Increasingly, we’re going to see social conservatives act as a drag on the GOP, as demonstrated by Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s idiotic statements about rape and abortion, which in all likely have assured that Missouri’s senate seat will remain in big-spending Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill’s hands.
And then there was Pat Robertson’s recent warning about adopting foreign-born kids who might have been sexually abused and thus might turn out “weird.”
More. Democrats spent $1.5 million to help Akin win the GOP primary because they believed he gave incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill her best shot at retaining her seat. They must be chortling now. But it has a corrupting influence on the (small “d”) democratic process. You see this as well when some LGBT progressives oppose gay Republicans running for office because a GOP that remains vehemently anti-gay is in their own partisan self-interest.
20 Comments for “Social Conservative Hurts GOP Senate Chances”
posted by Doug on
Apparently you failed to notice, Stephan, that Ryan and Akin are joined at the hip regarding abortion and other social issues. Ryan believes, just like Akin, that a fertilized egg is a human being. Ryan is just a big old social conservative.
How’s that big thinker Ryan workin out for ya, Stephen?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Not after yesterday. Ryan, who self-described as “as pro-life as a person gets” in 2010 and who, with Akin and 64 other Republican Congressmen, was a prime mover in the drive for a national “personhood” law, now joins Romney in support of abortion in cases of rape. What a difference a day makes. Ryan’s learning how to be Romney.
posted by Doug on
If you believe that conversion I’ve got some beach front property in Arizona that I will sell you. Honestly, anyone who believes this is a fool. Ryan is pandering to the electorate but he has not disavowed his sponsorship of the personhood law which would make a fertilized egg a human being.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Doug, lighten up and learn to recognize mild sarcasm.
posted by Jorge on
You’re taking Pat Robertson out of context–and with his record that’s not easy to do. He was saying that men are not at fault for being scared away by a woman who has adopted three kids from three different countries. I agree with him. Remember that Russian boy who was abandoned by his adopted mother–sent on a plane back to Russia–for alleged behavior problems?
At best, children who have been abused or neglected require the best you have to give them–and even then some kids still adjust very poorly. That’s not for everyone. I’d be open to adopting someone if I were married. But a potential partner who has a foster child or someone from another country? I’d be very worried.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Congressman Akin clarified what he meant by “legitimate rape” this morning on Governor Huckabee’s program: “I was talking about forcible rape, and it was absolutely the wrong word.”
With respect to abortion, distinguishing “forcible rape” from non-consensual but non-violent rape, such as cases involving duress or non-physical coercion, incapacity (asleep, grossly intoxicated, drugged or otherwise mentally helpless, and also from statutory rape, which involves a woman too young to legally give consent) is a mainstream social conservative position.
An example is HB 3, the “No Public Funding of Abortion Act”, which had 227 sponsors and handily passed the House. The original version of the bill (the one signed onto by the sponsors) limited the rape exception to “forcible rape”. The “forcible” limitation was amended out before passage after public outrage over parsing rape caught up with Congress.
I don’t think it makes sense to make a fuss about a poor choice of words — “legitimate” rather than “forcible”. Everybody has brain farts.
I do think, on the other hand, that parsing types of rape for the purposes of abortion is wrongheaded. If the idea behind permitting abortion in cases of rape is to alleviate the mental and emotional distress that would come of giving birth to a child of conceived by rape, it doesn’t seem to me that the parsing makes sense.
Congressman Akin’s “science” is idiotic, of course, but no worse than the “science” behind assertions that homosexuality is a choice or that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. Both are common social conservative positions.
So maybe I’m tone deaf, but I don’t understand why the Republican establishment is coming down on Congressman Akin like a ton of bricks. Political embarrassment isn’t good enough reason to overturn the will of Republican primary voters, it seems to me, and God knows that the Republican Party has more than its share of other fools floating around — Congressman Gohmert and Congresswoman Bachmann, for example, regularly go way over the rainbow on the idiotic statement scale.
It isn’t fools like Akin and Robertson that are creating a problem for the Republican Party. The problem is that the Republican Party has become more socially conservative in recent years than I can recall in my lifetime, increasingly out of sync with the public. The social conservative takeover has done the Republican Party no good, and it isn’t going to get any better in years to come.
posted by Gus on
Because Rep Akin was not supposed to say it out loud during a campaign. He was to continue to hide behind the Tea Party shield and wait until he was in the Senate. Then he would have the freedom to spout his “mainstream social conservative position” which in not mainstream for the rest of the country. Otherwise he would be given a pat on the back from Rep Ryan.
posted by another steve on
This issue with Rep. Akin was not that he believes life begins at conception — that’s the view of the Catholic church and many conservative evangelicals who you might disagree with but who are not crazy.
The issue was his insane comment about a women being able to stop conception in a “legitimate” rape. That’s what places him beyond the pale. Democrats seem not to get that — or they get it and are just enjoying blaming the GOP for a supposed war against women.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“The issue was his insane comment about a women being able to stop conception in a “legitimate” rape. That’s what places him beyond the pale.”
Walk carefully, lest you piss off the social conservative base.
Tony Perkins and other FRC spokespersons defended Akin earlier this week, and now AFA head Brian Fischer is roaring to his defense, and I do mean roaring.
If the Republican establishment keeps pounding on Akin, he may well become a social conservative martyr/icon.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Huck is in.
I think we are going to see a lot more push back from serious Republican social conservatives in the next week.
I’ll stop commenting about it, but Huckabee is an important voice on in the social conservative movement.
I think that the Republican establishment made a real mistake, particularly when it disinvited Akin from the RNC convention.
As Huck put it: “It wasn’t just Todd Akin that was treated with contempt by the thinly veiled attack on Todd Akin. It was all the people who have faithfully knocked doors, made calls, and made sacrificial contributions to elect Republicans because we thought we were welcome in the party.“.
I know a lot of people in the pro-life movement locally. Pro-lifers are committed, and aren’t going to act like LCR, who walked away from a platform disaster “heartened” because they were allowed to express their views.
posted by Mark D. Fulwiler on
So, Paul Ryan acts like a politician. I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!
posted by Houndentenor on
And this is the GOP’s main problem. there used to be a sane wing of the party. Colin Powell, Susan Collins and that bunch. Moderates, if you will. People like them have been and are being driven out of the party and unseated during primaries by the crazy wing of the party. That’s not getting any better any time soon. And if you continue to vote for the crazy, it’s going to take even longer for the Republicans to rejoin the reality based community.
posted by Doug on
The major corrupting influence on the (small “d”) democratic process is the GOP efforts to disenfranchise people with these phony voter ID laws.
posted by Mark F. on
@Doug
The public strongly favors and the courts have upheld reasonable voter ID laws to ensure the democratic process is NOT corrupted by people not eligible to vote. A request to present one form of state issued ID at the polls is not unreasonable.
@Houndentenor
I’m no fan of the Republicans, but how did a “crazy” party gain control of the House?
posted by Jim on
A crazy country. But don’t worry, we Boomers are getting ready to start dying off.
posted by Gus on
Boomers are not getting ready to die off, they just started to retire. The Greatest Generation is almost all dead, maybe you are thinking of the Korean War generation who are now reaching the end.
posted by Doug on
The chairman of the PA Republican Party admitted that the primary reason for the Voter ID law is to allow Romney to win the state. He and the Governor, I believe, admitted under oath that they could not come up with one instance of fraudulent voting. The current governor of New Mexico campaigned on the issue of tens of thousands of illegal votes being cast. After she won the Secretary of State of New Mexico was ordered to do a study and as I recall he came up with something like 20 instances of illegal voting out of over 1 millions votes and almost all of those illegal votes were from people who had moved and not updated their address, hardly true fraud.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The current draft of the Republican Party’s 2012 platform on abortion does not contain an exception for rape and incest and does endorse “personhood”. We’ll have to see how it plays out in light of the current uproar, of course, with a week to go before the final platform vote.
posted by JohnInCA on
… yay. More blaming Democrats for Republicans being awful. What happened to “individual responsibility”?
posted by Mark F. on
Very classy of MO Democrats to try to rig the system for their advantage by supporting the supposed weakest Republican. I think Akin may actually win this.