Todd Akin, a Republican candidate for US Senate in Missouri, while answering a question during an interview about whether or not he supports abortion when a pregnancy arises from rape, started a ridiculous, unscientific rant about how women do not get pregnant as a result of “legitimate rape.” Understandably, he was heavily denounced on a bipartisan basis. President Obama came out strongly saying, “rape is rape.” The Democrats have been ceaselessly attacking him, and the Republicans, including Mitt Romney, have all come out strongly calling for Akin to withdraw from the race in order to allow another more electable Republican to take his place.
Akin’s ineptitude in answering this simple question further highlights a trait I have noticed among many Republican politicians. Many politicians on the right don’t know how to answer tough questions by simply rejecting premises and exposing logical fallacies in the questions asked by liberals. Every question doesn’t deserve a direct answer—particularly if the question contains a faulty premise. Some questions deserve to be dodged or rephrased—especially questions about social issues. Smart Republican politicians understand this point. Obviously, Akin isn’t a smart Republican.
Liberals are incapable of simply talking about regular abortions, which generally occur because the babies are unwanted by their parents. They prefer talking about abortions when the mother’s life is at risk, or when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. The reason for this is because they need a moral ground to stand on. In regular abortion cases, liberals know they are simply calling for wanton murder. By contrast, when framing the debate with the mother’s life being in danger, they get to obfuscate their actual pro-murder position with, “See, we care about life—the life of the dying mother!” With their rape and incest argumentation, liberals have the same intention; it’s entirely to conceal their pro-murder position by diverting attention away from the murder of the baby in the womb. They prefer to focus on other heinous events like rape and incest. Republicans need to do a better job of pointing out this liberal casuistry.
In any event, I do agree with people who were calling on Akin to withdraw from the race. Akin essentially aborted his own political career with his senseless remark on this issue. That notwithstanding, I cannot help but laugh at the manic reaction from Republicans who are acting as if Akin staying in the race will cause stars to come crashing down from the sky, all manner of natural disasters to occur, and the world to come to a devastating end. The right’s reaction has been ludicrously melodramatic. There’s a reason for this that nobody seems to notice.
With their over-the-top reaction to Akin, Republicans have shown that they recognize that there are some issues that make candidates completely unelectable, particularly in an environment where the Democrats are pushing particular narratives. For months, the Democrats have been advancing the fallacious idea that Republicans are waging a war on women. Akin’s remarks recklessly splashed fuel onto the “war on women” fire that liberals started.
It’s peculiar how the same anti-Akin Republicans are impervious to understanding how imprudent it is to nominate a Mormon bishop and stake leader like Mitt Romney to be at the top of the GOP ticket, especially when trying to run against the first black president of the United States. It is a fact—whether Republicans like it or not—that Mormonism has some of the most virulently racist doctrines of any religion that exists today. To think this isn’t going to be a political burden for Romney at some point during this election is frankly delusional. Republicans will probably lie about this fact in October when the Democrats start hammering this issue, but the truth remains the truth, regardless of the number of people that believe it, or which political side of the aisle it’s on.
This Internet picture says it all!
Despite the fact that Republicans decry political correctness, they are great practitioners of it. It is only absurd political correctness mixed with a generous dollop of hypocrisy that would lead a party to largely stay mute about the huge electability problems Mormonism poses for Romney, especially when one of the main arguments against Barack Obama was his radical Black Liberation Theology—and his even more radical pastor.
Interestingly, when Mormonism becomes issue #1 in October, Republicans will be screaming about how outrageous it is for the Democrats to be attacking the religion of a person seeking the office of the presidency, despite the fact that it has always been a topic for scrutiny in modern American politics. The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama had the courage to grasp the nettle and actually deliver a widely praised speech on race and religion after the “Rev.” Jeremiah Wright scandal broke. You can bet your last Rolo that Mitt Romney won’t be talking about his religion any time soon, or responding to any of the arguments people have against Mormonism.
(Watch Romney try to induce crocodile tears when asked about Mormon racism. The questions won’t be so polite this time around! The liberal journalists have a president to help re-elect!)
(Skip to 19:00 to hear Obama address the Jeremiah Wright scandal–or watch the boring, platitudinous speech in its entirety if you want…)
Yes, Akin should have withdrawn from the Senate race; however, Akin should not be used as the scapegoat for Romney’s fecklessness as a candidate.
“Blame Akin!” will be the official exclamation of these Republicans when Romney loses. When it happens, serious conservatives should know better. The moment a Mormon was chosen as the GOP candidate for president to run against the first black president of the United States was the moment the Republicans ceded this election to the Democrats.