While it’s hyperbolic to pin the result of the entire election on a single ignorant statement by a back bench congressman seeking a senate seat, it is clear that the trajectory of the debate, both publicly and in the minds of swing voters has been altered. Democrats, who’ve been itching for a social issues election all year, stand ready to exploit the issue. The Democratic National Convention might unofficially rename one night, The National War on Women Symposium.
Congressman Akin’s refusal to exit the race despite calls to do so by all corners of the GOP tent shows a blind ambition, unbridled by electoral party politics. A candidate for high office on a major party ticket must take party goals into consideration when adversity erupts. If remaining tactful during the course of a 3 month general election campaign proved impossible for Akin, odds are that a six year senate term would do unnecessary damage to the Republican brand.
Surely there will be attack ads up and down the ticket in far flung races that tie Republican candidates to Akin’s social conservatism. Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee in waiting will be forced, on multiple occasions to answer questions on the subject. Even with major issues to be sorted through; the economic recovery that isn’t; Israel openly plotting a strategic strike on Iran; and the looming sequestration, it’s not hard to imagine a Todd Akin question at a presidential debate.
This election will be a watershed moment in history no matter the result. For the good of the party and for the good of the nation, Todd Akin’s candidacy must be shunned by both establishment and the grassroots of the GOP. Practically speaking, Akin has become the embodiment of the caricature that Democrats affix to conservatives. He is the “flat earth” conservative Barack Obama laments on campaign stops. Akin represents the straw man in “The War on Women” Democrats have been trying to paint Republicans as since early this year. Candidates in particular should run, not walk, from now until November 6, away from Todd Akin’s candidacy for senate, lest they be painted with the same brush.
5 Comments
Under normal circumstances Republicans and their media puppets would be rallying around Todd Akin defending him.
But circumstances aren’t normal, not this year.
1) It’s a presidential election year, and…
2) Back in February Rush Limbaugh set off a firestorm of protest after using his radio program to go on an ugly three day tirade against Sandra Fluke over her position on contraceptives.
Limbaugh’s rant and the publicity it created gave the general public a glimpse into the conservative mindset when it comes to women’s issues. Couple that with Republican bills defunding Planned Parenthood, limits on abortion rights, mandatory ultrasounds, etc. all told women exactly what will happen to their rights in this country if Republicans have their way.
Polls show that Republicans are losing women’s votes, so Todd Akin’s comments came at an inopportune time. His fellow Republicans are now all too willing to make an example of him in order to try to redeem themselves in the eyes of women. Bad timing Todd. In a different year they would be rallying to your defense.
Yeah, JazzQuipster, conservatives don’t like paying for people’s contraceptives so they can screw as many guys as they can count. At the 99 Cent Only store they have a bag of condoms on sale for less than a dollar, but the Left-wing wants other people to pay for that. That’s not only theft, but it’s theft used for immoral purposes. If you want to sleep around with different guys do it on your own dime. As for what Rush said, he was right and shouldn’t have backed down.
Regarding Akin, he said something stupid, but it amazes me that people come up with such contrived theories as to what he could have meant by “legitimate rape.” Dominic Godinez comes up with something equally contrived. It’s stupid to even think that Akin was saying some rape victims “want it.” A legitimate rape is obviously an actual rape, a rape that really happened. So what is an illegitimate rape? How about statutory rape (where there no violence involved) and false allegations of rape, such as the Tawana Brawley case and the lacrosse team? Just by the words he used it should be clear that he meant something along those lines.
As for women’s issues, the majority of women are not pro-abortion extremists and there are plenty of women who are pro-life. Go to almost any Evangelical church and you will see that most of the attendees are female. For those left-wing women who want all abortion all the time, they were never going to vote Republican anyway, so the whole argument is a straw man.
Rick, please explain to me why you think anyone has asked you to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraceptives? Is it because you listen to that idiot Rush Limbaugh?
The fact is that students who attend Georgetown University PAY for the medical insurance that they receive from the school. Sandra Fluke’s beef is that the insurance that SHE PAYS FOR doesn’t include coverage for contraceptives. You are in absolutely no danger of having to pay for her contraceptives despite what gasbag Limbaugh has told you.
And what exactly is a “pro-abortion extremist? I have never met one. In fact I have never met anyone who urges people to have abortions. I have met people who believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not they want an abortion and that it’s not a decision that someone should make for them.
Jazz, you point out that Fluke’s beef was with the insurance companies not covering for contraceptives, specifically Georgetown University. I think that if she appeared before a pseudo-Congressional Committee headed by Minority leader and chief windbag Nancy Pelosi it wasn’t just about Georgetown U’s lack of coverage. It was a call for ALL insurance companies to cover contraception. The money for this doesn’t grow on trees, it comes out of the pockets and off the backs of insurers who pay their premiums. To cover contraception in policies where they are not currently covered will naturally raise the costs for millions of struggling Americans.
And what is a pro-abortion extremist you ask? It is a person who believes in the legal right to kill human beings in their earliest stages of development for all nine (on average) months of pregnancy. While you claim that “it’s not a decision that someone should make for them,” someone else is certainly making a decision to end the life of a human being who is guilty of no crime. What about their rights? Why don’t they have a right to live once they exist? Aren’t they acting like God in deciding who can live or die? Don’t appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to decide what is constitutional, not what is moral or right and wrong, and often they get that wrong. If you defend all SCOTUS decisions that you will also defend Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson. SCOTUS was originally dependent on the Constitution and Higher Law, but that got tossed out a long time ago, so we are left with evil decisions like Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. President Obama has taken his pro-abortion extremism to a new level by voting against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, so his level of extremism includes infanticide. I hope that answers your question.
Again, the people who will receive these contraceptives are already paying insurance premiums and in effect are paying for it. Their money is pooled in with every other insured person’s to pay for it.
You notice we haven’t heard insurance companies complaining about this. From their perspective, offering “free” contraceptives to their customers is cost-effective preventive care, just like “free” mammograms, or annual physical exams prevent higher costs down the road.
Do you also complain about having to pay for someone else’s “free” mammograms, or cancer screenings?
Ask yourself, which is more expensive for the insurance company to cover, a prescription for birth control pills, or the cost of an unplanned pregnancy? Obviously the unplanned pregnancy costs more and if there are complications it can cost a lot more.
If you are an insured person, this will save YOU money.