President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 21, 2012 07:58 PM UTC
24 Comments
to see just how deeply ingrained this ignorance is. I wonder if it’s fully or partially borne from misogyny.
I’d watch our use of the GOPspeak term “forcible rape,” made up to draw false distinctions like this. There isn’t such a thing as “unforced rape.”
Is Colorado Pols going to go around the country now finding every Republican they can to compare to Akin? Akin should resign. Every Republican I know thinks so, and that’s a lot of Republicans.
Tell you what: until you prove otherwise, I think every Democrat has raging bipolar disorder like Jesse Jackson, Jr. I’ll have examples from Florida and Oregon after these messages!
So what’s your opinion on the theory, apparently held by imaginary doctors and set forth in imaginary studies, that women have a nifty anti-sperm secretion activated only if it’s really rape but not if her “juices” are flowing because she’s enjoying it? And what are you rooting for? An Akin withdrawal (I’m speaking here of withdrawal from the race, not a withdrawal having anything to do with encounters with feared and dreaded lady parts) before 5PM tonight or would you rather see him fight and screw (just figuratively, no sweat) all those soft on rape victim naysayers.
Further, why does his comment seem to support Akins? That’s what this diary is about, what it’s comparing. Please tell us the difference and how King was forced to try to make it.
If finding Republicans that can easily be compared to Akins was hard, then I’d be more comfortable with the GOP. Unfortunately, it’s pretty easy to do.
Oh and comparing bipolar disorder to loudmouth stupidity just shows how stupid you really are.
is that you’ll have to produce an actual example of words said or actions taken by whomever you’re accusing of this.
The Republicans, bless their coal-black little hearts, volunteer this stuff all on their own.
When they do, it becomes national news (especially in the wake of Akin’s comments)
That’s gonna be a lotta R’s.
Maybe even one or two pretty close to home. Unless you think Coffman should maybe go anyway, you know for that other thing.
I’ll tell you what – you find examples of politicians exhibiting severe bipolar disorder and I’ll write a note to their staff saying they should seek some medical treatment.
In the meantime, I’ll forward you a list of the 225 Republican House members who voted in favor of Todd Akins’ “forcible rape” definition bill, and you can come out and ask them all to resign and not run for another office.
“unforced rape” or having intercourse with a sleeping woman is indeed rape.
Rape is Rape, No means NO.
However Ken Buck used the wrong words when he said “Buyers remorse.” as their is no buyer.
remorse does not make a rape. As Some women I have met have indeed said yes only to later claim they said NO.(rape)after the fact. (when I realized he gave me the wrong Phone number I then realized he raped me.) This is not to discount that rapes do not occur as often as they do. only to point out that Some reported rapes aren’t rapes at all.
kind of like the Abuse of the domestic violence laws. Divorcing spouses have used the DV laws against their soon to be ex, to gain an “Upper Hand” in the divorce proceedings.
terms do need to be defined to eliminate confusion and false accusations. as we see republicans need solid defined words.
Either a rape occurred or it did not. If it did, either violence, coercion, or a taking of advantage (as in your first line) occurred. All qualify as “force.”
It is very important to note that the Republican Ryan and Akin wanted to make this distinction. If it had become law ( or, if it does), it places a significant barrier to victims of rape who are seeking abortion. Rape is a crime and once charged, it can take months or years before a trial and a legal determination if the crime of rape occurred.
What is a woman to do in the meantime? If she is pregnant and wants an abortion and cannot afford it, she would not have immediate access to federal funding. I presume that the “morning after pill” could be subject to the same kind of delay.
So, the question to ask Republican candidates is: “Do you support the rape exception to the prohibition against federal funding of abortion? If so, do you say that a woman must wait for a criminal conviction of the rapist before she is eligible for federal funded abortions?
I don’t think these questions will be asked. I think everyone will run around screaming about the tea party and the crazies….cause that just feels good.
a whole new level of insufferable. We all read the diary and no, you aren’t the only one who knows what this is really about. You, in fact, are the only one always running around screaming, in your case about how you are the only one with a clue about fill-in-the-blank, because it feels good.
Please, for the love of God, put up a ChipIn page to raise money to buy you a collection of comic books or all of Star Trek on DVD or SOMETHING that will keep your fingers off the keyboard for a week or so.
No one said there would be comic books.
Akin’s use of “legitimate” rape and his wacked-out “science” is ok if it was in the context of federal funding? Is that your argument?
Akin was (poorly) trying to hammer home the same point a vast majority of elected Republican Congressmen voted to support back in 2011. Limiting federal coverage of abortions to “forcible rape” sounds oh so reasonable if you present it the right way – a “sensible” limitation that once passed gums up the works for rape victims.
Call it the next “welfare queen” argument. A completely hyperbolic presentation that appeals to some base instinct among voters looking to prevent some imagined abuse of the law.
Akin screwed up badly. He exposed the logic many Republicans are using to justify this legislation to themselves, rather than the logic they’d like to present to the public. Now the party is trying to regain that facade of rationality on the issue.
BTW, always read dwyer as presenting the rationale for what Republicans do, and fearing that they’ll be successful as they have in the past.
on cable have featured the usual clip of an outrageous comment from Rush Limbaugh that normally follows anything like the Akin affair. Yes, dwyer, I know the real issue here is federal funding for rape victims needing the morning after pill etc. and any departure from hair on fire humorlessness is frowned upon. Noted.
Anyway, imagine my surprise when I went looking for Rush’s response and found this:
Being in agreement with Limbaugh, no matter what his motives may be, is causing severe cognitive dissonance. Good thing I’m sitting down.
give it a week — what with Akin staying in the race and the balance of the Senate now very much in play, Rush will feel compelled to defend Akin and downplay this episode as liberal overreaction. Hell, if we get lucky, Rush may even offer us some of his own personal theories on slutty women . . .
I needed that.
http://www.latimes.com/news/op…
more apropos than I’ve seen anyone mention here yet.
I just took a look at this tool’s current Congressional committee assignments. Take a look here, . . . if you’ve got the stomach for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…