The Republicratic Party

Who Needs Democrats?  Republicans gladly
do the work of beating up each other.

I am becoming completely fascinated with the Todd Akin story which is currently in the news.  Republican Rep. Todd Akin (Mo.) made a statement on Sunday that threw pro-abortion advocates into a tizzy.  He said that very few pregnancies result from rape and that abortion should not be the answer to rape because it involves the killing of an innocent life, that of the unborn child who has done nothing to deserve death.  He criticized the Romney/Ryan campaign because they do favor abortion in cases of rape.  As a practicing Catholic, I am in total agreement with Rep. Akin. 

However, Rep. Akin made one very bad mistake.  He used the words "legitimate rape."  This was all the pro abortion advocates needed to direct all of their ire against Rep. Akin.  Forget the fact that he spoke absolute truth in what he said, that there are very few pregnancies resulting from abortion, as proven in my prior posting on this subject, and that to abort a child conceived as a result of rape is to kill an innocent life.  As one would expect, pro abortion advocates accused Rep. Akin of coldness and indifference to rape victims.  The couldn't care less about the innocent child, or the fact that the mother of that child will not only have to suffer with the trauma of rape, but also with the trauma of having killed her child.

But it wasn't just Democrat pro-abortion advocates who went ballistic over Akin's remarks.  Some of the most vociferous attacks against Rep. Akin are coming from Republicans, supposedly the pro-life party, calling for Akin to immediately step down from his senate race against Senator Claire McCaskill.  As reported in my prior posting, the Romney/Ryan campaign denounced Rep. Akin's comments and said they absolutely do support abortion in cases of rape. 

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh said:  "Akin's Remark was Stupid and Untrue -- Now He Must Put the Nation's Future First."  He said on his show:

"And this whole business of a woman's body shuts down in rape, there's no evidence for that. But this is the kind of thing that people who do nothing but talk amongst themselves will conjure up, a belief system like that, and they'll grab on to anything they can to support what their empirical belief is because their ultimate aim is to save life." [There's something wrong with that?]

Limbaugh went on to say:

Their [pro life group's] ultimate aim is to protect the baby no matter what circumstance the conception occurs in. And I think that's just who the guy is, but he doesn't know how to explain it. He has no clue how to make his case for it. And so he hangs around people who are like-minded and they've devised this belief. He's not the first guy to say this. I've had people tell me that a woman's body shuts down in rape. There's no evidence for this. I mean it's absolutely absurd. This leads to the second problem. This is absurd. That belief that a woman's body shuts down and the whole notion of legitimate"/"illegitimate" rape, that's the thing that bothers me about it. That's just absurd. It's not intelligent."

Really, Mr. Limbaugh?  You don't think the trauma of being raped would have any effect on a woman's ability to conceive, despite all the evidence that it does?  Why would you not even bother to look into this instead of making such uninformed statements?  

Then Limbaugh tries to convince us Republicans need to get rid of Akin because the Democrats love him so much!!

Well, he won a three-way race in which the Democrats could vote, and the Democrats were running ads suggesting that this guy win. They couldn't wait to run against this guy because of the issue of abortion and this whole War on Women. They just couldn't wait! McCaskill was salivating to get Akin as the nominee, and she got what she wanted. There's a poll out. I don't know if you've seen this. You probably have seen it because it's a little after noon and this poll has been out since yesterday.

It's from Public Policy Polling, a liberal Democrat polling firm from North Carolina. Even after all of this they say Akin still leads McCaskill by one point. But have you seen the sample breakdown on that poll? You haven't? Well, I'll tell you about it. There are 9% more Republicans in the sample than Democrats. This poll is part of the whole strategy to keep Akin on the ticket, to keep him as the nominee. Public Policy Polling with a poll out, after all this, that shows this guy leading McCaskill by one point.

So Limbaugh says the Democrats are skewing the polling in favor of Akin and that is why we must get Akin out.  Don't you love the logic in this, as if it makes any sense whatsoever? 

Limbaugh actually goes on to say that Akin isn't a bad guy, he wants to save lives, he just makes stupid, uninformed statements (unlike Limbaugh, of course).  Limbaugh's contention is that Republicans just can't have distractions like Rep. Akin, that they can't give the Democrats any ammunition against them.  Why, Akin gave Obama an opportunity to call a rare press conference and come out against the Republicans!  And Republicans just can't take that kind of action.  It puts the country at stake!

Here is Limbaugh's parting shot on why Akin has to go:

And, Bobby [a caller he was talking to], I hear what you're saying. You don't want to run around and defend stupidity [that's why I never defend you, Rush]. What's in it for anybody to defend stupidity? "Well, Rush, didn't you do that?" No. I know what he was trying to say. I know what's in the guy's heart. But, I'm sorry, if he can't 'splain it, then get out! [And certainly don't listen to any further statements that he does make in which he clarifies his statements!] It's not that hard. It's not that hard to say, "It's not the baby's fault." [And that's not exactly what Rep. Akin was saying?] That's all he's trying to say. Just say that instead of this rigmarole about the woman's body "shuts down"? For crying out loud! I just... Aaaugh! Where are some brains? Just get some brains! Let's have some people we can look up to!  [And you, Rush, are certainly not someone that anyone can look up to.]

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter, the right-wing bomb thrower who is the darling of so many conservatives, titled her column:  "If Akin Loves His Country, He Will Step Aside."  She gives us the dire warning:  "This is no time for another foot-in-the-mouth, Trent Lott Republican to be dominating the national political discussion. The country is at stake." 

Oh, she is so right.  The country is at stake.  But isn't it much more important to get behind someone who is so strongly pro life, despite his "gaffe", rather than to throw him under the bus because he made a mistake?  As we are told, news cycles are always changing, and in less than two weeks time this story will be almost completely forgotten as the next big story takes its place.  So why the rush among Republicans to get Akin out of the race when he is leading over the Democrat incumbent?  Why did the Romney/Ryan campaign waste no time in denouncing Rep. Akin? 

Here is a story from foxnews.com about the Republican criticism of Rep. Akin and the strong calls for him to step down.  Ask yourself why the self-proclaimed "pro life" party is not supporting and defending this strong pro-life candidate.  Why do they, in no uncertain terms, want him out of the race?

Rep. Akin resists mounting calls to withdraw from Senate race after 'rape' comment

Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin resisted calls to withdraw from the race Monday over his controversial comments on rape, despite mounting pressure from GOP leaders who roundly condemned his remarks and threatened to cut off funding. [Let's not even give Akin a chance, despite the fact that he is leading his race.  Let's immediately take away all his support from the Republican party.]

Republicans really know how to throw
each other under the bus

 "I am in this race to win. We need a conservative Senate," Akin tweeted Monday afternoon, as he solicited new donations. He also told Fox News' Sean Hannity on his radio show that "we're going to stay in." [I only wish I was in a position to vote for Rep. Akin.]

The tweet followed scattered and unconfirmed reports that Akin was moving to withdraw from the race. Akin, though, rejected those claims publicly even as Republican leaders leaned on him hard to reconsider his bid for Senate.

A source within the National Republican Senatorial Committee told Fox News that Sen. John Cornyn, head of the Senate GOP campaign arm, already has told Akin that if he stays in the race, the $5 million set aside for the Missouri race will be withdrawn. Cornyn, according to the source, told him the party is concerned his presence in the race could imperil Republicans' chances of winning the Senate majority.  [Don't ever look for loyalty from the Republicans.  The Democrats, with all their faults, would never do this to one of their own.  VP Joe Biden is the sterling example.  He makes gaffe after gaffe, yet the Democrats stand solidly behind him.]

Akin, a six-term GOP congressman, is challenging Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill for her seat. His chances looked fairly sunny -- up until he told an interviewer with Fox affiliate KTVI that a woman's body can typically prevent pregnancy during a "legitimate rape," as he argued against allowing abortions in cases of rape, claiming such pregnancies are uncommon in the first place. [Rep. Akin is still ahead in this race]

"It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin told KTVI. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Akin has since backed off the comment, saying he "misspoke." Akin apologized for the remark Monday. [That will never be enough for the Republicans.]

Adding to the wave of condemnation, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called his comments "totally inexcusable."

Sen. Mitch McConnell

 "What he said is just flat wrong in addition to being wildly offensive to any victim of sexual abuse," McConnell said. "Although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."

Several other GOP Senate candidates were also putting serious distance between their campaigns and his, as they tried to head off Democratic efforts to link Akin's comments to other members of the party.

GOP Sen. Scott Brown [who is pro abortion], who's in a tough race against President Obama ally Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, tweeted that he found Akin's remarks to be "outrageous."

He followed up with a written statement calling on Akin to bow out.

"As a husband and father of two young women, I found Todd Akin's comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate and wrong," Brown said. "There is no place in our public discourse for this type of offensive thinking. Not only should he apologize, but I believe Rep. Akin's statement was so far out of bounds that he should resign the nomination for U.S. Senate in Missouri." [Why should we care about the views of a pro-abortion politician, no matter what party he is from?]

Further, NRSC Chairman Cornyn used a brief written statement to nudge Akin to reconsider his bid for Senate.

"Congressman Akin's statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible," Cornyn, R-Texas, said. "I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next 24 hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service."

Obama, speaking in the White House briefing room, also called the comments "offensive." "Rape is rape," Obama said, and the idea of distinguishing among types of rape "doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me." [Ah, Rep. Akin - you are one powerful man.  You have united the Republicans and Democrats!  Who would have ever thought that was possible?]

Aside from Brown, other Republicans in tough Senate races were similarly critical, without calling on Akin to step aside.

Rep. Jeff Flake, who is running for Senate in Arizona, tweeted that Akin's comment was "wrong."

"I oppose abortion, but exceptions must be made for rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother," he said. [If you believe this, then you are not truly pro life.  Only the Catholic Church understands this.]

Virginia Senate candidate George Allen and Montana Senate candidate Rep. Denny Rehberg reportedly have joined in the rebuke -- as has Akin's former primary opponent Sarah Steelman, who tweeted that she found the comments "inexcusable, insulting and embarrassing to the GOP."

Mitt Romney gave a similar verdict in an interview with The National Review.

"Congressman Akin's comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong," Romney said. [Oh, Governor, we can always count on you to be pro life, can't we?]

Nevertheless, the Akin remarks became fast fodder for the Democratic National Committee, as Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz tried to link Akin's stance to the Romney campaign.

"Now, Akin's choice of words isn't the real issue here. The real issue is a Republican Party -- led by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan -- whose policies on women and their health are dangerously wrong," she said in an email directing supporters to sign an anti-Romney petition on the DNC website.

She cited Romney's past comments on wanting to "get rid" of federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The DNC email follows a pattern of trying to characterize the Romney ticket as "dangerous" to women, fueled in this case by comments from a congressman not tied to the presidential campaign.

McCaskill, who is seeking a second term, said in an emailed statement Sunday that she found the comments "offensive."

"It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape," McCaskill said. "The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive."

Akin clarified his remarks in a written statement.

"In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year," Akin's statement said. "Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve."  [No one is going to let you clarify anything, Rep. Akin,  Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all other Republican leaders will make sure of that.]

Akin also said in the statement he believes "deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action." [God bless you, Rep. Akin.  Please hang tough.  We need you.] 

Fox News' John Brandt and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Why would the Republicans be doing what one would think is the job of the Democrats - attacking a pro life Republican candidate?  Because the Republicans don't want this country to be pro life anymore than the Democrats do!  Republicans and Democrats are both working for the same goals.  They fuss and yell at each other, pointing out their "differences."  But don't kid yourself.  The Republicans have had plenty of chances over 40 years to overturn Roe v. Wade .  They've never done it and they never will do it, and they will keep anyone out who gives the slightest indication that they actually do want to overturn this evil law. 

Rep. Todd Akin made the mistake of letting it be known that he is truly pro life, that he defends innocent life no matter what the circumstances, and for this, both Republicans and Democrats - The Republicrats, as it were -  are aiming all their guns at him.

Think there is a difference between the Republicans and Democrats?  You're living in a fantasy world.

Litmus Test

It was pretty amazing watching all of the Republicans trying to circle the wagons around Newt Gingrich after his ex-wife gave an interview describing the hell the former speaker had put her through in their marriage.  I watched Laura Ingraham on the O'Reilly factor defending the Newt against ABC for daring to show the interview with the Newt's ex-wife.  Why, Laura argued, this is just old news and all they are trying to do is hurt Gingrich.  ABC has terrible, immoral programs (which is absolutely true and why I don't watch that network or any other) and they're all just a bunch of hyprocrites for bringing this up.  But Ms. Ingraham, a professed Catholic, did not utter one word about the immorality of Newt Gingrich and that just maybe this does disqualify him to be president.  Rush Limbaugh, of course, is out in full force, trying to somehow project it all onto Obama:

I don't understand why the media's pretending to be so upset about these charges coming from Marianne.  I mean, it's all about sex [this is sure not what he said about Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy] and how many times are we told that somebody's sex life, even if they're president, doesn't matter. It's nobody's business as long as it doesn't affect the job.  And how about all the sex stories from Obama's former girlfriends?  That's right: What stories? What former girlfriends?  In fact, have we ever found out anything about any of his students when he supposedly taught law at the University of Chicago or buddies at Harvard Law Review?  I mean, we still don't know anything. "Mr. Limbaugh, this is very clever of you trying to disguise the fact that Mr. Gingrich is..."  No, I'm just reacting here.  [Just reacting?  How do we go from the adulterer Gingrich to Obama's college records?  I think that is called "deflecting."]

Limbaugh doesn't stop there, trying to make light of the entire sordid Gingrich story:

I got a great [???????] note from a friend of mine.  "So Newt wanted an open marriage.  BFD.  At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her.  That's a mark of character, in my book.  Newt's a victim [Now I think I'm getting seriously sick].  We all are.  Ours is the horniest generation.  We were soldiers in the sex revolution.  We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato's Retreat, Deep Throat to no-fault divorce.  Many of us paid the ultimate price, AIDS, abortion, or alimony for the cultural marching orders we got.  Hell, for all I know we should be getting disability from the government." That's from a good friend of mine [gotta wonder about Rush's friends], "Newt's slogan ought to be, 'Hell, yes, I wanted it.'"  (laughing)  I'm sharing with you how some people are reacting to this. 

Now, I'm certainly not saying that the MSM doesn't have a motive in putting out this story about Newt.  The timing is interesting, to say the least.  But gimme a break.  This still doesn't take away from the fact that Newt Gingrich completely betrayed not only his first wife, but his second wife as well.  He had a 6-year affair behind her back, and then when she is sick with MS, and the doctor has specifically said that she should not be put under stress, he tells her he wants a divorce.  And even has the gall to ask for an "open marriage" (which he denies and we are expected to believe), telling his wife she has to "share" him.  And people like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham are defending him?   

Later in Limbaugh's monologue, he even tries to blame Marianne Gingrich:

I also know that Marianne Gingrich... I've seen places shortly after Newt was made Speaker with Mary, social weekends and so forth, and she was never comfortable with the public eye -- and that bothered him. He thought it limited his future. She didn't like the media, she didn't like the focus on her life, so she just wasn't comfortable with the public eye -- and I know that he said, "Well, you knew what you were marrying." So there's two sides  to all this [I can't stand it!!!!  Marianne wasn't all that comfortable in the spotlight, so that makes it okay that Newt was a lying, cheating adulterer]

Rush later makes another reference to that "great note" he read:

And don't downplay this note I got from my buddy who's in his fifties, and I'll read it to you again here sometime during the program.

Limbaugh does correctly point out the hypocrisy of the media, but Limbaugh claims that the media hypocrisy means we should just ignore Gingrich's behavior:

Here's a headline from the New York Times: "Former Gingrich Wife Says He Asked for Open Marriage." Now, folks, this is the same New York Times that never ran one article about John Edwards cheating on his cancer-stricken wife. Do you remember ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times would get nowhere near the John Edwards story? That was a National Enquirer exclusive, and the mainstream media was dragged kicking and screaming to it.

All I can say to this, is so what? Just because, like Rush, the MSM are hypocrites, that does not justify Gingrich's behavior and Limbaugh's defense of it.

Then there's the final kicker from Limbaugh, who himself has been married four times:

Hell, Newt was married to Marianne for 18 years. Do you realize that's a lifelong commitment in Hollywood terms? That's a lifetime marriage, in Hollywood.

So because Newt was married longer than most people in Hollywood, anyone who dares to criticize him is a hypocrite.  As far as I'm concerned, anyone who defends this behavior has lost all credibility.

I also watched the Republican debate in South Carolina last night, and the first question was to Gingrich about his ex-wife's intereview.  He castigated the moderator and attacked the MSM for bringing this up.  The most alarming part of this is the fact that the audience supported Gringrich, applauding him for standing up to the media!!!  Gimme a break, people.  Do you realize you are supporting a serial adulterer here, a seriously flawed individual?  Oh yea, we're suppose to be forgiving, and that's fine.  But does that mean we have to support him for president?  He has been married 3 times.  As far as I'm concerned, that alone completely disqualifies him to be president.  He shows a serious lack of character and morals.  Maybe he is truly repentant and wants to live a different life, and I actually hope for his sake that this is the case.  But please!!  How can anyone with any sense of right or wrong support this man for president?  He needs major help.  When Clinton was caught doing the nasty with Monica Lewinsky, all of his political opponents attacked him because they said it made him vulnerable to blackmail.  So why isn't this the case with Gingrich?

I guess we get the leaders we deserve.

Rush Limbaugh - Working For The Man

Whenever I hear someone spouting party lines, whether they be Democrat or Republican, Right or Left, supporting establishment positions, I always say to my husband "He (or she) is working for the man."  Well, Rush Limbaugh would have you believe that he does all his own thinking and says only what he truly believes, but even he has admitted he carries water for the Republican party.  Is it just coincidence that no matter what side the Republicans take, Rush is right there?  He may disagree with them on some minor matters, just to make things look good, but if the Republicans decide to go to war, set economic policy, etc., Rush is their biggest cheerleader.  And all of his millions of ditto head listeners hang by his every word.

One Republican whom Rush bashes on a regular basis, even more than he will bash some Democrats, is Ron Paul.  Rush claims to be a conservative even before calling himself a Republican, so why is he bashing the person who has the most conservative voting record in Congress?  Ron Paul refuses to support the many illegal wars in which the United States is involved and threatens to become involved.  He refuses to support the illegal Federal Reserve.  He feels the smaller government is, especially federal government, the better it is.  He wants to take power away from federal government and give it to the states.  All of these positions go directly against the Republicans, who are as much into big government as the Democrats.  They put on a nice fight for us, pretending to disagree, but when it comes time to voting, they all fall into line.  And Rush Limbaugh is right there cheering them on.

Why does the Establishment GOP Hate Ron Paul?

It is absolutely fascinating to watch the Establishment GOP running scared out of their britches over Ron Paul.  Why do they hate this man?  Wikipedia tells us this:  A native of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his medical degree. He served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 until 1968. He worked as an obstetrician and gynecologist during the 1960s and 1970s, delivering more than 4,000 babies, before entering politics in 1976. 

Sounds like a pretty down to earth guy to me.  Ron Paul has been married to his wife since 1957 (unlike Gingrich, who is on his 3rd wife) and has five children, one of whom, Dr. Rand Paul, is a United States senator.  According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Ron Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937."  Yet, the King of Conservatives - Rush Limbaugh - absolutely hates Ron Paul and anyone who supports him.  Why doesn't Rush, who claims to be a conservative first and foremost, love Ron Paul?  Why instead does he call Ron Paul a kook and say Congressman Paul is the only unelectable GOP candidate? 

Faux Conservatives Smear Ron Paul Ahead Of Iowa Run In

Rush Limbaugh is highly intelligent and very skilled at what he does.  I listened to him for many years, and accepted most of what he said as being sincere and from the heart.  I was a true "ditto head" (does ditto head mean replacing your brain with that of someone else?).  I no longer believe that.  As stated in this article, Limbaugh has admitted he has carried water for the Republicans.  He praises people like Dick Cheney, a card-carrying member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  From Wikipedia:  Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, stated, "The Council of Foreign Relations is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." 

One person for whom Limbaugh has no use whatsoever is Ron Paul, a true conservative, a medical doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and is 100% pro life, the most important issue to me.  He is also truly anti-war, the one candidate who would have agreed with Pope John Paul II that it was wrong to go to war with Iraq.  Limbaugh has supported almost every major policy of the establishment Republicans, despite his statements to the contrary.  The establishment Republicans hate Ron Paul because he, unlike the other candidates, marches to a different drummer.  It's called the Constitution. Paul is the only candidate to speak about about the National Defense Authorization Act and the fact that it is taking away all of our constitutional rights.  (Limbaugh has never mentioned this bill on his program)  Paul is the only one to question the motives of the US Government in going to war around the world.  He is the only one to question the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve, which is not federal at all but private banks which make all of our monetary decisions for us, loan us money and then charge interest on that money. 

Notice in the video below Limbaugh's statement, "there is no perfect candidate."  That is going to be the mantra you will be hearing from the Republican side.  Very much like the Democrats in 2008:  "Anyone but Bush."  It's called "propaganda."

The following is from Infowars.com. 

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
December 15, 2011

With the latest polls showing Ron Paul within touching distance of the lead in Iowa with less than three weeks to go to the caucus, the phony conservative big guns have set about a desperate campaign to smear the Congressman, for fear that he could actually win.

Appearing on on Fox News Channel’s “On the Record with Greta van Sustren” on Wednesday night, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh lambasted Paul, claiming that “right now anybody other than Ron Paul could beat Obama if the election were tomorrow — easily.”

Limbaugh also suggested that Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Gov. Rick Perry were the most conservative candidates.

Watch the video.