Scott Brown calls on Akin to resign Senate nod

[Deleted]

Very happy to see this.

www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/scott-brown-calls-on-akin-to-resign-senate-nomination-132547.html

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who is locked in a tight battle in a blue state, just called on Missouri Senate hopeful Todd Akin to resign the nomination:

"As a husband and father of two young women, I found Todd Akin's comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate and wrong. There is no place in our public discourse for this type of offensive thinking. Not only should he apologize, but I believe Rep. Akin's statement was so far out of bounds that he should resign the nomination for US Senate in Missouri."

Brown shares consultants with Mitt Romney, who a short while ago got on the phone with National Review's Robert Costa to express disgust with the comments, which are dominating the day and prompting concern among Republicans nationally.

[charminglife]

Good for Scott Brown. Wonder if others will join him.

[EllieArroway]

Glad to see GOPers speaking out against this douche.

[Deleted]

Very happy to see this.

[emilyj]

Good. I think more should follow his lead.

[315bride]

:Y:

[ESF]

Super classy of him. I'm not a big fan of Brown, but kudos for him for speaking up like this.

[heyjude]

Great! More Scott Browns in the GOP.

[racegrrl714]

WOW. I think he's right, but I doubt it'll happen. What would happen if he did resign the nom? Would the candidate that came in 2nd get it, would we have to have a special re-do election or would the November ballot just not have a republican listed?

[315bride]

Aug 20, 2012 10:51:56 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 20, 2012 10:32:13 GMT -5 emilyj said:

Good. I think more should follow his lead.

I agree. You know, GOPers could use this momentum to reclaim their party. Or at least start that process.

I would love this. Republicans need to realize that this stuff out there does them no favors. The lack of compassion, regardless of your stance on the issue of abortion, that these statements reflected is disgusting.

[aw]

I don't agree with what Akin said and I think it is horribly offensive, but I also disagree with what Brown said. There is room for any type of thinking in our public discourse. That's what freedom of speech is about.

If Akin wants to resign, that's fine. But I think it's silly for the people touting freedom of speech to be calling for someone to resign over their opinions. The voters will sort this out if they want to.

[heyjude]

Aug 20, 2012 11:23:28 GMT -5 aw said:

I don't agree with what Akin said and I think it is horribly offensive, but I also disagree with what Brown said. There is room for any type of thinking in our public discourse. That's what freedom of speech is about.

If Akin wants to resign, that's fine. But I think it's silly for the people touting freedom of speech to be calling for someone to resign over their opinions. The voters will sort this out if they want to.

Did you feel the same way about the democrats who called on Weiner to resign?

[aw]

Aug 20, 2012 11:28:21 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Aug 20, 2012 11:23:28 GMT -5 aw said:

I don't agree with what Akin said and I think it is horribly offensive, but I also disagree with what Brown said. There is room for any type of thinking in our public discourse. That's what freedom of speech is about.

If Akin wants to resign, that's fine. But I think it's silly for the people touting freedom of speech to be calling for someone to resign over their opinions. The voters will sort this out if they want to.

Did you feel the same way about the democrats who called on Weiner to resign?

I didn't really care about Weiner. Once again, the voters would sort it out eventually.

But the two cases are different to me. Akin is being asked to resign for his opinion, which is protected. I thought they were calling for Weiner to resign because he was a lying liar who lied about what he had done.

Regardless though, there are a lot of politicians whose views are ridiculous and offensive to me and probably even more that are proven liars. If we called for all of them to resign who in the world would we elect?

[smock]

Aug 20, 2012 11:23:28 GMT -5 aw said:

I don't agree with what Akin said and I think it is horribly offensive, but I also disagree with what Brown said. There is room for any type of thinking in our public discourse. That's what freedom of speech is about.

If Akin wants to resign, that's fine. But I think it's silly for the people touting freedom of speech to be calling for someone to resign over their opinions. The voters will sort this out if they want to.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. Akin is currently the Republican party's nominee for a senate seat; the party is completely within its right to speak up when their nominee goes off the rails.

When Akin, as a representative of his party, makes hateful and despicable statements, I hope that those who disagree with him within his party will stand up against his ignorance.

[racegrrl714]

Aug 20, 2012 11:35:51 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 20, 2012 11:28:21 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Did you feel the same way about the democrats who called on Weiner to resign?

I didn't really care about Weiner. Once again, the voters would sort it out eventually.

But the two cases are different to me. Akin is being asked to resign for his opinion, which is protected. I thought they were calling for Weiner to resign because he was a lying liar who lied about what he had done.

Regardless though, there are a lot of politicians whose views are ridiculous and offensive to me and probably even more that are proven liars. If we called for all of them to resign who in the world would we elect?

But Akin's "opinion" is an outright lie. Anyone who's ever been through a HS Biology class should be able to know that a woman's body can't prevent pregnancy in cases of rape... That's not an opinion. That's sheer idiocy.

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2012 11:35:51 GMT -5 aw said:

But the two cases are different to me. Akin is being asked to resign for his opinion, which is protected. I thought they were calling for Weiner to resign because he was a lying liar who lied about what he had done.

No, his own party is calling for him to resign because he made an incorrect statement of fact that also evidenced poor judgment and a lack of compassion.

The First Amendment protects his right to spew this garbage. Nobody is proposing to imprison him for expressing this position. But exercising your right to free speech does have consequences, including that some people may not want you to help advance their cause. Scott Brown thinks that Akin's statements make him a bad person to advance the Republican agenda.

Calling for him to resign is also the exercise of free speech. First Amendment concerns would only be present if Brown were attempting to get Missouri election officials to disqualify Akin.

[heyjude]

Aug 20, 2012 11:35:51 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 20, 2012 11:28:21 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Did you feel the same way about the democrats who called on Weiner to resign?

I didn't really care about Weiner. Once again, the voters would sort it out eventually.

But the two cases are different to me. Akin is being asked to resign for his opinion, which is protected. I thought they were calling for Weiner to resign because he was a lying liar who lied about what he had done.

Regardless though, there are a lot of politicians whose views are ridiculous and offensive to me and probably even more that are proven liars. If we called for all of them to resign who in the world would we elect?

So you support the calls for Weiners resignation then

[aw]

Aug 20, 2012 11:42:33 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Aug 20, 2012 11:35:51 GMT -5 aw said:

I didn't really care about Weiner. Once again, the voters would sort it out eventually.

But the two cases are different to me. Akin is being asked to resign for his opinion, which is protected. I thought they were calling for Weiner to resign because he was a lying liar who lied about what he had done.

Regardless though, there are a lot of politicians whose views are ridiculous and offensive to me and probably even more that are proven liars. If we called for all of them to resign who in the world would we elect?

So you support the calls for Weiners resignation then

Nope. Does anyone ever read what I type?

[overture]

Apparently they only have until tomorrow to possibly nominate someone else, otherwise by law Akin goes on the ballot.

www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79870.html

[Deleted]

aw, remember that the primary already took place. This is the guy who was nominated to run as the Republican opponent to Claire McCaskill. Scott Brown's statement is a very pragmatic one. He sees this statement as having killed the Republicans' chance at defeating McCaskill. Had the statement been made prior to the primaries, voters could simply have chosen a different nominee.

This isn't even about shouting down dissent. This is about the party wanting to put forward the strongest candidate possible, and with one statement, this guy just shot himself and the GOP in the foot.

[heyjude]

Aug 20, 2012 11:43:50 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 20, 2012 11:42:33 GMT -5 heyjude said:

So you support the calls for Weiners resignation then

Nope. Does anyone ever read what I type?

Well okay. In your opinion one is unjustified b/c "freedom of speech" protects the lie. But the other is justified because the freedom to speak is moot because of a lie. Is that right?

[aw]

Aug 20, 2012 11:41:27 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Aug 20, 2012 11:35:51 GMT -5 aw said:

But the two cases are different to me. Akin is being asked to resign for his opinion, which is protected. I thought they were calling for Weiner to resign because he was a lying liar who lied about what he had done.

No, his own party is calling for him to resign because he made an incorrect statement of fact that also evidenced poor judgment and a lack of compassion.

The First Amendment protects his right to spew this garbage. Nobody is proposing to imprison him for expressing this position. But exercising your right to free speech does have consequences, including that some people may not want you to help advance their cause. Scott Brown thinks that Akin's statements make him a bad person to advance the Republican agenda.

Calling for him to resign is also the exercise of free speech. First Amendment concerns would only be present if Brown were attempting to get Missouri election officials to disqualify Akin.

This makes sense and I get why the Republicans wouldn't want him to represent the party, but I still disagree with Brown's statement - "There is no place in our public discourse for this type of offensive thinking." There should be room in our public discourse for all types of thinking, whether we think it's offensive and false or not.

[Deleted]

Ditto smock and Harpy. Sure, freedom of speech gives Akin the right to say this. But that doesn't mean members of the Republican party have to just say "well, whatever, 1st Amendment!!" This is the best way for someone like Scott Brown to distance himself completely from these comments.

[ESF]

Aug 20, 2012 11:35:51 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 20, 2012 11:28:21 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Did you feel the same way about the democrats who called on Weiner to resign?

I didn't really care about Weiner. Once again, the voters would sort it out eventually.

But the two cases are different to me. Akin is being asked to resign for his opinion, which is protected. I thought they were calling for Weiner to resign because he was a lying liar who lied about what he had done.

Regardless though, there are a lot of politicians whose views are ridiculous and offensive to me and probably even more that are proven liars. If we called for all of them to resign who in the world would we elect?

So people are permitted to express batshit crazy, offensive, and factually incorrect opinions, but people are not allowed to express the opinion that batshit crazy, offensive, moronic politicians should resign?

[aw]

Aug 20, 2012 11:48:33 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Aug 20, 2012 11:43:50 GMT -5 aw said:

Nope. Does anyone ever read what I type?

Well okay. In your opinion one is unjustified b/c "freedom of speech" protects the lie. But the other is justified because the freedom to speak is moot because of a lie. Is that right?

No, freedom of speech protects the opinion. He wasn't intentionally lying (I'm assuming) and could very well be basing his opinion on what he sees as fact. People in the other thread discussed how they have heard people say things like this before and backed it up with the research that shows a woman who is relaxed is more likely to conceive. I don't agree with this, but I can see that someone else could believe it and voice it without intending to lie to people.

That's very different than knowing you did something wrong and lying to the public to cover it up.

But like I said, I don't care either way. I'm not calling for anyone to resign unless they lie under oath.

[aw]

Aug 20, 2012 11:51:36 GMT -5 toledo said:

Is there room in our public discourse for taking the lord's name in vain?

Obviously. People get to choose to be rude and offensive or not.

[Deleted]

Meh. I didn't take "there is no room in our public discourse" to mean that unpopular opinions should never be expressed. I took it to mean that we shouldn't waste our time even dignifying stupidass shit like this.

Plus, Scott Brown would be stupid NOT to do this, given his constituency.

[eclaires]

This makes me happy. I'm glad to see that this has been suggested by an R, and I was glad to see Romney's response as well.

It would be nice if the backlash from this made an impression on the R party.

[EllieArroway]

Wtf does free speech have to do with anything? The Republican party is not the government.

[overture]

Because Santorum was never going to get the nomination, but Akin losing fucks the GOPs chances of regaining the senate. The stakes are higher.