The GOP’s Poster Boy for Misogyny Foolishly Launches An Attack on Hillary Clinton

The GOP’s Poster Boy for Misogyny Foolishly Launches An Attack on Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

The Republican Party’s “poster child” for misogyny thinks he has found a way to attack Hillary Clinton for the party. Yes, his brilliant scheme involves blaming her for the Republican party’s war on women, and you know, making it her fault that rape isn’t taken seriously because legitimate rape!

Republican Todd Akin, who lost his Senate race after he insisted that women don’t get pregnant from legitimate rapes and therefor access to abortion is unnecessary, made a fool of himself again by trying to smear Hillary Clinton with his own misogyny.

In exclusive comments to MailOnline, Akin attacked Clinton as being “hypocritical” for defending a child rapist in 1975. “The poster child for what Democrats claim is a GOP ‘war on women’ lashed out at Hillary Clinton on Wednesday in exclusive comments to MailOnline, calling her ‘hypocritical’ for defending a child rapist in 1975 and laughing about it in a taped interview.” Yes, Clinton was caught laughing: “‘I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,’ she laughed at the time.”

See? SEE?

There is no war on women!

Never mind democracy and innocent until proven guilty and everyone entitled to a defense. Hillary Clinton defended a rapist in 1975 (right about when things really started to go downhill for the misogynist agenda and thus ever so relevant apparently) and therefor, Todd Akin should not have lost his Senate race just because he doesn’t believe in the reality of rape.

To sum it up, the Daily Mail has bullet points of the GOP’s poster boy for their misogyny:

Akin said in 2012 that abortion bans didn’t need to include exceptions for rape victims because ‘legitimate rape’ rarely leads to conception
The comment became a national rallying cry for claims of a GOP ‘war on women’ and caused his campaign to crash and burn
Akin is attacking Hillary Clinton in his first interview since the campaign implosion, saying she ‘de-legitimized’ a 12-year-old rape victim by defending her attacker in court
He insists he was right about his ill-fated 2012 comments, and claims there’s a double standard at play that benefits the Clintons
Hillary, he claims in a new book, ‘ has made a practice of trashing women with legitimate claims to having been assaulted’ – including shutting down ‘bimbo eruptions’ during her husband’s 1992 presidential campaign

So, defending a rapist in 1975 equates to having ‘de-legitimized’ the rape. All of you lawyers out there who have defended murderers might want to apologize now for having de-legitimized murder. But wait. Even if a lawyer defends a murderer, the murder still happened. Thus the same applies with rape, so in no way has the crime been de-legitimized.

Is it sickening to defend a criminal? Probably. Does this mean lawyers who do somehow endorse the crime? No. It means they are into the American Justice system where everyone gets a defense. Even the scumbags. It most especially means this when the lawyer is working for a legal aid clinic as Clinton was, to help those who can’t afford a defense.

Defending a rapist is not the same thing as pretending that rape is not legitimate if it results in the medically and scientifically natural result of pregnancy.

Attacking Hillary Clinton for being a good lawyer for a scumbag in 1975 is par for the GOP course these days. Reaching back into the grab bag from the 90’s to find things Hillary Clinton may or may not have said in defense of her husband is binders full of fail.

1) Times have changed and so has the culture. Most of us care about how people discuss rape today (see Todd Akin), not what they thought about someone who may or may not have slept with their husband (not a situation that usually brings out the softer side of anyone, but leave it to the GOP to go personal and go ugly against a woman’s husband while claiming there is no war on women but if there is, it was started by women like this woman!).

2) If Republicans want to attack Hillary Clinton for things she said in 1975 or the 1990s, please proceed. These are the standards? Great. The Clinton people will have a field day dragging up the quotes Republicans said about Hillary all through the 90’s. And then they can start in on every lawyer in the GOP who ever defended anyone who was guilty. And then they can go through any Republican man who cheated on his wife and attack him if his wife stayed with him or believed him, because — family values! When they’re done with all of that, they can simply do a quiz game for the American public of comments made by Republicans (elected or not, as Hillary was not in 1975) asking the public to guess if the Republicans said it now or in 1975. Yeah, so not a good door to open.

3) Using Hillary’s husband’s actions and her reaction to them to attack Hillary and blame her for the War on Women is not a good strategy. For this to be successful, Republicans would have to have clean hands. But instead, there is a mountain of actual bills stealing actual liberty from actual women in this country, and women sitting in prison for having a miscarriage, because of Republican misogynists like Todd Akin. So no. Just no.

Republicans really ought to try to shut this guy up, but they can’t or won’t, so instead, Akin is out there reminding everyone what the GOP really believes about women — and that is that rape isn’t real and Hillary Clinton is responsible for the actions of other men — like the rapist she defended and her husband’s choice to break his vow of fidelity. Akin has a new book out and he’s not ruling out another run. Why not, with Mitt as their front-runner for 2016?

This might seem like “winning” in GOP speak, but down here in reality land, not so much.

Recent posts on PoliticusUSA