In light of Missouri GOP Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akins’ remarks about a woman’s ability to tense up and avoid pregnancy during a “legitimate rape,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reportedly said:
Akin should to resign from public life, not so much because of the “incomprehensive” statement, but for his beliefs. “I listened to the video three times,” Christie said. “It is some of the stupidest stuff I ever heard in my life.” “I’m offended by what he thinks,” he said. “My problem is that he thinks it,” said Christie.
Meanwhile, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabbee, a leader of the party’s social conservatives, is blasting the GOP for not standing behind Akin. In a fundraising email on Akin’s behalf, Huckabee slams the party for selling out social conservatives, writing:
The Party’s leaders have for reasons that aren’t rational, left him behind on the political battlefield, wounded and bleeding, a casualty of his self-inflicted, but not intentional wound. In a Party that supposedly stands for life, it was tragic to see the carefully orchestrated and systematic attack on a fellow Republican. Not for a moral failure or corruption or a criminal act, but for a misstatement which he contritely and utterly repudiated. I was shocked by GOP leaders and elected officials who rushed so quickly to end the political life of a candidate over a mistaken comment in an interview. This was a serious mistake, but it was blown out of proportion not by the left, but by Akin’s own Republican Party. Is this what the party really thinks of principled pro-life advocates? Do we forgive and forget the verbal gaffes of Republicans who are “conveniently pro-life” for political advantage, but crucify one who truly believes that every life is sacred?
In retrospect, this might be seen as a defining moment for the GOP. The religious right has just cost them a Missouri senate seat, and possibly control of the Senate. A cadre of loyal foot soldiers is increasingly being exposed as a reactionary liability.
21 Comments for “Party Rift”
posted by The Glenchrist Law Firm on
Of course, one could just as easily say, with far less intellectual gymnastics, that it’s Christie who should leave the GOP, if he finds its members “stupid” and their views “offensive.”
posted by another steve on
So, you would prefer that the GOP be as reactionary as possible — so much better for the one true party? It might be worse for the country since at some point in the two party system the other party takes over, but hey, think of the great fundraising opportunities for US. Let’s push the GOP as far to the right as possible. Hurray!
posted by Doug on
The GOP is moving rapidly to the far right, on a lot of issues besides gay issues, and it’s doing so with no assistance from the Democrats. As with most addictions the road to the bottom is very painful but the quicker they hit bottom the sooner more main stream conservatives can rebuild the party.
posted by Houndentenor on
Personally I would prefer tow sane rational parties who had intelligent debates about policy. I don’t get that and nothing I do or say can make that happen. I have no power to move the GOP off the cliff and back to reality. None. Implying that any of us has that power is absurd.
posted by Jorge on
There was really no need to listen to the entire video three times; there was enough information to come to that conclusion.
But if you want to lead, that is what you have to do. I wish politicians didn’t have to be so brash in order to be successful, but Governor Christie is right.
Huckabee is someone who may be personally charming and honorable, but his consistent blind spots and rigid partisanship when dealing with both social conservatives and progressives, no matter what the circumstances, reveal a perverse sense of justice.
posted by Houndentenor on
I forget sometimes that not everyone was raised Southern Baptist. Mike Huckabee only says on national television what is said from pulpits all across the country every Sunday morning and reflects the views of millions of Republican voters.
posted by Jorge on
Eh, I’ll take your word for it.
But I have very few problems with what Huckabee says. What I have major problems with is what he doesn’t say. He considers complicated moral questions when it suits him and ignores them when it doesn’t (I wrote that diatrabe over the Republican party platform over much the same assessment). Rick Santorum doesn’t do that. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t do that. (Their problem is they’ll answer it.)
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s because Huckabee is smarter than Santorum. He’s not going to say that rape victims should be forced to carry their rapists child to term on the Daily Show. He’s not that dumb. Deep down, though, they don’t really believe that it ever happens. It doesn’t fit into their narrative that the only women who have abortions are dirty sluts and prostitutes.
I get the feeling that every gay republican I encounter online lives in a very liberal part of the country and rarely if ever encounters the social conservative wing of the GOP face to face. I get to do it every day. Lucky me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The religious right has just cost them a Missouri senate seat, and possibly control of the Senate.
I wouldn’t read beans into that Rasmussen poll. The poll was taken at the height of the feeding frenzy. Let’s see what the polls say at the end of September. I’ll bet good money that things will look different at that point.
A cadre of loyal foot soldiers is increasingly being exposed as a reactionary liability.
The “foot soldiers” did what conservative gays and lesbians didn’t do — work instead of talk. Social conservatives got involved in Republican politics at the county level, starting in the 1980’s, and then, after taking control of county parties, effectively took over the Republican state party primary process. The level of power that social conservatives hold in the national party this year is a direct result of several decades of hard work.
All along the way, the Republican establishment dismissed social conservatives as a “cadre of loyal foot soldiers” who could be mobilized to win elections, with the understanding that the party could toss them a bone once in a while and let them gnaw on it while the party went about its “real” agenda.
That worked for a couple of decades, right up through the Bush years. It doesn’t work that way any more. Now the “foot soldiers” have a firm hand on the levers of power in the party and the 2012 platform is an exercise of that power.
posted by SB on
The GOP today, by disenfranchising the Maine delegation, probably cost the party a lot more. Without the support of libertarians and Ron Paul liberty movement supporters Republicans are unlikely to retake the White House or the Senate. The silver lining is that they may have set people on the war path toward taking over the GOP, just as Nevada’s actions did four years ago. Ron Pual’s loss may prove to be the swan song for neocon control of the GOP. Good riddence.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“In retrospect, this might be seen as a defining moment for the GOP. The religious right has just cost them a Missouri senate seat, and possibly control of the Senate.”
I thought about your observation this morning, and I wonder.
The uproar within the Republican Party seems to have a lot more to do with the fact that Akin endangered the Republican path to control of the Senate than it does with anything else,.
Although all and sundry are describing Akin’s remarks as “… offensive … inappropriate … outrageous … absurd …” and so on, the nub of the matter (if the statements of Republican Senators calling for Akin to get out of the race is an accurate indication) comes down to (1) Akin is an embarrassment, (2) Akin endangers our hope for control of the Senate, and (3) a furor over abortion hurts the national ticket, so we need to get Akin out of sight and out of mind.
To be sure, the comments are in Senator-Speak (e.g. “We do not believe it serves the national interest for Congressman Todd Akin to stay in this race. The issues at stake are too big, and this election is simply too important. The right decision is to step aside.” from Senator Blunt, along with former Senators John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, John Danforth and Jim Talent), but the message written between the lines eems clear enough.
I don’t see any soul-searching. I don’t see any consideration of whether or not the Republican Party’s long slide into extremism harmed the party. I don’t see any questioning of the positions in the 2012 platform. I do see any indication that the Republican establishment is even aware of that the hard-core social conservatism that pervades Republican thinking is out of sync with voters.
All I see are tactical considerations.
I’m not saying that you are wrong, necessarily. Maybe this is the beginning of a process in which the Republican Party will start to do some soul-searching.
But it seems to me just as likely that Akin’s disgrace might just as easily come to nothing, as Christine O’Donnell’s and Sharon Angle’s candidacies came and went with no lessons learned.
I hope you are right, Stephen, and my take on this is wrong.
I hope that because, as much as I get after you about this and that, you’ve always been right about one thing: We are going to need at least some Republican support in seven or eight states if we are going to get the critical mass of “marriage equality” states together to win our fight.
posted by Houndentenor on
Akin’s only transgression is saying out loud what he and so many others say in private. It’s disingenuous for his colleagues to now denounce him for refusing to lie about his position on a controversial issue.
posted by Doug on
You are spot on Tom, the GOP is not upset by what Akin said, they believe that to the core. They are upset that Akin had the gall to say it publicly and allow the public to see the ignorance and darkness inside them.
posted by Jorge on
I think your assessment is way off, Tom.
The sentiment in the Republican party establishment that Mr. Akin needs to drop out of the race is unanimous. That is almost an impossible result in a party of diverse interests. Huckabee is literally the only person I am aware of who is bucking that.
Tactical considerations my ass! The GOP needs that Senate seat, and it’s the most vulnerable Democratic seat of all. By calling on Akin to resign, they are saying “we’re giving that up.” Because in this country, there is no more important political principle tactically than “good vs. evil”. Either you’re good guys, or you don’t get elected. Akin’s comments on rape (and like it or not, the subject was rape, not abortion) were inexcusable. There very little way a good person can do anything but throw him under the bus.
Some people in the Republican party believe his remarks are forgivable. That is going to happen no matter what the controversy. You have chosen to highlight those people–and they think he should withdraw. That is simply not statistically plausible, and I think you should be giving them credit instead of trying to attribute base motives to the few people who are his strongest “supporters” and trying to smear the entire Republican party with them. How dare you even suggest that the Republican party wants to ban abortions because they think, as Akin hinted, that women who conceive in rape have not really been raped.
I will go several steps further since North Dallas Thirty has not joined the fray yet. I want to know why you and the Democratic party have not called on Elizabeth Warren to withdraw for lying about her ancestry for personal gain. I call upon you personally to advocate this right now, because just as you are going to accuse the Republican party of not standing up for what is right for the right reasons, I want to know whether or not you are willing to affirm that the only right thing to be done is to demand Elizabeth Warren withdraw from her Senate race against Scott Brown.
I want to know why you and the Democratic party have not called upon Vice President Joe Biden to withdraw from the presidential race for his comments comparing the Republican economic plan to slavery. I call upon you personally to advocate this right now, because just as you are going to accuse the Republican party of not standing up for what is right for the right reasons, I want to know whether or not you are willing to affirm that the only right thing to be done is to demand that Joe Biden take responsibility for his deliberate and inexcusable remarks accusing the Republican party of trying to enslave African Americans. And I want you to explain to me why the Democratic party is so cowardly that they will not do this. How dare you take a situation where the Republican party shows more principle than the Democratic party and say “but they all really think this and are not sincere!” How dare you!
posted by Jorge on
I suppose some of that is directed toward Houndentenor.
posted by John D on
I know that Scott Brown and the Republicans really want to spin that Elizabeth Warren lied about her ancestry for personal gain, but there are two problems with this argument:
1. She didn’t lie about her ancestry.
2. She didn’t gain from it (although an argument can be made that Harvard tried t0).
She appears to have minimal Cherokee ancestry. She has stated that at no time did she use this in hiring discussions. After being hired at Harvard, she released the information in hopes of being invited to events with people of similar background (minuscule Native American background, it would seem).
posted by Houndentenor on
Is it lying to repeat a story that you didn’t know wasn’t quite accurate? I was always told that I have native American ancestry too. To date I have found no indication that it is true. Not everyone has spent hundreds of hours in libraries and online trying to document their family history. I suspect most everyone has been told something about their family origins that is something between misrepresentation and outright fabrication. That doesn’t make someone a liar for repeating it. It’s not easy to discover that your grandparents made crap up. (And probably left out far more interesting stuff in the process!)
posted by Jorge on
2. She didn’t gain from it (although an argument can be made that Harvard tried t0).
The first follows from the second, don’t you think? If Harvard knew there was something to gain from it, so did she.
And if she knew her ancestry was vague, then frankly, she shouldn’t have made a claim that would have been refuted by the actual Native American tribe she claimed ancestry from. She doesn’t appear to have “minimal” Cherokee ancestry; she appears to have NO Cherokee ancestry.
You don’t need to become a clone, Jorge, although you are doing a creditable job of being as puerile and as dissembling as Dan typically is
1) I have no idea what you just said.
2) Part of being cautious means you get to decide when to use the sledgehammer. It doesn’t mean you throw it out entirely.
The myth is longstanding, and oft repeated in social conservative circles. Do a little internet searching and you’ll come up with lots of examples.
I’m familiar with the Rachel Maddow video, and I’m not much impressed by it.
There is a difference between the myth that women don’t become pregnant through rape and the myth that Republicans want to exploit blacks. One myth is silenced by a major political party. The other is exploited.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
2) Part of being cautious means you get to decide when to use the sledgehammer. It doesn’t mean you throw it out entirely.
Feel free. When you try to use “the sledgehammer”, one of us looks foolish. It isn’t me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You don’t need to become a clone, Jorge, although you are doing a creditable job of being as puerile and as dissembling as Dan typically is. You need to work on the art of unprovoked and unwarranted personal insult, though. As Lloyd Benson said toe Dan Quale …
But think a minute … do you really want to be like Dan when you grow up? It isn’t something I’d aspire to … and you are too decent a guy to ruin yourself like that.
In any event, your “I want to know why you and the Democratic party have not called upon [x] to resign …” rant is misplaced — 100% off base, ass-backwards.
It would only make sense if I had called on Akin to quit the race or suggested that the Republican Party was unprincipled for not calling on Akin to quit the race.
I have not called for Akin to quit the race. Quite the opposite. My initial post on the matter said this: “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 … ”
I’m no social conservative, but I’m with Huck on this one. Akin made a stupid statement, but he’s apologized for it and he should not quit the race. I think that the Republican uproar is misplaced.
It isn’t as if Akin is the only social conservative to hold to or express the “protective secretions” myth — Fay Boozman came under criticism in his 1998 run for the Senate from Arkansas when he claimed that victims of rape were rarely impregnated as a result of the crime due to hormonal protection that results from a “true” rape. He later apologized for the statement, saying that it was “not statistically based.”
The myth is longstanding, and oft repeated in social conservative circles. Do a little internet searching and you’ll come up with lots of examples.
The fact that Akin fell for it and repeated it doesn’t speak well for his intelligence or judgment, but it doesn’t make him the worst person in the world, either.
I’d like you to think for a second about another statement in my cited post: “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.”
Why is there no fuss about those statements in Republican circles? Not a whisper. Could it be that those kinds of statements don’t yet embarrass Republicans in the way that Akin’s statement did?
How dare you take a situation where the Republican party shows more principle than the Democratic party and say “but they all really think this and are not sincere!” How dare you!
The facts and statements I’ve cited speak for themselves, and my reasoning from those facts and statements is either right or wrong. It is all out there for you and others to look at and agree or disagree with, as you chose.
If you have examples suggesting that Akin’s statements have led to an serious soul-searching by the Republican Party about the positions in the 2012 platform — positions that are extreme and increasingly out of touch with the views of the American public — I’d like to see them. I haven’t seen them, but then I don’t hang out in Republican circles, so I’m limited to what is reported in the media.
I think that my assessment (…the nub of the matter … comes down to (1) Akin is an embarrassment, (2) Akin endangers our hope for control of the Senate, and (3) a furor over abortion hurts the national ticket, so we need to get Akin out of sight and out of mind …) is correct.
That’s how I dare say it.
posted by Doug on
This is the GOP today “RNC Official: N.M. Governor ‘Dishonored’ Gen. Custer By Meeting With American Indians”.