Akin Not Stirred?

When Todd Akin this week vowed to fight on for a Missouri Senate seat, despite the media fallout from Rapegate, he was making a deliberate gamble. He thinks Claire McCaskill is a very vulnerable opponent and the storm will blow over.

He may be right on the first point. Take a look at the Real Clear Politics polling on the race. Akin had what seemed to be a very clear lead before he started mainlining shoe leather.

In the ad that he cut explaining himself to Missouri voters, Akin apologized to them specifically for his big mouth and implicitly promised not to embarrass them again.

I will make no judgement on their judgment at this point, but here’s my guess as to how Akin goes forward. He stays in the race until after the Republican National Convention and then looks at those poll numbers to see if the storm has passed — indicated by him polling within one or two points of McCaskill, on average.

If not, then Akin withdraws and we have a whole new race on our hands.

My Hugeness in Japan, Continued

Forgot to mention yesterday this Brad DeLong riff on my Rapegate comments. DeLong, an economist from UC Berkeley, says some things that I should probably address.

We’ll set this up as a point-counterpoint to save time. Some readers might detect a whiff of anti-Catholicism in DeLong’s remarks but I’ve decided to turn the other cheek on that score:

DeLong: “[I]t looks like Todd Akin and Paul Ryan — and many other Republicans who follow bishops — really do want to take away condoms and the pill.”

Lott: According to Wikipedia, Todd Akin is a Presbyterian. They have presbyteries, not bishops, but grant for the sake of argument that DeLong meant “follow” in the sense of “look to,” since Akin’s take on abortion is closer to the the Catholic Church’s position than the PCUSA’s position.

Question for DeLong: What legislation have Akin and/or Paul Ryan supported that would make condoms or the pill illegal? You could argue that a personhood amendment would make 4U-486 illegal, but RU-486 isn’t the pill.

DeLong: “There is a good — or at least a not-terrible — answer [for what to do about children conceived of rape] from the ensoulment-occurs-at-the-moment-of-fertilization perspective. The rapist is guilty. The child-to-be is innocent. The mother-to-be is imposed upon.”

Lott: No serious objections so far.

DeLong: “The least-bad answer from the ensoulment-occurs-at-the-moment-of-fertilization perspective…”

Lott: OK, stop! DeLong keeps using that ungainly formulation and it offends more than just my literary ear. Ensoulment is not the issue. Humans, most of us would agree, have souls, but there’s no way to know precisely how that works.

[Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X