Huckabee unleashes on GOP Establishment - Could he go rogue at RNC?

[anvi]

As I understand it, to his credit, Akin has claimed that he has "checked the facts" about his original assertion, which he claimed came from medical experts, that pregnancies resulting from rape are rare because of supposed female bodily defenses, and he has found out that is not true.  Whether a woman gets pregnant from any act of intercourse depends primarily on her ovulation cycle, and so the probability of her becoming pregnant as a result of rape largely tracks with that.  As for the so-called "defenses," there really aren't any; any woman's fertility might be effected by a considerable number of factors, but being raped isn't one of them.  

I don't have much of a dog in this one--whether Akin wants to stay in is his decision, whether the GOP wants to continue to fund his candidacy is their decision, and who the voters of Missouri choose to represent them in the Senate will in the end be their decision.  But, IMO, I think the initial comments by Akin were just too far beyond the pale for him to recover in the race, so, I think, if the GOP wants to have a shot at McCaskill's Senate seat, they should back someone else, and Huckabee, as has been stated above, should pick his bone with the GOP establishment in a more substantive context.  

[BigSkyBob]

As I understand it, to his credit, Akin has claimed that he has "checked the facts" about his original assertion, which he claimed came from medical experts, that pregnancies resulting from rape are rare because of supposed female bodily defenses, and he has found out that is not true. Whether a woman gets pregnant from any act of intercourse depends primarily on her ovulation cycle, and so the probability of her becoming pregnant as a result of rape largely tracks with that.  As for the so-called "defenses," there really aren't any; any woman's fertility might be effected by a considerable number of factors, but being raped isn't one of them.  

Actually, science isn't so sure about that. The science is clear that the chance of conception is not equal in all cases. For instance, females whom orgasm at/after ejaculation are more likely to conceive because the cervix mechanically pulls semen into the uterus. Since that doesn't happen during rape, the odds of conceiving during rape are slightly lower. About half of rapists don't ejaculate. Science is studying the amount of backwash [the size of the "wet spot"] to see if there is a form of mating selection occurring. Medical science is showing a relationship between stress and reduced fertility. Anti-ovulation drugs given to rape victims further lower the odds.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Here's video of Akin's original comments:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/aug/20/missouri-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-abortion-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3486

Here's his ad that's something of a retraction:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/aug/20/missouri-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-abortion-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3486

(I don't know why the first site I came across that had these videos was British)

Looking at these, I do think his comments got blown out of proportion.  Not that his comments weren't bad, but that the reaction to it was so great the thing that started it off looks small in comparison in terms of the manner in which it was spoken.  At least, that's my initial impression looking at it in reverse.
But there is a problem. The problem with what he said is not so much the medical/factual inaccuracy.  It's the suggestion that it's rare and so it's not as much of an issue. I've seen this sort of argument before in pro-life (or if you like, anti-abortion) circles, and it's basically a defensive posture, an evasion to try to avoid the reality of the hard case, and it ends up being dismissive.
There needs to be a way to talk about this that respects the woman going through this, and her pain, and offering her support, while recognize the humanity of the unborn child as well.
Sure that's a matter of rhetoric, but it's also matter of compassion and working towards solutions instead of pretending something or someone doesn't exist.

[Eraserhead]

So are they not gonna let him speak at all now?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

On Fox News Sunday, he was hardly in "Kill Mittens" mode today. He said he even volunteered to offer up his spot to give time to someone else who, unlike him, doesn't have a tv show.

[Keystone Phil]

Huck may have a point but Akin is clearly the wrong battle to try and make it over. There are certain things you just can't say while running for elected office and Akin said one of them. Basically that's it.

Agreed

I don't understand why saying something is what seems to bother you two so much, but not the actual policy in question that the stupid splitting-hairs-about-rape thing comes from. Absolutely granted that Akin has terrible opinions on literally everything, but sometimes I feel like Republicans get more upset about bad press than anything else, as if you're afraid to look in the policy-mirror and see Akin, or you've compartmentalized campaigning and policymaking from each other to such a degree that you can't understand how there is such a small leap from holding that policy position to making that statement.

Uhhh... because he just suggested you can't get pregnant by being raped. That's not called "social conservatism" that called stupid. And it's hugely detrimental to the pro-life cause because it helps to foster the attitude the being pro-life has nothing to do with life and is all about wanting to control women. He completely shifted the debate in the wrong direction. From a policy standpoint they might be the same, but campaigns do matter. Words do matter. How you conduct yourself matters. Real life isn't Atlasia; people expect competent governance. And really Marokai, the policy end is completely moot anyway at the moment because Roe is in place and the Human Life Amendment is politically feasible. The entire rape distinction is politically irrelevant because there aren't the votes to outlaw it anyway. And this entire argument is beside the point when it comes to abortion anyway because only 1% of US abortions occur because of rape anyway. Before worrying about that 1%, I want to see the other 99% outlawed first.

Conduct matters, but policy is more important than conduct, because at the end of the day, the policy is what we get stuck with, not the silly statements of someone's campaign. What Akin said is ignorant, but it's the justification to the "forcible rape" nonsense that Republicans have proposed and argued in defense of for a long time now, and I get the sense that the Conservative movement has grown a bit oblivious to the words coming out of your mouths.

The Akin position on abortion is your party's official national platform's position. The splitting hairs about rape proposal was co-sponsored by your Presidential candidate's running mate in congress. Conveniently, all of that stuff is ignored in national news, because platform and policymaking are boring civic things that people tend not to pay as much attention to. But they are still real, and it only seems to get offensive when someone is arguing loudly in defense of them, but you don't get upset when they're proposing them. You're like a criminal only apologizing for being caught.

You act offended because of Akin's supposed utter ignorance and misogyny, but all you're really offended about is that he chose the wrong word. You're only arguing semantics with Akin at the end of the day. It is a very short jump from that policy to that argument, and you're only going to stop making completely ignorant statements when you stop trying to defend completely ignorant policies. I at least expect intellectual honesty from the Republican side, which is why the only person being respectable here is Huckabee.

Did this ignoramus really say that the GOP's platform position has been ignored by the media? Because anyone that actually follows the news knows that this specific platform plank has been a top story when discussing Akin.

This kid will really say anything to appear on an intellectual high horse despite being so hilariously wrong.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course, I would never expect you to seriously enter into a discussion on a specific policy, Phil. Politics, politics, politics.

[anvi]

Actually, science isn't so sure about that. The science is clear that the chance of conception is not equal in all cases. For instance, females whom orgasm at/after ejaculation are more likely to conceive because the cervix mechanically pulls semen into the uterus. Since that doesn't happen during rape, the odds of conceiving during rape are slightly lower. About half of rapists don't ejaculate. Science is studying the amount of backwash [the size of the "wet spot"] to see if there is a form of mating selection occurring. Medical science is showing a relationship between stress and reduced fertility. Anti-ovulation drugs given to rape victims further lower the odds.

Science is clear that chances of conception are not equal in all cases across the board.  The relationship researches have uncovered between stress and reduced fertility link chronic stress, and not the acute stress of rape, to decreases in fertility.  Anti-ovulation drugs will lower the odds that anyone would conceive, and the fact that they are given to rape victims itself demonstrates that rape victims can become pregnant--otherwise giving them the drugs would not be necessary.  Papers in academic journals have estimated that over 30,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape every year--so however "rare" the occurrence may be, it isn't nearly rare enough.  But now you appear to be defending assertions that Akin himself has abandoned, so I'm not sure where this is going.

[Keystone Phil]

Of course, I would never expect you to seriously enter into a discussion on a specific policy, Phil. Politics, politics, politics.

And the most predictable response goes to...!

I've been over this countless times but let me restate it for you since you have a hard time grasping this: I am here to discuss politics and process stories. I don't look at the Atlas Forum as the great sanctuary of policy debate. I can do that in the real world (we know why you can't). It's really cute that you view this place as the location to solve the policy problems of the world. More power to you. I and many others don't. Again, you perch yourself on that intellectual high horse when, quite frankly, you're the worst kind of faux intellectual. When your "points" fall flat (as is the case above: hilariously suggesting that the GOP platform hasn't been in the news after this controversy), you insist on restoring to your usual tactic: "Debate policy or else you're an idiot!"

The fact that you are dead wrong has nothing to do with my refusal to discuss policy with you here. Further proof that you're a joke.

[Keystone Phil]

Everyone wants you to shut up, Phil.

You're as boring as the other nimrod.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course, I would never expect you to seriously enter into a discussion on a specific policy, Phil. Politics, politics, politics.

And the most predictable response goes to...!

I've been over this countless times but let me restate it for you since you have a hard time grasping this: I am here to discuss politics and process stories. I don't look at the Atlas Forum as the great sanctuary of policy debate. I can do that in the real world (we know why you can't). It's really cute that you view this place as the location to solve the policy problems of the world. More power to you. I and many others don't. Again, you perch yourself on that intellectual high horse when, quite frankly, you're the worst kind of faux intellectual. When your "points" fall flat (as is the case above: hilariously suggesting that the GOP platform hasn't been in the news after this controversy), you insist on restoring to your usual tactic: "Debate policy or else you're an idiot!"

The fact that you are dead wrong has nothing to do with my refusal to discuss policy with you here. Further proof that you're a joke.

If you don't want to discuss policies or how the parties deal with them (or how they deal with them when they are defended in the media vs. how they deal with them when they are merely proposed) you don't have to respond to people raising that point or inviting you into that particular conversation.

No one here is treating the Atlas forum as the place to solve problems in the world, but the notion that Atlas is supposed to be something of a sanctuary for broader forms of political debate isn't some crackpot theory I decided to come up with, the owner of the site has stated that was, among other things, part of his goal for the site when he created it.

Atlas can serve all comers, people who just like maps and polls, people who just like election returns, people who want to play simulation forum games, argue about music, or, like you, want the site to be more like Politico where we can discuss the gossipy gossip that gossips, no part of the site is dominant over the other but I don't get where you weird defensive hostility to anyone who tries to meld the policy with the political. If that's all you're into, God love you and keep you, but enter into a discussion without random unwarranted hostility totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

I was interested in why it is more offensive to see someone loudly arguing in defense of a policy and merely having a semantic issue with their approach, rather then the fact that Akin and others are just proposing the policy to begin with. The two are very closely linked, and to me I think it speaks of an interesting phenomenon where socially conservative policy is best implemented when there's very little fanfare made about it, but when mentioned, it gets round-the-house denouncements from the Republican side. The issue over vaginal probe clauses in abortion restriction proposal(s) in Virginia was a good example, chugging right along until someone decided to report on it, fell apart completely and everyone voting for it dropped it like a hot potato and pretended they had no idea what they were doing. (Which is offensive enough in it's own right.)

I was interested in the opinion of people who denounce Akin, yet have no underlying problem with the policy, and how oblivious I think that is to the actual issue at hand. I asked you and TJ because you and TJ are well known social conservatives on the site and I wanted insight. TJ provided some; it is very cynically political. Good to know. But I was still interested in outside viewpoint.

And this just in; there is nothing wrong with that type of discussion. If it's not your bag, no one requires you to participate. And if your response to someone looking to get into an issue is to just reflexively insult them, I think that speaks to greater issues you have than anything I've ever done. Large portions of this site, arguably the lion's share of it, is about political debate and discussion of individual public policy and philosophy. If you want to shout nerd alert toward people at random, there are numerous boards to do so.

And you know what? I've been reigned in twice by the mods with infractions. Only once was from being insulting to someone. You've been moderated many more times than two. Observationally speaking, perhaps the problem here isn't me.

[Keystone Phil]

Again, that's lovely that you want to discuss policy. More power to you. But don't get on your high horse with me or anyone else when we are here to discuss other political matters. I challenge you to find one - just one! One, Marokaki! - time when I've trashed policy discussion outside of a conversation with you. I don't even believe I trash policy discussion with you; I have simply defended my desire to be here to discuss the political process but for arguments sake, I'll say that I have mocked policy debates. The fact is that I've never said that policy doesn't have a place here so quit your whining. You threw the first jab (and many, many more) when you wanted to troll me way back when. You didn't have anything to use against me so you picked out an "intellectually inferior" characteristic. I think you once even said that I report news here "second or third hand" which was even more eyeroll worthy. Anything to trash me. It's a very sad and strange obsession.

For the second time now: I didn't interject myself into a policy debate. I took an inaccurate, non-policy statement that you made and noted that it was ludicrous. You got angry and resorted to your usual routine about me not having "serious policy discussions" even though the point had nothing to do with policy (it was simply in the middle of your policy points). It was a pretty serious error on your part that should have been addressed so I pointed it out for everyone.

Amusing that you want to turn this discussion into who has a worse history with moderators. Irrelevant but further proof that people like myself are outnumbered and the moderators (who tend to have similar world views as those that are reporting my posts) err on their side.

[BigSkyBob]

Actually, science isn't so sure about that. The science is clear that the chance of conception is not equal in all cases. For instance, females whom orgasm at/after ejaculation are more likely to conceive because the cervix mechanically pulls semen into the uterus. Since that doesn't happen during rape, the odds of conceiving during rape are slightly lower. About half of rapists don't ejaculate. Science is studying the amount of backwash [the size of the "wet spot"] to see if there is a form of mating selection occurring. Medical science is showing a relationship between stress and reduced fertility. Anti-ovulation drugs given to rape victims further lower the odds.

Science is clear that chances of conception are not equal in all cases across the board.  The relationship researches have uncovered between stress and reduced fertility link chronic stress, and not the acute stress of rape, to decreases in fertility.  Anti-ovulation drugs will lower the odds that anyone would conceive, and the fact that they are given to rape victims itself demonstrates that rape victims can become pregnant--otherwise giving them the drugs would not be necessary.  Papers in academic journals have estimated that over 30,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape every year--so however "rare" the occurrence may be, it isn't nearly rare enough.  

First of all, the number of 32,000 doesn't make any sense. As a one-time event, sex between a fertile man and woman would result in a pregnancy about 4% of the time.  This would be about 800,000 rapes a year. When you consider the rape of women too young or old to conceive, those using the pill or an IUD, those sterilized, those over 35 with declining fertility, those naturally sterile, rapists naturally sterile, the victims who use anti-ovulation drugs, very early miscarriages, and the fact that rapists don't ejaculate about half the time it would take millions of rapes to result in 32,000 pregnancies. Crime statistics simply don't show such a number of rapes.

Clearly, statutory rape and "I was drunk" rapes are being conflated with forcible rape to arrive at that number. It was clear to me that Akins was talking about forcible rapes when he noted pregnancy was "really rare" in such cases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really.  I am noting that the scientific Truth lies between Akins' "really rare" due to "shutdown," and his critics claim that the odds are identical to every other act of sex.

[anvi]

There are certainly widely variant estimates of annual rates of pregnancies occurring as a result of rape.  The authors of the paper in question think that large numbers of rapes go unreported every year because many of the victims are underaged, and the Department of Justice even in 1996 submitted reports that only one-third of incidents of rape were reported. Even then, the total numbers those particular authors suggest are probably inflated  All I know for certain is that it happens far too often, and for Akin to have brought up the issue by making distinctions between "legitimate rape" and whatever other kinds of rape their are supposed to be makes it, it seems to me, very difficult at best to assuage the perception of the voters that Akin is not particularly sensitive to women who have been victimized.

[BigSkyBob]

Maybe the national party could have been a bit more discrete on this whole thing. Now he's still in the race, but by making him persona non grata the GOP has made it even harder for him to win.

It was a very dumb statement, but for it to be the major news story of the past week is a bit much isn't it?  It must be because it's a swing state, which makes the party leaders care, which drives the news cycle. If he was running in OK or ID no one would have heard of him, much less care what he thinks.

Is there precedent for a party to so publicly pressure a candidate of theirs to forfeit his campaign on the basis of a comment made?

Reince Priebus has doubled down on his commitment to purge Todd Akin from the Republican party by saying,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There it is simple English. It isn't about a seat in the Senate, control of the Senate, or ideas greater than the man. It is all about purging Todd Akins. Olympia Snowe voted Obamacare out of committee. Didn't read Priebus saying she wouldn't receive a dime.

Reince Priebus has just stated he is willing to forfeit the Senate to stop Todd Akins. All his calls for Akin to step aside for the sake of Republican control of Senate ring hollow.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The man is unquestionably down by about 10% and has favorable numbers equvilent of Bob Taft/Frank Murkowski approvals. Not giving him a dime is, in fact, about adding motivation for him to get out so that someone with a better chance can get in there and win. Giving him money would not only encourage him to stay, it would be flushing it down the toilet as no amount can save the man.

Snowe is retiring anyway and the difference is, she can win. Wow, GOP committees send money to those who can win? Who would have guessed that is how it works?

[BigSkyBob]

The man is unquestionably down by about 10% and has favorable numbers equivalent of Bob Taft/Frank Murkowski approvals. Not giving him a dime is, in fact, about adding motivation for him to get out so that someone with a better chance can get in there and win. Giving him money would not only encourage him to stay, it would be flushing it down the toilet as no amount can save the man.

Snowe is retiring anyway and the difference is, she can win. Wow, GOP committees send money to those who can win? Who would have guessed that is how it works?

Hypothetically, if he pulled back into a tie in the polls, obviously he could win. Even then, even if he could win, Priebus has stated his intention to sandbag him.

Karl Rove has laid down the gauntlet more egregiously. He is trying to claim Akin will lose by the largest margin in modern Senate history. Given the fact that he is running in a Republican-leaning state against an ethically challenged Democrat whom cast the decisive vote for Obamacare , it would take massive Republican establishment support for McCaskill to even begin to approach that number. Rove is obviously lying. But, the point of his lie is to dry up Akin's fundraising. That's a practical de facto support for McCaskill. Isn't that a tad bit nuts for someone whom wants to be a Republican powerbroker?