Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The Romney Train-Wreck

If you've paid attention, you noted that I was very skeptical about Romney from the git-go.  Evidently Paul Ryan isn't a devotee of this blog, or he might have chosen a better course.

Terry Jeffrey makes it plain in looking at the Romney "campaign site."

A good place to find the basic premises for conducting that analysis is on the website of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. It includes a statement explaining Romney's position on abortion.

"Mitt Romney is pro-life," says the first sentence of this statement. "Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view," it further says. "Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water's edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens," it also says.

"Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us," it concludes. "As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America's values of preserving life at home and abroad."

Bullshit, Mitt.

 ...what would be the logical position for Romney to take on whether American law should permit the taking of an innocent human life conceived through a rape?

"Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg told multiple news organizations on Monday.

"Some animals are more equal than other animals".  Just say it, Mitt.  It's what you actually believe.

Ryan knows better--or at least he used to, until yesterday.

There are a multitude of very serious issues facing the country in this November's election.   None of them are "more important" than the rape-incest-abortion question--but on balance, the Statist/Socialist March of the Tinpot Obozo must be stopped. 

Having said that, the Romney-ite bullshit:  "I'm pro-life" should be taken down from his website.  Clearly, he doesn't mean a word of it.


neomom said...

Think political strategery.

We get NOWHERE Obummer wins again.

Dad29 said...

Actually, that's wrong.

At least two VERY good politicalwonks (AOSHQ is one) advise that the Pubbies can get 50 or more Senate seats WITHOUT Missouri.

Akin's being tossed under the bus because it is politically inconvenient to explain all of his remarks correctly.

Ironic, because Ryan does very well 'splaining his KillGranny and KilltheSick budget proposals.

Voters actually don't mind a debate which begins with the truth. Only politicians are bothered by it.

neomom said...

I agree we can still get to 50+ without MO, but, like it or not, Akin made the entire topic toxic. Somehow, that moron has now interjected an ignorance of biology as the same as not believing in abortion in any circumstance. In other words, if you don't believe in a rape exception, then you must believe that it couldn't have been a real rape because a woman's body can block rape sperm donchya know?

The last thing R/R should do is take that national.

Dad29 said...

Let's take it from the top.

Akin's "legitimate" qualifier had to do with the legal aspects: whether it was a rape in the commonly-accepted sense (i.e., intent, forcible, or statutory) as opposed to the "made-up rape" where a woman decides that she didn't really consent, or gets pregnant w/boyfriend and claims "rape" to obtain an abortion under the 'rape/incest' clause.

Naturally, the (D)s and their lapdog MSM ignored or twisted that. So did a lot of (R)s for one reason or another.

His 'rejection' theory actually HAS been propounded by an MD who was affiliated with a national right-to-life group. The MD was not an OB/GYN.

That portion of his statement was moronic. Akin shoulda known that the theory was an outlier at best.

Finally we get to the REAL problem: Akin proposes that some babies should be killed because of the sin of their fathers. THAT is where we see all the cockroaches running from the light, including Rom/Ryan and hundreds of other pols.

So. We agree that one-third of Akin's remarks were unfounded at best--albeit he was parroting what some MD actually wrote.

What makes it "toxic" is that politicians could be forced to admit that some babies are going to be killed b/c of either false claims of "rape" or because they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak.

And politicians HATE to admit what is true and then take a stance on it.

neomom said...

It really doesn't matter what he meant anymore. What does matter is what he said. And what he said was basically that if a woman was "legitimately" raped, her body can "shut that down" and she won't get pregnant.

Regardless if some quack said it, he was moronic enough to repeat it. That level of stupidity alone should prevent him from being a Senator. We have enough stupidity in DC. Add in that just about anyone with a R after there name could have beaten McCaskill until this... Since he feels his own friggin ego is too important than falling on his sword and makes that 51 in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare more difficult tells me far more about his character. He is just another self serving politician, not a public servant.