Why this quote, though? There have been many horrible things said about women or violence against them, like Santorum's "blessing.". Why pick this one to distance themselves from?
Why this quote, though? There have been many horrible things said about women or violence against them, like Santorum's "blessing.". Why pick this one to distance themselves from?
Because politicians are generally liars and hypocrites who only get offended when the puppet masters tell them to get offended because it fits the agenda.
Because Santorum was never going to get the nomination, but Akin losing fucks the GOPs chances of regaining the senate. The stakes are higher.
Yup.
Brown's call for Akin to resign is self-serving, but I still think he took a huge risk in making it, and deserves praise. He's got more balls than some of the others, who are just asking Akin to clarify or apologize.
Instead of just calling for an apology, he pushed the envelope. Now, he forces every other GOP member on a ticket this year to have to answer the question of whether they think Akin should resign. I'm sure that's a question many of them don't want to answer. It's self-serving for him, given his state and his race, but it isn't so great for the GOP as a whole.
Overture - thanks for pointing out the one day left issue.
Scott Brown made a very smart move. No one is saying Akin can't be an idiotic asshat in the media if he wants to. But his own party is saying, "DUDE - you do NOT represent the perspective of the rest of us and Warren is going to win if you are still on the ballot. Step your ass down and let a more electable person run in your place."
If he said it in back channels it wouldn't gain traction. Saying it in the media is the only way to gain the influence that is rightfully needed to get Akinasshat off the ballot.
Now I'm off to remind myself of Santorum's "blessing" comment... I knew plenty of republicans who thought he was always a joke so they just didn't address him. If he would have made it through the primaries there'd be more attacks against his idiocy too.
ETA - ok found it. Santorum's comment, while still stupid, is at least debatable - whether any conception is a blessing regardless of how. Akin's was just flat out inaccurate - that a woman's body can just shut that stuff down. Even someone who believes every conception is a blessing can recognize the idiocy in Akin's statement. Um, i hope.
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.
The right to say whatever you want, is not the right to be free from the consequences of saying whatever you want.
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.
why??? why should there be room in public discourse to someone to assume that rape victims are liars? why, why why?
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.
why??? why should there be room in public discourse to someone to assume that rape victims are liars? why, why why?
That statement is colored by your POV. I agree that that is how it comes off, but from what I can tell, its not about lying to Akin. It's fucked up theory, and disgusting but if it's what he truly believes, he needs to be educated, not just admonished.
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.
For realz. I haven't been following the race up there, but I know it's close and I can see this tipping the scales. It shows he's not that scary of a R, which plays well for moderate Massholes.*
I use the term endearingly, of course. I love Massachusetts...hope to move back someday!
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.
Exactly what type of discourse should there be on this matter though? Putting aside the statement's offensiveness, it is a blatant falsehood. Scientifically, not true. Stating that there should be room in the public discourse implies that there is room for debate. There is no room for debate of actual facts.
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.
Come on. This is like the Chik-Fil-A fiasco and people saying that others need to be tolerant of intolerance. Um, no. There should be NO room in our public discourse for slut shaming, for accusing women of not trying hard enough to not get pregnant while being raped, or victim blaming of any sort. Those things are absolutely not productive, and add nothing to the discourse other than offense and judgement.
i've always heard "there's no room in the public discourse" as "i disimiss your point of view and won't entertain it with an elaborate response" not "la la la i can't hear you la la la it's like you never said it in the first place." so, um, how is that restricting the available topics for discussion?
As was already said, his freedom of speech is doing just fine, thankyouverymuch. Short of arrest or other legal repercussions, any other natural consequences that are themselves lawful are fair game.
I emailed Akin early this morning asking for him to give up his nomination. As a verified voter in his state, I'm guaranteed an email response, which I will post here. I expect it to take awhile, however.
He didn't lie anyway - he said "from what I understand, blah blah awfulness". What he understands was obviously full of shit, but he did qualify it.
This is how I took it.
And the reason why we should allow this type of stuff into the public discourse is because there are people out there that agree with this guy and the only way to educate them is if we talk about this stuff. Ignoring it or just dismissing it as crazy doesn't open the door to educate anyone.
Does Akin have the right to say dumb shit? Sure. He might even be doing people a favor for letting them know now what an idiot he is. Whether Akin resigns or is voted out, I hope the masses don't have to suffer for his stupidity.
Brown is smart enough to know that someone from the inside needed to make a calm, but firm opposition. His stance is not just self-serving, it's about getting back some credibility to the Republicans in the upcoming elections. People already are making the connections between Akin and Romney. This could have a negative impact on the whole GOP party.
Who is saying Akin can't speak? This is not a first amendment issue. This is about a man running for a very important policy making office and whether or not the people and his party want him as a representative.
Does Akin have the right to say dumb shit? Sure. He might even be doing people a favor for letting them know now what an idiot he is. Whether Akin resigns or is voted out, I hope the masses don't have to suffer for his stupidity.
Brown is smart enough to know that someone from the inside needed to make a calm, but firm opposition. His stance is not just self-serving, it's about getting back some credibility to the Republicans in the upcoming elections. People already are making the connections between Akin and Romney. This could have a negative impact on the whole GOP party.
While it may be self-serving, it's still the right thing to do. I'd like to think that the overwhelming majority of either party is appalled by his comments. While Claire McCaskill's tweets about the whole thing are certainly justified, they are just as "self-serving" as Brown's position.
Unity horse -- down with Akin? <------ brain-hungry zombie headed to Akin's house
He didn't lie anyway - he said "from what I understand, blah blah awfulness". What he understands was obviously full of shit, but he did qualify it.
This is how I took it.
And the reason why we should allow this type of stuff into the public discourse is because there are people out there that agree with this guy and the only way to educate them is if we talk about this stuff. Ignoring it or just dismissing it as crazy doesn't open the door to educate anyone.
There is a time and a place for this type of education. It's called middle school and high school health class.
The fact that there are grown adults spewing these types of comments speaks not only to how far the extreme sides of our policitical pendulum now swing, but to the abject failure of our educational system.
There is a time and a place for this type of education. It's called middle school and high school health class.
Only if you believe in public sex education. But I would venture to say that Akin does not.
I'll open the window - how about basic human biology? How humans reproduce is a basic tenent of any education, whether you believe in public sex education or not.
Only if you believe in public sex education. But I would venture to say that Akin does not.
I'll open the window - how about basic human biology? How humans reproduce is a basic tenent of any education, whether you believe in public sex education or not.
But I think the misinformation about this topic goes deeper than basic biology and even understanding about conception. People like Akin that believe this are using the studies that talk about how emotion can affect conception. There are studies that prove that a woman whose body is under stress is less likely to conceive. Akin took this to mean that if you're raped and being stressed by it, you won't get pregnant. It's obviously wrong and he misinterpreted the study, which is talking about women actively trying to conceive. But I think that educating people on this particular issue goes beyond a basic understanding of how sex works. Does middle school or high school biology discuss emotions and the role they play in conception?
And just to add my usual disclaimer - I'm not agreeing with anything Akin said.
Akin just gave an interview on Huckabee and apologized but claimed he's staying in the race.
A lot can happen in 24 hours. He is saying this now but pressure is mounting. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he winds up dropping out tomorrow before the deadline. Rs ought to hope he does and Ds ought to hope he doesn't.
Only if you believe in public sex education. But I would venture to say that Akin does not.
I'll open the window - how about basic human biology? How humans reproduce is a basic tenent of any education, whether you believe in public sex education or not.
I'll open the window - how about basic human biology? How humans reproduce is a basic tenent of any education, whether you believe in public sex education or not.
But I think the misinformation about this topic goes deeper than basic biology and even understanding about conception. People like Akin that believe this are using the studies that talk about how emotion can affect conception. There are studies that prove that a woman whose body is under stress is less likely to conceive. Akin took this to mean that if you're raped and being stressed by it, you won't get pregnant. It's obviously wrong and he misinterpreted the study, which is talking about women actively trying to conceive. But I think that educating people on this particular issue goes beyond a basic understanding of how sex works. Does middle school or high school biology discuss emotions and the role they play in conception?
And just to add my usual disclaimer - I'm not agreeing with anything Akin said.
I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way. My point is that a hotly contested political race should not be the time for education on this topic. Someone who has made it this far in the campaign should absolutely know that questions like this will be asked and should be fully educated on the topic (and on their "understanding" of whatever research they plan to use to back up their position). I find it hard to believe that this comment was made unknowingly or was any sort of misunderstanding.
Who is saying Akin can't speak? This is not a first amendment issue. This is about a man running for a very important policy making office and whether or not the people and his party want him as a representative.
This.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or "allowing this type of stuff into the public discourse" - this has to do with choosing a candidate with some sort if integrity and intelligence. He's basically proven that he has neither so I don't get why any party would still be interested in supporting him.