• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Actually Generation X Deserves Barack Hussein, but Good Americans Don’t

Smells Like Mean Spirit: Is Paul Ryan

the Politician That Generation X Deserves?

 

by Noreen Malone    at   the New Republic:

 Paul Ryan, who was voted the biggest brownnoser in his high school class, has become the first member of his generation to run on a major party ticket. This, GenX, is what you get if you are too cool to actually, like, do anything. This guy becomes your standard-bearer. You cannot, unfortunately, run for the White House ironically.

Ryan is in many ways a fitting figurehead for his age-mates. His personal style, lambasted for its lack of tailoring, clearly was developed during the 1990s: Tell me you haven’t unconsciously searched for a beeper clipped to his khakis. His musical tastes, too, are classic GenX. Rage Against the Machine is his favorite band, even if he’s not their favorite politician. (He is “the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades,” according to Tom Morello.)  There is even something about the aesthetics of those P90X videos that makes them look like they were only recently liberated from a time capsule packed sometime during the Clinton administration.

And it’s not just the surface level stuff. As the Washington Post points out, Ryan is in keeping with the rest of his generation when it comes to his belief that entitlement programs will be around by the time he’s eligible. (Of course, with him, it’s a bit of a chicken-and-nest-egg proposition; does he not believe they’ll be around because he’s confident he’ll be able to slash them?) GenXers aren’t really old enough yet to slip into the conservatism of the dodderingly aged, as they’ll be the first to tell you—these are the people who are writing books about parents who party and coming up with cutesy names for their habit of wearing sneakers everywhere and generally driving up the price of concert tickets—and yet just 20 percent of them still describe themselves as liberal.

It makes sense, in a certain way. The big liberal youth movements of the 1990s were disappointing busts. Remember all the fuss over anti-globalization: Where’d that get us? For that matter, given recent headlines and temperatures, where’d all the fuss over the ozone layer or taking back the night get us? The biggest ideological success of the ‘90s has turned out to be the Randian conservatism that Ryan et al marinated in during the Reagan and Clinton years, and have finally brought, half-baked, from the oven to serve up on a gold platter.

It’s an economic philosophy that is driven by, in a very different way, the same self-interest and self-regard that was endemic to those GenXers who identified more strongly with Slackers than Dockers. Both mindsets were a response to the early ‘90s recession that many GenXers graduated into, but while those then-twentysomethings were busy staring at either their navels or copies of Atlas Shrugged, the country entered a decade of unparalleled post-war prosperity. So what’d you do with that, GenX? Bought stock in Pets.com and perfected your CD collection? Cooool.

So add Paul Ryan—along with the Internet boom/bust, rigorously documented mopey slacking, and I dunno, glowsticks?—to the list of things GenX can count as its legacy. He might not be the politician they want to represent them, but he just might be the politician they deserve.

Comment:   Mean Spirit smell must be excusively a lefty smell.  I have no idea what the odor smells like…..Only Lefties must have these olifactory powers from being around smelly lefties all of the time.

 

 

Minnesota Dem’s Liaison with a 17 Year Old Lad at a highway stop “a private matter”

 John Hinderaker in 2012 Election, Democrats

Our Stubborn Politicians,

Democratic Party Edition

So you think Todd Akin’s refusal to step down is delusional? Ha! He doesn’t hold a candle to Minnesota’s Kerry Gauthier. Gauthier, a DFL representative, was apprehended at a highway rest stop having oral sex with a seventeen-year-old boy. Gauthier described the incident as a “private matter.”

Gauthier’s fellow Democrats are trying to show him the door; one of them referred to him publicly as a “child molester,” while Governor Mark Dayton said, “I believe he is unfit to serve beyond this term.” The Minneapolis Star Tribune, however, reports that Gauthier says he will run for re-election in November:

Duluth state Rep. Kerry Gauthier will seek a second term, rejecting unrelenting calls from DFL party leaders to step aside after admitting to police he had oral sex with a 17-year-old boy at an interstate rest area in Duluth.

In an interview with a Duluth television station, Gauthier said he was going to let constituents decide his political fate, “not the political power-base in St. Paul.”

That last comment is decidedly Akin-esque, but say this for Akin: at least he isn’t a child molester.

The Strib’s story concludes:

Gauthier told the television station that after the authorities made the police report public, he took several muscle relaxants and was found unconscious. Gauthier was in the hospital when leaders began calling for him to either resign or not seek re-election.

Gauthier has been a licensed social worker and alcohol and drug counselor.

Is there any possibility he could win in November? One wouldn’t think so, but his Duluth district is heavily Democratic. His campaign will reveal, perhaps, whether Democrats have any standards whatsoever.

Paul Ryan and the Clear Choice in America’s future Direction

With The Paul Ryan Pick,

Big Government Becomes The Big Issue

David Davenport    at Forbes:
  
 

When Bill Clinton’s political consultant, James Carville, posted the big issue for the 1992 presidential campaign on a sign at headquarters—“The Economy Stupid”—he turned out to be foreshadowing the 2012 campaign as well. But with Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, that slogan takes a subtle turn. The 2012 campaign is still about the economy, but the variation on that theme is now more specifically the role of government in the economy.

Paul Ryan, as Chair of the House Budget Committee and the guy with serious and specific ideas, brings to the fore the big question for Campaign 2012: Do Americans want the Romney-Ryan less government formula of tax cuts for economic growth, along with spending and entitlement cuts and debt reduction? Or do they prefer the Obama-Biden approach of letting tax cuts expire, and promoting more government spending and infrastructure programs to spur economic growth?

 

With Paul Ryan’s selection, Campaign 2012 has become less about the current recession, instead featuring more prominently the classic conservative-liberal debate of the past 50 years: big government versus market-based approaches to economic stability and growth. In his first appearance as a vice presidential candidate, Ryan quickly emphasized that “we have the largest deficits and the biggest federal government since World War II.” At every campaign stop, he reminds voters that our rights as Americans “come from nature and God, not government.”

By contrast, President Obama is still in love with big government, intent on growing its infrastructure and programs. His constant campaign refrain is more stimulus money to build more railways and fix more roads. In fact, his famous Roanoke, Virginia, “you didn’t build that” business yourself passage came in the context of reminding the audience that what had made America great were all the government investments in roads and bridges, space programs and the Internet. On another occasion, he took it a step further and said that it is the public sector that is suffering, that “the private sector is doing fine.” So even though public opinion polls show most voters disapprove the 2009 stimulus, and that Washington wastes money at an alarming rate, Obama is staying with his big government theme.

But what is the big government debate really about? How do you measure or define big government? And will electing Romney or Obama make any real difference in the size or performance of government? The big government debate is actually a multifaceted set of issues, some of which have very little to do with size and are more concerned with the role of government. But this election is one of few that could make a real difference about that.

For example, bigger government could be a question of revenue, where Romney-Ryan would continue the current tax cuts and Obama-Biden would eliminate them for those in higher tax brackets. So, by that measurement, there is a real difference, with the Republicans leaving more money in the private sector and the Democrats collecting more taxes. Or it could be measured on the expense side. But, in reality, the classic measurement of government spending—federal outlays as a percent of gross domestic product—don’t change dramatically over time. Despite Reagan’s calls for smaller government, federal spending rose slightly during his term (though his supporters blame a Democratic congress), then dipped a bit under Clinton. Ryan is correct, however, that under Obama the federal government now spends at an all-time high of around 25% of GDP, compared with a more typical 18-22% over the last 35 years. Often saying you want to cut spending is government-speak for merely slowing the rate of increase.

But an altogether different way of understanding big government might be its role in the major issues of the day. Clearly the signature legislation of the Obama presidency was health care reform, which greatly expands the federal role in a field—health and welfare—that has always been considered the province of states. Similarly in K-12 education, the federal role has increased significantly in both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, even though that too has historically been a state and local matter. Of late, Obama has increased his use of executive orders, further expanding both federal and presidential power. So this would be another way of understanding big government, as an entity taking over more and more of Americans’ lives.

As Peter Berkowitz, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, points out, when conservatives talk about smaller government, it really makes more sense for them to argue for “limited government” instead. The question of big or small government does include the question of size, but it is really more about what role the federal government plays overall. Viewed in that way, there clearly is a difference between Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan. Obama sees a large federal role in stimulating and supporting Americans toward economic growth, whereas Romney, and especially Ryan, believe that the only meaningful job growth and economic stimulus will happen in the private sector.

With the addition of Paul Ryan to the Republican ticket, Americans will now have a much clearer choice at the ballot box this fall. And Bill Clinton’s famous words from his 1996 State of the Union message—“the era of big government is over”—become a focal point of the fall campaign.

David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The Worrisome Incompetent Barack Obama Dependency on V. Jarrett

Obama’s Strange Dependence

on Valerie Jarrett

By Karin McQuillan    at the American Thinker:    article sent by Prager fan, Steve Levin:

 

“President Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden three times before saying yes, because he got cold feet about the possible political harm to himself if the mission failed.  Instead of listening to advisors from the U.S. military, Defense, or even State, Obama was acting on the advice of White House politico and close friend Valerie Jarrett.  Valerie Jarrett? 

This account comes from Richard Miniter‘s upcoming book Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors who Decide for Him.  Miniter has written a half-dozen books on the war on terror.  He is relying on an unnamed source within the U.S. military Joint Special Operations Command who was directly involved in the operation and planning of the Osama bin Laden kill mission.

Is the story credible?  According to Edward Klein, a reporter once asked Obama if he ran every decision by Jarrett.  Obama answered, “Yep.  Absolutely.” 

Edward Klein, former foreign editor of Newsweek and editor of the New York Times Magazine for many years, describes Jarrett as “ground zero in the Obama operation, the first couple’s friend and consigliere.”  Klein — who claims he used a minimum of two sources for each assertion in his book on the Obama presidency, The Amateur — writes in detail about Jarrett opposing the raid on bin Laden.  She told Obama not to take the political risk.  Klein thought Obama ignored Jarrett’s advice.  Miniter tells us he listened to her, three times telling Special Operations not to take the risk to go after bin Laden.    

We need to understand the role Valerie Jarrett plays in Obama’s private and political life.

“If it wasn’t for Valerie Jarrett, there’d be no Barack Obama to complain about,” starts Klein’s chapter on Jarrett.  He quotes Michelle Obama on Jarrett’s influence over her husband: “She knows the buttons, the soft spots, the history, the context.”

No one outside Michelle has the access or power over Obama’s decision-making like Jarrett does.  Here’s an odd little fact that gives some insight into what kind of president Obama is: Michelle, Michelle’s mother, and Valerie, and only a few others in Washington, are allowed to call Barack by his first name.  After work, Jarrett joins Obama at night in the Family Quarters, where she dines often with the First Family.  She goes on vacation with them. 

Jarrett’s title is the weird mouthful “Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs.”  She is the gatekeeper, but she is also much more than that.  She occupies Karl Rove’s and Hillary’s old office and has an all-access pass to meetings.  She shows up at the National Security Council, at meetings on the economy and budget.  She stays behind to advise Obama on what to think and do.  Obama uses her as his left-wing conscience.  Klein’s sources describe how at each pressing issue, Obama turns to ask her, “What do you think the right thing to do is?”  As president, he likes to have her next to him “as the voice of authentic blackness in a White House that is staffed largely by whites.” 

A longtime friend told Klein that Jarrett is the “eyes, ears and nose” of the Obamas.  She tells them whom to trust, who is saying what, whom to see at home and abroad.  Michelle wants her there: “I told her … it would give me a sense of comfort to know that (Barack) had somebody like her there by his side.”  As Obama told the New York Times, “Valerie is one of my oldest friends. … I trust her completely.”

To understand why Obama relies so heavily on Jarrett, we must remember the president’s identity crisis as a black man, which is the main subject of his memoir, Dreams from My Father.  Valerie Jarrett’s adoption of the Obamas as her friends and protégés in Chicago’s upper-crust black society was one of the greatest things that ever happened to Obama.  Until becoming a community organizer, Obama tells us he felt himself to be an inauthentic American black.  Nothing in his life helped him understand or fit into the American black community.

Within a few weeks of Obama’s birth, conceived out of wedlock as he was, his mother moved away to a different college, leaving Obama’s African birth father behind in Honolulu.  There may have been a shotgun wedding or not — in the memoir, Obama says he is not sure.  The only time Barack set eyes on his father was a brief visit when he was ten.  Our president lived with his white mother, then with her and her Indonesian husband in Indonesia from age six to ten.  He was so unhappy that he chose to leave his mother and live with his white grandparents back in America.  Obama’s America was the tolerant, wealthy American world of Honolulu’s top prep school. 

His only black experience was his grandfather’s creepy old friend, Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying Communist and self-disclosed pederast, who was Obama’s voice of authentic blackness.  One result of this lonely and unhappy childhood as a mixed-race child was Barack Obama’s envy problem.  The key to understanding Jarrett’s power over the president is that Obama didn’t just envy people with normal parents and loving, successful fathers.  He envied American blacks, especially those who grew up in intact black families, knowing who they were, comfortable in their black skin. 

Valerie Jarrett reflects Obama in many ways.  Like himself, Valerie looks more white than black.  Her mother had three white grandparents, and her father was black.  Like Obama, she lived in the Muslim world for part of her childhood, when her father practiced medicine in Iran.  Like Obama, she is a committed leftist.  But there are crucial differences.  Her father was not a drunk Kenyan polygamist like Obama’s, but a famous pathologist and geneticist.  Her mother was not a leftist expatriate like Obama’s, but a distinguished psychologist.  Valerie married into Chicago’s black elite, the top rung of African-American society.  She went to Stanford, got a law degree from Michigan, and became Mayor Richard Daley’s deputy chief of staff, “the public black face” of his administration.

When Valerie Jarrett hired Michelle to work for Daley and befriended her, the Obamas gained access to the exclusive world of upper-class black Chicago politics.  Valerie knew everyone whom it was important to know in black and Jewish money circles.  She gave Barack entrée and legitimacy.  She financed and promoted his ambitions for national office. 

Obama finally belonged.  Not that Jarrett’s record in Chicago was anything to be proud of.  Jarrett was known for her corruption and incompetence.  Daley finally had to fire her after a scandal erupted over her role in misuse of public funds in the city’s substandard public housing.  She went on to become CEO of Habitat Executive Services, pulling down $300,000 in salary and $550,000 in deferred compensation.  Again, she managed a housing complex that was seized by government inspectors for slum conditions.  The scandal didn’t matter to Obama.  The sordid corruption was all part of Jarrett’s Chicago success story.

Every insider in Chicago told Klein the same thing: Jarrett has no qualifications to be the principal advisor to the president of the United States.  She doesn’t understand how Washington works, how relations with Congress work, how the federal process works.  She doesn’t understand how the economy works, how the military works, how national security works.  But she understands how Obama works.

The president turns to Valerie Jarrett for definitive advice on all these issues.  She has given him terrible advice over and over, and still he turns to her.   

Her true job is to make Obama feel proud of himself.  When Obama looks at Jarrett, he sees himself as whole and good and real.  He is no longer the fake black, the fatherless kid flailing around in a white world, tortured by the unfairness of it all.  She fills the emptiness at the core of his identity.  She admires and adores him.  Jarrett told New Yorker editor David Remnick that the president is “just too talented to do what ordinary people do.”  And the icing on the cake — she shares his left-wing politics that project unfairness out onto white America. 

Obama relies on Jarrett to create the White House bubble he likes to live in, where his narcissism is stroked and his desire to do the big, left-wing thing is encouraged.  Jarrett is the doorman.  She runs access to the president.  As Klein puts it, she guards him from meeting with “critics and complainers who might deflate his ego.”  No one gets past Jarrett who has an incompatible point of view.

Jarrett pushed ObamaCare.  At the beginning of Obama’s presidency, there was pressure on Obama to focus on the economic crisis.  Rahm Emanuel advised a small, bipartisan health care reform with popular items such as coverage for young adults — to get it passed quickly and focus on the country’s money problems.  Jarrett urged the president to be true to his left-wing agenda.  She was all for having Reid-Pelosi create the ObamaCare assault on the American health system and ramming it through on a one-party vote, using Chicago-style politics, while Obama crossed the country doing what he does best: make speeches.  Obama liked Jarrett’s idea.  Emanuel is now out of the White House.

Jarrett pushed the Solyndra fiasco.  Jarrett promoted Solyndra because one of her richest Chicago connections, billionaire George Kaiser, a top Obama bundler, had a 35% share in Solyndra.  Kaiser visited the White House sixteen times. 

Larry Summers, the director of the president’s National Economic Council, warned Obama that the federal government should not get involved in venture capital of any sort.  Summers understood that crony capitalism sabotages economic growth.  Huge government funding distorts and destroys whatever market segment it touches, replacing economic decisions with political ones. 

A member of Obama’s finance committee warned the president that Solyndra was going bankrupt.  But it is Obama and Valerie who see eye to eye, and they saw the value to Obama of rewarding his political cronies.  It worked fine in Chicago.  Larry Summers is now out of the White House.

Jarrett pushed Obama to take on the Catholic Church over contraception, arguing that it would appeal to single women (she was right) and that religious freedom isn’t important (she was wrong).  Bill Daley, who had replaced Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff, argued against Obama pushing contraception on the Church and invited Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York to meet with a displeased Obama, who didn’t appreciate hearing from the Church.  Daley is now out of the White House.

Valerie Jarrett is the most powerful woman in Washington.  She has guided the president’s decisions on health care, the budget, the stimulus, the deficit, foreign affairs.  

So when Jarrett told Obama that the mission to kill bin Laden was too politically risky, and to play it safe, it is entirely plausible to believe that the president listened to her.  It is consistent with everything we know about Obama’s dependence on her.  According to Miniter’s source in the U.S. Military Joint Special Operations Command,  Obama listened to her for four months, dithering and deciding no the first three times the military told him that the time to get bin Laden was now. 

In The Amateur, Klein reports that another worry won out.  Obama was even more scared of the political fallout if voters learned he’d passed up the chance to get bin Laden.  What decided him wasn’t the national interest, but politics.  For once, the president disagreed with Valerie Jarrett.”

Comment:   Don’t forget this is the president who boasted about “leading from behind.”

Thomas Sowell: While America Burns Intellectually, Financially and Culturally……

 

“Issues” or America?

By Thomas Sowell      at Investor’s Business Daily:

There are some very serious issues at stake in this year’s election — so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.

The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.

For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama’s recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.

The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States — and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.

No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained — not just the ones he happens to agree with.

If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.

When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have “a government of laws, and not of men” but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.

When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution — and ourselves.

Whatever the merits or demerits of the No Child Left Behind Act, it is the law until Congress either repeals it or amends it. But for Barack Obama to unilaterally waive whatever provisions he doesn’t like in that law undermines the fundamental nature of American government.

President Obama has likewise unilaterally repealed the legal requirement that welfare recipients must work, by simply redefining “work” to include other things like going to classes on weight control. If we think the bipartisan welfare reform legislation from the Clinton administration should be repealed or amended, that is something for the legislative branch of government to consider.

There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper.

ObamaCare imposes huge costs on some institutions, while the President’s arbitrary waivers exempt other institutions from having to pay those same costs. That is hardly the “equal protection of the laws,” promised by the 14th Amendment.

John Stuart Mill explained the dangers in that kind of government long ago: “A government with all this mass of favours to give or to withhold, however free in name, wields a power of bribery scarcely surpassed by an avowed autocracy, rendering it master of the elections in almost any circumstances but those of rare and extraordinary public excitement.”

If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority. 

The Todd Akin thing…..The Actual Statement isn’t as loony as most of Obama’s Campaign speeches

by Paul Mirengoff in 2012 Election, Senate    from PowerLine:

Is Todd Akin unfit to serve in the U.S. Senate?

The deadline came and the deadline passed, and Todd Akin, predictably enough, is still running for the U.S. Senate. Actually, it may still possible for Akin to bow out, but now he would need a court order permitting him to do so.

Perhaps if the polling data goes far enough south on Akin, he will change his mind and exit the race. The other option is a write-in candidate who better represents the Republican Party. But Akin probably retains support among some social conservatives, so it seems likely that Claire McCaskill would prevail in a three-way race. Thus, defeating McCaskill probably depends on an Akin withdrawal.

As the dust settles a little bit, I think we should examine Akin’s comments in detail to see what he did and didn’t say, and to identify his error with some precision. In doing so, I’m not going to defend Akin’s comments or argue that he is a good Republican Senate nominee. However, I will argue that he has not shown himself to be unfit for the Senate, as many claim. In fact, I would vote for him over Claire McCaskill if they were my only options.

Here is Akin’s statement:

It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that [a pregnancy resulting from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.

First, contrary to the outrageous claims of feminists/Democratic partisans like Kirsten Powers, Akin never claimed that there is such a thing as a legitimate rape. Clearly, when he said “legitimate rape” he meant actual rape, as opposed to consensual sex that later is alleged to be rape.

We know this from the context, including the fact that he calls for punishment of the rapist. If Akin thought that actual rape can be “legitimate,” he would not have advocated punishing the rapist. Akin plainly was saying that in cases of real rape the female body shuts down the reproductive process, whereas in cases of falsely alleged rape, it does not.

Some feminists would take issue with Akin’s implicit claim that not all reported rapes are actual rapes. But that view represents the triumph of ideology over facts. In reality, not all claims of rape are legitimate claims.

The most damning interpretation of Akin’s remarks would be that if a pregnancy results, the claim of rape could not have been legitimate. But Akin stopped short of making that claim. Indeed, he assumes that this is not the case. And he talks of the body “trying” to shut the process down, not invariably being able to do so.

The problem with Akin’s statement – and it is a very big problem – lies in his view that the female body has ways to shut down its reproductive process in response to rape, such that pregnancies resulting from rape are “really rare.” The evidence strongly contradicts this assertion. Akin’s embrace of junk science not supported by data represents the same kind of triumph of ideology over facts that, as noted above, some feminists are guilty of.

But does a member of Congress become unfit because he adopts a junk science position in service of ideology? Perhaps, if the position is offensive enough. But what if that member of Congress admits his error and conforms his view to the facts – here, the fact that pregnancies from rape are not “really rare”? Then, I wouldn’t say that the member is unfit to serve in Congress.

Akin, then, needs to make it clear that he understands and accepts the facts regarding rape and pregnancy. If he does, then I don’t see him as unfit to serve in Congress.

Comment:   I would expect this Akin to be resigning from the campaign very soon.   I am not sure he deserves abandonment.  

However, every conservative candidate should be well rehearsed to expect  the fanatic hysterics the modern educated American female entertains when confronting  any sexual  dealings with males….’legitimate or otherwise’.    A lefty could say whatever with out retribution…..Biden, Obama and John Kerry are excellent examples, and no eyes would  blink more than once ….if then.

 Obama-wing single females are likely to become hysterical merely in the company of a human male, such company might be so rare.     

I don’t think that the statement is loony enough to force the candidate to resign.   That so many Republican bigwigs demand the candidate’s resignation is certainly a common Party wrinkle.    I am somewhat embarrassed to see them so greedy for the seat as to pile on Akin for the rivial comment.   He merely forgot that many, perhaps the majority of Obama’s single women fans equate sex within the marriage bon is rape.

In America screwballs usually win events during screwball times  only if they are lefties.   Mr. Akin should appologize or be punished  for his wimpy and foolish apology not for his “illegitimate” rape statement.

Don’t forget that lefty feminists have claimed and often claim that ALL female sex with the human male is ‘RAPE’.     You think I  lie, I exaggerate?   Read one of the biblical texts of the loony Women’s Studies  departments  at university, anything written by Andrea Dworkin.   

Have you ever heard of  the human female seduce and seduce, craving intimacy in the max….and then after her lust is overcome, CLAIM RAPE?    Is that legitimate rape?   Or could it possibly be called ‘illegitimate’ rape….but the Senatorial candidate was not totally clear about his ‘rape’  use….as a word, that is.   

He decided to go wimp an announced his wimpy apology.

President Obama actually tells untruths nearly every time he opens his mouth during his present campaign season.    Should he resign?