August 21st, 2012

Akin and the rape comments

Since the Akin rape comments story seems to have reached a fever pitch, let me just say that I think the man is politically tone-deaf and probably should leave the race for that reason alone. The battle for the Senate is too important to leave to people who can’t present coherent thoughts in a coherent fashion, and who hand outrageous sound bites to the opposition on a silver platter.

There are two problems with Akin’s remarks. The first is his bizarre phrase “legitimate rape,” which appears to imply that some rape could be okay (i.e. “legitimate”). The second is his suggestion that getting pregnant through rape is nearly impossible because in “legitimate rape” a woman’s body has some sort of built-in protection that rejects the pregnancy.

When I first heard this story, I thought Akin’s remarks to be so surpassingly weird that two possible explanations came to mind. The first was that Akin holds offensive and fantastical ideas about rape. The second is that there was some at least semi-rational explanation for what he said.

Working on the latter theory, I Googled a bit. It didn’t take but a moment to find this piece on the subject at a site called Physicians for Life. The gist of the argument is that, in what is ordinarily referred to as “forcible rape” (Whoopi Goldberg’s “rape-rape” by another name) as opposed to, for example, statutory rape, the woman is under stress and is therefore less likely to become pregnant.

There’s little doubt that’s what Akin meant by his remarks (here’s more background on the history of the medical arguments behind them). But it sounds as though he’s implying that woman who get pregnant from rape weren’t “legitimately” raped, a toxic assertion.

What’s more, even if it were true that stress reduces the number of pregnancies that would have otherwise been expected to result from rape—and it’s not at all clear that it’s true—how would the relative frequency of rape-induced pregnancies matter? There is no question that some women become pregnant through rape, and anyone recommending policy connected with abortion (whether pro or con) needs to deal with that particular population.

As for whether stress actually does help to prevent pregnancy, as Akin appears to be alleging, the jury’s been out an awfully long time on that one, with no end in sight.

Akin will be going on the air to say his mea culpas to the voters, and to try to explain himself. It remains to be seen whether they’ll buy his story, but interestingly enough, so far the polls haven’t budged.

[ADDENDUM: DrewM at Ace’s thinks the polls are spurious, and agrees that Akin needs to go:

PPP has a poll out showing Akin still leading by 1. Alas, it’s total bull. Almost as if Democrats want to keep Akin hanging in there. Even if were a legit poll, it’s early and 1 point is within the margin of error. How do you think it will look after a couple of weeks of pounding with no Crossroads or national GOP money in the game?

If Akin stays in and we are one vote short on in the Senate then he and John Roberts will have saved ObamaCare. Great.

One last thought. This whole notion of we have to be loyal to guys like Akin is nuts. He broke the faith by putting a slam dunk win in danger. We owe him nothing. ]

45 Responses to “Akin and the rape comments”

  1. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    I will generously say that I believed Akin meant by “legitimate rape” a sexual encounter that was indeed rape and not one that was consensual and that later portrayed as rape.
    Having said that, I can’t believe he said what he said about rejection of a rape pregnancy.
    That level of ignorance, however, might qualify him for the senate.
    On a purely pragmatic level, could one of the other primary contenders seal the deal at this late date?

  2. Tesh Says:

    I have to wonder if he was thinking of the “legitimacy” as, well… how “far” the rape went. Or maybe, he had in mind the rare case where someone claims to have been raped, but wasn’t in actuality; it was just someone crying “wolf”. Either of those could explain the term… but I’m not really in the mood to argue his case; he’s still a dolt. I think we could find plausible reasons for his statements, but really, we’re dealing with either incompetence (stupidity) or political tone deafness *at best*. Either marks him as unfit for office.

    I don’t much care if he actually believes some rather odd ideas about rape, or if he just misspoke. Either makes him a liability (though it’s true that the former is perhaps of more concern if he were in a position to make law). He should step down.

  3. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    This case clearly exhibits the difference between dems and Republicans. Were Akin a democrat, they would all close ranks and find a way to explain that he didn’t mean what you thought he meant. Articles such as the one neo cited would be trotted out. The MSM would treat it as a non-event.

    Accusing Romney of being a felon, or averring that Romney and Ryan want to enslave African Americans are outrageous statements from democrats that have been smoothed over and “forgiven.” Nothing to see here, folks, move along now.

    I don’t want to defend Akin so much as I want to see some balance. Or at least some credit to the Republicans for having a sense of right and wrong.

    Sarah Palin’s candidate of choice, former state treasurer Sarah Steelman, came in second in the Missouri primary. I have seen some calls (notably, Ann Coulter) for Akin to step down in favor of Ms Steelman because it is very important to win that Missouri senate seat. I agree that it might be a good idea for Akin to step aside.

  4. Todd Says:

    An interesting overlooked side note to candidate Todd Akin.
    Todd Akin was in a three way primary race in Missouri. Conservative fiscal hawks, such as Freedom Works and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), were backing John Brunner; the Christian evangelicals, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, were backing Todd Akin; and the most anti-establishment conservative, embodied by Palin, supported Sarah Steelman. Todd Akins won that primary 3-way race after solidifying his conservative strengths through endorsements from Michele Bachmann and Huckabbee as well as ads paid by Democratics.
    Drudge, reports today the Democratic’s spent 1.5 million to get Todd Akins elected (I’ve linked the article below). Democrats thought that Senator Claire McCaskill would have a better shot at winning the race against candidate Todd Akins and unsurprisingly as of today McCaskill is not asking for Akins to step down. Would you?
    In hindsight I thought Palin lost her pick in the race but did she really? Seems she and the Democratic Party who spent 1.5 million to help get Akins elected knew which candidate was better for their party.

  5. Baltimoron Says:

    To add to what Ed and Tesh said, I believe (though can’t say for sure) that what Akin was getting at when he talked about “legitimate rape” was that if you outlaw abortion, but make an exception for cases of rape, women will falsely claim to have been raped in order to get an abortion.
    He then took that argument to an absurd and hateful extreme by saying, in effect, that all women who say they were impregnated through rape were actually engaged in consensual sex.
    In any case, it was a crazy thing to say. I’ve always thought that being pro-life necessarily required a certain respect for women dealing with an unplanned pregnancy (as opposed to the pro-choice folks who think its an embarrassment women need to deal with before anyone finds out), but obviously that is not entirely true.

  6. Ken Says:


    Why don’t you ask Norma McCorvey if she was legitimately raped or if she just lied and now we are saddled with a supreme court decision that was based on a lie.

    Why don’t you ask all the feminists out there who have essentially redefined rape to mean any sex that they weren’t satisfied with afterwards why they’ve deformed the word so much that the word “legitimate” is a legitimate qualifier when talking about rape.

    I don’t know why, but I am always surprised at the naivete of women like you who fain some outrage over an issue that has been completely warped by the twisted left. Women aren’t always the victim and when accusations are thrown around, the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the accused, but when rape accusations are involved, the accused is supposed to prove his innocence, rather than the accuser prove guilt.

  7. neo-neocon Says:

    Ken: you appear to have an agenda, and it has little to do with me. You ascribe thoughts to me that aren’t even close to what I think or what I’ve written here or anywhere.

    Of course there are false accusations of rape. That’s neither the topic nor the issue here.

    I have no trouble acknowledging that, from time immemorial, there have been false rape accusations, and it is a knotty task for the law to distinguish the false from true. I also have no problem with the assertion that some feminists have stretched the definition of rape to the breaking point and then some.

    By the way, this post of mine doesn’t have a whole lot of naivete or outrage in it, either feigned (not “fained”) or otherwise.

  8. roc scssrs Says:

    I believe Baltimoron is correct, and the argument may even go back to pre-Roe days. Some states which had outlawed abortions and then allowed them in rape cases saw rises in rape allegations. It was a talking point for pro-lifers for a while. But you can’t really make a good moral case by using fleeting statistics. Akin was respectfully asked to explain a bedrock position, and this is the first thing he thought of?

  9. Mr. Frank Says:

    Shades of the Nevada and Delaware senate races. Akin is going to cost us a Senate seat and maybe the Senate. The guy will be persona non grata for the rest of his life. Maybe he really is that dumb.

  10. baklava Says:

    Agreed. He has got to go! Now!

    Ann Coulters piece is right on.

  11. gcotharn Says:

    thanks for researching what Akin said, and what Akin was likely referencing. I had not looked into it, and, from a distance, had a difficult time comprehending what Akin might be speaking of.

    It is another sad commentary, on make-believe media, that I knew that major media reportage was highly unlikely to ever inform me as to what Akin might have been referencing. Rather, make-believe media was highly likely to default to their true purpose for existing: acting as agents of the Democrat Party.

    What are the takeaways?
    >Akin had an area of poor thinking exposed.
    >Dems, who spent $1.5M to push Akin’s nomination, are deceptive snakes.
    >Make-Believe Media are deceptive snakes.
    >The Repub Party, which was snookered by Dems, and is being defeated on the battlefield by Make-Believe Media, has been a losing army and remains a losing army.

    There is a bright spot: conservative winners are on the way.

    The Tea Party sense how to win.
    The people at the Breitbart sites sense how to win.
    Rising young political stars sense how to win:
    Palin, Christie, Ryan, Jindal, Rubio, Ted Cruz, and more.

    Winners are on the way. The old guard Repubs are like old time incompetent generals who sent lines of soldiers marching directly into cannon fire or machine gun fire. The old guard are, by nature, losers. They soon will be gone. It can’t happen soon enough.

  12. zipper Says:

    O K, you guys have convinced me. Much better to murder a baby than to lose a senate seat.

  13. baklava Says:

    Let’s get back to talking about the economy Todd.

    Get out!

  14. baklava Says: it up.

    More babies will be aborted with your strategy. Idiot.

  15. T Says:

    Akins’ argument makes no sense, even if it’s true. According to Neo’s Google above, even if the stress of rape diminished the liklihood of pregnancy (and that’s a big “if”), nowhere does it say that it eliminates the possibility of pregnancy. The statement presents itself as if it were a solution to a problem yet doesn’t solve the underlying problem. It’s like arguing that one can avoid being killed by jumping out of the way of a bullet. The real scandal here is that Akins is such an intellectual lightweight that he can’t recognize tortured logic.

  16. gcotharn Says:


    I think we are all mostly on the same page.

    Akin, rather than believing that stress reduces the chances of pregnancy (which, right or wrong, would have been defensible) … instead, Akin apparently convinced himself that stress eliminates the chances of pregnancy.

    Two arguments result:

    One: can Akin still win? The implication being, if he cannot win, then he owes it to his fellow Repubs to get out.

    Second, and separate argument:
    Did Akin commit a thought offense of such magnitude and offensiveness that decency demands that he get out?

    To this second question, I say no, and here is why: I have experience of accidentally convincing myself of things which were not true. For instance: I once suspected that a friend was Jewish. Over time, I forgot that I merely suspected it, and began to believe that it was true, until, years later, I mentioned something about it, only to discover, to my embarrassment, that I was friends with an Anglo Saxon Protestant! Horrors. I had become so happy with my mistaken idea that they were Jewish. A mere Protestant! Pish.

    Considered as this type of mistake, I do not see that Akin’s mistake was horribly offensive. His phrasing, “legitimate rape”, was offensive. But that was an accident on his part. Extemporaneous fumble. So, it was offensive, but a misdemeanor of that type which happens – including to progressives, and including to Pres. Obama.

    I believe that questions one and two, above, are completely separate, and ought not be confused and sloshed together, but rather ought be considered separately.

    I question the assumption that a replacement candidate would have a better opportunity to defeat McCaskill. Such a thing might be true. However, at this moment, it is widely assumed that such a thing is true. I say: not so fast re that assumption. People are jumping, way too fast, into that assumption. I remember Obama vs Alan Keyes. Replacement candidates have a difficult task.

    Still, if it is correct that another candidate would have a better chance, then I believe Akin ought step down. The stakes are too high.

  17. T Says:


    I don’t disagree with anything in your comment. As to your second point, it’s not the magnitude of the so-called offending thought it’s the lack of fundamental intellectual clarity. Akin can’t see that what he poses by implication as a solution isn’t a solution at all. Ergo my jumping out of the path of a speeding bullet comparison; in theory it is “possible” if all the circumstances are met, in reality, though it is so highly, highly unlikely that anyone who would posit it as a real solution to being shot at would earn neither my respect nor my vote. Akin can believe what he wants to believe, but to posit an unproven theory as a factual solution to a very serious problem is risible.

    Further, comments above have noted how the least offense is always call for a Republican’s removal so I do understand the prospect of Akin not withdrawing from the race. The other side of the coin, though is that he hasn’t learned squat from the defeat of Sharon Angle in Nevada or Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. I can only think of Capt. Tupelov removing all of the safeties from his torpedoes in The Hunt for Red October who is, then, admonished by a seaman: “You arrogant bastard, you’ve killed US!” I am not by nature a blinded team fanatic, but in this election, I am convinced that the stakes are just too high to coddle Akin’s narssicistic arrogance.

  18. JuliB Says:

    I didn’t hear/read the actual interview, but believe that he started it out by saying ‘some doctors believe’, which A. may be true, and B. may explain why he was reluctant to step down.

    But, the fact that the Dems spent $$ on his behalf should open his eyes to the fact that he may not be the best candidate. Combined with this mis-speak (or however it should be characterized) – he should come down.

    I say this as a 100% no exceptions pro-lifer.

  19. Kindra Says:

    The comment was completely unintelligent for an elected official. Get him out! There is a cause to remove him spreading across the Web –

  20. kaba Says:

    It is almost impossible to believe that any candidate running as a Republican doesn’t have a prepared and reasonable response ready on the subjects of abortion, same-sex marriage, and all such social issues. The media will inevitably ask the gotcha question hoping for something like Akin’s ill informed response.

    That should be sufficient cause for his withdrawal there. The man isn’t ready for prime time and could cost Republicans control of the Senate and perhaps even the White House. And the very survival of our republic is at stake.

    BTW…I heard that the PPP poll referenced over-sampled Republicans by 9%. Not a very promising future for Akins I believe.

  21. Mr. Frank Says:

    If you are pro life and you hope to get the women’s vote, you have to have the exception for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Akin flunked that test when he said to punish the rapist not the baby. That last quote is what would do him in with women.

    Everybody under the sun has told him to get out. He’s off the reservation at this point.

  22. baklava Says:


  23. Don Carlos Says:

    That Akin is an ignorant ass merely qualifies him to serve in the Senate, along with the other huckleberries, over which Biden presides.

  24. Baklava Says:

    Can all Republicans LEARN from this moving forward?

    We really shouldn’t have had a learning experience now.

    The discussion should be about the plans for reducing corporate tax rate, freeing up capital by reducing the capital gains tax rate, reducing regulations, etc.

  25. kolnai Says:

    This selfish half-wit is going to stay in the race.

    Is there nothing we can do? Can we get one of the other candidates to run as an Independent and drain all funding and support from Akin, sort of Murk did in Alaska?

    Something must be done. Leaving this situation as it is is to concede this seat.

  26. Baklava Says:

    Agreed Kolnai.

  27. parker Says:

    Mr. Frank says, “If you are pro life and you hope to get the women’s vote, you have to have the exception for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Akin flunked that test when he said to punish the rapist not the baby. That last quote is what would do him in with women.

    Everybody under the sun has told him to get out. He’s off the reservation at this point.”


  28. rickl Says:

    Sounds like Akin qualifies as a Black Swan in this campaign. I can hardly wait for the next one. I’m sure there will be more. We’ll probably see whole flocks of them between now and November.

  29. Michael Adams Says:

    My wife is awfully smart, and more devious than MI5 and MI6 combined, and she wonders whether someone is blackmailing or bribing Akin to stay in the race.

  30. Don Carlos Says:

    I know what Black Swan signifies, but I think of him as a Turkey.

  31. holmes Says:

    My wife found this research. Just FYI.

  32. rickl Says:

    Victorious armies have slaughtered the men and raped the women of their vanquished adversaries from time immemorial. They didn’t just do it for a lark. There was a point to it.

  33. John Dough Says:

    Akin is a great big (expletive deleted… hint: rhymes with trucking) moronic idiot. Just shows the level of (expletive deleted again…hint: rhymes with bricks) in our DC legislative bodies.

  34. IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States Says:

    I have a simple freaking question, and Neo is the only person I’ve yet seen who’s also noted it. I believe it is necessary that we go on the offensive with it, rather than try and act defensive. That not only plays into their script, it also makes us weaker by giving them lots of air time to make claims that “all republicans think this way” (and the LATimes has already linked Akin to the Tea Party movement thanks to that idiot Bachmann)

    Simply put:

    WHERE were these outraged “feminists” when the whole Roman Polanski thing was going on?

    WHERE were all the cries for Whoopi to get off of The View when she said “it wasn’t ‘Rape Rape'” (REALLY, Whoopi? If you read the court transcript, then, sorry, yes, it WAS ‘Rape Rape’. Not only was the girl only 13, but she was crying and asked him to stop… repeatedly. And he continued to rape her IN THE A**)

    But strangely, all these now loudly offended people didn’t care about someone who actually DID rape someone, much less someone who blew it off as “not REALLY ‘rape'”…. because, hey, they weren’t “EEEEEvil Rethuglicans”… so THEN, it’s A-OK!!

    It’s so sad it’s funny — the Left has no shame at all with their BS. They don’t give a rodent’s patootie about anything Akin said, it’s just another thing for them to create faux outrage against some inarguably STUPID comments by someone from the GOP — had Joe Biden said this (and you KNOW he could say something this stupid, he does it all the time), it would be “just Joe being Joe”, and… HEY, look over there!! — On to the next news item….

    I’m speaking to ALL of those on the Left “outraged” by this:

    Did you have the same level of complaint, voice the same level of “outrage” over Whoopi’s comments about an INARGUABLE case of Rape, or are you just another set of unprincipled libtard HACKs?

    How many of you calling for Akin’s resignation (not *arguing* with that, mind you!) ALSO called for Whoopi’s removal from The View? Hmmmm?

    Two-faced, much?

    Liberals: “Rules for thee, but not for me.”


    NOTE: none of this is any argument FOR Akin in the least. I don’t have any issue with calls for him to go. But when people who had no problem with Roman Polanski’s actions, and, virtually IDENTICALLY with Whoopi Goldberg’s defense “It wasn’t ‘rape rape'”, start screaming about Akins assinine comments, THAT kind of TWO-FACED Bovine Excreta is just wrong.

    If they weren’t out there calling for Roman to be extradited to the USA, if they weren’t out there calling for Whoopi to get tossed off The View, then they need to just open up a great big CAN of STFU.

    Because they’ve made it QUITE clear that, in their minds, there ARE two kinds of rape — The kind liberals COMMIT and the kind conservatives TALK about.


    Note: You’ll find other versions of this missive in other places under “OhBloodyHell” … that’s me, I haven’t plagiarized this nor am I attempting some astroturf. I just want to get others thinking about this, because the Right is responding to this WRONG, by going on the defensive about it.

    Sure, get Akin tossed out, but don’t even TALK about that, that only plays into their scripts and allows them to control the dialogue and beat us over the head with one moron’s comments as though they applied to all of us.

    No — The only way to take the wind out of their sails on this, to make them want to end it, and quickly, is to use it to show what a complete and total bunch of two-faced hypocrits they are.

    Supporting Roman Polanski is just reprehensible. And supporting Whoopi’s comments IS to reveal that one DOES believe there is more than one kind of “rape”… and whining about it when a Republican says it but saying nothing when a Democrat does it is the textbook definition of “two-bit partisan hack”.

    Now go out there and bugger anyone who’s bloviating about this. You now have the tools.

  35. T Says:


    To answer your question, the reason I didn’t go nuclear on Whoopi Goldberg’s absurd comment is because I’ve already written her off as not credible on any topic. Likewise, I would not priase her if she said something complementary about a conservative.

    The real question, I suggest, is not where were WE, but where was the MEDIA? Unfortunately we know where there head is located, because the only time they see daylight is when Obama opens his mouth to speak.

  36. Brad Says:

    I supported Roman Polanski but only in that:

    As referred to above there were allegations of judicial misconduct that were not being properly properly investigated, mostly having to do with the initial conditions of his release and a plea bargain. I don’t care if you are a rapist or murderer, the court system has to protect your rights to a fair trial and fair hearing or we have even bigger problems on our hands than your crimes.
    B. The Victim and him and had come to a settlement and she has long since been opposed to prosecution, and has repeatedly stated she wants to move past it.

    Had she been 16 or over I would have also been opposed to the statuatory rape part of the charges.

    As far as I’m concerned he should have been in jail for 30 years to life, but the local California prosecution botched it both by allowing a Judge to violate his legal rights, and by allowing him out of jail in the first place. Here’s why he’s a scumbag rapist:
    A. The victim was 13
    B. The victim was drugged
    C. there was an element of force involved in that he ignored her expressed wishes. This was not consensual in any way, even if you ignore the age and drug issues.
    D. He as much as admitted guilt at the time and formally did so when he came to a settlement with her.

    And yes, the leftists are all sorts of hypocrites about this kind of thing.

  37. Steve Says:

    The truth about abortion is that ‘rape, incest and life of the mother’ probably account for less than 1 percent of all abortions. Somehow the pro-abortion forces think that focusing on the exceptions means all abortions are ok. To me that is as contemptible as calling rape legitimate.

  38. Don Carlos Says:

    Not the most persuasive journal article abstract.
    Most of the 34 rape cases studied did not seek immediate medical attention, and a third chose to carry to term, not abort.

  39. newton Says:

    Either Akins is being bought or bribed by Democrats…

    … or he thinks he’s John Brown.

  40. holmes Says:

    The other implication of abortion/rape discussion is that people somehow think having the abortion fixes what happened. It doesn’t. The girls in the study above are mostly younger (like pre-20) and oftentimes the victim of a family member. Having the abortion doesn’t erase anything. It’s almost a nonsequitur.

  41. bdh Says:

    Aiken is a disaster magnitude 10 for conservatives. Egotistical, wrong on many levels, clueless to the extreme, ill spoken and just an all around idiot. He will be the club Dems use against republicans for their “war on women” trope until November, to disastrous affects with undecided voters, especially women.

  42. gcotharn Says:

    Jeff Goldstein gives voice to some things which bothered me from the beginning: conservative reaction to Akin was self-conscious, self-serving, lacking in virtue and morality, and, ultimately, harmful to conservatives:

    Allow me a few final words on this Akin dustup so that I can address some of my “critics”. First, I am not supporting Akin in any specific way. What I’m doing is criticizing as deplorable, stupid, politically retarded, and all too frequent, the canned, PC, preemptive (and in many cases, I believe, if not ridiculously hyperbolic, then outright phony) outrage that came from the right in reaction to a impolitic phrase from a GOP candidate. I’m criticizing it for its cowardice and its cynicism. I’m criticizing it for its moral preening and its tacit acknowledgment that, because the left would doubtless make a stink about what has become, in our PC culture, a kind of social third rail — everything we know of rape is settled science — those on the right, or in the pro-life camp, who don’t wish to be tarred with the brush Akin wielded, had better get out front of it, fast, and distance themselves from his comments in the most forceful way they knew how. As if not doing so was an admission of some sort of guilt by association.

    That is, I’m criticizing them for repeatedly being manipulated by the left, oftentimes before the left even has to spring into orchestrated action. That’s how scared many on the right are of being called anti-science or knuckle draggers, etc. Without stopping to tell themselves that those who are making these charges are doing so solely for political purposes — to try to shame you, to try to mock you, to try to fluster you and silence you. And that, no matter what you say — even if you’ve apologized, or you were one of the first to distance yourselves from the comment to show you aren’t “moronic” or “one of those kind of conservatives” — it doesn’t matter: they’ve determined merely to tie all Republicans to it any way, regardless of your very public protestations that you are nothing like that horrible horrible man who said horrible horrible things.

    – When really, the proper response would have been, from the right,

    well, I don’t agree with Akin and I’d like to ask him on what, exactly, he’s basing certain assertions about rape and pregnancy, because I suspect he has his facts wrong — or at least, he’s relying on old theories. In which case, I’m happy to present him with my facts, and perhaps persuade him to change him opinion on the matter.

    You know, treat it as an intellectual exercise, show voters that Republicans can speak intelligently about the finer points of their Party’s pro-life platform, that they are capable of intellectual growth, when the need arises, and that they don’t react to speech like the left does, instantly denouncing, shaming, and calling for excommunication so as not to run afoul of the cultural PC police — all so that they can assert their own moral and intellectual superiority in a way that is terrible ostentatious and entirely self-serving.

  43. gcotharn Says:

    As always, I recommend that conservatives ought to go on the offensive, as in: Even a person who held a goofy opinion about rape … would be a better Senator than Claire McCaskill.

    Conservatives consistently cow down … like a dog which fears being whipped. It is a conservative instinct, and it is a wrong instinct. To undecided voters, it appears to be consciousness of guilt. Sadly, conservatives often do evince consciousness of guilt … in instances in which they ought not feel a shred of guilt. Not an iota. Not a tittle. Conservatives, rather, ought feel defiant:
    the lies!
    the voter fraud!
    the fantasy narratives which have no relationship to human experience and to truth!


    “Before the victory is won, some shall be called bad names, and dismissed as rabble rousers. But we shall overcome.

    And I’ll tell you why:
    We shall overcome b/c the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
    We shall overcome b/c Carlyle is right: no lie can live forever.
    We shall overcome b/c William Cullen Bryant is right: truth across the earth will rise again.”

    Defiance! b/c, anything other than defiance is a losing strategy and a lie. Wolverines!

  44. zipper Says:

    Well said .

    However, if it is incest or three different kinds of rape, or all the doctors and the family agree. Abortion is murder. murder. murder.

  45. IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States Says:

    Abortion is murder. murder. murder.

    Amazing though it is, many of us still disagree. Even on the Right/Libertarian side of things.

    I’m strongly religious, too. I see no justification for that claim that does not depend entirely on a narrow interpretation of specific, easily variably-interpreted lines of the Bible.

    And The Law has no business based expressly on such.

    You can say it… you can even say it three times. It still doesn’t make it True, despite the aphorism.

    And, in the end, I have more Faith than many… if God really didn’t want it to happen, He always has ways.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge