Todd Akin's comment's were beyond offensive and reprehensible, and Romney has condemned them. Scott Brown has demanded Akin to withdraw from the race, and I hope other prominent Republicans will do the same:

Todd Akin phrased it in an offensive way but he is really just adequately describing the GOP platform for 2012. No exception for rape, incest, or even the life of the mother. Just a brutal platform. Now realistically, would Romney/Ryan be able to overturn Roe V. Wade? No. Do I think they actually even want to? No. But it's in their platform and it is fair game.

Todd Akin phrased it in an offensive way but he is really just adequately describing the GOP platform for 2012. No exception for rape, incest, or even the life of the mother. Just a brutal platform.

EXACTLY! Watching the Repubs who are hating on Akin are hypocrites. He said exactly what they believe, they're just angry that he did.

If Akin had been somewhere like Oklahoma, which is safely Republican, they wouldn't have asked him to drop out. They only reason they want him out is because McCaskill can defeat him, as Missouri does have some suburban voters that would drop Akin very easily. He was hands down the weakest candidate they could have put up. McCaskill spent money on ads calling him too conservatives, so that the ultra-conservatives would go and out vote for him in the primary. She wanted to run against him.

If Akin had been somewhere like Oklahoma, which is safely Republican, they wouldn't have asked him to drop out. They only reason they want him out is because McCaskill can defeat him, as Missouri does have some suburban voters that would drop Akin very easily. He was hands down the weakest candidate they could have put up. McCaskill spent money on ads calling him too conservatives, so that the ultra-conservatives would go and out vote for him in the primary. She wanted to run against him.

I don't even know if it's about that. Akin can still probably win. It's because he has a position which throws a huge spotlight onto their platform as well as the views of Paul Ryan. This also fits into an overriding theme ('war on women') they thought they'd gotten past.

I don't even know if it's about that. Akin can still probably win. It's because he has a position which throws a huge spotlight onto their platform as well as the views of Paul Ryan. This also fits into an overriding theme ('war on women') they thought they'd gotten past.

He can't win, Carl. The way Missouri is... if Kansas City and St. Louis are truly motivated, then it cancels out nearly the rest of the state, and those people are far more likely to vote for Claire. Claire DOES have to overcome all the staggering losses she will have through the Ozarks, and in Springfield and Cape Girardeau. But this scandal has mobilized the women voters, and I'm sure she will win. The rural Ozark counties are SCARY conservative, when they gay marriage ban was up for a vote, those counties voted for it in percentages of well over 90%! I'm in a border county, between Kansas city and the "deep" part of the Ozarks, and here it was around 60 percent. In Kansas City and St. Louis, the ban went down in defeat, 45-55.

Edited August 26, 201213 yr by alphanguy74

Don't you think a lot of this is going to rest on mobilizing against the President?

I thought this was hilarious. Romney's "community outreach" has pages for polish americans, lawyers, and ranchers, but not one for African Americans.

http://thegrio.com/2012/08/24/black-republicans-lack-of-romney-outreach-to-blacks-shameful/

I thought this was hilarious. Romney's "community outreach" has pages for polish americans, lawyers, and ranchers, but not one for African Americans.

http://thegrio.com/2...lacks-shameful/

That I think he knows is a waste of time. Polls show he enjoys roughly 0% support in the polls from this demo. It's a waste of time electorally speaking.

Anyway, I love Bill Mahar. He always speaks so honestly the common sense things the mainstream press refuse to say

<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="+id+" width="440" height="366" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/swflash.cab"><param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjUzMjctNjA4MjE?color=C93033" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjUzMjctNjA4MjE?color=C93033" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="440" height="366" allowfullscreen="true" name="clembedMjUzMjctNjA4MjE" align="middle" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

A woman's right to control her body and reproduction has nothing to do with adoption. To say a woman who decides to have an abortion for any reason, is not logical, is emotional, and lack fortitude is insulting and degrading to women, period. Besides adoption is straw man argument thrown up by anti-choice people when the truth is that they love the fetus, but have absolutely no use for the child. Look at Rick Scott, the Florida Republican governor, rejecting $4.9 million federal money to continue a program to support the parenting of children in at risk home.

The Washington Post has a great article on the history of the definition of rape. Of course, it is all about primarily white men controlling the bodies of girls and women, especially if they were black: http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z2

Todd Akin phrased it in an offensive way but he is really just adequately describing the GOP platform for 2012. No exception for rape, incest, or even the life of the mother. Just a brutal platform. Now realistically, would Romney/Ryan be able to overturn Roe V. Wade? No. Do I think they actually even want to? No. But it's in their platform and it is fair game.

Romeny/Ryan could make it easier for states led by Republican administration to crush women's reproductive rights by defending Planned Parenthood and eliminating access to abortion clinics. Right now the Obama Administration and the federal courts are the only thing protecting women's rights in Texas and Mississippi. If these states succeed, other Republican led states will follow.

Edited August 26, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

NJ Gov. Christie turned down Mitt's VP offer due to loss fears: sources

Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t willing to give up the New Jersey statehouse to be Mitt Romney’s running mate because he doubted they’d win, The Post has learned.

Romney’s top aides had demanded Christie step down as the state’s chief executive because if he didn’t, strict pay-to-play laws would have restricted the nation’s largest banks from donating to the campaign — since those banks do business with New Jersey.

But Christie adamantly refused to sacrifice his post, believing that being Romney’s running mate wasn’t worth the gamble.

“[Christie] felt, at one point, that [President] Obama could lose this. And, look, there still is that chance. But he knows, right now, you have to say it’s unlikely,” one source said.

The tough-talking governor believed Romney severely damaged his campaign by releasing only limited tax returns and committing several gaffes during his international tour in July.

Certain Romney was doomed, Christie stuck to his guns — even as some of his own aides pushed him to run, another source said.

“There were people around him that wanted him to reconsider, to actually push to be vice president. But he’s known there are real issues here. Chris knows the score,” the source said.

Read more: http://www.nypost.co...L#ixzz24jscAj6w

Edited August 27, 201213 yr by quartermainefan

"The Republican Party needs to re-establish its philosophy of the big tent with principles. The philosophy you hear from time to time, which is unfortunate, is one of exclusion rather than inclusion. You have to be expanding the base, expanding the party, because compared to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is a minority party."

-- Former Vice President Dan Quayle, quoted by the New York Times.

...Well I do believe Hell has just frozen over here, folks.

Edited because I misunderstood the convention story.

Courtesy of Political Wire:

Here are the highlights of the Republican convention schedule:

Monday: RNC Chair Reince Priebus gavels in the convention at 2:00 pm ET. No speakers planned.

Tuesday: Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, Former Rep. Artur Davis, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Ann Romney, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie with the keynote address.

Wednesday: Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Condoleeza Rice, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Rep. Paul Ryan.

Thursday: Sen. Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney.

Edited August 27, 201213 yr by MissLlanviewPA

So, with all the outrage over Melissa Reeves' support of Chick-fil-A and that corporation's alleged support of murdering gays and lesbians, how do you all feel about Samual L. Jackson's twitter comments wondering why Republican's were spared by the wrath of Isaac... and Ellen Barkin's hopes that the hurricane kills "every pro-life, xenophobic, gay-bashing SOB" at the RNC?

Do you think the response to Jackson's and Barkin's comments will spark the same outrage, at least here at SON, that Reeves' comments did?

Edited August 28, 201213 yr by GoldenDogs

So, with all the outrage over Melissa Reeves' support of Chick-fil-A and that corporation's alleged support of murdering gays and lesbians, how do you all feel about Samual L. Jackson's twitter comments wondering why Republican's were spared by the wrath of Isaac... and Ellen Barkin's hopes that the hurricane kills "every pro-life, xenophobic, gay-bashing SOB" at the RNC?

Do you think the response to Jackson's and Barkin's comments will spark the same outrage, at least here at SON, that Reeves' comments did?

Since this is a soap board, a reaction from a soap actor is going to get more comment. I don't remember any big fury over any comments from someone who wasn't on a soap.

So, with all the outrage over Melissa Reeves' support of Chick-fil-A and that corporation's alleged support of murdering gays and lesbians, how do you all feel about Samual L. Jackson's twitter comments wondering why Republican's were spared by the wrath of Isaac... and Ellen Barkin's hopes that the hurricane kills "every pro-life, xenophobic, gay-bashing SOB" at the RNC?

Do you think the response to Jackson's and Barkin's comments will spark the same outrage, at least here at SON, that Reeves' comments did?

They'll get the same response from me. I didn't care about Melissa Reeves and I don't care about these. You know why? Because its [!@#$%^&*] TWITTER and I'm not at 14 year old girl. (Although, it's never a good idea to openly wish for the death of people. Privately, fine but saying it out loud is a bad PR move.)

But for the record, when your only argument about something is the "Well what about...?!?" false equivalence tango, you are arguing from a position of weakness. There is no rule that says if you're offended by A then therefore you simply must be offended by B.