'The left wants the rest of us to believe that Trump is some sort of strange aberration from an otherwise genteel elite society, when in fact he was created by the increasingly profane media overculture, and his mere presence in the White House is driving leftists into even cruder levels of discourse and violence...'

Following-up from the other day, "Reza Aslan Apologizes."

This Aslan dude's been running a scrubbing marathon, no doubt.

The Todd Akin thing goes back five years ago. I'll bet there's a treasure trove of hatred pockmarked all through this guy's timeline.

But see Ed Driscoll, at Insapundit, "HATEFUL CNN HOST’S TWEET CALLING FOR RAPE MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARS":

Some of CNN host Reza Aslan’s other disgusting and hateful tweets are mysteriously disappearing. The cable network star drew controversy when he called Donald Trump a “piece of shit” last weekend. He lamely “apologized” and declared, “That’s not like me.” Except, of course, it is...

Keep reading.

America Is 'War on Women' Weary

From Kim Strassel, at WSJ:

Colorado Sen. Mark Udall has been called a lot of things, but the nickname highlighted during his Tuesday debate with Republican Cory Gardner deserves some meditation. “Mr. Udall,” said the female debate moderator, “your campaign has been so focused on women’s issues that you’ve been dubbed ‘Mark Uterus’ . . . Have you gone too far?”

Don’t tell Harry Reid , but the “war on women” theme is losing political altitude. Don’t tell the entire Democratic Party, in fact, which this year chose to elevate this attack—that Republicans are hostile to women—to the top of its political strategy. Mr. Reid spent most of the past year holding Senate show votes (on “equal” pay or the Violence Against Women Act) designed to give his candidates further political ammunition. Democrats by some estimates have already devoted as much as 60% of their $120 million in midterm TV advertising to the “war on women”—claiming Republican candidates are anti-birth-control, anti-women’s-health, anti-reproductive rights, anti-equal pay. Even Republicans at the height of anti-ObamaCare fervor were never so monomaniacal.

When a party throws $70 million at an issue, it will move the voter dial. Yet what’s remarkable is how little that dial is moving for Democrats compared with past elections. In Colorado, where Mr. Udall and his allies have beaten the “war on women” drum harder than any campaign, the most recent poll, from Quinnipiac, shows Mr. Gardner down by only three points among women. Colorado Republican Ken Buck, who failed in a Senate bid in 2010, lost women by 17 points.

New Fox News state polls show the same everywhere. Alaska Republican Senate candidate Dan Sullivan is losing women by five points. In Kentucky, GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell is down among women voters by two points—and he’s running against a Democratic woman. Republican Tom Cotton in Arkansas is outright tied among women against Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor.

Credit for these tight margins goes partly to the GOP, which after too many thrashings finally came into an election with a counter-strategy. The National Republican Senatorial Committee put a new premium on picking nominees talented enough to avoid saying stupid stuff. This was no small task, given the media’s obsessive focus in interviews and debates on social issues, and thus the endless potential for Republican error. Less than a month from Election Day, the GOP has yet to suffer a Todd Akin moment.

Republican candidates have also gone on offense. Mr. Gardner (as well as a half-dozen other GOP Senate candidates) flummoxed the left with his support for over-the-counter birth control. The position has helped inoculate him from Democratic assaults. Republicans still could—and should—do more to highlight Democratic extremism on social issues. Mr. Udall, for instance, recently refused to say he was opposed to sex-selective abortions, meaning he’s apparently not against terminating girl babies solely because they are girls. War on women?

Mr. Udall’s race offers another insight into the Democrats’ diminishing war-on-women returns. Women are open to a bit of fear-mongering about Republicans, but they are less sure about a Democrat who can’t talk about anything else...

Exactly. Look squirrel!

More at that top link.

The Coming #Democrat 2014 'Shellacking'

President Obama confessed that his party took a "shellacking" in the 2010 midterm elections.

It's still six months out from November 2014, but two polls out today paint a grim picture for House and Senate Democrats. At Pew Research, conducted with USA Today, a new survey shows Republicans leading Democrats by four points in the generic ballot, 47 to 43 percent. The key finding for me, however, is how dramatic the parties have traded places since last October, at the time of the ObamaCare rollout. Back then Democrats were leading the generic ballot by far, holding a six-point lead (49 to 43 percent) over the Republicans. See, "Midterm Election Indicators Daunting for Democrats: No Improvement in Perceptions of Job Market" (at Memeorandum).

And here's the USA Today report, "Poll: For the midterms, a tilt to the GOP." And check the beautiful graphic at the link. In November 2010, the parties were tied at 44 percent in the generic ballot, and the GOP still went on to gain 63 seats in the House. And Republicans picked up 6 seats in the Senate that year, taking the nationwide popular vote 49.4 to 44 percent.

Susan Page of USA Today is interviewed by Jake Tapper at the Twitter link below, and she indicates that Republicans haven't had this kind of lead in the generic ballot for decades.

Yes. MT @jaketapper Are Democrats in for a ‘shellacking’ in 2014 midterms? #TheLead http://t.co/P1PzwiXMNU … #ObamaSucks #DEMS
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) May 5, 2014

And CNN's also out with a poll showing similar Democrat Party disadvantages, "CNN Poll: GOP advantage in midterms." Particularly noteworthy are the president's numbers, clearly a drag on Democrat prospects in the fall:

According to the poll, 43% of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing as president, with 55% giving him a thumbs down. The President's approval rating is unchanged from CNN's most recent survey, which was conducted in early March.

The President's approval ratings are hovering in the low to mid 40's in most non partisan national polling this year, slightly above where he stood in November and December, when he hit or matched his all-time low in many surveys....

While a majority of those questioned say the President is not a major factor in their vote this November, a quarter say they will be sending a message that they oppose Obama, with one in five saying their vote will be a message of support for the President.

"On the face of it, a majority saying that their vote is not based on their opinion of an unpopular president may sound like good news for Democrats," Holland said. "But President Obama has usually been the Democratic party's most reliable way to fire up the base, and this question suggests that Democrats won't turn out this year just because Obama asks them to. It's also worth noting that the current numbers are almost identical to 2010, when the President's party got shellacked in the midterms."

And Democrats, more than Republicans, appear to have more work ahead of them when it comes to firing up the base. Conventional wisdom dictates that the GOP has an advantage over the Democrats in midterm contests. White voters and older voters, key to the Republican base, tend to cast ballots in bigger percentages in midterms than younger voters and minorities, who are an important part of the Democrats' base.

Dana Bash, also interviewed with Jake Tapper at the link above, warns that there's simply too much that could happen on the Senate side to make any reliable predictions at this point. "Something big" could happen, like a Todd Akin, that could torpedo Republican hopes of recapturing the upper chamber. Commenters here, in previous posts, have also warned that the Republicans will probably snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and I'm not quick to blow off such sentiments. But barring a major campaign debacle that gives the Democrats unearned advantages in the fall media sound-bite cycle, I think "shellacking" won't be a strong enough term for the beating voters administer the Dems come fall.

More at Memeorandum.

Added: From Heather Ginsberg, at Town Hall, "65% of Americans Want Next President to Change Obama's Policies."

Utterly astounding numbers.

Mainstream Media Reporting on #Gosnell: 'Did You Guess Zero? You Win!'

Mollie Hemingway is doing God's work, at Patheos, "Politico, Atlantic and the Gosnell Blackout":

Earlier I shared what happened when I asked an AP reporter and a Washington Post reporter about their personal Gosnell blackouts. It was so illuminating that I decided to check out a few other media outlets. I headed over to Politico. Since Washington Post reporter Sarah Kliff tried to justify her lack of coverage of the Gosnell trial by calling it a local crime story, I thought I’d add other local stories into my search. Thanks for the idea! So here’s what I found out. Politico‘s search engine pops out 165 results on Trayvon Martin (local crime story in Florida), 94 stories on Komen, 233 on Sandra Fluke and 866 on Todd Akin.

Guess how many stories Politico has published on Gosnell.

Did you guess zero? You win!

I’d love to ask the reporters in question about the shocking disparity but I noticed that the reporters who wrote some of the histrionic Komen coverage aren’t even around any more. Politico is known for its turnover. So I should probably ask editors. Once I figure out who I should talk to (I’m also trying to find Kliff’s editor since she has revealed some problems with her ability to cover this issue) and will let you know how it goes.

Well, WaPo's editors have already admitted their paper's paucity of coverage, but don't hold hold your breath on Politico. Those idiots were BuzzFeed before there was a BuzzFeed.

BONUS: And wouldn't you know, but Scott Lemieux, the most despicable pro-baby-killing ghoul at the ghoulishly despicable far-left hate-site Lawyers, Guns and Money, blames the lack of MSM coverage on --- wait for it! --- RAAAAACISM!!

See: "Who’s Ignoring Gosnell?":

The fact that the exploitation of poor women, predominantly of color, hasn’t been subject to extensive coverage is pretty much the ultimate dog-bites-man story ... The story is now being exploited by opponents of legal abortion, although the idea that the proper response to this is to make safe abortions more stigmatized and inaccessible is a massive non-sequitur.

"Dog-bites-man?" Hmm, seems like I've been hearing a lot about that kind of reporting lately? Oh, yes, the Other McCain had a couple of related bits the other day -- because you can always count on the ghouls at Lawyers, Guns and Money for depravity fodder.

Some Texas Schools Teaching Boston Tea Party Was Terrorism

From Warner Todd Huston, at Right Wing News:

It has been revealed that some Texas schools were teaching that the Boston Tea Party, an event widely understood as having helped spark the American Revolution, was actually a “terrorist” attack on British authorities.

At least up until January of 2012, Texas schools utilizing the history curriculum from CSCOPE, a non-profit and supposedly non-partisan education service, taught that the most famous tax protest in American history was akin to terrorism.

More at that top link, and at The Blaze, "Was The Boston Tea Party Terrorism? Texas Schools Are Teaching Just That."

Payback

After watching Fox News all evening yesterday --- taking in Hannity, Greta, and O'Reilly from 6 to 9pm Pacific --- I clicked over to watch Rachel Maddow's show. I rarely do this, for reasons that are obvious. She's frequently wrong, and regularly dishonest. I'm rarely surprised watching her show, which is of course all progressive red meat for today's far-left Democrat partisans. But this opening segment was a little more over the top than usual. After going through a list of President Obama's accomplishments, she declared that a second term for this administration would elevate Obama as one of "the most consequential" presidents in American history. I guess that's understandable coming from someone as far-left as Maddow. The ideological mirror is true on the right side of the spectrum. Conservatives widely consider this administration as one of the worst in history, even surpassing the Carter administration for the mantle of most inept, candy-assed regime of modern times. I'm not one of those predicting a Mitt Romney landslide. Oh, I won't be surprised at a Romney win, but it'll be a close run thing no matter how it turns out. That said, folks might get a kick out of Michael's Walsh's essay, at National Review, "Crush Them." This passage is key:

From Day One of the Obama administration, real conservatives understood the explicit threat of “fundamental change,” whose meaning can now be clearly discerned in Obama’s “revenge” remark; for the Left, “revenge” is precisely what this election is all about. For them and their voting-bloc constituents, it’s payback time: payback for slavery and segregation; payback for poverty; payback for foreign wars; payback for restrictive immigration laws. They’ve long used the goals of the civil-rights movement — which after all was directed precisely against Democrats – and the Vietnam-era “anti-war” movement — which arose in opposition to the foreign policy of the Democrats — as wedges with which to crack the larger social structure and now, so close to realizing the ultimate expression of “critical theory” — that everything about America stinks — they and their media allies are doing their best to swing one last election for Obama.

Mitt Romney is an imperfect standard bearer, but tomorrow he is the army we have. Elsewhere, I’ve predicted a Romney victory and even a retake of the Senate, despite the breathtaking tactical stupidity of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, both of whom needlessly wandered into the mine field of social issues (where the media is guaranteed 100 percent arrayed against them) and blew their own feet off. But, should Romney win, he can’t simply assume the vote was a mandate for putting America back to work, and then do his corporate-turnaround thing. If he wins, if his victory is beyond the margin of David Axelrod’s ability to cheat, Mitt needs to understand that a considerable portion of his vote was not only anti-Obama but anti-Obamaism, that it was a repudiation of everything the Marxist Left and its bien-pensant fellow travelers in the media stand for. And, most important, that going forward, it’s a call to substantially reduce their influence on the body politic.

There's more at the link, but that really is it.

Just listen to the orgasmic glee at which Maddow rattles off this veritable Christmas list of pent-up progressive policy demands. She's loving the payback, and she's literally chomping at the bit for a second term to consolidate the left's programs of the last four years, knowing deep inside that these are not popular agenda items with the bulk of the American people. Obama's been lucky. From his rise as the un-vetted savior in 2008 to his exploitation of the horrible but politically fortuitous hurricane last week, this president has just been riding along atop the froth of history, with hardly a real accomplishment to his name other than becoming a vessel for all the dreams of the American neo-socialist left.

So yes, victory is important. But if Romney doesn't win tomorrow it's only going to delay the reckoning. Politics moves in cycles. Perhaps Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s cyclical theory of public purpose is now having its moment after years of private interest politics. But at some point the cycle of history swings back, and in this case it'll swing back with a vengeance. The tea party set the contemporary standard for protests movements, and activists are seasoned now at grassroots-to-governing politics. There'll be a rekindled revolt upon a second Obama term, because the left's push for change has indeed been radical and disruptive. And the left's politics has been completely divisive and contemptuous of what in the past has been largely bipartisan courtesy and respect. Obama himself governed as a calculating partisan, not the highly touted "post-partisan" unifying figure he campaigned as. He's a fraud all around, and a dishonest hack with no decency or larger values. For example, see this shocking post at Lonely Conservative as a case in point, "Uber Creepy Campaign Tweet From Team Obama."

By hook or by crook the Obama Democrat-socialists may indeed leverage themselves back into power. But if they do, there'll be a rekindled conservative movement to light a million prairie fires of outrage against a second Obama term.

Stay tuned. Either way, I'm amped up for the fight.

Todd Akin Could Win Missouri Senate Race

Months ago, when the "legitimate rape" scandal broke, no one in their right mind thought Rep. Todd Akin had a chance. Well, there were some folks, some very solid and prophetic folks  --- like Dana Loesch --- who refused to throw Akin under the bus. But for the most part people couldn't run away fast enough, and that included the Republican Party's funding operations in D.C. My how things have changed --- and my how wise it looks today for Akin to have stood his ground, apologized and clarified his remarks, and plowed ahead with his campaign.

Check out the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Todd Akin draws closer to Claire McCaskill in Missouri Senate poll" (via Memeorandum):

Congressman Todd Akin has dramatically narrowed the lead of Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri’s nationally watched Senate race, according to a new poll.

But the poll — commissioned by the Post-Dispatch, News 4 and the Kansas City Star — also indicates that Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment in August continues to affect the race. McCaskill still enjoys a significant gender gap, and three-quarters of her supporters call Akin’s comment “somewhat” or “very” important to their decision.

The results show McCaskill leading with 45 percentage points to Akin’s 43 points among likely voters. That’s within the poll’s 4-point margin for error, indicating a closer race than two earlier independent polls that showed McCaskill with wider leads.

Akin's hammering McCaskill on corruption and hypocrisy. See the Columbia Daily Tribune, "Akin accuses McCaskill of profiting from husband’s deals":

An ad from Republican Todd Akin calling U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill "Corrupt Claire" because of federal subsidies of low-income housing owned in part by her husband is "ludicrous, insulting and hurtful," she said.

Akin, a six-term St. Louis congressman, is seeking to deny McCaskill, a Democrat, a second term in the Senate. His attack ad, which began running earlier this week, accuses McCaskill of playing "a corrupt Washington game" that sends money to her husband Joe Shepard's businesses.

"McCaskill's family pocketed $40 million in federal subsidies," the ad asserts. The claim is based on an Associated Press report that low-income housing projects owned in part by Shepard received $39 million in rent subsidies from 2007 to 2011. The subsidies cover the difference between rents collected and the cost of operating the apartments.

See also the Daily Beast, "Todd Akin: Lazarus Rises in Missouri."

Newt Gingrich: 'The President of the United States Voted Three Times to Protect the Right of Doctors to Kill Babies Who Came Out of an Abortion Still Alive'

Newt on "Meet the Press" this morning.

Must-see TV, at The Right Scoop: "Newt Gingrich eviscerates news media for ignoring Democrat extremism on abortion, defends Todd Akin":

Newt blasts the news media bias on Republicans and abortion by masterfully highlighting the extreme views of Democrats on abortion, saying there is no way they could defend that position if the media spent as much time explaining that as they do trying to vilify Republicans. Bam!

Note how Tom Friedman won’t even defend that position when challenged by Newt...

Watch it at the link.

New York Times Says GOP Riven by Factions, Cites Mostly Establishment Types Who Spite the Tea Party

I don't recall George Pataki as a big tea party champion, and former veep Dan Quayle is interviewed. Dan Quayle? See, "A Party of Factions Gathers, Seeking Consensus":

It is common for parties out of power to suffer an extended identity crisis. The Democrats struggled for 12 years until Bill Clinton emerged to unite left and center in an uneasy alliance to capture the White House. It has been happening to Republicans for at least four years as different conservative factions have competed for dominance and as outside forces, from the grass-roots Tea Party activists to “super PACs” and other groups financed by wealthy conservatives, have to some degree undercut the party establishment.

But in some ways, the Republican Party today appears more factionalized — ideologically, politically and culturally — than Republican leaders said they could remember in recent history.

There are evangelicals, Tea Party adherents, supply-siders who would accept no tax increases and a dwindling band of deficit hawks who might. There are economic libertarians who share little of the passion that social conservatives hold on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. There are neoconservatives who want a hard line against Iran and the Palestinians, and realists who are open to diplomatic deal-cutting.

More than anything, the party is racked by the challenge to the establishment from Tea Party outsiders, who are demanding a purge of incumbents who play by a set of rules that many of these Republicans reject.

“The party itself is in a transition time,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the No. 3 Republican in the House. Highlighting a shift in the House to a younger and less traditional generation of conservative leaders, he said, “My theory is the Senate is like a country club and the House is much like having a breakfast at a truck stop.”

Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican running for the Senate, said that if Republicans won in November, the magnitude of the country’s fiscal problems — and the general agreement among Republicans about addressing them by reducing spending — would overcome any jockeying among factions.

“I think the fiscal issues we face are so big and so overwhelming that there’s little reason to focus on the other things,” Mr. Flake said. “That makes it by definition easier to manage, because those issues are so big and require so much work.”

It may not be easy. When Republican leaders sought to push the party’s nominee, Representative Todd Akin, out of the Senate race in Missouri, for saying women who are victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant, Mike Huckabee, the conservative talk-show host and 2008 presidential candidate, came to his defense.

“In a party that supposedly stands for life, it was tragic to see the carefully orchestrated and systematic attack on a fellow Republican,” Mr. Huckabee wrote in an e-mail to supporters.

This article's the lead story at the paper's front page, so no doubt the editors think "factionalism" is the defining element of the party. But remember, this is the paper marked by a "progressive worldview," as Arthur Brisbane put it, so limited government principles --- and living within one's means --- are ridiculed as "extremist" (or "racist," if you're criticizing the president).

More at that top link, FWIW.

Anderson Cooper Destroys Debbie Wasserman Schultz on DNC's Despicable Lies Attacking Mitt Romney on Abortion

She's morally-repugnant, personally and politically. Between her and Stephanie Cutter, it's been lies and libel 24/7, all with the backing Baracky.

They just lie, and lie again. Cooper calls her out brutally. Notice Wasserman Schultz saying, "It doesn't matter," when pushed on the accuracy of the DNC's email. These people will do anything, anything! They're totally discredited freak-ball liars.

Here's the email, published at BarackObama.com/truthteam:

In a recent statement that was both factually inaccurate and horribly offensive, Republican Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said that victims of “legitimate rape” don’t get pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan tried to distance themselves from the remark—but the fact is they’re in lockstep with Akin on the major women’s health issues of our time. Just this morning, the Republican Party voted to include the “Human Life Amendment” in their platform, calling for a constitutional ban on abortions nationwide, even for rape victims. Several Romney supporters and advisers stood silently by while this vote took place, and the Los Angeles Times reports that the platform “was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.”

More at that link.

And here's the Los Angeles Times piece in question, "Ron Paul delegates taking aim at Republican Party platform":

TAMPA, Fla. _ It didn't take long for strains within the Republican Party to surface Monday as national delegates got down to work on a final draft of the party platform, one week before the nominating convention opens.

Ron Paul delegates are making a diligent effort to wedge the defeated presidential candidate's libertarian ideas into the party document. Among them: curbing the power of the Federal Reserve, enhancing the constitutional rights of individuals and opposing the overseas role of U.S. military forces.

There is no doubt about who is in charge, of course. Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that was written at the direction of Romney's campaign. The biggest question is whether the tone remains polite, as it was at the outset of two days of deliberations, or whether dissenters spoil the image of harmony that the Romney campaign is working hard to produce.

Wow.

The piece isn't even talking about abortion. And as everyone's been highlighting for days, the GOP's abortion plank has been in place for the past couple of election cycles. Indeed, folks have been making hay about how it's possible for a nominee to disagree with a substantive policy position approved by the delegates.

The Democrats are lying. They're distorting the issue, attempting to smear the Romney campaign as abortion extremists. All this demonstrates once again how bankrupt these people are. That's not to say they'll dial it back. The attacks, at minimum, work to keep discussion of the economy off the table. The GOP's biggest challenge next week is to force the national debate back to economic issues. This prospects scares the living shit out of the Democrats, which explains why they'll stop at nothing to sabotage the Republicans, using dirtbag methods so repugnant they're literally unprecedented in American politics.

BONUS: Lighten things up a bit with AP's hilarious post, at Hot Air, "Anderson Cooper grills Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: Why are you lying about Romney’s position on abortion?"

Democrat National Convention Shaping Up as Unprecedented Celebration of Infanticide

From Paul Bedard, at the Washington Examiner, "Dem Convention becomes anti-Akin affair" (via Instapundit):

With an eye on Rep. Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comments and the GOP's mad dash away from the sinking Missouri Senate candidate, the Democrats are turning their upcoming presidential convention into a pro-choice assault on the Republicans with the help of major abortion supporters.

Just as the Akin crisis was reaching a crescendo, the Democrats on Wednesday announced that three starlets of the pro-choice movement will be featured at the convention, an event that will now drive the liberal charge that the Republicans are anti-women.

Democrats said that they will feature Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parent Action Fund, Nancy Keenan, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America and Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University student whose plea for federal birth control funding drew the ire--and a subsequent apology--from Rush Limbaugh.

What's more, the Democrats are expanding their list of women ready to assail the GOP on women's issue, adding Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski and actress Eva Longoria to the list that already includes Sen. John Kerry and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

Democrats led by party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz believe that the Akin controversy--and his refusal to leave the Missouri Senate race--has revived their chances of winning a majority of women in the presidential race, key to re-electing President Obama. On Wednesday, for example, the party turned their homepage over to the affair with the headline: "The GOP is dangerously wrong for women." And with a devilish move, they included pictures of Mitt Romney, running mate Paul Ryan and Akin.

"Romney, Ryan, Akin and the GOP want to take women back to the dark ages," the Democrats add.

Wow!

That's apocalyptic. Let's capitalize that: "THE DARK AGES!"

The infant-killers ought to get major distraction mileage out of that. Whoo!

Bring it on, I say. Let's get the Democrat abortion extremism out in to the open.

FLASHBACK: "The Secret Life of Senator Infanticide."

More at Lonely Conservative, "Democrats Finally Come Up With Convention Theme – It’s An Abortion Festival!" (via Memeorandum).

'Now, you're on notice that making distinctions between types of rape could utterly destroy you. Don't talk about it...'

That's from Ann Althouse, who's got a very informative --- and fascinating --- discussion of rape, and the politics of rape. See, "Big UK lefty George Galloway fired for saying something about rape."

Althouse's discussion is breezier than that of Louise Mensch, who also compared Galloway to Todd Akin in an essay the other day, at Telegraph UK, "George Galloway, Todd Akin and other male politicians still getting it wrong on rape."

I guess that piece went over pretty well; there's a write-up on Mensch at the paper, "Louise Mensch: male politicians diminish rape."

Good advice, in any case, not to talk about rape. It's not good for your career, obviously.

Republican Abortion Platform Rejects Exceptions for Rape and Incest

The Fox News panel discusses the Todd Akin scandal, and the discussion inevitably moves toward the GOP's "extreme" position on abortion. Krauthammer notes that the rejection of exceptions for rape and incest have always been in recent Republican platforms, but Democrat demagoguing on social issues has heightened the focus this time around. And the Akin scandal is the gift the keeps on giving.

At the New York Times, "G.O.P. Approves Strict Anti-abortion Language in Party Platform":

Even as the Republican establishment continued to call for Representative Todd Akin of Missouri to drop out of his Senate race because of his comments on rape and abortion, Republicans approved platform language on Tuesday calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

The anti-abortion plank, approved by the Republican platform committee Tuesday morning in Tampa, Fla., was similar to the planks Republicans have included in their recent party platforms, which also called for a constitutional ban on abortions. The full convention is set to vote on the party’s platform on Monday.

While Republican officials stressed that the plank did not go into granular details, saying that they were better left to the states, the language of the plank seems to leave little room for exceptions to the abortion ban. It states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”

“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday, which was first reported by CNN. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

The timing of the approval of the Republican anti-abortion plank was awkward for Mitt Romney, who has denounced Mr. Akin’s comments about rape and abortion and who has said that he supports exceptions to allow abortions in cases of rape. And it comes as his selection of his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, was already drawing scrutiny for his support for a more absolute ban on abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.

RELATED: At the Los Angeles Times, "Todd Akin touts support from crusader who espoused theories on rape" (via Memeorandum).

Reince Priebus: Akin 'Ought to Do the Right Thing for the Country and Get Out of the Race...' (VIDEO)

I mentioned how abortion has moved to the center of the debate on the GOP. The Republican Convention is gearing up in Tampa, and I'll have more on that. Meanwhile, here's the RNC Chair putting the pressure on Akin::

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Progressives Call for Rape of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin."

* "Conservatives Push for Todd Akin to Quit Missouri Senate Race."

* "'I Would Be Thinking About What's In the Best Interest of the Party' — Sean Hannity Interview With Embattled Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin."

* "Social Conservatives Stand Up for Todd Akin."

* "Obama Emerges From the Bunker to Declare 'Rape is Rape'."

* "Missouri's Todd Akin Asks for 'Forgiveness'."

* "'Rush to the Gunfire': Embattled Todd Akin Vows to Stay in the Race."

* "Dana Loesch Withdraws Support for Todd Akin."

Dana Loesch Withdraws Support for Todd Akin

She's been fighting almost a one-woman battle for Akin. And she's from Missouri, knows local politics, and has talked with the candidate personally.

Unfortunately I can no longer go forward with confidence believing that Akin can win this race. #mosen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 21, 2012

After Akin attacked party ticket I'm not sure how he can walk it back. It's his decision to withdraw , I hope he makes right one. #MOsen
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 21, 2012

I have been on the front lines of this battle for a long while. Akin is a good person, has a good record. He and the party hurt his chance.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 21, 2012

And the golden rule: as a GOP candidate, you DO NOT attack the ticket. Period, period, period, period, period. THE END.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 21, 2012

Check Dana's Twitter feed for updates.

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Progressives Call for Rape of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin."

* "Conservatives Push for Todd Akin to Quit Missouri Senate Race."

* "'I Would Be Thinking About What's In the Best Interest of the Party' — Sean Hannity Interview With Embattled Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin."

* "Social Conservatives Stand Up for Todd Akin."

* "Obama Emerges From the Bunker to Declare 'Rape is Rape'."

* "Missouri's Todd Akin Asks for 'Forgiveness'."

* "'Rush to the Gunfire': Embattled Todd Akin Vows to Stay in the Race."

More at Memeorandum.

Akin's dug in. The question now is whether the GOP can force him off the ballot? If he goes, will that help? And if he stays, can he beat McCaskill? She's not well liked in Missouri.

I think the whole thing sucks. But if Akin's a shitty candidate, my sense is that it's up to the voters to decide, not the party bureaucrats.

CNN's reporting that abortion's now becoming a key issue for the GOP, so I doubt that an Akin exit from the race will make this go away or make things better for the national ticket. The left has been running on social issues for a while so it's no surprise they'll keep hammering on 'em. Perhaps #RomneyRyan can get the focus back on the economy. Even Mitt's called on Akin to go, "Mitt Romney calls for Rep. Akin to drop out."

'Rush to the Gunfire': Embattled Todd Akin Vows to Stay in the Race

Rockin' conservative Dana Loesch gets an awesome interview with Rep. Akin, and the Los Angeles Times reports, "Todd Akin says he will 'rush to the gunfire,' stay in Senate race":

Defiant Senate candidate Todd Akin said in a pair of radio appearances Tuesday that he will not drop out of his race against Sen. Claire McCaskill, promising to “rush to the gunfire” rather than away from it, following his controversial remarks about rape and abortion.

Despite urgings from much of the Republican Party hierarchy to drop his candidacy before a deadline this evening, Akin told radio hosts Mike Huckabee and Dana Loesch that he still believes he can beat McCaskill.

Akin, 65, portrayed himself as a man of principle, unwilling to give up his fight just because of comments that he portrayed as a minor misstep. “One word, one sentence, [on] one day out of place and all of a sudden the entire establishment turns on you,” Akin told Loesch, whose syndicated show is broadcast from KFTK-FM in St. Louis.

More at the link. And follow all the action at Dana's Twitter feed.

Plus, Anne Sorock updates at Legal Insurrection, "Akin confirms he’s staying in on The Dana Show, Huckabee."

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Progressives Call for Rape of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin."

* "Conservatives Push for Todd Akin to Quit Missouri Senate Race."

* "'I Would Be Thinking About What's In the Best Interest of the Party' — Sean Hannity Interview With Embattled Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin."

* "Social Conservatives Stand Up for Todd Akin."

* "Obama Emerges From the Bunker to Declare 'Rape is Rape'."

* "Missouri's Todd Akin Asks for 'Forgiveness'."

CNN's doing back-to-back stories on this, so expect more updates. Akin's not dropping out. This leaves the state and national GOP establishment stuck with a quandary. But listen to the interview. Akin sounds like a patriot and a fighter to me. Lots of folks on the right are out for this guy's blood, but he's apologized and made that emotional plea for "foregiveness." How often do Democrats do that? Right. Never, the f-king asshats.

"Rush to the gunfire" is right. Take 'em out, Akin.

Expect updates...

Missouri's Todd Akin Asks for 'Forgiveness'

I can't remember anything like this. It's not quite the Checkers speech, but Akin invoking his "two daughters" provides some emotional impact.

At Politico, "Exclusive: Akin ad asks for 'forgiveness'" (via Memeorandum):

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Progressives Call for Rape of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin."

* "Conservatives Push for Todd Akin to Quit Missouri Senate Race."

* "'I Would Be Thinking About What's In the Best Interest of the Party' — Sean Hannity Interview With Embattled Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin."

* "Social Conservatives Stand Up for Todd Akin."

* "Obama Emerges From the Bunker to Declare 'Rape is Rape'."

EXIT QUESTION: How long until Akin drops out?

Obama Emerges From the Bunker to Declare 'Rape is Rape'

Interesting.

Obama's finally facing the press. He couldn't pass up a chance to smear the GOP on Todd Akin faux-troversy, no doubt. At least the left's Sandra Fluke wannabes are swooning.

At The Hill, "President Obama: ‘Rape is rape’":

President Obama on Monday called Rep. Todd Akin’s remarks about rape “offensive” and sought to tie the Republican Senate candidate to the GOP presidential ticket.

“Rape is rape,” Obama said at a White House press briefing. He called Akin's comments “way out there.”

Defining rape, he said, “doesn't make sense to the American people and doesn't make sense to me.”
“What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, the majority of which are men, making decisions that affect health of women,” Obama said.

Democrats have pounced on Akin’s comments, which could make Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) a favorite in the Missouri Senate race overnight.

Akin wasn't defending rape, and he's apologized for those comments, but O's got his meme and he's sticking with it.

More news at Legal Insurrection, "PPP finds Akin still leads McCaskill – Troll poll?"

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Progressives Call for Rape of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin."

* "Conservatives Push for Todd Akin to Quit Missouri Senate Race."

* "'I Would Be Thinking About What's In the Best Interest of the Party' — Sean Hannity Interview With Embattled Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin."

* "Social Conservatives Stand Up for Todd Akin."

This will be the big story throughout the day, especially whether Akin changes his mind on dropping out. The pressure might be unbearable.

Social Conservatives Stand Up for Todd Akin

At CNN, "Leading social conservatives rally to Akin's defense" (via Memeorandum):

Tampa, Florida (CNN) – While much of the Republican universe spent Monday condemning Missouri Senate hopeful Todd Akin for his comments about "legitimate rape" and abortion, one of the nation's most prominent conservative organizations rallied to his defense.

Two top officials from the Family Research Council said the Missouri congressman is the target of a Democratic smear campaign and chided those Republicans who have condemned Akin.

Connie Mackey, who heads the group's political action committee, said the group "strongly supports" Todd Akin.

"We feel this is a case of gotcha politics," Mackey told reporters in Tampa, where the Republican National Committee was gathering ahead of the party's convention next week. "He has been elected five times in that community in Missouri. They know who Todd Akin is. We know who Todd Akin is. We've worked with him up on the hill. He's a defender of life."

"Todd Akin is getting a really bad break here," she added. "I don't know anything about the science or the legal implications of his statement. I do know politics, and I know gotcha politics when I see it."

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins fired back at Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, a leading moderate voice in the GOP who called Akin's remarks "outrageous" and encouraged him to drop his challenge to Democrat Claire McCaskill.

"He should be careful because based on some of his statements there may be some call for him to get out of his race," Perkins said of Brown. "He has been off the reservation on a number of Republican issues, conservative issues I should say. His support among conservatives is very shallow."

Actually, a lot of very conservative people are calling on Akin to quit, although I'm inclined towards Perkins' argument. More at Memeorandum.

So far, it doesn't look like Akin is quitting. Here's the New York Times's report, "G.O.P. Presses Akin to Quit Race Over Rape Remark." But see TPM, "Todd Akin Launches 'I'm Not Quitting' Ad Campaign."

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Progressives Call for Rape of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin."

* "Conservatives Push for Todd Akin to Quit Missouri Senate Race."

* "'I Would Be Thinking About What's In the Best Interest of the Party' — Sean Hannity Interview With Embattled Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin."

Still more news at Memeorandum.

'I Would Be Thinking About What's In the Best Interest of the Party' — Sean Hannity Interview With Embattled Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin

At RCP, "Hannity Urges Akin to Consider Dropping Out In Interview With Him" (via Memeorandum).

And the Wall Street Journal weighs in, "Todd Akin's Sinking Ship":

Mr. Akin may not be a quitter, but the question now is whether he is a sure loser in November. He had won a three-way primary earlier this month and faced a tough but winnable race against vulnerable Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill. The race will be that much tougher given that his remarks about rape are likely to repel the women voters he will need to prevail.

National Republicans, including GOP Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, quickly suggested Mr. Akin should drop out. The Senate GOP campaign committee let it be known that if Mr. Akin stays in the race, it won't be advertising on his behalf, and conservative groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS are reported to have pulled their advertising for the candidate. Mitt Romney also made a point to criticize the remarks. If Mr. Akin withdraws before 5 p.m. today, another GOP candidate can still get on the ballot.

Mr. Akin and his most loyal supporters may consider this party reaction unfair given that it is only one comment and he has apologized. But Senate control could well be decided by a single seat, and on that hangs the future of ObamaCare and much more than one candidate's fate. As John Paul Jones might have put it, Mr. Akin has sunk his own ship.

Ouch.

Dana Loesch is still pulling for Akin.

WSJ's argument is that the dude hung himself. Perhaps. But again, it's a campaign, and things like this are rarely decided by one gaffe. The national GOP --- and I saw Reince Priebus on CNN a bit earlier --- thinks Akin should go. Clearly, what folks worry about is the distraction Akin will cause, and how his staying in the race would be gift to Democrats. There's a way the GOP to try to minimize the issue, and that's for the top of the ticket to say that the left's remorselessly demagoguing, and that attacks on Akin are just one more indicator that Obama can't talk about the real issues facing the country, the economy and lingering high unemployment.

That, alas, is a tall order (Romney pretty much blew Akin off, in any case), and folks rightly worry about the damage to the party's gains in November. At this point it's basically a countdown to see when Akin will quit.

The Hill has a comprehensive report, "Republicans pressure Akin to drop out of Missouri Senate race," and it notes:

The initial deadline for a candidate to withdraw from the race is Tuesday at 5 p.m., but the final deadline, with a court order, is Sept. 25 by 5 p.m. The state party committee would then have to choose a new nominee within 28 days or by 5 p.m. on Oct. 12, whichever comes sooner.

PREVIOUSLY: "Progressives Call for Rape of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin," and "Conservatives Push for Todd Akin to Quit Missouri Senate Race."