"Rape is a Leftist Myth"

[dexfarkin]

I don't really have any follow-up on the whole Akin thing, beyond the puzzled horror at the things that have come wriggling out of the hole that the issue has torn open. The title of this post was one of my favourite comments, but I think the all-time winner goes to the one who responded to Dana Loesch's tweet defending Akin, with 'WHORE! God-fearing WOMEN neither read or write!'

The thing that strikes me about this election season is that I think we're really seeing the spasms of a nation in flux for the first time. There is a real sense that this is the cultural last stand for the Tea Party ideal of the dominant White America. A Romney presidency would not be the Apocalypse, but it's biggest legacy could very well be a 7-2 Conservative Supreme Court for the next several decades. The long term effects of that will do more to reshape the fate of the US than Romney's rather petty dreams of never ever paying taxes again.

Think about it. Thanks to Citizen's United, the very nature of how campaigns are fought has completely changed, and this election will represent over $2.5 billions of dollars in spending. What happens when things like enviromental protections or assault weapon bans reach the high court? Whether you personally believe in the conservative vision or not, the expansion of the pro-corporate Roberts court will do more to define the next several decades than any elected official or whack-job budget.

Comments

[robby.livejournal.com]

Did you know that the Democrats supported Akin in the GOP primary, donating 1.5 million to his campaign?

[dexfarkin.livejournal.com]

That is entirely false. The Democrats made no donations to the Akin campaign.

What they did do was make an ad buy that framed Akin as the most conservative, most out of touch, and most beholden to the Tea Party leadership in a number of districts. The Washington Post has claimed it equalled $1.5M but there's nothing to substantiate that number.

"Todd Akin calls himself the true conservative, but is he too conservative? Akin called President Obama a complete menace to our civilization, and has even discussed his impeachment," the ad says. "Akin wants to stop all funding to Planned Parenthood, outlaw many forms of birth control and Todd calls most government programs socialism, comparing them to a cancer."

Did it help him with the far right? Likely. McCaskill's hope was to frame the guy as too extreme for moderates and swing voters to support, knowing that would energize the primary base. But to spin it as a 'donation' is patently false. The person that ad buy helps the most to get elected, by a wide margin, is McCaskill.

[robby.livejournal.com]

Your analysis of how Akin represents the values of the Romney campaign is really off base. He was an extremist that was awarded the nomination, in part, because of cynical Democrat manipulation. One could argue that this is another example of Obama's "politics of hate".

[dexfarkin.livejournal.com]

Your analysis of how Akin represents the values of the Romney campaign is really off base

Show me where I stated at Akin represents the values of the Romney campaign and you may have a point.

But, if you really want to get into this, sure, I'm game.

Akin wasn't 'awarded the nomination'. He won it outright with 36% of the total votes. Let us be absolutely clear about this. The largest percentage of GOP voters in Missouri thought that Akin best represented their views and values as a member of the US Senate, including all of the extremist elements contained there in.

So you're saying that support comes out only after a Democrat ad said outright 'this is the guy that is so extremely conservative that only wingnuts and fools could possibly support him'. And even if the GOP voters are so easily manipulated, he still polls higher than the 36% of just GOP voters who nominated him in the primary. As of the last poll, 44% of Missouriansstill support Akin's crazy extremist views enough to let him represent them in Congress.

The bottom line is that of course the Democrats wanted to face Akin because he's, well, crazy. And McCaskill's ad buy had the advantage of using his crazy to influence swing voters she needed towards her and energize her base. The fact that Republicans have possibly hit the point that the second a Democrat says 'this is the worst guy' is enough for them to embrace him regardless of the facts says a lot more about the myoptic insanity of the far right than it does about anyone else. The GOP nominated Akin in Missouri; no one else. The GOP embraced him as their candidate. The Democrats did not run a GOTV for Akins. They didn't donate directly to his campaign. They didn't hold up signs and stage rallies for him.

They made an ad buy that said 'this guy is the same crazy far-right extremist as embaressments like Bachmann, making the same crazy statements that the President is trying to destroy America'. So your assertion is wrong - the only way that the Democrats can manipulate the GOP base in such a manner is if they are dominated by extremist and reactionaries of that ilk.

But I should point out, since we're on the 'politics of hate', only one party has enshrined in their platform that gay Americans do not deserve all the rights enjoyed by straight citizens. Only one has enshrined that a woman loses the basic rights of self-determination at the very point of conception, regardless of the circumstances. Only one party had, as part of their natural platform, certain conditions underwhich some Americans get the same freedoms as others.

[jim-smith.livejournal.com]

I am particularly exhausted by the feeble attempt to somehow blame all of this on anybody except Akin. If he had even an eight-grade-level understanding of female anatomy, none of this would have happened. That's all on him.

If you want to argue that Democrats somehow fiendishly tricked Missouri Republicans into electing this idiot to five terms in the House and a nomination for the Senate, fine. I think that attributes far too much skill to the left, and raises the question of why the Dems ever lose any election, but you have fun with that. It doesn't change the fact that Akin's an idiot who happens to have enjoyed support from the GOP.

I don't care if Democrats built Akin in a cave from a box of scraps as a Trojan horse for Republicans. A Trojan horse only works if you're dumb enough to bring it inside the city walls.

[robby.livejournal.com]

The Democrats spend a million and half dollars to get a bonehead through the GOP primary, and then moan about him acting like a bonehead. I say the Democrats should take ownership here, and apologize to Mitt Romney, and the nation.

[dexfarkin.livejournal.com]

You seem to be unwilling to face the truth. Republicans nominated Akin. Over 200,000 of them, in fact. Are they all secret Democrats? Did they all show up just to spite the Democrats for comparing him to Bachmann and calling him too conservative for Missouri? If they did, are Republicans simply too stupid to be allowed to hold primaries?

Anyways, I'm not interested in someone who doesn't bring anything else to the table beyond bad talking points from ring wing radio. Either engage in the actual questions or fuck off elsewhere. But don't come to my journal uninvited just to waste my time.

[ferox.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I read his new quote this morning and it was not so much, "I was wrong!" as "I used the wrong words, whoops!". Umm...

[caliban18.livejournal.com]

I don't have much to say about Akin. If he would like to travel to a bit of the planet wracked by conflict where rape is used as a tool of war and confront the women of that region with his drivel...

However, I want to heartily agree with your note about presidential legacies in the shape of the US Supreme Court appointments. There is no greater power then the ability to shape the interpretation of law for decades to come.

And when the court walks in lockstep with the legislature because of partisan leanings, any tyranny is possible and the citizen has no recourse.