Dustin (73fead)

  91. The unborn baby in this case got in by force

    I had not seen that until it was quoted.

    They used to throw an expression around: moral compass.

    I think this is a great example of a lack of one.

    Dustin (73fead)

  92. ==Dustin, I can’t agree because the spending issues are the effect. We can’t address them unless we address the cause.

    A country full of Sandra Flukes means out-of-control spending. As long as we can’t say “no” to her, and why, then we’ll never get spending under control.==

    Oh good Allah. Get a grip. We first heard of Sandra Fluke about 6 months ago. We had a teensy weensy little fiscal problem long before she sprang forth from OFA.

    elissa (a49632)

  93. “The reaction is the real reason this is a problem. I just take that for granted, which perhaps I shouldn’t.”

    Dustin – IMHO, Priebus should have been negotiating privately to replace Akin, not publicly calling for his removal, the group of former Missouri politicians should have been working the same way. The only thing the excessive pile on is doing is keeping the story front and center and helping Democrats get votes. Nice job Team R.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  94. 88. I think this is a great example of a lack of one.

    Comment by Dustin — 8/22/2012 @ 8:05 pm

    Well, it’s a sort of moral compass. Pol Pot’s, maybe.

    69. let alone retaliate against an attack on your own land or to take someone else’s land. This idea is a reasonable extrapolation of their beliefs.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 8/22/2012 @ 7:26 pm

    The Castle Doctrine doesn’t exist to permit retaliation. But if someone can speak of retaliation when talking about abortion, again, that person has crossed a line into barbarism.

    This has nothing to do with the publicly expressed justifications for abortion. At least not those expressed by mainstream abortion rights advocates. It has nothing to do with saving the life or health of the mother. Or a concern about the quality of life prospects of either the mother or child.

    If you view an unborn child, or a child that survives an abortion, as a fitting target to take revenge upon for someone else’s actions then, yes, you have crossed the line and become an abortion enthusiast. And that’s probably the kindest term that could be applied.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  95. The only thing the excessive pile on is doing is keeping the story front and center and helping Democrats get votes.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 8/22/2012

    True.

    Dustin (73fead)

  96. 92. Oh good Allah. Get a grip. We first heard of Sandra Fluke about 6 months ago. We had a teensy weensy little fiscal problem long before she sprang forth from OFA.

    Comment by elissa — 8/22/2012 @ 8:11 pm

    She’s just the latest incarnation of the same old same old, elissa.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  97. All this conversation about the dainty parts of wimmins is making me uncomfortable. There are some things I just don’t want to know about.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  98. Steve,

    Education is the long term solution. Education about the greatness and progress of western civilization. With that, our citizens will appreciate the values that hold us together, instead of being moral nihilists.

    And that’s a very tough nut to crack. And it will take generations to do.

    We will not make it there if we do not get some kind of major spending reform in place.

    Ryan’s path to prosperity doesn’t go far enough. Even Ryan would admit that. It’s as practical a solution as is feasible in this political world.

    I would add that at some point, we need some kind of powerful mechanism to force a balanced budget.

    That gives the legislature a way to deny the Fluke of the day whatever the entitlement of the day may be.

    I have a contradiction in my heart over this. I think abortion is a great example of an issue that we should always be willing to discuss. Otherwise, we are soulless. But we *need* that larger coalition of people who are on board with sane spending, or we will never make it as a political movement anyway.

    Dustin (73fead)

  99. Another one trillion + deficit is anticipated for this fiscal year. Of course, with the math majors they have punching calculators, that probably means it’ll turn out to be an “unexpected” 1.8 trillion dollar deficit by the time all is said and done.
    Obama is the first President to govern over a deficit exceeding a trillion dollars—and he has the distinction of doing it for four consecutive years….his sycophants are correct—he really is a “historical” and “unprecedented” President !

    But let’s not discuss that—let’s instead focus on “The War on Women,” and lady parts, and how Barbara Boxer says Republican men don’t like their mothers and wives or whatever.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  100. I am going to go journal to center myself.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  101. Sorry, Dustin, I had some bad Mexican and I’m in a bad mood.

    nk (875f57)

  102. Dustin,

    You make a good point.

    We have a better chance to include people into our big tent through our economic policies, than merely with the social policies by themselves.
    And if there’s ever an election where we can bring some otherwise socially-moderate or even socially-liberal people into the tent due to the fact that economics pretty much trumps everything else right now, this is the time to strike while the iron is hot.
    And while abortion is important, I do think it’s counter-productive to make it a polarizing issue in this election when we have an opportunity to re-claim some of those “lost” Reagan Democrats who are looking for a little persuasion to abandon Obama’s sinking ship.
    And this Todd Akin is singlehandedly compromising that paradigm—just as we were gaining momentum with the Ryan selection, away from all the silly discussions about Romney’s tax returns and his dog riding in the crate, this Akin guy has to pull a stunt like this.

    Now, that doesn’t mean we can’t achieve some social policy goals during a Romney Administration—we can—but it’s like the old addage goes, you don’t get to govern unless you win the election first and foremost.

    Many of the Ron Paul drones think that we can always just look toward “the next election,” and that we “can endure the next four years,” blah, blah, blah.

    But they simply don’t have the depth of vision to see that there are consequences of Presidential elections that last for decades.
    Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are going to serve on the Supreme Court for THIRTY YEARS before they’re replaced—that’s merely one consequence of the 2008 election when a lot of Ron Paul supporters sat out rather than hold their nose and vote for McCain.

    In 1988, the Reagan momentum was compromised by the fact that he selected squishy moderate George H.W. Bush as his inevitable successor by virtue of being the VP.
    (Just think what could have been had Reagan selected Jack Kemp as his VP in 1980. I think the fact that Kemp was a former football player and Reagan a former actor, had some of Reagan’s advisors a little gun-shy about having a ticket of two former pretty boys who initially made their name in sports and movies—so they pushed Reagan to select Bush, the former Ambassador and head of CIA for ‘gravitas,’ despite the irony that Kemp was actually more of a heavy hitter in the area of policy and ‘ideas’ than Bush would turn out to be.)

    On the other hand, Romney has selected the estimable Paul Ryan to be his ‘de facto’ successor, thereby pushing us on a trajectory of more conservative ideology for the post-Romney Administration years. I’m totally getting ahead of myself, but just imagine if Ryan is to select a Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio as his VP down the road.

    For all the talk about Romney being an alleged “moderate,” he is actually laying the groundwork for potentially strong articulate conservative Executive Branch governance for the next couple of decades.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  103. 98. Steve,

    Education is the long term solution. Education about the greatness and progress of western civilization. With that, our citizens will appreciate the values that hold us together, instead of being moral nihilists…

    Comment by Dustin — 8/22/2012 @ 8:23 pm

    Part of that education must include emphasizing the fact that the left is actively undermining the values that led to the advance of western civilization. Never shying away from the fact that they are actively undermining those values in a determined effort to replace them with another set. It doesn’t matter what the cause, when the left seizes upon it it’s to advance that larger cause.

    If we are to cope with climate change we need a new moral order

    It will take the kind of conformism and sense of moral obligation offered by religious thought and ritual if we are to save the planet

    Replace “the planet” with “women’s reproductive health,” and it applies.

    Sandra Fluke is just the left’s latest version of the fluffy polar bear floating on an ice cube in the middle of a vast ocean, and the refrain remains the same:

    “Why do you want to murder that poor dear, you heartless reichwingers?”

    As long as we refuse to surrender our rights and property to leviathan, and the left can’t win on the fact because they have none, we’ll be presented with one of the few plays in their thin playbook.

    1. Manufacture a crisis.
    2. Produce fake victim.
    3. Accuse anyone unwilling to go along with the fraud of heartless greed and selfishness.

    We do have the facts on our side. That’s one reason I support the GOP plank on abortion. Declaring the unborn a human being is acknowledging a simple biological fact. The embryo is a genetically complete human being at conception. As Dr. Jerome LeJuene, widely known as the “father of modern genetics” put it, after that it’s just a matter of varying stages of development and dependence on others until old age and death.

    Acknowledging that simple fact is part of the education process. It doesn’t actually require or prohibit the voters from doing anything in terms of abortion (except for calling for a ban on taxpayer funds to pay for it).

    It’s actually fairly innocuous. It doesn’t really go beyond the amendment Kevin M. proposed in terms of what’s required or prohibited. Of course, it’s misreported in the press as something sinister. But then, that’s to be expected. If we have to walk on eggshells and let the left lie without a response, we’ll never get around to the education process.

    In this area, and others as well, the electorate has demonstrated it’s ahead of the GOP in its willingness to address issues head on.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  104. Does anybody, here, read a comment more than three lines long? Be honest.

    nk (875f57)

  105. Sorry, Dustin, I had some bad Mexican and I’m in a bad mood.

    Comment by nk — 8/22/2012 @ 8:39 pm

    Well, that would put me in a bad mood, too.

    just imagine if Ryan is to select a Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio as his VP

    The GOP needed a long term vision. 2010 got something started, and Ryan is another good step.

    this is the time to strike while the iron is hot.

    Anyone who sat out in 2008 has had to have pangs of guilt about it. Anyone who sits out in 2012 is not serious about anything.

    Dustin (73fead)

  106. I give up. Good night.

    Christoph, I… I…I….. You fooled me, you worthless pig of backbacon. Enjoy your diseases. Terminate them as it pleases you.

    nk (875f57)

  107. Good night, sir.

    Dustin (73fead)

  108. 99. Obama is the first President to govern over a deficit exceeding a trillion dollars—and he has the distinction of doing it for four consecutive years….his sycophants are correct—he really is a “historical” and “unprecedented” President !

    Comment by Elephant Stone — 8/22/2012 @ 8:28 pm

    It seems to be too much for some people when I point out the obvious fact that those trillion dollar deficits reflect what was sold to America as a moral vision.

    It’s so obvious in fact that Obama acknowledges it.

    Obama Wants Lincoln’s Vision to ‘Rub Off’ on GOP in Illinois

    “That vision of Lincoln’s, the vision of a big, bold, generous, dynamic, active, inclusive America – that’s the vision that has driven this nation for more than 200 years. That’s the vision that helped create Chicago,” he said. “That’s the vision that drove our campaign in 2008.”

    Of course, he’s “generous” in the way all politicians are “generous.” With other people’s money. It’s typical doublespeak. When he appeals to the greed and selfishness of his constituency, the nation’s Santa Claus promising them Christmas everyday using a fake credit card he got with the social security number he stole from the one year old who’ll grow up to find his credit ruined by debt, he uses the word “generous.”

    It’s not a moral vision that should be too hard to challenge with an actual one. If your goal is to help the poor, for instance, you can’t do that by making more and more people dependent upon government and then bankrupting the government.

    It’s axiomatic that you can’t keep your promises to old people who planned their retirement around them when you put those very same promised programs on a course with oblivion.

    Obama, and the left in general, use the language of morality to promise one thing while delivering the opposite.

    It’s not our job as conservatives to acquiesce to the empty moral language the left uses and to then try to make their promises come true. That just makes us junior partners in their failure, and convenient scapegoats.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  109. ___________________________________________

    It sucks that people reacted to Akin the way they did. It was over the top. But that’s politics, and Akin should be good at it if he wants to be a Senator, so I blame him too.

    I wonder if some of the resentment or even hostility from certain Republicans is due to a concern about Akin creating a tactical hurdle for the upcoming election — which is an annoyance I can relate to — or if some of it is because, even among various conservatives, there is greater apathy — or desensitization — about the issue of fetuses and abortion.

    I know that before the late 1990s, the specter of a sitting president becoming embroiled in a Lewinsky-type sexual scandal would have been far more shocking and unthinkable to me than it is today. And I’m not even referring to such a president managing to escape relatively unscathed by such a scandal, but coming away from it as sort of “ho-hum—no BFD” figurehead.

    Mark (18b242)

  110. For me it’s the former, Mark, but I am sure it’s a little of latter from some. It’s no comfort to think that this is one battle that gets harder to win every day.

    Dustin (73fead)

  111. 104. No, skim alternate paragraphs at most.

    anybody gulrud (dd7d4e)

  112. There is a reason why rape is psychologically and emotionally traumatic. Why Men Rape.

    Analysis of the data showed that young women suffered greater distress after a rape than did children or women who were past reproductive age. That finding makes evolutionary sense, because it is young women who were at risk of being impregnated by an undesirable mate. Married women, moreover, were more traumatized than unmarried women, and they were more likely to feel that their future had been harmed by the rape. That, too, makes evolutionary sense, because the doubt a rape sows about paternity can lead a long-term mate to withdraw his support

    [T]he psychological pain that rape victims suffer appears to be an evolved defense against rape. The human females who outreproduced others and thus became our ancestors were people who were highly distressed about rape. Their distress presumably served their interests by motivating them to identify the circumstances that resulted in the rape, assess the problems the rape caused, and act to avoid rapes in the future.

    If abortion is outlawed in case of rape, then we would be in essence, going against human evolution, against the behavior of our ancestors. We would be nullifying the purpose of the psychological and emotional trauma caused by rape, which is to defend against rape to defend female choice in a mate. And in the case of married women raped and impregnated by men not their husbands, we would be destroying their marriages due to :”doubts about paternity” which can lead husbands to “withdraw …[his] support”.

    Make no mistake, prohibiting abortion in case of rape would lead to more divorces, more broken families. We do not need that.

    On the National Organization of Marriage blog, I frequently post to defend marriage. For me to support laws against pregnant rape victims having abortions would be to go against what I have argued for so many years.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  113. Here is another reason to allow abortion in case of rape.

    What a difference one TV interview can make. Embattled Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill has now jumped to a 10-point lead over her Republican challenger, Congressman Todd Akin, in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race. Most Missouri Republicans want Akin to quit the race while most Missouri Democrats want him to stay.
    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Show Me State finds McCaskill earning 48% support to Akin’s 38%. Nine percent (9%) like some other candidate in the race, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

    The Castle Doctrine goes against forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.

    Evolution goes against forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.

    Politics goes against forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.

    I do not want to sacrifice votes to give rapists the right to force pregnant rape victims to have their children.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 3.1040 secs.