So, are Akin's idiotic remarks about pregnancy and rape potentially fatal for Romney?

hatrickpatrick

The fallout from Akin's ridiculous assertions about abortion (for those who missed it, Akin, a Republican contender for the US Senate, suggested that in 'legitimate' cases of rape, the female body can automatically prevent a pregnancy from occurring

Leaving the amazingly moronic remarks aside as they are being discussed in other threads, just how bad is this going to be for Romney? Romney himself has of course condemned the remarks, but they seem to come as a very timely reminder of the backwards and dangerous ideology which is so endemic in today's Republican Party.

Is this a fatal blow to Romney's campaign, or can he dodge the bullet?

walshb

It's a view held by some for many centuries. Odd, but from a pure scientific perspective it's always going to be looked at and studied. Yesterday's news!

BTW, Romney wants him gone!

Amerika

IMO, it will temporarily distract the voters from the most important issues of the economy, jobs and the Obama administration’s dismal failures... but it will be far from a fatal blow to Romney's campaign.

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

IMO, it will temporarily distract the voters from the most important issues of the economy, jobs and the Obama administration’s dismal failures... but it will be far from a fatal blow to Romney's campaign.

On the off chance that I might get a response here instead....


My understanding of the last few years in the US is that while unemployment shot up in Obamas first 9 or so months as President (linked to the recession) it has been on a downward trend ever since. So from a jobs point of view he seems to be doing ok given the circumstances.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...mployment-rate

I also understand he has increased welfare spending. Now I know a lot of conservatives would have you believe that this is discouraging people from working, but the fact that he has had unemployment on a fairly consistent downward trend for nearly 3 years now might slightly fly in the face of that. Of course that doesn't stop Obamas opponents from saying on one hand that he is destroying the welfare system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/op...&ref=welfareus
http://video.foxnews.com/v/177572679...elfare-system/

And on the other saying he is spending too much on it:

http://news.investors.com/article/62...ath.htm?p=full

As for "the economy", isn't jobs and welfare part of that? I know American federal debt has continued to increase under Obama, but that process was started under Bush and I'm not sure exactly what Obama could have done with it having been left with that and a recession to deal with. Any ideas yourself?

So what areas of importance has Obama failed in and how?

Amerika

molloyjh wrote: »

So what areas of importance has Obama failed in and how?

Niall Ferguson recently wrote a most excellent lengthy piece in Newsweek/Daily Beast (which is no friends of Republicans) entitled Obama’s Gotta Go… which addressed just what you ask.

The most poignant paragraph which lays the framework for his piece:.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised "not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth." He promised to "build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together." He promised to "restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost." And he promised to "transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age." Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html

Fr Tod Umptious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The fallout from Akin's ridiculous assertions about abortion (for those who missed it, Akin, a Republican contender for the US Senate, suggested that in 'legitimate' cases of rape, the female body can automatically prevent a pregnancy from occurring

Leaving the amazingly moronic remarks aside as they are being discussed in other threads, just how bad is this going to be for Romney? Romney himself has of course condemned the remarks, but they seem to come as a very timely reminder of the backwards and dangerous ideology which is so endemic in today's Republican Party.

Is this a fatal blow to Romney's campaign, or can he dodge the bullet?

No it will not.

Frankly I think that this sort of a post is typical of the type of ignorant opinions people seem to have of the GOP in Ireland.

People will disect and analyse every controversial word that comers from a GOP candidate and then extrapolate it into how it is a sign of an upcoming apocalypse if Romney goes on to win.

Romney has distanced himself from the statement by Akin, hell even Akin has distanced hinself from his own statment.

The election is going to be won and lost on far more fundamental matters than the utterances from some candidate that no one even heard of last week.

FloatingVoter

I'd agree with Umptious, in our country FF won three elections straight and they had some pretty nutty members. Obama will win some undecided voters on the back of it but there's a long way to go until polling day.
BTW I'd vote Obama if I had a vote so consider me semi-neutral.

Reindeer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The fallout from Akin's ridiculous assertions about abortion...

Is this a fatal blow to Romney's campaign, or can he dodge the bullet?

Romney needs no help from Akin. He's doing a fine job of attracting bullets all by himself.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

IMO, it will temporarily distract the voters from the most important issues of the economy, jobs and the Obama administration’s dismal failures... but it will be far from a fatal blow to Romney's campaign.

It's rare that I agree with you on anything, but you're mostly right. It won't harm Romney in the long run and will be forgotten in a couple of weeks.

What will be fatal to Romeny is the falling unemployment numbers. Falling slowly but if the trend continues it'll save Obama.

Everything but the economy is really a distraction in this race, the right will vote for Romney no matter what he says or does. The left will vote for Obama in pretty much the same manner. The swing voters will vote based on the economy, unless Romeny goes too hardcore on the social conservative message that could kill him.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Niall Ferguson recently wrote a most excellent lengthy piece in Newsweek/Daily Beast (which is no friends of Republicans) entitled Obama’s Gotta Go… which addressed just what you ask.

This actually made me laugh out loud. Well done.

Newsweek might be no friend to the Republicans, althought I think it's quite impatial in the most part, but Niall Ferguson most certainly is a friend to the Republicans. He used to work for John McCain.

A bit disingenuous to pretend he's not. You should be commending Newsweek for being so impartial and not pretending they've turned on Obama.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

This actually made me laugh out loud. Well done.

Newsweek might be no friend to the Republicans, althought I think it's quite impatial in the most part, but Niall Ferguson most certainly is a friend to the Republicans. He used to work for John McCain.

A bit disingenuous to pretend he's not. You should be commending Newsweek for being so impartial and not pretending they've turned on Obama.

Dang, I was all ready for you to start nit-picking at his piece. (I had his rebuttal for his detractors all ready for you...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/21/niall-ferguson-defends-newsweek-cover-correct-this-bloggers.html)

Also, he admitted he worked for John McCain'c campaign right at the opening of the piece. How is that "disingenous pretending he's not?" I don't see it.

Actually Newsweek/DailyBeast is in a lot of financial trouble. IMO they allowed this piece that was highly critical of Obama merely for the attention. Most on the Right will read it and agree. Most on the Left will read it and disagree. But most everyone interested in politics will read it. And Tina Brown gets what she wants... readership and people talking about the piece. I bet this is the most read piece at Newsweek/DailyBeast in years. Since it played out the way they wanted, it will be nice to see similar ones done in the near future for balance to their general left slant.

Duck Soup

The narrow issue of Akin isn't fatal, but you can guarantee that it will raise wider questions about Republican attitudes to women's reproductive rights.

And it's not a tangential connection. Ryan was co-sponsor of the HR 3 bill that parsed forcible and non-forcible rape. Ryan was co-sponsor of the HR 212 personhood bill that would have outlawed abortion with no exemptions. Romney is on record on TV saying he would support a personhood amendment if he had to vote on it. Personhood bills would also potentially outlaw some forms of hormonal contraception, so now we're not just looking at the Republican attitude to abortion, but contraception as well.

And as if the Republicans wanted to keep the issue going, Ryan today refused to answer a straight question as to whether he was in favour of abortion in instances of rape.

Asked if abortions should be available to women who are raped, Ryan responded: “I stand by my pro-life record in Congress. It’s something I’m proud of. But Mitt Romney will be president, and he will set the policy of the Romney administration.”

That's as near as he can get to saying "I don't agree with Romney, but I'll keep my mouth shut."

But it keeps going. The draft Republican party platform for the general election supports a blanket ban on abortion, allowing no exemptions for rape or incest. That's due to be voted on next week at the convention. This form of their anti-abortion policy passed into official party policy the previous two election cycles, so the chances are very strongly that Romney is going to be at direct odds with both his vice-presidential nominee and official party policy.

http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005111

I'm guessing none of this plays well with the vast majority of women voters.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

What will be fatal to Romeny is the falling unemployment numbers. Falling slowly but if the trend continues it'll save Obama.

For the good of the country I hope the unemployment numbers go down. And if they do then Obama would deserve some of the credit. I just don't see it happening to any great extent. Too many employers are holding back becasue they're afraid of what the future holds.

Everything but the economy is really a distraction in this race, the right will vote for Romney no matter what he says or does. The left will vote for Obama in pretty much the same manner. The swing voters will vote based on the economy, unless Romeny goes too hardcore on the social conservative message that could kill him.

Distracitons like Akin make for good politics, but that's about it. There aren't any swing voters left IMO. I think everyone already knows who they will vote for right now. Those that claim they're undecided are just pulling our legs. The economy will be the key issue. Over $1 Trillion deficit in each of Obama's years as president. Most Democrats are running scared right now... you can smell the fear in their tone.

I'll give you a bit of advice though. If Obama wins the election, or we don't reach a debt deal... and if you own stocks... move them immediately to gold or stocks that won't lose value if the market crashes again (they're out there). That's what I am going to do.

Suryavarman

molloyjh wrote: »

On the off chance that I might get a response here instead....


My understanding of the last few years in the US is that while unemployment shot up in Obamas first 9 or so months as President (linked to the recession) it has been on a downward trend ever since. So from a jobs point of view he seems to be doing ok given the circumstances.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...mployment-rate

Actually he has been doing terrible on the jobs front. Just because it isn't as bad as it was doesn't mean he has done an ok job. It's not even entirely clear that the unemployment situation has improved under Obama. According to this Financial Times article:

According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 per cent. Some have moved from claiming unemployment benefits to disability benefits, and have thus permanently dropped out of the labour force. Others have fallen back on the charity of relatives. Others still have ended up in prison. In 1982 there were just over 500,000 in jail; today there are 2.5m – more than the combined population of Atlanta, Boston, Seattle and Kansas City, according to the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Center, a Washington-based think-tank.

Most of the drop in the unemployment rate isn't because of people going back to work but the opposite; unemployed people are leaving the labour force in such numbers that the unemployment rate has fallen sharply.

Amerika wrote: »

I'll give you a bit of advice though. If Obama wins the election, or we don't reach a debt deal... and if you own stocks... move them immediately to gold or stocks that won't lose value if the market crashes again (they're out there). That's what I am going to do.

And you can do the exact same thing if Romney is elected. He will be a disaster for the economy as well because the enormous deficits will continue under him. There has also been enough money printing over the last couple of years to insure that there will be high inflation no matter who is elected.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Most of the drop in the unemployment rate isn't because of people going back to work but the opposite; unemployed people are leaving the labour force in such numbers that the unemployment rate has fallen sharply.

And it should be noted that as the unemployment rate drops, disability claims have risen.

And you can do the exact same thing if Romney is elected. He will be a disaster for the economy as well because the enormous deficits will continue under him. There has also been enough money printing over the last couple of years to insure that there will be high inflation no matter who is elected.

You might be right. I will probably shift most of my investments regardless, but I don't forsee the quick drop in the DOW if Romney gets elected as I would think there will be if Obama gets reelected.

jill_valentine

Duck Soup wrote: »

The narrow issue of Akin isn't fatal, but you can guarantee that it will raise wider questions about Republican attitudes to women's reproductive rights.

Exactly. What Akin said is bigger than Akin, because it's so mindbogglingly stupid that it makes for a hell of a hook to write a story around, and in the process raises the question exactly where the rest of the party does stand and why - Ryan and Romney included.

Romney in particular has a lot of embarrassing soundbites on the subject waiting to be cobbled together by a journo with a free afternoon, and they're both having far more trouble than they really should with trying to put distance between Akin and themselves. And with good reason - Ryan's name sits right next to Akin's on a lot of paper. There's very little that Ryan can point to as proof that he and Akin aren't cut from precisely the same cloth.

I don't think it will be fatal in itself, no, but I also don't think the genie Akin let out is going back in the bottle any time soon. The Republicans pitch their anti-abortion stuff at hardliners and hope the moderates and independents don't pay it much mind. But a lot of moderates are queasy about their stated policies on this subject if they give it any thought; Akin's comments have them thinking. It's going to be very hard for the Republican candidates to find a line to walk between pleasing both groups now that all these questions are front and centre. "Miniature American flags for others" will only go so far.

Reindeer

The swing vote that the GOP needs is the female vote. The GOP will not get the black vote, nor the hispanic vote, nor the youth vote, and could well take a hit on the some of the Christian vote. The only demographic they had a decent chance to gain was with white females. Biden saying stupid things in front of blacks is a pea shooter compared to Akin's nuclear warhead.

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

Niall Ferguson recently wrote a most excellent lengthy piece in Newsweek/Daily Beast (which is no friends of Republicans) entitled Obama’s Gotta Go… which addressed just what you ask.

The most poignant paragraph which lays the framework for his piece:.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html

No friend to Republicans!? In the very article you linked to, near the very beginning of the piece, Ferguson clearly states that he was an advisor to McCain.

Secondly he talks about comparing the unemployment figures today with the peak of January 2008. Why would you compare unemployment figures in a country trying to recover from a recession with a peak unless you wanted to present data in such a way as to prove your point? You know, build the data on your point rather than your point on the data, heaven forbid.

The entire article is a biased piece, and blatantly so. You'll find very few politicians in the Western world these days living up to their promises and few delivering any serious levels of growth. Compare thing like the GDP Growth Rates of the US, UK and Germany for example and you'll see a far more positive and consistent picture in the US:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth

Or unemployment levels, again the US comes across favourably:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/unemployment-rate

But of course this data doesn't fit your point so is ignored.

Mjollnir

molloyjh wrote: »

No friend to Republicans!? In the very article you linked to, near the very beginning of the piece, Ferguson clearly states that he was an advisor to McCain.

Secondly he talks about comparing the unemployment figures today with the peak of January 2008. Why would you compare unemployment figures in a country trying to recover from a recession with a peak unless you wanted to present data in such a way as to prove your point? You know, build the data on your point rather than your point on the data, heaven forbid.

The entire article is a biased piece, and blatantly so. You'll find very few politicians in the Western world these days living up to their promises and few delivering any serious levels of growth. Compare thing like the GDP Growth Rates of the US, UK and Germany for example and you'll see a far more positive and consistent picture in the US:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth

Or unemployment levels, again the US comes across favourably:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/unemployment-rate

But of course this data doesn't fit your point so is ignored.

Indeed. The man is a bumbling hack.

Very nice deconstruction/dismantling of his nonsense here.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/08/hacktacular-24#.UDJNgZq0gVk.twitter

Amerika

Mjollnir wrote: »

Indeed. The man is a bumbling hack.

You can’t possibly mean the same Niall Ferguson who’s credentials include:

1983-1986 M.A. Magdalen College, Oxford
1987–88 Hanseatic Scholar, Hamburg and Berlin
1989–90 Research Fellow, Christ’s College, University of Cambridge
1990–92 Official Fellow and Lecturer, Peterhouse, University of Cambridge
1992–2000 Fellow and Tutor in Modern History, Jesus College, University of Oxford
2000–02 Professor of Political and Financial History, University of Oxford
2002–04 John Herzog Professor in Financial History at Stern School of Business, New York University
2004-continuing Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School
2010-11 Philippe Roman Chair in History and International Affairs at the London School of Economics, located within LSE IDEAS, beginning in 2010

Specialty is international history, economic history, particularly hyperinflation and the bond markets, and British and American imperialism.

His books include Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World and Civilization: The West and the Rest, all of which he has presented as Channel 4 television series.

And in 2004, he was named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

You can’t possibly mean the same Niall Ferguson who’s credentials include:

1983-1986 M.A. Magdalen College, Oxford
1987–88 Hanseatic Scholar, Hamburg and Berlin
1989–90 Research Fellow, Christ’s College, University of Cambridge
1990–92 Official Fellow and Lecturer, Peterhouse, University of Cambridge
1992–2000 Fellow and Tutor in Modern History, Jesus College, University of Oxford
2000–02 Professor of Political and Financial History, University of Oxford
2002–04 John Herzog Professor in Financial History at Stern School of Business, New York University
2004-continuing Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School
2010-11 Philippe Roman Chair in History and International Affairs at the London School of Economics, located within LSE IDEAS, beginning in 2010

Specialty is international history, economic history, particularly hyperinflation and the bond markets, and British and American imperialism.

His books include Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World and Civilization: The West and the Rest, all of which he has presented as Channel 4 television series.

And in 2004, he was named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine.

All of which are utterly irrelevant to the fact that in what I linked to, the man is a transparently bumbling hack.

Thanks for admitting you didn't read the piece in question.

Amerika

Mjollnir wrote: »

Thanks for admitting you didn't read the piece in question.

Oh but I did. All 223 words of it... of which 55 were Fergusons' :cool:

MagicMarker

Amerika wrote: »

You can’t possibly mean the same Niall Ferguson who’s credentials include:

1983-1986 M.A. Magdalen College, Oxford
1987–88 Hanseatic Scholar, Hamburg and Berlin
1989–90 Research Fellow, Christ’s College, University of Cambridge
1990–92 Official Fellow and Lecturer, Peterhouse, University of Cambridge
1992–2000 Fellow and Tutor in Modern History, Jesus College, University of Oxford
2000–02 Professor of Political and Financial History, University of Oxford
2002–04 John Herzog Professor in Financial History at Stern School of Business, New York University
2004-continuing Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School
2010-11 Philippe Roman Chair in History and International Affairs at the London School of Economics, located within LSE IDEAS, beginning in 2010

Can the man not hold down a job?!? :pac:

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

Oh but I did. All 223 words of it... of which 55 were Fergusons' :cool:

Don't worry about addressing my points. I know they aren't the kinds of things that suit your position.

MadsL

Reindeer wrote: »

The swing vote that the GOP needs is the female vote. The GOP will not get the black vote, nor the hispanic vote, nor the youth vote, and could well take a hit on the some of the Christian vote. The only demographic they had a decent chance to gain was with white females. Biden saying stupid things in front of blacks is a pea shooter compared to Akin's nuclear warhead.

With the cherry on top of Romney's selection as Veep. Ka-boom.

Amerika

Mjollnir wrote: »

Thanks for admitting you didn't read the piece in question.

molloyjh wrote: »

Don't worry about addressing my points. I know they aren't the kinds of things that suit your position.

Mjollnir or molloyjh? I didn't know we were allowed to utilize two usernames at the same time, and especially not in the same thread. Or am I missing something?

jill_valentine

Amerika wrote: »

Mjollnir or molloyjh? I didn't know we were allowed to utilize two usernames at the same time, and especially not in the same thread. Or am I missing something?

Er. I suspect you are...

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Oh but I did. All 223 words of it... of which 55 were Fergusons' :cool:

They have these really neato things on the Internet called 'hyperlinks'. They're in what I posted.

Try them out some time.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Mjollnir or molloyjh? I didn't know we were allowed to utilize two usernames at the same time, and especially not in the same thread. Or am I missing something?

* facepalm *

Reindeer

Mjollnir wrote: »

* facepalm *

Perhaps someone could explain the "IE" part of "boards.ie" to our facetious friend. Barring that, the origins of the name "Molloy". Sometimes these boards do make me a bit embarrassed to be an American.

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

Mjollnir or molloyjh? I didn't know we were allowed to utilize two usernames at the same time, and especially not in the same thread. Or am I missing something?

Other than the fact that we're different people you mean?

Still avoiding the awkward questions though. Quick, bury your head in the sand. If you don't see it then it might not be real...