Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Why the heck SHOULDN'T loyal GOP-ers support Missouri crackpot Todd Akin? They all believe the same things


"The National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a statement Wednesday clarifying its support for Rep. Todd Akin in the Missouri Senate race and suggesting it might spend money to help elect him, after saying a month ago that it would not do so."
-- the start of an Aaron Blake report this afternoon
on's "The Fix"

by Ken

Aaron Blake's report continues:
“There is no question that for Missourians who believe we need to stop the reckless Washington spending, rein-in the role of government in people’s lives, and finally focus on growing jobs in this country, that Todd Akin is a far more preferable candidate than liberal Sen. Claire McCaskill,” NRSC executive director Rob Jesmer said. “As with every Republican Senate candidate, we hope Todd Akin wins in November, and we will continue to monitor this race closely in the days ahead.”

The NRSC said after Akin’s controversial comments about “legitimate rape” last month thatit would not spend money on his behalf this fall. The hope at the time was that the threat would force Akin out of the race and Republicans could replace him with a more electable nominee.

It didn’t work, though, and the deadline for Akin to exit the race passed Tuesday. That means he will now officially appear on the ballot and Republicans have to deal with the situation as it stands.

Asked to clarify whether it might spend money on Akin, the committee declined to comment, citing a desire not to broadcast its strategy.

Establishment Republicans generally believe that the race is lost, but polling has shown that Akin trails McCaskill only by single digits, and other Republicans have suggested they might still have a chance to win the seat.
And really, when you get right down to it, the only reason for Republican officialdom not to support Akin would be if they've concluded that he can't win, and McCaskill's support going into her reelection bid has always been shaky enough that such a conclusion doesn't seem likely to be concluded anytime soon.

It's not exactly news that the American public has a short attention span, and all too predictably the heat on Akin has eased since the embarrassing intersection of his victory in the Missouri Republican Senate primary and his colossally ignorant and insane blithering about rape. As a lot of us suspected at the time of that hoo-ha, it was only the acute awkwardness of being associated with Akin that was driving state and national Republicans to scamper away from him as fast as they could.

It certainly wasn't because they disagreed with anything Akin said -- as we and others have pointed out frequently, conservative saint Paul Ryan has a position on rape that is absolutely identical -- allowing for the infelicitousness of that phrase "legitimate rape." But as anyone with a working brain had to understand, Akin didn't mean by that that he condoned the category of rapes he was so characterizing; on the contrary, those so-called "forcible rapes" are the only kind he believes are real rapes, and because he's a mental and moral tiny tot, the way he expressed his idea of "real" rapes was as "legitimate" ones.

We mustn't forget that for right-wing degenerates like Akin and PRyan, nearly all rapes are "unreal," or in their vocabulary "illegitimate" rapes, as in "there oughtta be a law against them slutty bitches who's all askin' fer it." When it comes to these perverts, there appears to be truly no limit to their loathing and contempt for women. What they're really saying is that with only occasional exceptions -- the "legitimate" ones -- there's no such thing as rape; it's just what the filthy harlots use as an excuse for having sex, or for having had sex.

Bear in mind that in the Great Abortion Debate as framed by degenerates of the Ryan-Akin school, the issue has been reduced to why there there should be an exception to a blanket prohibition on abortion, including cases of rape and incest. Right-wingers cultivated their passion for lies and hypocrisy by pretending that their opinion that life begins at conception is just that: their opinion, one that can be both defended and disputed. But because they have taken unto themselves a theocratic delusion that their opinion is fact and their right to impose their opinions on other people absolute, they have been allowed to pervert our basic democratic institutions.

The most grotesque irony is that the anti-abortion zealots, who are by and large amont the most blood-thirsty people on the planet, who have not the slightest interest in protecting or supporting life beyond the instant of birth. The non-moron contingent of the die-hard anti-abortion crowd has to know that abortion will always be available to people who can afford to take care of their women's "problems," and that those who can't, who can no doubt be located among the taking-not-making 47 percent, and therefore deserve what they get, will either give birth to unwanted children, whom the abortion foes will never lift a finger to help, or else will subject themselves to the possible butchery of illegal abortions.

Personally, I'm prepared to believe that perverts like Alom and PRyan experience a slobbering delight in the image of poor and probably "ethnic" women being butchered which is as close as they get to sexual pleasure.

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home