Why did Romney find it necessary to disavow Todd Akin's statements about rape?
Apparently, the Romney campaign found it necessary to distance itself from Todd Akin’s legitimate rape comments. Why?
Was it necessary for Romney to say anything? Could he have waited until someone asked him if he agreed with Akin’s comments? Is the presumption that Romney agrees with anything any Republican says anywhere until he says otherwise? Why would we not presume that Romney disagrees with such outrageous comments until he positively affirms them?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
36 Answers
It’s an election year—that’s why. I am a Democrat btw, but I can still admit that there would be a lot of idiots who would point out that he didn’t disavow it just to anger the voters.
EDIT: Sorry, I was reading the wrong thing. I need more coffee.
I think Romney should say something. Romney is not an idiot. He usually is pragmatic, cares about facts and science and reality. He should distance himself from an ignorant, idiotic, untrue, outrageous statement about pregnancy and rape. He should be appalled like most of America about how stupid that statement was regarding science. Where does that statement lead? If a girl turns up pregnant she wasn’t really raped. It is so idiotic and damaging.
Romney was pro-choice previously politically. He stated he wanted abortion to be safe, having lost a young relative to an unsafe abortion. He seems to have changed his position on that, but he hasn’t totally lost his mind than goodness.
If Romney wants any chance at attracting independents he has to distance himself from stupid wignuts, picking this issue is one most women, even conservative women, can agree with.
I rather doubt Romney did it because he cares what Akin said. Romney represents a party that represents the most mentally deranged people in U.S. politics. It is no doubt to his benefit to try to look somewhat less sociopathic than the GOP norm.
@JLeslie So would that suggest that every politician needs to disavow it?
If Romney had kept quiet, then he would have been accused of agreement or acquiescence. So he figured he would get ahead of the curve and criticize Akin instead of being accused of agreeing.
@wundayatta That would be nice. But, I have no expectation of it. Romney is running for President, so of course he is more in the spotlight nationally, and people want to know what he thinks about statements like that I think. People are watching him, waiting for him to move anlittle towards the middle on this type of topic. I say social issues are the real deal, more than economy and jobs in the end. I have always said that.
@elbanditoroso That’s what amazes me. We presume that if he stays quiet, he agrees with Akin. Like all Republicans are the same, somehow.
By the way. Did Obama condemn Akin, too? Did he do it before Romney did?
Yes, Romney needs to disavow it. Romney is the foremost Republican at this point; he needs to clarify if Akin speaks for the Republican party and for the potential president or not. Romney used to be moderately pro-choice, but instead he’s become radically anti-abortion, promising to defund Planned Parenthood, work to overturn Roe v Wade, and support personhood legislation. Paul Ryan co-sponsored legislation with Akin that would have only allowed rape survivors to get federal funds for abortions if their rape was “forcible” (as opposed to statutory, drug-induced, coercive, etc), and is known for his extreme pro-life stance. The 112th Congress is known for having introduced far more anti-abortion legislation than any previous congress, and the past couple years have seen a move to role back rape rights (see: forcible rape above, Gov. Haley’s funding cuts to those “distracting” rape crisis centers, etc). Is it really so unreasonable to think that when Romney will say whatever about abortion he needs to to win, and is now partnered with someone known for their extreme anti-abortion stance, we might want him to clarify before knowing he doesn’t agree?
@wundayatta – on social issues, they are darned close to the same. Republican discipline is almost monolithic. Do you know any serious republican politician anywhere who veers from the party line?
Why should Obama have any responsibility to condemn Akin., Akin is a republican, and a TP leader at that. Not Obama’s bailiwick. How does Obama have any role at all in Akin putting his foot in his mouth?
@wundayatta I would not have assumed Romney agreed with Akin. I just like knowing Romney will say to a Republican they are ignorant and idiots when they are. That he won’t waste time, or not too much time, letting some Republican ramble on about nonsense.
@elbanditoroso I’m just trying to see if people see this as a party thing. It seems like you and others do. So Romney must distance himself or else he is letting Akin speak for him because they are members of the same party. By dint of the same reasoning, Obama, as Democrat, need say nothing, because it is assumed he disapproves of Akin’s statement given that they are in different parties. Party membership seems to be more important than actual point of view, here, and maybe on most issues.
Perhaps he too was stunned by the ignorance and offensiveness of the statement?
@wundayatta – I think that you have cause and effect mixed up.
Because Obama and Akin are of different parties, Akin is not Obama’s responsibility. The leader of the ticket is nominally the leader of the party.
If, for example, Hilary Clinton said something idiotic like Akin did, then Obama would have to disavow her.
This guy isn’t some backwoods crank. He’s a United States Senate candidate. He’s winning against his Democratic competition. He’s a star of the Tea Party constituency that forms the backbone of the Republican Party and whose enthusiasm is required for Romney to win office.
I wouldn’t assume Romney agreed with him, but I’m glad he repudiated the guy—just like I’m glad that McCain repudiated the morons at his rally who thought Obama was an “Arab” who hates America. At a certain point a candidate has to take some responsibility for the reputation and integrity of his political party. (Not that Republicans have much of either of those things left, the lying thug bastards.)
I think something is seriously broken in our government. Atkins comments are far less strange than Steve King talking about how it’s legal to abduct a 13 year old, take her across State Lines and force her to have an abortion – and for some reason this was part of his argument against making dog fighting illegal.
There are some crazy people who will make up crazy fake facts to back up their crazy opinions. The problem is that those people are getting elected office or are serious contenders for office. WTF is going on?
In modern American politics, individuals do not run for office, political parties do. The parties select someone to represent themselves. The presidential election is never person A vs B, it’s Republican vs Democrat. When a person is president, he will not act solely as an individual, but will retain loyalty to the political party that put him in office.
When a representitive of a political party makes a statement such as this one, it is assumed that it represents the position of the party, and in turn it is assumed that the other representatives of the party will say the same thing. Romney has to distance himself from this effect.
Obama has also condemned Akin’s remarks, saying that “rape is rape” and pointing out that this comment highlights how it’s mostly men making decisions about women’s health. Because that’s what happens in an election year – everyone uses this comment to do something about their own political career.
That is exactly right, @Aethelflaed. They look for an opening just like this stupid comment. Who ever heard of this man before today? It is political football. When they see the word abortion flagged in a newspaper article, they huddle with their team and come up with a play they think will get through the defense and each team tries to come up with a strategy that will sell the most tickets to their games.
Why wouldn’t he disavow it? Other than it being typical Republican dogma, it is offensive to everyone.
It will also cost the Republicans a lot of votes.
One positive observation: my conservative facebook “friends” are not defending the Akin’s idiot. No crazy heated debates or stupid remarks when a liberal friend has posted link regarding this idiocy.
I would like to know what, exactly, about Akin’s statement conservatives actually disagree with.
Is it the idea that female bodies can shut down pregnancy from traumatic sex and therefore if a woman gets pregnant from a so-called rape she must have “wanted it”? That’s apparently a somewhat common view among conservatives. (see the article I posted)
Is it the idea that abortion should be legal even in cases of forcible rape? That’s exactly what Romney and Ryan say.
@filmfann Why wouldn’t he disavow it? It should be completely unnecessary. Do you disavow every cuckoo comment someone makes? This was clearly an aberration and it is a nonsensical point of view. Indeed, I would say it is something you’d have to be mentally ill to say. It is unnecessary to disavow crazy stuff, it seems to me.
Yet, everyone and their brother is disavowing it, as if it is necessary; as if it is somehow credible to believe what Akin believes. That’s just plain nuts, to me. I can’t believe his view has any credibility at all, and yet, it seems that even Republicans believe it is a credible thing to say, so therefore they have to disavow it. That is truly scary to me. It makes me feel like the ship of state is in a car about to tip over the edge of a cliff and everyone is struggling to get back to to the side of the car on solid ground. Will we make it? Or will the Tea Party cause us all to tip over and crash and die at the bottom of the cliff?
@wundayatta, read the article I posted. The idea that real rape victims’ bodies can magically shut down pregnancy is not that fringe of a view among the Christian right.
Republicans have always been skeptical of laws governing rape. Skeptical of the idea that date rape is really rape. Many Republicans believe that “rape” is only when a scary stranger physically holds you down and penetrates you… which is exactly what Akin meant when he said “legitimate rape.”
And of course, the idea that rape victims should not be able to have abortions has long been the policy position of Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate.
Finally, it’s not even clear what Romney is disavowing.
Probably because the RNC was about to throw $5 million dollars into Akin’s senatorial race. He was/ (I am betting he withdraws before 5:00PM tonight) is in a very important race in MO.
@Qingu I’m the last person to want to give Republicans a break, but I read the article you referenced, and in my judgment, it is a fringe view. I guess it would be nice to have a poll to see how many Republicans believe Akin was right. But this effort to get him to resign today seems to me to be another indication that a large majority of Republicans don’t share his view. We’ll see, I guess.
They want him to withdraw because they are afraid that the Dem. (a long shot before the brow-ha-ha-ha-ha) may well win this election. We’ll probably never know, until the next idiot comes along, what many of the Reps. believe secretly about women’s reproductive rights.
Republikans are in a tough position with this one. On one hand, you pretty much have to believe insane things like this to rationalize banning abortion. Women ask for it, women’s bodies are rape-semen killing machines, women dress slutty and get raped, promiscuity causes abortion, blah blah. Akin was just saying what most of ‘em are really thinking, and you can tell when they gingerly tiptoe around the atrocity of what he said. Cornyn said something to the effect that staying in the race hurts the values he fought for; of course, anyone who thinks what Akin thinks obviously has appalling values anyway.
On the other hand, some nominal abortion foes usually realize that there needs to be some leniency on the matter or never think through the full consequences of their position. So what Akin said still sounds appalling, even though it’s in line with what most anti-abortion fanatics are probably thinking anyway.
@wundayatta People are not particularly smart about reproduction. We still have to explain that both drinking Mountain Dew and shaking it up and using it as a douche after sex is not really an effective way to prevent pregnancy. Are we really so surprised that the anti-science brigade hasn’t passed 7th grade health class? I mean, you can call it a fringe view, but those fringe views are in charge right now. Hell, the GOP just added personhood with no rape exception to its platform, and are hoping to get it as a Constitutional amendment. (And the concept of “legitimate rape”, while rarely articulated so clearly, is something so steeped in our culture nearly every rape victim encounters it.)
@Aethelflaed That just can’t be true. If it was true, abortion would still be (nominally) legal. We’d already be back to the times before Roe v. Wade.
This is the problem, though. People forget quickly. No one reads history. So when the experience of the time before legal abortion is forgotten, we may not fight for the right. But once we no longer have it, people will quickly realize what they lost, and be willing to fight for freedom, again.
@wundayatta What can’t be true? That the GOP is all about personhood these days? Have you not been paying attention to the past couple years, where there has been a concerted move by the GOP to make abortion so inaccessible that Roe doesn’t matter, even sometimes trying to just outlaw it? The thousands and thousands of anti-abortion legislation proposed, many of them even passing? They are doing their damnedest to get us back to pre-Roe.
Sorry. I left out a “not” in my previous post. Abortion would not still be legal. But it is. Admittedly under an all out attack by the misogynists of the world, but it still stands. I don’t know for how much longer, but I feel like this is the biggest effort yet, and if we can protect the right to choose through this, there should be a swing back towards humanism and women’s rights.
Why people feel brainless blobs of protoplasm are persons that have rights, I don’t know. Makes no sense to me.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
