Todd Akin Is The Legitimate Candidate, No Matter What The Joplin Globe Says

I’m not sure why the Joplin Globe would say this in its Tuesday editorial:

If it were up to us, Mr. Akin would reach deep into his soul and do the honorable thing. He should drop out of the race and open the door for a legitimate candidate.

Legitimate” candidate? Huh? Todd Akin is about as legitimate a candidate as the Republican Party can offer in this part of the country. As the Globe’s news story on Akin’s rape remarks pointed out:

Akin won every county in the Joplin region in the primary.

Get that? Every bleeping county. And the head of the Jasper County Republican Party, our old friend and evangelical Christian John Putnam—who was just reelected as county committeeman with 70% of the vote!—is not only standing by Akin, he is doubling down on Akin’s stupidity:

Akin’s response “was poorly worded,” Putnam said. “He has apologized for not speaking more clearly and compassionately.

“What he was talking about is forcible rape. There are established studies that show in cases of forcible rape, pregnancy is rare.” Putnam cited an article titled “Rape Pregnancies are Rare,” by John C. Wilke, M.D., from an April 1999 publication called Christian Life Resources.

In case you’re not familiar with Dr. Wilke, The New York Times described him as,

a general practitioner with obstetric training and a former president of the National Right to Life Committee.

Well, that last bit gives him away, doesn’t it? He’s a fanatic that won’t let facts and science get in the way of his extremism. He said on Monday:

This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight. She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.

“Spastic”? I’ll resist the temptation to say what you all are thinking.

The Times quoted a couple of real experts regarding Dr. Wilke’s claims about rape and pregnancy:

“There are no words for this — it is just nuts,” said Dr. Michael Greene, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School.

Dr. David Grimes, a clinical professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina, said, that “to suggest that there’s some biological reason why women couldn’t get pregnant during a rape is absurd.”

Nuts and absurd. That pretty much sums it up. But that doesn’t stop evangelical zealots like our local John Putnam or the fanatics at Missouri Right to Life or the insanely conservative American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer from embracing such nonsense.

Local bidnessman David Humphreys, who the Globe described in its online story accurately as “a heavy-hitter GOP contributor,” but in its print edition less accurately as merely a man “known as a GOP contributor“—wonder why they’d do that?—told the paper via “a one-line statement sent to the Globe by an adviser” that,

Akin is a moron.

Wow. Besides being an awesome bidnessman and a “heavy-hitter GOP contributor,” Humphreys is also a great judge of mental acuity. It’s just too bad he didn’t tell his fellow Republicans that before Akin won the primary.

Thus, moron or not, Akin is the only legitimate candidate the GOP has to offer voters in November, notwithstanding what the Globe may claim. He won the race fair and square and he isn’t any nuttier today than he was when he won it.  People like “heavy-hitter GOP contributor” David Humphreys use evangelical creepiness to win elections, and they should have to live with it when it is on full display.

And now that his nuttiness is out there for all to see and appreciate, it’s about time voters make up their own minds whether crazy evangelical fanatics like Todd Akin are fit to represent them or whether they will soundly reject such people—and the extremists who support them.

32 Comments

  1. My deepest condolences to the people of Joplin. Really, you’ve been through enough already!

    Like

  2. Edward Robinson

     /  August 21, 2012

    Let’s not cut Joplin any slack. People and their communities are gonna have to start taking responsibility for their irresponsibility. The offspring of maniacal right-wing rich guys and power-mad fundamentalist religionists will always be broken and strange. Akin is a fool and a shill for fascist interests. People who consume his idiocy will continue to be fools, or bigots, or troglodytes, or lemmings – or some twisted combination of the above. They get no more free passes. They may be misinformed by huckster pastors and/or smooth talking right wing hate talkers, but if they are unwilling to engage in critical thinking and form their own opinions, then in my new Voter ID program they don’t get to vote because they’re too stupid or too lazy. People unwilling to draw the connecting lines between the modern Tea Party and its roots in the KKK and the John Birch Society are serious threats to American Democracy and to humanity in general. I’m tired of being nice to people who are so willing to throw away our freedom and our civilization in exchange for the exhilaration of being told by Rush or Glenn or Sean that its okay to hate people and okay to degrade women and okay to steal from average folks. Let’s call it what it is and deal with it. The Libertarians and Tea Party Republicans scream they are patriots. They are not. We know the late 1930’s Hal Luccock phrase: “When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled ‘made in Germany’; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism.’” It’s here today and it relies (and always has relied) on ignorance and fear to breed and thrive. This is not Liberal vs Conservative. This is Civilized vs Barbarian. The barbarians are at the gates with amazing weapons of money and hoards of mindless foot soldiers. God help us if we let them win.

    Like

    • Wow, Edward.

      I first want to say that I understand and share your frustration, even if I can’t go this far:

      They may be misinformed by huckster pastors and/or smooth talking right wing hate talkers, but if they are unwilling to engage in critical thinking and form their own opinions, then in my new Voter ID program they don’t get to vote because they’re too stupid or too lazy.

      First, I assume by “too lazy” you mean “too lazy to engage in critical thinking.” And, of course, there are such folks out there and they vote in droves, unfortunately on both sides. I have met a lot of folks on our side who don’t engage in critical thinking and I bet you have too.

      That having been said, there is nothing, and I mean nothing, like the right-wing propaganda machine. There is no comparable entity on the left in America, and there is no comparison between the amount of misinformation coming from the left and that avalanche of lies that daily, no, hourly, come from the right.

      Just this morning on Fox and Friends, Dick Morris was on and they played a clip of an interview Paul Ryan did yesterday in which he told, once again, a series of lies including the one about Obama’s supposedly modifying the work requirements for welfare recipients, which everyone knows is a lie, including the folks who are telling the lie. This isn’t just a misunderstanding. Ryan and Romney and Fox and the whole contingent of right-wing radio and TV hucksters know it is a lie.

      But they also count on a variation of the phenomenon you noted, Edward. That a lot of folks out there will assume it is true because why else would a presidential or vice-presidential candidate say it in front of everyone? And why would a major cable “news” network broadcast it as truth without one qualification that the rest of the thinking world knows it is a lie? That is the way a lot of people reason about these things.

      Having said all that, I just can’t agree with you that a solution for such lazy thinking is to somehow—how?— keep these folks from voting. A better solution is to keep on educating, keep on ridiculing bad ideas and faulty reasoning, and keep on fighting the never-ending battle against ignorance and bigotry.

      Duane

      Like

      • Edward Robinson

         /  August 22, 2012

        Yes, Duane, all must be allowed to vote. I did a poor job of setting up a contrasting, merit-based voter suppression program to try to compete with Pennsylvania and Florida — and even here in Indiana. My statement was rhetorical, but poorly articulated. Sorry.
        We do need a fact accountability for news groups and candidates: something like each lie costs a national candidate 10,000 votes in each congressional district. Senators lose 40,000 per district and Congressional candidates loose 60,000. For each lie. Once a candidate gets into negative territory, his vote debt is carried over into the next election. Given Mitten’s record so far, the GOP wouldn’t have an electable Presidential candidate until sometime in the 22nd century — and the GOP will be long since dead by then.

        Like

        • Edward – I think the demise of the GOP is in our near future. Obviously, the demographics is killing them and now, unless my sisters around this nation are all blind, they’ve bought themselves a passel of trouble iwth women. It’s not just romney or even the bat-shit crazies, the whole party is beginning to smell misogynistic. )Actually, that’s not a strong enough word) From last year’s trans-vaginal ultrasound to lady parts’ secretions . . . I think they’ve hastened hteir own demise.

          Also, your first comment above – I’ll echo Duane. Wow.

          Like

        • Okay, now we’re talking!

          Like

  3. Anonymous

     /  August 21, 2012

    Good report. BTW, I did not support Akin in the primary for this very reason.

    Like

    • David Humphreys

       /  August 21, 2012

      posted by David Humphreys

      Like

    • Thanks for the compliment, David, and I am aware you didn’t support Akin. But I do have to ask you a question: Would you have donated money to his campaign, absent his latest dance with stupidity?

      Okay, I have to ask another one: Will you vote for Akin if he stays in the race or will you sit this one out?

      Duane

      Like

      • David Humphreys

         /  August 22, 2012

        nope and nope. He’s still a moron. And even more so for staying in. Martyr complex.
        His calculus on rape not leading to pregnancy is reminsicent of Monty Python sketch on determining who’s a witch: if she drowns, not a witch but if she floats then she’s a witch. So if she gets pregant it must not have been a rape? Medieval comedy? Acutally, medieval tragedy.

        Like

        • Edward Robinson

           /  August 22, 2012

          So, David —
          There is this possibility that the few remaining sane Republicans will stay home in November rather than compromise their collective conscience and vote for the crazies who are taking over the GOP. Yes? Or join the ranks of consensus-builders like Tim Kane and Mark Warner of Virginia — or even sane conservative Dems like Joe Donnelly of Indiana. No need to sink with the ship of fools. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Emerson

          Like

          • Anonymous

             /  August 22, 2012

            Probablymore like to be more like “gone fishin’, instead of just a-wishin’ “.

            Like

        • I think there’s something to the martyr complex with Akin.

          It appears he is voluntarily serving himself up (at least for now; I still think there’s a good chance he gets out in a bit) as a political sacrifice in the name of his anti-choice religion. Like a lot of non-Burkean conservatives (mostly the only kind around these days), his belief system trumps his party affiliation and radicalism trumps social stability.

          I, for one, believe that Akin completely and genuinely believes the stuff he says, even though he is trying to make it more palatable to a public still infested with infidels. In that way he is much more real than, say, Mitt Romney, or now, sadly, Paul Ryan, who has demonstrated zero political courage since he hooked up with Mr. Etch.

          The ordeal by water you mention is interesting, outside of Monty Python. I don’t think the end was always death, but the ordeal was bad enough. In Hindu culture, a woman suspected of unfaithfulness was made to “pass through fire” and any trace of burning would prove her guilt. I see a kinship between this ancient idea and Akin’s nonsense, just as you suggest. Scary stuff.

          Now, for the good part:

          John Cleese, by the way, wrote this wonderful poem, Ode to Sean Hannity:

          Aping urbanity
          Oozing with vanity
          Plump as a manatee
          Faking humanity
          Journalistic calamity
          Intellectual inanity
          Fox Noise insanity
          You’re a profanity
          Hannity

          That pretty much captures the essence of Baby Jesus.

          Duane

          Like

  4. Treeske

     /  August 21, 2012

    Edward,- Very well said but without the huckster Pastors and smooth talking haters, the KKK and John Bircher descendants, the Republican party would not be a majority party. Karl Rove knew very well what he was doing in order to get the votes needed to give the 1% the ultimate power. What will happen when reality hits these ignoramus after realizing they have been led by the nose, I agree is very scary indeed.

    Like

    • Jane Reaction

       /  August 22, 2012

      There is definitely a learning curve, leaving us some hope, but I am afraid that, like the bull in the ring which finally figures out who is making him bleed, it is too late, as the matador delivers the coup d’ grace.

      Like

  5. ansonburlingame

     /  August 22, 2012

    To all,

    Might I suggest that we all take “the huckster Pastors and smooth talking haters, the KKK and John Bircher descendants,” and LUMP them with OWS, Acorn, Al Sharpton, and a few others and let them form their own party and destroy each other trying to write a sensible politial platform.

    That way the rest of us can get on with serious business like trying to resolve war and peace, fiscal cliffs, etc.!!

    anson

    Like

    • Anson, to answer your question, no, we may not.

      Like

    • Treeske

       /  August 23, 2012

      Anson,- again you’re comparing apples with oranges. I do realize; the truth hurts.

      Like

      • Edward Robinson

         /  August 23, 2012

        While we’re all encouraged that Anson is inching toward the light and might even vote for a Democrat ( though a remarkably conservative one) I am also unable to buy his connection of extremes. OWS was real grass roots as opposed to Tea Party, Koch-purchased Astroturf. The Acorn expose was, remember, just another disgusting right wing sham. As for Sharpton, well, I admit he’s as marble-mouthed and inarticulate on the left as Ron Paul is on the right — and he is a truly horrible host on MSNBC, but he’s a big nuthin’. And he’s not a pathological liar. Anson is a smart guy. Time to make honest comparisons and “turn out the lights — the GOP is over.”

        Like

  6. RDG,

    The faux outcry to Akin’s unscripted candor has been predictable.. Maybe there are a few Republicans who really didn’t know the depths of his extremism. But considering that the congressman has pushed the collection plate envelope of hardcore right-wing religious/social conservatism for ten years, their sudden shocked dismay has the smell of calculated self-protection. Had Akin not strayed from the usual sanctity-of-life theme when waxing theocratic about the sin called abortion, it’s a cold fact that conservatives, both “independent” and otherwise, would be rooting for his success against McCaskill. It’s fair to say the howls for Akin’s scalp have less to do with his disturbing quackery than anger that a rare moment of unvarnished facility may well have cost the party a senate seat.

    The question to swooning Republicans is this: If Akin is now such an untouchable commodity, why does Paul Ryan get a pass? He scores a perfect 100 with the National Right to Life Committee‘s rating system, while Akin only gets a ninety. Since Ryan co-sponsored a bill with Akin redefining rape as either “forcible” or un-forcible (whatever the hell that might be), Ryan was simpatico with the shuddersome notion that some rapes are instigated by the victim. I write Ryan’s position in the past tense since he modified his six degrees of rape travesty to embrace the idea that rape really is rape, no longer “splitting any hairs” over the crime’s actual definition. I’m not sure if Ayn Rand would be proud of Ryan backpedaling.-under-pressure. Then again, she ended her days cashing Social Security checks. Could be that’s just how the average government-loathing sociopath rolls.

    Like

    • What a perfect summary, John. I was thinking of doing a post on the same subject. You saved me the trouble.

      You wrote,

      Ryan was simpatico with the shuddersome notion that some rapes are instigated by the victim.

      About that there can be no doubt. Otherwise what was the point of the “forcible” language modification in the first place? I’m hoping the press doesn’t get tired of pressing him on this point, but I suspect by this time Friday we will have moved on to something else.

      And Ayn Rand, prior to joining the socialist hordes, would loathe Paul Ryan’s fanatical Catholicism and his anti-choice beliefs.

      Duane

      Like

  7. ansonburlingame

     /  August 23, 2012

    John,

    You raise a good point in that MAYBE anyone attuned to evangelical Tea Party politics should know that Akin would support that position. I attended a GOP debate last March where Akin, Bruner and Steelman participated. All three supported Pro-Life positions for sure, but NONE of them spoke as Akin spoke last Sunday as well.

    BUT that was a very small part of the debate. Almost all the topics were secular in nature and in my view Akin was far more aware of the nuances of each SECULAR issue and spoke far more clearly expressing his views than did Bruner and Steelman. He was a clear winner in my view on secular matters in that debate.

    If our political debate remains secular versus secular policy matters, obviously I believe (and you don’t) that the GOP makes more sense than do progressives. We argue that “stuff” all the time herein.

    But if religion is brought into the debate, in my view, the progressives make far more sense than do evangelical Tea Party members. In fact IF you keep that segment of the Tea Party muted, the Tea Party positions (in secular matters) make some sense as well. Ryan Plan versus No Plan is an example though I would pick something “in between” the two if I had my way.

    NOW, please consider this point looking at the “left”. The radical elements of the left are equally as “crazy” as are the radical elements of the right, in my view. Pelosi in fact was exposed for her support (at least to a degree) of OWS positions and Obama sort of “toyed” around with such support. Obama dealing with OWS, New Black Panthers, etc. seems similar to the manner in which Romney tries to deal with the evangelical radicals on the right.

    When the radical side in either Party comes into play both candidates must “deal” with such positions. In that regard both Obama and Romney TRY to be “mainstream” in how they handle their own “problems” in that regard.

    There is no doubt in my mind that had Santorum won the GOP nomination we would be dealing with an “Akin” like issue on the national stage. Thank God that did not happen and I thought Romney handled his own balancing act pretty well in that instance. “You guys” call him a flip flopper for doing so, at best however and try to suggest that Romney, in his “heart” is just as bad as Akin. Ridiculous in my view but the sun in fact is shining for you to make that point right now.

    Well listen to the “right” accusing Obama of being at least a socialist if not a communist. You call that ridiculous and essentially either ignore such accusations or change the subject.

    I will never attack Obama over his faith in God. But you can bet your bippy the radicals on my side have and will continue to do so. I ignore them in such crap.

    But attack Obama on secular issues, well I do that all the time. My goal is to keep this campaign secular vs secular in terms of who has the best policy ideas for our future. That task has become far more difficult for me and the whole GOP as a result of Akin, now.

    In fact, for me at least, Akin is now like Billy Long was for me two years ago. Long went so far right I voted for his Dem opponent. Now, unless Akin drops out I will more than likely vote for McCaskill and I think a lot of non-evangelical conservatives will at least NOT VOTE in the MO Senate race. But so far you can also bet your bippy that most of those folks will vote for Romney as well.

    Think of it this way. If say Al Sharpton had won a primary to run for the Senate against a “moderate Republican” in a swing state, you could be in the same position that I am right now asking yourself “How could any sensible progressives have made such a primary choice???”

    lF the MO Senate race had remained secular vs secular it would have been a very close race and MAYBE Akin would have pulled it out. But Akin turned it into a secular vs religion race, to a degree and the GOP is now dead meat in the MO Senate race this year, in my view.

    But how “dead”? My guess is Akin might still get 40% of the popular vote if he remains in the race because we have a substantial bunch of radicals that will vote for him despite what has transpired.

    As well if the Sharpton scenario proposed above played out, I suspect he as well would get about 40% of the vote. But who knows for sure.

    That is why I have suggest for some months now that the Presidential race will boil down to about 10% of the voters and those voters will have to try to ignore some of the crap coming from both sides. Those “secular” voters will decided one way on or other on secular issues and hope to hell they did not vote for a “latent radical”!!!

    Anson

    Like

    • I’m not interested in wasting time on “TASTE GREAT!/LESS FILLING!” inanity or playing the false equivalency game. I do not believe that A.C.O.R.N. equals the Klu Klux Klan. If you want Al Sharpton to share Todd Akin’s boogie man costume there’s plenty of companionship to be found with bloggers convinced President Obama is really the son of Frank Marshall Davis.

      The gist of my comment to Duane is this: Paul Ryan re-defining rape is no less toxic than Akin’s shared outrage against civilized society. But Akin is the one who has been excommunicated. While Akin claims to have “misspoke”, Ryan is now imitating his running mate’s pathological penchant for lying by pretending he never believed rape is not rape if the woman being raped seduced the rapist. Since you’ve demonstrated time and time again no interest in acknowledging the perfidy festering inside the GOP’s current incarnation of medieval Bible Law theocrats (unless to do damage control), anti-tax/anti-labor right-wing reactionary billionaires, bitter/confused “Dittoheads”, Fox “News” xenophobes and the always despicable “conservative” Obama-loathing bigots, I’m sure you’ll carefully mull over the issues and decide Romney/Ryan best represent 19th century American values. I can see how you found Akin’s “secular” side alluring. After all, any politician bemoaning The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 most assuredly understands the danger posed by all sixteen members of the New Black Panther Party.

      This is typical of your comment-as-cant, Anson: “Well listen to the ‘right’ accusing Obama of being at least a socialist if not a communist. You call that ridiculous and essentially ignore such crap.”

      You’re damn right I do. In fact, I would replace “crap” with steaming pile of bullshit. But, hey, you got to slip in “socialist” and “communist” when mentioning President Obama. At least there was no allusion to his affiliation with the African Marxist Mau Mau Party; nice job of exercising editorial discretion.

      Instead of always asking liberals how to “pay for stuff”, why don’t you ask Paul Ryan what is conservative about telling these lies:

      1) The Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare by $716 million.
      2) President Obama’s stimulus plan didn’t work.
      3) He [Ryan] never sough stimulus money.
      4) Romney’s budget is a serious plan for budget reduction.
      5) President Obama plans to gut welfare reform.

      Like

      • John – ultimately, on the lady parts stuff, it comes from the Old Testament and how man fell from God’s frace because of EVE. It was her fault, the damn seductress. It’s a powerful narrative and it’s survived for millenium.

        Like

        • Not God’s frace – that would be God’s grace. Also, re Eve, she must be contained or her wiles will lead men to sin yet again. Always her fault.

          Like

          • Moe,

            I guess that makes poor Eve our first scapegoat or ‘scapegoatress’ — should it come straight from The Family Research Council’s 13th century mimeograph machine.

            Like

          • Edward Robinson

             /  August 23, 2012

            And now — we have the Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse: Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Nikki Haley, Sharon Angle. Hated to leave out horsewoman, Ann Romney — but sorry, Babe, just 4 spots.

            Like

  8. ansonburlingame

     /  August 23, 2012

    John,

    You spent a lot of time nnot wasting your time it seems. I’ll cut it shorter. Here are your points and my responses:

    1) The Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare by $716 million.OBAMA WILL REDUCE MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS BY $716 BILLION. IS THAT A CUT?
    2) President Obama’s stimulus plan didn’t work. THE ANNOUNCED GOAL WAS TO KEEP UNEMPLOYMENT BELOW 8%. HOW HIGH DID IT GO AND WHERE IS IT NOW AFTER 40+ ,MONTHS
    3) He [Ryan] never sough stimulus money. I FRANKLY DON’T KNOW. DID RYAN IN FACT ASK FOR STIMULUS MONEY AND HOW DID HE USE IT? ONCE THE MONEY WAS MADE AVAILABLE I SUSPECT ALL CONGRESSMEN WENT AFTER IT FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
    4) Romney’s budget is a serious plan for budget reduction. WILL A ROMNEY BUDGET REQUEST BE LOWER THAT AN OBAMA BUDGET REQUEST? YEP, IN MY VIEW SUCH WILL BE THE CASE
    5) President Obama plans to gut welfare reform. NO HE WON’T “GUT” IT BUT CHANGE THE RULES TO MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE, YOU BET HE DID (NOT WILL). AND HE DID THAT WITHOUT A FULL AND DEMOCRATIC VOTE IN CONGRESS.

    Anson

    Like

    • Just a few moments of my time, that’s all.

      You’re responses to the Ryan lies aren’t even weak tea. I’m dealing with political realities, Anson, not “in my view” opinions. Since it really is a waste of time to confront you with factual information, I won’t waste time on this fruitless endeavor.

      You obviously have a computer and internet access, so get with the program.

      Like

  9. RDG,

    Either Todd Akin is just playing everybody or he has never, ever
    won a game of Solitaire. He’s now on record claiming that “female breast milk” (as opposed to male breast milk) has a “94% chance of permanently curing homosexual perversions.” And as a sitting member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology he believes in his “heart” (where else?) that there is a “global conspiracy to falsify the fossil record in the name of radical Darwinism.” Not only that, but Todd is convinced there is a “plot to turn Michigan into a New Islamic States of America.” No wonder he won the GOP primary in the Show Me state.

    He could really spook the RNC and say that God told him income taxes should revert back to 1956 rates.

    http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/26/todd-akin-claims-breastmilk-cures-homosexuality/

    Like

%d bloggers like this: