"THE RAPE THING" AND THE GOP

Number of days a Republican candidate hasn't mentioned rape and abortion reverts back to zero.

Here's what John Koster, a GOP House candidate, said about "the rape thing:" "[I]t's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime – how does that make it better? You know what I mean?"

What Koster seems to mean is that he doesn't mind the violence you perpetrate against a woman's body and mind when you force her to have a baby engendered by a violent and traumatic act. How does using the state might to take away her choices make it better? He's an old-school guy. That question doesn't cross his mind.

Koster added his name to a now infamous roster of rape-obsessed GOP politicians during this election season: Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" comment; Richard Mourdock and his assertion that a pregnancy from rape "is something that God intended;" Joe Walsh (who finally settled his "deadbeat dad" problem) went further: he opposes abortion for rape, incest or danger for the life or health of the mother.

These cases got so much press that you'd think they don't represent the Republican mainstream. But they do. The Daily Kos prepared a list that 22 Minnesota Republicans who agree with Mourdock, and Slate has a comprehensive article about the "No Exception consensus" among extremist Republicans.

And let us not forget about Paul Ryan. The VP candidate was one of 145 cosponsors of the Protect Life Act, passed by the House in October 2011. The measure would allow hospitals to refuse to "participate in" or "provide referrals" for abortion. That is, if you were to have an abortion related emergency, you'd be left to die on your own.

Back in August, way before all the supposed GOP "gaffes," Mother Jones prepared a rundown of extreme anti-abortion legislation cosponsored by Ryan since 2005. One included a rare provision that equated in vitro fertilization with legal murder.

In other words, Republicans propose an alternate universe in which they would force you to keep a child if you get raped, and prosecute you if you use in vitro fertilization.

Neocon's New Doctrine: Ignore Evidence and Data When You Don't Like Them

In 2010, conservatives didn't complain when Silver predicted big Republican wins. Now, they say he's too liberal and too gay to crunch the numbers.

Nate Silver, and the book anyone should read
before questioning his methods.

Neocons seem to have developed a gag reflex all of their own. When evidence and data contradicts them, they ignore the evidence and attack the person presenting it.

If they really want to have a fit, they should follow the four most trafficked poll aggregator sites: Silver's 538, PollTracker from Talking Points Memo, Pollster on THP and RealClearPolitics (RCP). All show that Obama is likely to win the election, because he's leading in battleground states and has more ways to get the 270 electoral votes needed to win. (Even RCP –which uses simple average and gives the most favorable numbers to Romney– says so).

Were they attacking Silver when, in 2010, he predicted big Republican wins in the House (and when the wins fell within his model's margin of error)? No, they were not. Silver was neither less gay nor less liberal when he predicted a Republican win. Now he predicts a likely victory for Obama, and Republicans vilify him for being too liberal and too gay.

But then, current conservatives never fear sinking too low. It has become his favorite political sport.