Romney Statement:: Akin Should Step Aside

Mitt Romney changes course from yesterday:

"As I said yesterday, Todd Akin's comments were offensive and wrong and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country," Romney said in a statement. "Today, his fellow Missourians urged him to step aside, and I think he should accept their counsel and exit the Senate race."

Reuters reports Akin is staying in the race.

A new WSJ-NBC poll finds Romney's selection of Paul Ryan doesn't have much impact: 22% of voters are more likely to vote for Romney, 23 percent are less likely to vote for Romney, and 54 percent say it won't affect them one way or the other.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:26:27 PM EST
    not surprised that Akin is "toughing it out".

    And I won't be surprised if the Republican establishment once again funnels money his way if memory of this event is allowed to fade.

    Akin had been leading in the polls.

    What I will be interested in seeing is whether his lead in the polls of likely voters in Missouri will diminish.

    I would hope it would.
    But I wouldn't count on it.

    That's the sad part (none / 0) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:27:37 PM EST
    If Akin retains his lead we have yet more evidence that many Americans have just gone off the deep end.

    Constant, unrelenting, divisive campaigns are the Conservative stock and trade, their only path to power and they've used those tactics with relish without regard to what they've left in their wake; a mean spirited country without the moral decency to strive for greatness.


    While (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 07:07:33 AM EST
    I agree with what you said, I must add that these freaks are gaining control partially because their opposition is so weak.

    Obama is the wrong person for us to depend on to confront them.
    He is so used to parsing and hemming and hawing that he has become totally useless.

    For example: The Republicans have just announced a plank on their platform regarding abortion that is completely in line with the utterances of Akin.

    We could use leadership that would denounce this. Name the Republicans. (Obama called them, "the other party" the other day.)
    Clearly state that a woman has a right to an abortion if she chooses to have one.

    I feel this way about many issues of concern to me.
    Republicans say something horrifying and outrageous - and are countered with half-hearted fluff.


    Elizabeth Warren's been quite clear (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:22:18 AM EST
    in her message:

    Warren called the comments "reprehensible" but went further by saying Akin is in line with a Republican agenda to limit health care and deny women equal pay.

    "I understand that Scott Brown and other Republicans want to pretend Todd Akin is an isolated individual, but he is clearly in line with the Republican agenda," Warren said.

    She cited Brown's support of legislation by U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., that would have allowed employers to refuse health care coverage of services for "moral reasons" under Barack Obama administration's birth control coverage bill.

    "Brown has been right in the middle of this through his support for the Blunt amendment, his opposition to equal pay legislation, his endorsements of Paul Ryan on the Republican ticket and his work for a Republican majority in the Senate," Warren said.

    What she's doing is exactly what the Dems need to do: she's not giving Republicans any credit for expressing their disapproval of Akin, but is instead making sure all of them stay tied to their party's agenda, which is clearly consistent with the radical views of Todd Akin and Paul Ryan.

    More voices like hers and we might actually begin to resemble the Democratic Party we really need.


    Yes. (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:50:21 AM EST
    More voices like hers (Warren's) and we might actually begin to resemble the Democratic Party we really need.

    Totally agree.


    Warren (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:37:32 PM EST
    Better do something quickly - she's losing ground.

    Scott Brown has returned to the lead in the crucial Massachusetts Senate race. The two were tied at 46% in PPP's late June poll, but in the firm's first test of likely voters in this fall's election, Brown tops Elizabeth Warren, 49-44.

    Independents make up almost half (48%) of voters, one of their largest shares of any state's electorate. Unlike in many states where the role of independents is overblown, here they are truly decisive. And right now Brown is winning with them by 26 points (58-32), similar to June (57-33). To top that off, Brown has grown a bit both with his own party and Warren's. He has essentially locked up his base (91-7, up from 86-9 just under two months ago), and is now poaching 20% of Warren's partisans, up from 18% and leaving her with only 73% of the party which accounts for two-and-a-half times as many voters as Brown's does.

    There are two keys for a Warren victory: convincing the majority of voters who want a Democratic-controlled Senate that it depends on her winning, and knocking down Brown's image as a moderate rebel from the GOP that wants to wrest that majority from Democrats. 53% want Democrats in charge in Congress' upper chamber, to only 36%
    who prefer GOP rule. It is 42-40 with independents. But 14% of those who prefer the Democrats are voting for Brown right now, including 20% of the independents and 11% of the Democrats who feel that way. A 14-point swing in the race would mean a nine point Warren lead (51-42).

    This is (none / 0) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 07:47:58 PM EST
    really, really depressing.

    Also, looks like no Dem Senators (none / 0) (#56)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:39:44 PM EST
    in Wisconsin.  

    Tommy (Thompson, former gov, former HHS head) is polling well ahead of Tammy (Baldwin, House Rep., first woman elected to Congress from one of the worst states for women in politics -- no matter their gender orientation; it's their gender).

    . . . which I predicted, but that did not take great insight.  

    However, there still are months ahead for Tommy to say something stupid.  Again.  


    Could be confusing (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:40:06 AM EST
    Tommy vs. Tammy

    (I had to read your post a second time because I thought you wrote: 'However, there still are months ahead for Tammy to say something stupid.  Again.")


    he could still win this election (none / 0) (#15)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    and if he's in striking distance, the NRSC is not going to sit on the sidelines.

    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:39:04 PM EST
    that the doctor with the "evidence" supporting the Akin claim was also part of the Romney team according to the LA Times.

    Romney in the past speaking of the good, Dr. John C. Willke... "I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer funded abortion and partial birth abortion. I look forward to working with Dr. Willke and welcome him to Romney for President."

    How in the (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:47:15 PM EST
    heck do these people keep lying with a straight face? Are they too stupid to know about the Hyde Amendment? I think they are in such a bubble that they have no idea. The GOP literally has created a cult.

    I called the GOP (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    a perverted cult at a recent political meeting.  The woman I made the remark to was shocked.

    It's really amazing that some Democrats still just don't get it.


    Surgeon General nominee? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    Plus Bork.  Splendid.  

    Bork? Explain, please. (none / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:20:14 PM EST
    Link: (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:38:52 AM EST
    This should be wrapped up in a diary (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:49:33 AM EST
    at Orange.  If I had the time today I would write it, not scheduled for that though darn it.  Wish someone would snag the idea and do it.

    Wow just wow (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:38:20 PM EST
    Had no idea

    Romney to Akin: "Exit race." (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:30:36 PM EST
    Akin to Romney: "You first."

    Ha! (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:43:42 PM EST
    Ye gods, I just said that "ha!" aloud -- and sounded like Tweetie Mathews.

    I need to run away before this election year gets to me, even more.


    I can't figure out who is the (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:49:31 PM EST
    bucking horse and who is the cowboy :)  Who is in charge and who is the charge?

    The GOP is rejecting Akin, but not (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:29:19 PM EST
    Akin's rabid anti-choice positions - ones he shares, by the way, with the VP candidate; all that matters is picking up another Senate seat with a Republican that, even if he or she isn't as floridly loony as Akin can be counted on to vote with the herd.

    When Romney rejects his party's anti-choice platform, when he rejects Dr. Women-who-are-really-raped-don't-get-pregnant Willke, his call for Akin to step down might be seen to be something other than the cravenly political move it is.

    That's not going to happen.

    And when Akin beats the unbelievably weak Claire McCaskill, just imagine how that plays in the media...

    I really don't get it (3.67 / 3) (#16)
    by ZtoA on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:49:52 PM EST
    Do they want to criminalize women who terminate a pregnancy? With what consequences? I have a friend who's third pregnancy was not viable and the fetus died in her body. She had it aborted because dead matter in her body could easily become toxic. She has a great marriage, two lovely children, has a job and is a great partner to her whole family. What do they want to do? Fine her...or jail her?

    Come on, you teapartiers (Jim ppj and GD and etc), do you want government to get on her case? Is this shrinking government?

    you are calling those members (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:11:57 AM EST
    of this blog teapartiers?  Not cool

    The question remains (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ZtoA on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:47:12 AM EST
    Do they want to criminalize women? and with what consequences?

    Jim has said he is associated with one of the teaparties. I assume GD is. Oddly you assume 'teapartier' is name calling. Many in the tea party are proud of it.


    Actually (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:18:48 AM EST
    Jimppj has said himself that he is a tea party member.

    really (none / 0) (#28)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:20:56 AM EST
    then if that is true I apologize.

    The interesting (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:12:49 PM EST
    thing is that the GOP platform is going to contain some of this stuff and the personhood bill was sponsored by both Akin and Ryan.

    Maybe some of the GOP is (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:24:16 PM EST
    insisting Akin drop out, but Kings X, so GOP can take McCaskill's Senate seat?  

    Akin should be about the scariest thing going: (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:31:34 PM EST
    a Republican who's honest about his positions.

    Sadly, our debate has been so debased and our polity so polarized that he may still win.

    Bzzzzzzzz. (none / 0) (#10)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:22:53 PM EST
    Too late now.

    So what? (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 07:14:10 AM EST
    So Akin steps aside. (He won't.)

    So the Republicans put up nikA instead.
    Someone with the same mentality. Just a different face and not quite as arrogantly stupid.

    The opposition to the content of Akin's statement is weak, imo, from the Democrats.

    A woman has a right to decide if she wants to terminate a pregnancy or bring it to term. Is that so goddam hard to say?

    Why can't a Democrat say it?

    her body (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:17:22 AM EST
    no one else's business.  It is as simple as that. "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" is that so hard to say?

    Lot's of Democrats already have. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    Why aren't you listening?

    The only way you can claim that a Democrat (none / 0) (#24)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:15:26 AM EST
    isn't saying anything supportive of a woman's right to choose is if you don't believe the President is a member of the Democratic party.

    I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. - President Barack Obama, January 22, 2012

    words (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:19:27 AM EST
    words words words...... his actions are less than stellar.

    The claim is that no Democrat was saying (none / 0) (#32)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:50:28 AM EST
    those words.

    However, could you please provide a link to back up your assertion that Obama has committed less than stellar actions to overturn Roe v Wade? Thanks.


    Caving to Stupak, et al, . . . (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 09:07:29 AM EST
    Executive Order ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

    Section 1. Policy.
    Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors--Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers--are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

    The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

    Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

    Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges.
    The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

    I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

    Section 3. Community Health Center Program.
    The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

    Section 4. General Provisions.
    (a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.



    This executive order did absolutely nothing to (none / 0) (#34)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 09:23:18 AM EST
    overturn Roe v Wade or alter in any way existing federal law regarding a woman's right to choose - as is clearly stated in Section 4 of the EO.

    Protecting a woman's right to choose (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:03:14 AM EST
    isn't just about expressing support for Roe v. Wade; it's about actively working to stop the slow-but-speeding-up, back-door chipping away at that right.  

    States are passing laws that require women to do more or wait longer.  Look at sonograms, have to listen to a prepared statement that isn't based on actual science and medicine.  States are imposing more regulations on the doctors who perform abortions and the clinics where they take place.  They are finding ways to close clinics, and in places where there might only be one provider in a state, that is tantamount to banning abortion.  There is more legislation being attempted to define when life begins, when "personhood" attaches, when viability is reached, what insurance can and can't pay for.  The fight to make birth control accessible and affordable is not over.  Some legislatures want to make it a crime for a woman to travel to another state for an abortion if she wouldn't be allowed to have the procedure in her home state under that state's laws.

    At this moment, a woman's choices are very much dependent on where she lives, and what her economic condition is.  If she's poor and lives in a red state, she's got a problem.

    So, sorry, but Obama making that statement isn't enough.  It's not even close.  Especially, when it is followed by his executive order, especially when he bows to pressure from the Stupak contingent.  What will he concede next?  When will he wake up to the fact that someone who says he supports the right to choose shouldn't be using any part of that choice or women's health choices in general as a bargaining chip?

    Actions do speak louder than words, but the right words, spoken with force, and from the bully pulpit, can go a long way to spurring the actions needed to restore what has already been lost, and strengthen what remains.

    That's the choice in front of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party; I wish I had some confidence they were up to making it.


    And again, the original comment was that (none / 0) (#38)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    Democrats can't say: "A woman has a right to decide if she wants to terminate a pregnancy or bring it to term."

    Are you in agreement with the original post? Because your comments about how the fight to defend women's choices is a long way from over doesn't answer that.

    As a side note, I like facts. I also have a habit of trying to trying to discern facts from opinions. So when someone makes a claim that doesn't jibe with what I think I know, I may request more info to back up that claim. Commenting on my request for more info by addressing me as non-supportive or ignorant of women's rights doesn't shed light on those facts.


    While you are correct that Obama has said (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:53:14 AM EST
    something that another commenter has claimed Democrats can't say, I think it is only fair to point out that you had to go all the way back to January to find the statement you provided.  And I think it is also fair to point out that most of us here have been discussing what is being said now, in light of and in response to, the Akin comments, and I interpret the question of what Democrats don't seem to be able to say as being about what is happening currently.

    I offered some remarks by Elizabeth Warren somewhere in this thread, I think.  And I made the comment that what she is saying, and how she is framing her remarks, should be the template for what Democrats should be collectively saying.

    I'm kind of fond of facts, too; I'm also fond of the big picture and honest discussion and debate.  If all that was necessary for us to win the argument on choice was a one-sentence statement from the president, it would be "game over" for those on the other side of that argument.  It is important that the fight is ongoing, that efforts are underway all across the country to undermine Roe v. Wade - that's the "big picture" I'm talking about.

    As for this:

    Commenting on my request for more info by addressing me as non-supportive or ignorant of women's rights doesn't shed light on those facts.

    I hope you don't mean to suggest that I did that, because I did not.  I don't think you are not supportive, or ignorant of the facts.  I do think, however, that attempting to reduce the entire argument to a prosecutorial-style yes-or-no-just-answer-the-question seemed to be more in service to your need to be right than to the much larger question of what the hell we're going to do to get Dems to fight this fight the way they should.

    That, in case it has escaped your notice, is a question and a discussion we've been having for a long time, on issue after issue, because while there are a few Dems who seem to know how to fight, I think that, on a collective basis, the Dems don't seem to have a clue.


    Just be careful (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    not to lose sight of the big picture when trying to nail down the minutiae.  I think you are at least bordering on that right now.

    The political is d*mned personal (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    and if you missed the politics behind this, read up.

    Somebody mixed politics into the debate over (2.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:26:36 AM EST
    a woman's right to choose? I'm shocked.

    Seriously though, did Obama say "I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose" or not? If he didn't say it, I apologize. I must have been misinformed.


    That's what you've got? (none / 0) (#44)
    by sj on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    A sentence from January?  That's some conviction right there.  

    You're absolutely right about one thing though.  Basing your argument on one sentence makes you [the equivalent of] misinformed.


    Okay, then I apologize. I was misinformed in my (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    belief that Obama or any Democrat ever said "I support a woman's right to choose."

    You've resolved the question; he never said it. Thanks.


    Definitely missing the forest for the trees (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sj on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    Not a very impressive argument from you IMO.

    So if links to quotes aren't enough, what then (none / 0) (#48)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    would suffice to be "impressive" in your opinion?

    Oh maybe some critical thinking and analysis? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sj on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:28:38 PM EST
    It's something I know you're capable of, so your obtuseness today is deliberate.

    Good to know where you stand, though.


    My only argument in this thread is to counter the (none / 0) (#50)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    implication that links Akin's beliefs on women's rights to Obama and the Dems. The heart of that implication is whether or not Obama supports a woman's right to choose.

    I believe he does, based on his statements and actions. In my opinion my belief is not widely held here.


    Start (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    A link to a thread that proves what? That in 2008 (none / 0) (#45)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:01:33 PM EST
    Obama and Clinton agreed/disagreed on a topic (depending on which TL commenter was filtering their positions)?

    Or that in the summer of the 2008 Obama could have said he supported breathing oxygen, and half of the TL commenters would have claimed the statement was really "a nod, a wink, and a smirk" against aerobic lifeforms.


    I was thinking more about (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:33:19 PM EST
    When Obama said something a woman should be able to have an abortion, after consulting with her husband and or pastor.

    Yes, that qualifier by Obama (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    was a tell.

    And no, if someone doesn't see why, I'm not going to tell them again.  I've been fighting this s!it for too many decades; time is too short for me now.  I am watching to see if this is the <click> for the younger generation, at last, to step up.