Senate candidate’s comments on rape stir outcry.

I’ve said on BMG before that when people do something wrong, we should look beyond party and call them out on it. My first thought when I read this story was “Really?” but the more I thought about it, my thought turned to ” You douche!”

I’m a Republican and I want the Senate back, but not if it means elected idots like this guy.

Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, a conservative Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, sparked a furor and earned a rebuke from Mitt Romney’s campaign after saying in an interview broadcast Sunday that women’s bodies can prevent pregnancies in ‘‘a legitimate rape’’ and that conception is rare in such cases.

Maybe he could claim a temporary insanity or he was “merely disoriented from prescription medications Ambien and Phenergan”, but how do you come back from comments like…

“It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,’’ Akin said. ‘‘If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,’’ Akin said of a rape victim’s chances of becoming pregnant.”

WTF????

I know this does not involve MA politics but I’ve commented on out of control Democrats from other states (Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is afraid that the U.S. Territory of Guam is going to “tip over and capsize” due to overpopulation.) and I had to point out this GOP ignoramus.



Discuss

129 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Zealots like Santorum, Romney, Friess, Ryan, Brown, Akin,

    Jim Lyons and Paul Adams are all misogynist birds of a feather. Why the surprise when one of them says in public what you all are saying in private?

    • Do you really think I'm saying what he said?

      And please don’t cope the plea of anyone who disagrees with your position is a “zealot”. It tends to make your whole comment worthless… although in this case I think your whole comment is worthless anyway.

      • It is a pattern of behavior with your party.

        From “lie back and enjoy it,” to “truly raped,” to “trans-vaginal ultrasound,” to “legitimately raped,” to “aspirin between the knees,” to “forcible rape,” – the misogynist zealots you have aligned yourself with have shown a pattern of disgusting behavior. Your sudden aversion to your party’s position is, as you put it, worthless.

        • What about Democrats pattern of behavior???

          The Dems with no heart, voted against the Laci Peterson Bill, which simply would make it a separate crime to kill or harm an unborn child during an assault on the mother.

          You know, I have read many posts about what Mitt did with his dog but you know what was 1000X times worse? Democrats, especially from our state, voting against the Laci Peterson Bill. No heart, no soul, no feelings is what it takes to say there were not two victims, Laci and her son, Conner, when they were killed by that POS Scott Peterson. How Democrats voted against that bill is beyond me. Then again, it’s a pattern of behavior, no?

  2. Bravo, John.

    FWIW, Nate Silver has opined that Akin’s comments may result in the Democrats holding what was previously thought to be a fairly easy pickup for the GOP.

    • Sadly, agreed.

      nt…

    • I saw Mr. Silver's article

      but I’m skeptical… because I read the bat guano crazy things GOPers say all the time, and there doesn’t seem to be frequent and swift electoral consequences most of the time. I don’t have the spidey sense to know why this one would be any different.

      • I'm not skeptical

        Most of the time when a GOPer says or does something crazy — and gets away with it — they’re already in office, and other Republicans are unwilling to ask them to step down, and the years in between elections is usually long enough for the public to forget about the incident.

        When it happens in the midst of the election, though, the results are a lot less clear. “Macaca” was a death knell for who was then a popular Senator in Virginia, for example.

        Personally, I think the Republicans aren’t going to mess around and will force this guy — largely behind the scenes — to step down, largely by threatening to cut off all his funds.

        Even if that happens, though, this could still end up with McCaskell winning… which is more than she deserves, given how much of a DINO she is (which is, IMO, precisely why she’s so unpopular).

        RyansTake   @   Mon 20 Aug 5:48 PM
        • They've been frantic in their efforts

          not to get linked to this candidate. Even Mitt Ryan and Paul Romney have been forced to revisit their token disapproval of him with a more strenuous one. The overnight polls must have been pretty rough.

      • How this is different

        Republicans are really against crime. Super against it. So minimizing in any way the crime of rape has to have been a super no-no.

        Otherwise, yes, it’s hard to see how this is different.

  3. Romney comments on Akin...

    “Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong,” Romney said. “Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive.”

    • A good start

      This is certainly a good start.

      Sadly, Paul Ryan has a lengthy history of opposing abortion even after rape. While the Romney/Ryan team is attempting to distance itself from that history, the fact of that history remains.

      Pro-choice voters should be very concerned about what today’s GOP really intends. The consequence of Mr. Akin’s outrageous comments is to return women’s rights to the front burner. Especially when viewed in the context of the GOP’s assault on women’s access to contraceptives, this surely hurts the attempts of the Romney/Ryan ticket to sway voters who support reproductive rights.

      • Logical consistency

        If one really believes that human life begins at conception, than having an abortion, no matter what the cause of the pregnancy still constitutes murder; the “baby” did not choose how it was to be created.

        In general, the pro-life position is full of such horrifying positions. Another example was the video wherein the liberal videographer interviewed a number of long-time anti-abortionists what the penalty should be for having an abortion. Capital offense? Jail? $20,000 fine? What?

        Every single interviewee recoiled.

        “Oh no! Not that!” You would think they were all pro-choice and wanted to discourage abortion without, you know, making it a crime. They wanted to affect the choice, but then it’s still a choice.

        • Good point

          They wanted to affect the choice, but then it’s still a choice.

          That’s exactly where I am, at the end of the day its a choice, and most importantly as a man it’s never my choice, but the pro-life side is wrong in believing that the only role government has is banning the procedure and controlling women’s bodies and getting between doctors and their patents. And the pro-choice side is wrong to automatically oppose any effort to reduce abortion and encourage women to choose life. At the end of the day I have matured enough and dealt with enough close female friends in tough situations to understand that as a man, it’s never my choice. But I also feel its important for government, particularly liberal, activist and progressive government to encourage good choices and having a baby is a choice government should encourage and support with every tool at its disposal. I think most people my generation occupy this gray area as well, for the boomers where the reproductive rights fight was incredibly important the stark polarization makes more sense. But fellow Catholic and evangelical men, some who self identified as conservative, my age agreed with my position and that’s where the future is. Akin is clearly a relic of the past.

          • Why aren't these diametrically opposed?

            “[not] getting between doctors and their patents”
            “encourage women to choose life.”

            The second quote is an example where the state should make a value judgment on a personal matter that the first quote acknowledges isn’t the state’s business in the first place. Thus this is a contradiction. Either the state can pre-suppose that bringing pregnancy to term is a ‘good choice’ or it can but out of a matter between patient or doctor. Trying to do both seems like trying to get a little be pregnant.

            • I respectfully disagree

              I think the state can say “it’s your choice, we’d prefer this choice and here is how we can help you achieve this choice if you do choose”. It’s a form of libertarian paternalism, nudging in one direction while leaving agency up to the woman. Basically in the current equation if a low income woman is facing an unwanted pregnancy she can either go broke and have the child or have an abortion, all I am proposing is offering an option where she won’t go broke if she chooses to have a child. If anything my scenario expands choice rather than restricts it. Libertarianism is a morally bankruptcy philosophy and I am tired of the Democrats being libertarian on this issue. We can promote activist and progressive government in this sphere while not only protecting choice but expanding it.

              For women inclined to have the child it makes their decision easier, for women disinclined to have the child it likely won’t affect them, but I think liberals can agree we don’t want woman terminating simply because they are too poor to raise a child, that’s not what we stand for. Where I have evolved is not judging the women who chooses to abort even if she could afford a child, and that is not what I am proposing. But I think it is wrong for the pro-choice crowd to judge the hypothetical Junos of the world, and it’s definitely illiberal to oppose making their lives easier. Pro life Dems like Casey and pro choice Dems like the late Senator Kennedy agree that we should actively reduce abortions and there is a government role in that process without restricting access or rights.

              • Sure, the state can...

                … say that, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t contradictory.

                “for women disinclined to have the child it likely won’t affect them” That seems like an assumption. Is there data?

                “we don’t want woman terminating simply because they are too poor to raise a child” My position is that I want women to be able to do what they, in consultation with their doctor, think is best. I’m willing to say that without the qualification of injecting my preference. You indicate that you’ve learned not to judge, but for me the ‘without qualification’ thing is a necessary component of “not judging”.

                “But I think it is wrong for the pro-choice crowd to judge the hypothetical Junos of the world” Agreed, but I don’t know anyone who does. This sounds a little straw-man to me. If Juno chooses x, I respect x not because of anything having to do with my preferences, but because I respect her autonomy.

                What we agree on is actively reducing the need for abortions. This distinction is important.

                • Of course it is

                  It is a complex issue, as rights and values clash all over the place. Any reasonably thoughtful position must accept this; “political” positions never can, as politicians need to keep their people all whipped up, and hope for the other side to make an occasional unforced error like this guy did.

                • Healthy shades of gray

                  I do not think we are as far removed as you think, but I will concede I do have a preference for one outcome over the other, but I also recognize as a man that this preference can never come from the same place or experience as a woman actually facing a crisis pregnancy and the life altering ramifications it entails. You are also entirely right that we are reducing the need for abortion and the best way to prevent abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancies in the first place through robust education and public health programs. I will retract the Juno charge since I do think our side has shown more nuance and evolution on this issue in recent years and recognizes the many shades of gray most Americans see on this issue. I always wondered how much more good we could all do on behalf of women if we moved beyond this debate and looked forward to solutions that actually help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

                  • I don't have any problem...

                    … with your having a preferred outcome as your position. I have a problem with wanting your preferred outcome as the state’s position.

                    I do think that your having a preferred outcome (in the case of a pregnancy that wasn’t already prevented in the first place) is an injection of your judgement on someone else’s situation. It seems to me be be cognitive dissonance to simultaneously assert that in a very real way your opinion shouldn’t count, but it should be enshrined in state policy. Asserting that it’s ‘not my business’ while simultaneously wanting the state to steer people toward my preferences seems a little in denial about how much I really think its not my business.

                • Not all of us

                  I’m sorry, but I really don’t see any particular harm in an abortion that happens before viability of the fetus. I therefore don’t see any benefit towards adopting a bias for or against abortion.

                  In my view (which I’ve written about here before), what we label “abortion” should actually be divided into TWO procedures:

                  1. Separating the fetus from the mother
                  2. Addressing the viability of the fetus

                  I think that a woman should always have the choice of (1). I think that (2) is determined by the current state of medical technology. In my view, the “pro-life” movement would be better served by focusing on ways to advance the age at which the separated fetus can be brought to term outside the womb, and by addressing the costs to society of doing so.

                  A diagnosis of Leukemia was a death-sentence for a child in 1965. Nobody attached religious or moral significance to Leukemia, other than as a motivator to find a cure. Today, childhood Leukemia is far more treatable. In my view, once the fetus has been separated from the mother, its medical future is not fundamentally different from that 1965 Leukemia victim. Today, it is likely to die. With medical research, that can change. Simply sacrificing the mother who doesn’t want or cannot handle the child is, in my view, far more immoral (as I understand morality) than terminating a non-viable fetus.

                  I think the anti-abortion movement is all too willing to throw women under the bus in order to advance their own agenda — as the comments of Mr. Akin exemplify.

                  • Agree with Tom clarification for Lynne

                    It really is a problem technology could solve to preserve viability after separation and all the right to life money in the world would be better spent on that. That movement is increasingly openly anti-woman, the contraception debate shows its not about stopping abortion but stopping sex. Joelpatterson said this awhile ago and I disagreed, he was right I was wrong.

                    As for Mr. Lynne I’ll apologize for my poor phrasing that lead to your objections. It will be a goal of the state to reduce abortions by increasing alternatives available and incentivizing women to take them up. The incentives and assistance will make carrying the pregnancy to term easier and a more viable option, in no way is the state forcing women to take them or asserting it prefers that they do. The neutrality is still there, we just use liberal means-mainly better social services, healthcare, etc. to achieve te ends of reducing the need for abortion. The political/policy means to achieve abortion reductions are things most liberals already support, I do feel that by calling attention to the fact that these policies reduce abortion we moderate our image on the issue and attract broader support for our public policies. The abortion rate is 20% lower in Sweden which has less restrictive abortion laws than the US because in general it’s a more family friendly country by aligning the state with the welfare of its people. But framing this issue in this way will gain more allies to the cause of social justice broadly by making abortion a communal social justice issue as opposed to viewing it as a battle in the culture war or framing it as as strictly a rights question. Abortion as Martin Sheen and others on the Catholic left have argued is a symptom of or failed political economy and the cure is not regressive laws that set women’s rights back but progressive economics. We need to gain back white Catholic union households and by mitigating abortion as a wedge issue we can align them once again with their economic interests.

                    • Thank you!

                      I am pleasantly surprised by and welcome your agreement.

                      I think your political and moral analysis is spot-on.

                    • OK, we're much closer than I...

                      … thought. What you’re advocating is for the state to expand choice, which is empowering. I can certainly get with that.

                      I don’t have much faith in being able to mitigate the abortion issue as a wedge. Figure that opposition to abortion can usually be classified into two types. The first type is typified by those who have no tolerance for any exceptions (rape or incest are the typical examples). Such people aren’t ‘gettable’ at all. The second type are those who typically have tolerance for exceptions such as those of rape and incest. The problem here is that their exception belie an underlying and unstated premise that abortion isn’t murder (exempting pregnancies from rape is inconsistent with such a view). When given two identical situations but with one difference (the origin of the pregnancy) that difference is the operant factor for the moral conclusion. These exceptions belie that what they are really interested in is the behavior that resulted in pregnancy. As such, mitigating the ease of choices other than abortion doesn’t actually address their core concern, so I’m not sure they are ‘gettable’ either.

                    • Re Tom and Mr Lynne

                      Thanks glad we could clarify this, unlike Mr Romney I don’t expect to evolve on this.

                      Also Mr Lynne is right about the pro-life movement being split. For the extremist crowd, including the stated policy of my Church, it is never negotiable and is as much about preserving the traditional subservience of women as it is about saving the unborn. For that second crowd, we will say the soft pro lifers, it is about saving the unborn and if progressives state their strong support for choice while also arguing that choice will be utilized less under their social policies (lower in Sweden, lower under Clinton than under any other post Roe prez) they can move some numbers. White working class Catholics and evangelical Protestant women in my view, are the most persuadable this race and are crucial to OH and other swing states. They could see themselves aborting if raped and wish the state was there to help them when they got knocked up. But agreed for other soft pro lifers it won’t work.

                    • Based on this comment, I'm not...

                      … sure you understood my assessment of the second group. I say this because you’re hypothetical ’3rd’ group’ (‘soft pro-lifers’ for whom it really is about saving the unborn) falls to the same analysis that I indicated for my ’2nd’ group. Given two otherwise identical situations where there is only one difference, that one difference must be the factor that contains explanatory power for the difference. In the case of exceptions for abortion in regard to circumstances that created the pregnancy, the circumstances necessarily are the thing being objected to.

                      Now certainly this probably exists within this group as a sort of cognitive dissonance (one that get’s pretty well exposed when asked about punishment for women who break their proposed legal ban), but that doesn’t mean that this reasoning (however cognizant one is of it internally) isn’t operant. If it is operant (and I submit it must be), then it should operate against any attempt at reconciliation.

                      Now maybe I’m wrong in my analysis, but to demonstrate that one would have to explain to me exactly how it is that this reasoning either doesn’t exist or isn’t operant in your ’3rd’ group. I’d further think that one would also have to demonstrate how my logical example doesn’t model the thinking. That is, given identical situations where there is only one difference to result in different prescribed outcomes, how could it possibly be that this difference isn’t operant in the prescription?

                • Ewwww, it's so icky!

                  I agree with reducing the need for abortions — and, yes, they can be traumatic even for the most died-in-the-wool feminist. However, there are a lot of cases in which I think abortion is totally the right thing for a young woman to do. The net effect of all these people putting their hands on the scale, I’m afraid too many women don’t have abortions who should.

                  And they pay for it by making less money throughout their careers. Even if they want to have children, they pay an opportunity cost for having one unplanned and disruptive to their lives when they are less capable of raising a child.

  4. While I am glad that you are taking the position you are ....

    The GOP and many Republicans including Mitt and Brown have already denounced Akin. So my sense is that “it’s alright” to make these kind of comments as GOP leaders gave it the green light.

    It’s the ones that Brown or Romney defend and you think is wrong is what I’d be interested in reading.

    • Fun fact

      If Akin withdraws by the end of the day tomorrow, then the Republican State Committee of Missouri can replace Akin with someone else. According to state law, a delay by Akin and they’re out of luck.

      So I say, everyone be very, very quiet for 36 hours and let the condemnations roll like thunder Wednesday morning!

  5. Would we all agree that Rep. Akin

    probably doesn’t belong on the House science committee?

    • It seems to me a hard sell to the GOP.

      Remembering that, by GOP standards, Bachmann gets to be on the intelligence committee.

      • And lest not we forget...

        Tax dodge Charlie Rangel was the Chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee (chief tax-writing committee of the United States House of Representatives). But thanks for trying to make this sound like a one party problem.

    • Agreed

      But the irony of its membership has probably been lost on the mainstream media for decades at this point.

  6. Just a couple weeks ago.

    When there was an effort by the trolls to get people here to “Give Credit Where Credit Was Due” and say on the record, that they agreed with the Republicans or “Give them Props”. Most everyone avoided the trap, now we get to see the extreme filth and sickness of the Republican Party’s World View. If I am ever asked again if I can support some Republican ideal, I need look no further than Missouri 2012 for evidence of my revulsion at the troggledytes that are today’s Republican Party.

    • Does Anthony Weiner represent all Democratic Congressmen?

      How about David Wu? Should we worry about President Obama getting a Lewinsky from one of his Aides? I would guess no but that sounds like the way your mind works. Republicans are all different even though we may share common beliefs. If the GOP rallied around Akin like so many Democrats rallied around some of their bad apples then maybe I could understand your comments, but the fact is most Republicans are condemning Akin’s remarks and some are asking him to withdraw from the race. You sound like someone who could never be pleased so why bother…

      • Well Spotted.

        You are correct. I will never be pleased. The problem is that the Republicans have defined a narrative for themselves which is only supported by this idiot in Missiouri, where as Anthony Weiner and Lewinsky were not part of the Democratic Party’s narrative. In fact, I did not even remember David Wu until I googled him.

        The difference is that Anthony Weiner and the DNC were not trying to advance legilation consistent with his “Twitter Problem”, but Republicans all across these USA are trying to advance legislation to deny women control of their own bodies (i.e. See Governor Tran-Vaginal Probe).

      • John, you don't think there is a

        significant number of Republicans who think like Akin? Sure, there are d-bags in both parties. That’s not the issue. We’ll always have them. Akin is not an isolated knuckledragger, however, he’s one of a crowd.

        Digby cites some here.

        And in case you didn’t think it was about a woman’s control of her body, the GOP Congress passed H.R. 358, that leave decisions up to–wait for it–the doctor’s conscience: Today the GOP-led House of Representatives, with the blessings and encouragement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and extremist religious groups such as the Family Research Council, passed a bill in a vote of 251 to 172 that would, among other things, allow doctors and hospitals to “exercise their conscience” by letting pregnant women facing emergency medical conditions die.

        Yes. Die.

        This is what the Republicans called the “Protect Life Act.” And no, I am not kidding.

        • Why are there no reputable sources for HR 358 such as

          CBS, NBC, ABC…

          • What are you talking about?

            ‘reputable sources’?

            Reputable sources for what? That the bill exists?

          • Of course there are reputable sources!

            It is trivial to obtain them using Google. I hope that you consider Thomas a “reputable source”.

            I think that what Digby is referring to is the fact that the bill contains both a clause to allow exceptions for rape and when the mother’s life is endangered, and also another clause that allows a “conscience” exemption.

            Here is the specific language (emphasis mine):

            “(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding. —

            “(1) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except—

            “(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

            “(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

            “(2) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as—

            “(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

            “(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using—

            “(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

            “(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

            I leave to the attorneys here the question of whether this language allows or encourages the interpretation offered above.

            • You beat me to it

              But it sure seems to me like the description is absurdly misleading.

              The bill amends the Affordable Care Act– that is, Obamacare– to ensure that no federal funds are used for abortion services, and that states can’t demand that institutions provide abortion services as a condition of receiving federal funds for other things.

              The specific provision that has the “conscience” amendment states that the PPACA doesn’t override state laws regulating abortion services, such as parental notification, waiting periods, and the “freedom of conscience” rules.

              In other words, this would be a codification of the deal with Congressman Stupak, which I believe was already done by way of executive order. Everyone already has opinions on that. In my view, the characterization above can best be described as “wildly misleading.”

              One would wish that folks would relish the time Romney has to spend talking about abortion–again!, rather than trying to top reality with debunkable hyperbole.

              I disagreed pretty strongly with the administration on the manufactured “contraception” issue last spring, but it seems like it was in any event a political win for the administration. This just brings that all up again. It is no wonder Romney is frustrated with this Missouri guy.

              • I don't think you're right

                about amending ACA, Dad.

                I’m glad to see you guys questioning my sources, but I’m betting you guys also have Google. Wikipedia has an entry. It took me 2 minutes to dig up all of this.

                Here’s Human Rights Watch:

                (Washington, DC) – The United States House of Representatives approved a bill on October 13, 2011, that would put women’s lives at risk, Human Rights Watch said today. The bill, if it becomes law, would reverse longstanding federal policy requiring hospitals to provide life-saving care regardless of expense, Human Rights Watch said.

                The Protect Life Act, HR 358, would amend the healthcare reform law to grant hospitals far-reaching powers to deny patients abortion care, without any exception for emergency situations. US law currently requires hospitals receiving federal funds to provide emergency care to anyone in need up to the point at which they can be stabilized or transferred, if the original hospital is incapable of providing the care they need.

                “The misnamed Protect Life Act is about allowing women to die if they need an emergency abortion,” said Meghan Rhoad, women’s rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “It is a vicious attack on women’s rights and on the most basic right to life.”

                The bill passed 248 to 173, with no Republicans voting in opposition and 11 Democrats voting in favor. It is not expected to pass the US Senate, and the White House has indicated that the president would likely veto the bill were it to reach him.

                Here’s an op-ed in The Hill.

                This is a dramatic departure from prevailing law, which sets out a commonsense baseline for emergency care in a key consumer protection that applies to all hospitals. The law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), applies to any hospital receiving funds under Medicare or Medicaid (effectively, all of them) and was signed into law by President Reagan to combat the widespread practice of “patient dumping”— hospitals’ refusal to treat low-income and uninsured patients who need emergency care.

                As its name suggests, EMTALA reflects a particular concern for women in labor. Under the law, hospitals that cannot provide the care a patient requires must stabilize their condition prior to transferring them to another facility. This is truly a minimal obligation, and makes sense given that anyone – pregnant women included – must be able to seek care in an emergency from the closest hospital to them at the time.

                That religious hospitals would jeopardize their patients’ lives rather than perform a medically necessary abortion is not mere speculation, it is documented fact. A 2008 article in the American Journal of Public Health examined numerous instances in which Catholic hospitals put patients’ lives at risk, as reported b

                y the doctors who were forced to deny them care.

                • I still say that is misleading

                  This reminds me of the “Obama prevents military from voting” bullshit.

                  Ohio liberalized absentee voting rules, for military only. Obama wanted the relaxed rule to apply to all absentee voters. “Obama tries to deny military vote” screamed Republicans. Pure bullshit, but sure gets the partisans’ juices flowing.

                  This is the same kind of thing. The provision is in a revision to the affordable care act, clearly in a section stating that certain state laws are not pre-empted by the affordable care act, which is a restatement of something that is already in the Obamacare law. So the nice op-ed saying that this somehow effects an amendment of some other federal law is written by someone who didn’t read either the Affordable Care Act or this amendment.

                  This is rabble-rousing Fox-News-in-negative bullshit designed to scare people who aren’t paying attention. Maybe it should get a segment on MSNBC.

                  • Then you'd still be

                    basing your opinion on what you prefer to think rather than any sort of facts. Here’s CNN (a reputable source for JohnD?):

                    Abortion rights advocates maintain the bill is unnecessary because existing laws already bar any taxpayer money from underwriting abortion procedures. During the health care debate, President Barack Obama signed an executive order stating no federal funds could be used in the new health care exchanges created in the law.

                    Pro-abortion-rights groups like Planned Parenthood also maintain the bill adds a new restriction. Currently, hospitals that receive federal funds but don’t have facilities to treat women who may need emergency abortion services are directed to transfer those patients to a health care facility that can treat them. The Pitts bill removes that requirement.

      • Huge difference

        Cheating on a wife is a personal matter that bears no importance to legislation.

        A Congressman saying women who are impregnated after being raped weren’t “legitimately raped” absolutely does bear importance to their legislation, and should matter to any fair-minded and rational person in this country.

        RyansTake   @   Mon 20 Aug 5:53 PM
      • Yes and no

        I give the Republicans credit for unananimously condemning the remarks, withdrawing funding and threatening to force this extremist out. Yet his voting record and views are not that far from the Palin’s and Donnells of the world, particularly the view that even rape is not a good enough rationale for an abortion. A telling quote from the female director of Missouri right to life Sharon Barnes “at that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don’t kill it.” That’s an increasingly mainstream GOP opinion when even Reagan, Dole, and both Bushes agreed that rape is so heinous the victim can choose whether or not to keep her rapists child-or in Ms. Barnes and Mr. Akins view that a rape is God’s blessing. To me, a personally pro-life Dem, that view is repugnant and disgusting. To you as well I am sure JohnD, but to most Republicans these days its not. Akin committed a Kinsey gaffe by telling the truth, unvarnished, that most Republican voting records, including Mr. Ryan’s, seem to indicate.

  7. Sen. Brown asks Akin to resign and withdraw from his senate race

    That is what I love a out Brown, calls it as he sees it, very independent guy. Akin must be defeated if he chooses to stay in the race.

    Now, I wish some Kool-Aid drinkers would support Tisei over Sgt. Schultz John Tierney.

    • Sorry Dan, not here.

      Can anyone point to a single time where BMGers broke from supporting their party’s candidate due to an issue? Seems to me they support their person no matter what they have done wrong, they just explain the problem as “another lie”, “that’s not what she/he meant when she said that”, “They are both adults and it’s a personal matter, nothing to do with politics…”.

      Look at the support Sal “GUILTY” DiMasi got here. He was supported by the entire BMG community while I pled for someone to be a standup person and call wrong when they see it. Didn’t happen, never does here…

      • Maybe when we endorsed

        Dianne Wilkerson’s primary *and* general election opponents, for starters?

      • Here are two.

        I can. I wrote a posting not long ago called A Dilemma with a DINO in which I questioned if I should vote for my congressman despite my fundemental disagreement with his position of what you would call “ObamaCare”.

        That’s One.

        In addition, the only time I ever voted for a Republican was Weld over Silber, and that WAS IN FACT a vote against Silber and his bizarre and hateful views.

        That’s Two.

        Need more??

        • I voted Weld over Silber also.

          We also refused to endorse Steve Lynch over Jack E. Robinson.

          • Was that 1990?

            Refused to endorse… nope, not the same. Voting for the other guy is not the same as not showing up to vote.

          • I voted for Silber

            Both in the primary and general.

            • That speaks volumes.

              That speaks volumes, both about track record for supporting losers, and your support of “hatefilled”, blowhards.

              • Mike-why is anyone who disagrees with you a "hate-filled" person?

                Anyone who eats at Chic-Fil-A is a hater. John Silber is a hater, I am likely a hater for supporting both and voter ID. Very odd to have dialogue with people who throw out those words.

                Oh, FYI, Obama in danger of losing Illinois, check the link below.

                http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/shock-poll-obama-could-lose-illinois/#ixzz2473YBYPo

                • Projecting???

                  I never said, anyone who disagrees with me is a hater. I am saying John Silber’s primary defining trait was that his “hatred”. Nor have I said that anyone who eats at Chic-Fil-A is a “hater”. However, you are currently supporting both Brownie and Mitten, based on previous comments by you, and Brownie had that “hate” filled rant in the high school about gays a few years back and Mitten by his financial disclosures had sent donations to the The Becket Fund and Massachusetts Family Institute whose opinions and positions are not simply limited to anti-Marriage Equality but are vehemently anti-gay in my opinion.

                  P.S. Nate Silver still has Illinios at 100% Solid Blue so I can still sleep at night.

            • I'm not surprised

              You probably like Ed King as well.

              My oldest daughter was a student at BU during his last few years. That a**wipe had the audacity to say that my daughter was a “distraction” to the oh-so-important males at BU while he was simultaneously collecting more than $40K/year from us.

              John Silbur sounds like just the kind of man you like.

              • I loved Ed King

                A real man, played football, supported
                the death penalty, worked with Ronald Reagan, cut taxes, decent man. I
                guess you supported Dukakis and his furlough system and tax hikes. Talk about a joke if there ever was one. And his garbage of a friend John Sasso. I tell ya, not surprised you supported The Duke.

                • Your "independence" is showing

                  I see what kind of “independent” you are.

                  • The mustache on your upper lip from drinking the liberal Kool-Aid is showing

                    By the way, what Silber said was something like why would male students pay for hookers when there were plenty of female students giving it up for free. I don’t know about BU but when I went to school, well as Fonzie would say, “Ayyyy”

                    • Wrong

                      Silber was quoted in the Boston Globe on September 8 as saying that women were a distraction to male students. The archived Globe article is now behind a paywall, or I’d happily quote it here.

                      He said nothing like what you were suggesting, and even if he did it would still be deplorable for a University president to make such a comment about his women students.

              • I loved Ed King too

                .

        • Ya, a lot more.

          When did you endorse a Republican over a Democrat “in modern history”.

          • Changing the rules???

            You request was, and I quote

            Can anyone point to a single time where BMGers broke from supporting their party’s candidate due to an issue?

            You didn’t say it had to be an “Endorsement”, you didn’t say it had to be “in modern history”.
            You asked for a SINGLE Time and have been given more than one.
            Check MATE.

      • Yes

        This is one of the few fair criticisms that you and dan have made here.

        The response is generally something along the lines of “Weiner was okay because he didn’t campaign to ban people from tweeting pictures of their wingwang, and so wasn’t a hypocrite.” Which is an inadequate response.

        At the same time, I would give you more credit for calling out a guy who didn’t just throw the entire GOP nationwide campaign off message for three days.

        • Sorry for the confusion

          My understanding was trying to respond to the concept that because I had with a broad stroke, painted all republicans with the brush of the idiot from Missouri, that it was equally OK to similarly paint all Democrats with Weiner’s stupidity. If Weiner was advocating for legislation that had anything to do with his “Twitter Problem” and had wide Democratic Party support, then the equivalence would have made sense. Weiner destroyed his own future, and so has the idiot from Missiouri, but Weiner’s stupidity in no way reflects DNC platform or “current at the time” efforts in the House and Senate. Weiner is just a self destructive idiot, where as the idiot from Missouri is damaging his entire party because it reflects on the House, the Senate, and State Houses all over these USA. Both are flaming idiots, both have destroyed their political futures, but that is where the similarity ends. Unfortunately for the RNC, when I heard this idiot from Missouri speak, I was not surprised in the slightest, having heard equally stupid things from Santorum and Bachmann and DA “999″ guy. From a PR point, it is my opinion that this is what everyone who is not a Republican thinks you Republicans believe anyway. Weiner is simply a self-destructive idiot.

          QED: They are not the same, not even approximately.

          • I for one did not think Weiner should have resigned

            Not like he leaked top secret information, like Obama did with the release of sensitive info regarding our military ops.

            • What a Flaming Troll?

              I mean the comment, not you.

              But regarding you, Please Don’t Feed the Troll.

            • What flaming BS

              What difference does it really make? Almost all Americans were interested in this information, and I don’t see how it really hurt our security in any meaningful way. And it’s not like you cared one bit when Plame was outed by the Bush White House for nothing more than petty revenge.

      • I called out Mark Clayton

        In an exchange that you participated in, I called out Mark Clayton (Democratic Party nominee for Senate in Tennessee):

        This has everything to do with Republicans. Do the right-wing crazy extremists run for Republican or Democratic seats? The Democratic party in Tennessee is running away from Tea Party candidate Mark Clayton — can you cite a similar flight of a state GOP committee from an extremist right-wing candidate?

        Please cite one comment where I supported Mr. DiMasi — just one. I’ve written against Democratic Party corruption multiple times — my recollection is that it was the topic of one of my very first comments/diaries here. I loudly attacked Martha Coakley, I was critical of Deval Patrick on numerous occasions, I’ve been outspoken about the pervasive corruption on Beacon Hill and in city hall since I’ve been here.

        I think you’re greatly overstating your case.

        • Pervasive corruption is do to one party rule

          How about supporting redrawing the districts in order to get 40% of the state house and senate to be Republican? Nah, you would never go for that.

          • How about following the law?

            As it exist, not at you want it to exist. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I was under the impression that districts were to be drawn so that each representative or senator represents an equal share of residence. Or tell me again, why was Tom Finneran tossed out? Was it not for trying to have a hand in the division and then lying about it? Maybe? Just Maybe?

            • Finneran wanted to have minority congressional district

              Which I would 100% support. Not sure why
              he lied about it and got in trouble.

              The local districts are drawn to maximize Democratic advantages.
              It is like this throughout the entire state.

              • Wrong again.

                I realize that Wikipedia is not a great place to use as a source, but it appears to be the shortest description of the Court Case. See Tom Finneran

                The redistricting was challenged in Federal court, in a civil case, by the Black Political Task Force and others, as unfair to minority voters by constructing districts intended to favor white incumbents to the detriment of candidates preferred by blacks.

                If your claim was true, then why was there a court case? Answer, because it isn’t true. There is the pesky thing called the law, in this case the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

                • Mike-here is what I found

                  Abstract
                  This article discusses legislative reapportionment and past efforts to manipulate district lines as far back as the legendary Elbridge Gerry in the early nineteenth century. Specifically, it deals with what political history has to tell us about the current furor over House Speaker Thomas Finneran’s proposed congressional redistricting. More than any other state in the Union, the Massachusetts lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives have enjoyed disproportionate power as a result of a bipartisan strategy of incumbency protection dating back to the 1940s. That power may be in jeopardy if Speaker Finneran implements his plans to create a new 5th District in southeastern Massachusetts while merging districts represented by two incumbent Democratic congressmen, Marty Meehan of Lowell and John Tierney of Salem. The speaker broke with a tradition of deference to incumbency and collegial consensus building that normally prevails during the decennial redrawing of district lines and may have risked diminishing Massachusetts’s political power for at least a decade.

                  http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&context=nejpp

          • There aren't enough Republicans to do that.

            When only 11-12% of voters consider themselves Republican, I don’t see how you figure they deserve 40% of the seats. I am afraid that the rabidly right-wing tea-party crazies have dragged the Republicans so far right, they are barely viable in this state anymore.

            I would love to see a viable third party in this state, but I don’t think anyone has the patience to build one.

            • When Baker gets over 40% of the vote

              W Bush, a Texas conservative, got like 37% of the vote here in 2004 against a favorite son, you don’t think there is a problem when Dems have like 80% of the state reps and senate seats? Wake up and smell the coffee, my man.

              • Kerry was never a "favorite son"

                Lots of people didn’t like him all that much, me included. And that was 2004 when the crazies had only begun to take over the Republican party.

                The reason that Republicans lose in this state has very little to do with district lines. If you can’t smell that “coffee” then you are delusional.

                People in this state don’t call themselves Republicans any more because they don’t like what the Republican party now stands for. It has gotten to the point where Republicans frequently omit their party affiliation from their yard signs and campaign literature.

      • Actually, I don't think I

        supported DiMasi. I was writing as Yellow Dog at the time.

        http://bluemassgroup.com/2008/07/a-beacon-hill-scandal-cognos-dimasi-and-conflicts-of-interest

        There was a good discussion of how people felt about DiMasi and supporting him here. JohnD’s commentary is on here too. Here’s one of my comments:

        Scumbags

        Before DiMasi was Felonius Finneran and the uncharged, Billy Blarney Bulger.

        The root of the problem isn’t ethics (they’re part of the solution). The root of the problem is the concentration of power in the hands of a couple of people. A challenge to the Speaker is at best political exile, at worst a politica death wish.

        Aside from hang ‘em high, my only thought is how to address this at the convention. It has to come up.

      • The Death of Bipartisanship

        The Republican Party has drifted so far away from John Lindsay, Nelson Rockefeller, Margaret Chase, and Harold Stassen that our country lacks a significant moderate middle. It’s been many years since there was a Republican Senator more liberal than the most conservative Democratic Senator. Without that changing, we’re going to have a lot of partisanship.

    • Ulterior motive?

      Akin supports the repeal of the 17th amendment. That wouldn’t be good for Brown.

    • Wow, how brave of Brown to

      call out Akin!

      What did he have to lose? It gave him the opportunity to criticize an anti-woman guy and make himself look independent. I won’t criticize him for the tactic, but it’s Politics 101. Jeeze, even Romney did it.

      • Brown can't win, should he have supported Akin?

        Would that have made you happy. I think he knows he doesn’t have your vote but maybe many in MA will like his position on Akin.

        • He's on the Dem campaign

          It is his job to be appalled by Brown, whatever Brown does.

          Brown grabbed an opportunity to whack a Republican to keep his independent thing going. Pretty smart move, but kind of like hitting a long ball off a tee.

          It is his ability to find those little seams that are keeping the race here close.

        • He could have said nothing

          until he was asked? Honestly, that wasn’t my point. My point was, regardless of how Brown feels, it was a political tactic. Anyone who’s not nutsy fagin thinks Akin is out of line and crazy. Frankly, I’d be surprised if Brown did agree with Akin.

    • Lately, Tisei's family shenanigans

      look as bad as, if not worse than, Tierney’s. So I’d say that issue is a wash at best.

      • How can you say that and claim to be a thinking person

        Tisei’s parents 15 years ago as business owners had civil judgments against them. Tisei was not involved in that business and was only involved with them as joint owner of a mutual property. He ended up having to sue them (I am going by the Tierney site on this matter).

        Tierney’s wife (and their family’s income) benefited to the tune of $100,000′s. She was convicted of a crime. Her brothers were convicted of crimes. Tierney claims no knowledge. He is a sitting congressman. This is a current event.

        Hardly a wash.

        • Afraid it's more complicated than that.

          Lots of documents at this site.

          I don’t like the Tierney business either. But to pretend that Tisei is pure as the driven snow … well, sorry. For one thing, Tisei apparently benefited personally; no one has ever alleged that Tierney did.

          • Boy

            That race makes me long for the veteran who threatened to run and is an awesome chronicler of the Iraq War, a relatively common sense liberal closer to my age, but unfortunately he decided against running. Its sad. Tierney is a friend and Salem High 70′ classmate of my uncle’s and came to my grandma’s wake, and a solid progressive, but his excuses just don’t add up. Tisei is the kind of Rockefeller Republican, like Weld, I’d consider voting for, save that he has not endorsed Simpson-Bowles and fundraises with Boehner and would otherwise contribute to a Tea Party Congress, which as a gay man makes him as principled a turncoat as Dawson and all the other black alderman that backed Daley’s racist machine in the 60s. If the Marine from Marblehead ran he might actually win!

  8. It's like we're in Opposite Land

    That’s such a weird backward concept. I disagree with Obama that “all rape is rape” because there are lots of things that are called rape that are not legitimate rape, such as a guy raping another guy, or using a finger, which are called “unnatural sexual intercourse” but are legally considered the same as legitimate sexual intercourse. There are perhaps good reasons for treating them same, from a law enforcement and punishment perspective. But it’s interesting that the law does note that there is legitimate sexual intercourse, and unnatural sexual intercourse. It’s directly the opposite of what that guy said though, because only legitimate sexual intercourse can lead to pregnancy, not the other way around.

    • Apparently your love of zygotes

      transcends a love of humans and a compassion for them.

      • IMy love starts at the heartbeat

        Personally I think rape victims should be given emergency contraception to make sure there is no pregnancy. I disagree with most pro-life people who want to protect zygotes, apparently even un-implanted zygotes, by calling them persons. I think life and personhood starts with the heartbeat at around 10 to 14 days, and until then it is perfectly normal for zygotes and embryos to fail to implant and be discarded by the body. There is certainly no obligation to implant embryos that were created in vitro into a woman’s body, and it is a waste of energy to store them in freezers, there is no soul in them yet they should be discarded. The “personhood amendments” all seem to obligate us to implant embryos, even genetically engineered embryos, as if that’s the goal.

  9. Just heinous

    The NY Times article on Akin had this telling quote, sadly from a woman, Sharon Barnes the Chairman of Missouri Right to Life, commenting on the rape remarks “at that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don’t kill it.” There you have it, even a heinous act like a rape is “Gods blessing”, I am personally pro-life and while I support a women’s right to choose I am desperate to find and fund alternatives to that choice. That said, in general men should never make this decision, but when it comes to rape I honestly can’t fathom how anyone, even the most pro-life father, brother, or husband, could force a woman to have their rapists child. If that is where the pro-life movement is folks we are in a lot of trouble.

    • Love it.

      It was God’s will that a woman be raped. What’s wrong with these people? The pro-life movement has taken a black and white view on a complex issue. Since they can’t be anything other than correct, reality must be change.

  10. Does anyone have any insight...

    …as to why this particular comment is getting so much attention? This one even made the local non-partisan news, whereas I only usually hear about these outrageous statements from MSNBC and websites like these, which never seem to run out of fringe comments to report about.

    • Because it's extraordinarily crazy,

      though hardly unprecedented, and it has horse race aspects in that McCaskill really wants to run against a nutter like Akin, rather than a Republican that doesn’t foam at the mouth.

    • Also, because there has been

      the war against women meme for the last several months.

  11. Romney's national lead In Gallup and Rasmussen and new poll from PPP has Romney up in Wisconsin

    will likely crater since Akin is staying in the race. Mitt will need to endorse McCaskill.

    • The choice

      70% of women who have abortions claim the inability to afford to have a child as their number one reason for undergoing the procedure. Progressives of all stripe view that as an indictment against our failed economy, conservatives like Mr. Akin blame the women. In this election there is no contest, Ryan-Romney would gut what’s left of the safety net. Instead if offering those women a chance to be mothers it offers them a choice between poverty or the back alley. That’s no choice at all. The choice for all women AND for those of us who personally oppose abortion could not be clearer.

      • I heard that in 2000 that Bush would eliminate abortions

        Seems to me abortion was legal for all of his eight years. You care to weigh in on support or opposition to the Laci Peterson Bill. The two comments I had were major whiffs, almost embarrassing as Akin’s comment.

      • You forgot celibacy

        A great many right-wingers embrace celibacy as the (woman’s) best choice.

        It’s part of the Madonna/whore construct — they want the woman they marry to be virgin and pure before marriage, and then hot and horny after (but faithful, of course).

        For women — especially single women — the right wing would have them choose between celibacy and motherhood. When they choose motherhood, the right wing would have that be only when they are the property chattel of the husband who owns them. The Hebrew Scriptures list adultery after the property crimes because adultery WAS a property crime in that culture — the man paid good money for her, and the “product” was devalued by her unfaithfulness. This is, for all too many American men, the value system they mean when they espouse “traditional marriage”.

        A woman who maintains a healthy and happy sex life without disease and babies is a mortal threat to this neanderthal world-view. Hence the focus on celibacy in right-wing “sex education” curricula, proposals about contraceptive availability, and access to safe abortion. Enhancing the safety net to allow single women to lead happy lives as mothers is even more threatening.

        Women voters (and parents with daughters or grand-daughters) who are still undecided would do well to ask themselves how well they see themselves fitting into the vision for women promoted by the Mitt Romney and the GOP.

        • Or be le Sandra Fluke

          begging lawmakers for free contraception.

          • Wow

            Wow, some of Rush Limbaugh’s Regurgitated War on Women. And on a posting in large part about the Republican War on Women. Could this be a first, in which your comment has some connection to the posting?

            Again Wow.

          • Really?

            Thought you were a moderate Dan why are you a theocon all of a sudden? Free contraception is not that expensive, compared to most things the government sponsors, and it will significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies which lead to two things the GOP hates-abortions or more mouths to feed, cloth, educate and pay healthcare for. I have no idea why Rush, especially considering he has had four wives and no kids and I doubt his fat ass could pull out in time, or anyone made this an issue. This is honestly one of those areas where the GOP went irrational since anything Obama is for-either killing bin Laden, or Qadaffi, or winning the war on terrorism, or contraception, or bailing out big business is suddenly something their against. ‘Anything he for Im agin it!” is the rallying cry of the party of Lincoln, which long ago became the party of Thurmond so we really shouldn’t be surprised.

            • Really?? Did you read what Tom wrote?

              He mocks abstinence education and believes free contraception and easy access to abortion leads women to their utopia. I guess Tom left out how traumatic having an abortion can be to a woman, let alone the diseases one can get, perhaps aids, when one is permiscous. Just a few minor details, but what the hell, there are no jobs, people have to be busy doing something. No worries, we have Obamacare to treat everyone.

              • Oh my

                Another one of those red herrings to feed the 5,000.

                You bet I mock abstinence education — it’s a total farce and a total failure.

                Tell us, Dan, do you think that making abortion illegal will make it more or less traumatic? Do you care?

                Which do you think will do more to help men and women avoid diseases — providing education that explains the many dirt-simple ways they can avoid it, or preaching abstinence? Do you have any idea of how hard it is for heterosexuals who don’t share needles to get HIV? What’s your guess about the risk of HIV for heterosexuals who don’t share needles compared with, say, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, or HPV? Are you also one of those who oppose the HPV vaccine, claiming it will cause women to be promiscuous? Do you think gay marriage increases or reduces the risk of HIV for homosexual men? Do you oppose or support gay marriage?

                What constitutes “promiscuous” sex in your book anyway? About half of US marriages end in divorce. A tiny fraction of American men and women are virgin when they are married. The number of men and women who have one sex partner for life is vanishingly small. Did it ever occur to you that someone can have a “healthy and happy sex life” and not be promiscuous?

                I’m not surprised that you apparently embrace the Madonna/whore meme. I am surprised that you so openly admit it.

                • Tom- just let kids be kids, they will grow up fast enough

                  You can mock abstinence all you want, but it has worked every time it has been tried. All is said is it should be taught along with everything else. Is that so offensive? When did I say abortion should be illegal? Having known people who have had them, well let me just say it ain’t all sunshine and rainbows as you seem to think.

                  Sandra Fluke is a big girl, she can buy her own contraception instead of harassing the religious university to make it part of insurance coverage who have a moral objection. Perhaps she can go to Harvard who may offer such a comprehensive plan, or a state univ.

                  HPV- you and Rick Perry want to make it mandatory? Unlike you, I respect parents to make the decisions as they feel best for their kids. Do you have any stats that on high school students, comparing the grades between those sexually active and those who focus on their studies and other extra curricula activities? Call me crazy, my guess is parents who direct their kids, especially the girls, to focus on things other than chasing boys, tend to academically outperform the skirt chasers and the girls who think they are Madonna or Lady Ga-Ga.

                  I said this before, I am for gay marriage, glad to hear this lowers HIV cases, which I did not know.

                  • I'm reminded of Mark Twain

                    You wrote:

                    You can mock abstinence all you want, but it has worked every time it has been tried.

                    I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s response when asked whether he could quit smoking. “Sure”, he replied, “I’ve quit dozens of times.”

                    • Would this comment by Tom be a six?

                      Or is he waiving the white flag to me?

                    • Neither

                      “Abstinence” as a form of contraception and disease prevention works fine until, well, it stops working. In short, it is equivalent to “nothing at all”.

                      In this way, it is like Mark Twain’s efforts to quit smoking. The quitting is easy — the staying quit is hard.

                    • Tom- you hurt kids by telling them sex is great, do it if you want, etc. Be sm

                      Data presented below from the 2009 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) show a negative association between sexual risk behaviors and academic achievement after controlling for sex, race/ethnicity, and grade level. This means that students with higher grades are less likely to engage in sexual risk behaviors than their classmates with lower grades, and students who do not engage in sexual risk behaviors receive higher grades than their classmates who do engage in sexual risk behaviors?

                      http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/sexual_risk_behaviors.pdf

        • Wow

          As much as I want to disagree with this statement since its imagery is very stark and black and white, its pretty hard not to. The pro-’Have the rapists child” amendment to the platform is indicative that they are really punishing sex and not protecting life. And seeing that the GOP has failed to pass a Human Life Amendment or Fetal Personhood amendment when it controlled congress but did pass (in the House at least) laws banning gay sex in the Constitution we see where their priorities are. I’d respect it more too if any of the GOP men (and even some of the women) actually lived up to the high standards they’d impose on the rest of us.

  12. Akin to stay in race...

    Updated 6:12 p.m. – Rep. Todd Akin (R) did not step aside as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri, allowing a key preliminary deadline to end his candidacy to come and go.

    The GOP is pushing hard but Akin is staying in at this point. He still can drop but Kbusch may get his wish that Akin stays in before the GOP can replace him with another candidate.

    • I think the GOP should run a third party candidate

      even if it gives the win to McCaskill. To be clear, what Akins said is almost
      as ridiculous as the Dem. Comgressman who thought an island would literally capsize and sink because we had a few military ships land land on it.

      • Probably too late for that

        They probably have already passed the deadline to get a third-party candidate on the ballot. It would have to be a write-in effort, which would pretty much hand the race over to the Democrats.

        BTW, unlike Akins, Rep Johnson was joking about Guam capsizing to make a point about the impact of too much military buildup there. Nice try.

    • Who is more stupid, Dem Hank Johnson or Rep Akin

      Hank thought Guam would capsize due to the extra people living on the island.

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

      • Doubt it.

        At least his comment on the incident looks more than reasonable. If had went to Liberty University or something I might believe it your way.

        “I wasn’t suggesting that the island of Guam would literally tip over,” said Johnson. “I was using a metaphor to say that with the addition of 8,000 Marines and their dependents – an additional 80,000 people during peak construction to the port on the tiny island with a population of 180,000 – could be a tipping point which would adversely affect the island’s fragile ecosystem and over burden its already overstressed infrastructure.

        “Having traveled to Guam last year, I saw firsthand how this beautiful – but vulnerable island – is already overburdened, and I was simply voicing my concerns that the addition of that many people could tip the delicate balance and do harm to Guam.”

        Even if you buy he believed it, at least he was smart enough to retract it. Not so for Akin.

      • Rep Akin is by far more stupid.

        He appears to get his 8th Grade Health Information from old episodes of “I Dream of Genie”. This is not to say that Hank Johnson is not an idiot, but Hank Johnson wasn’t sponsoring any legislation like HR03.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Fri 25 Apr 2:04 AM