Senate Hopeful Tom Smith In "Another Day, Another Stupid Rape Comment From A GOP Senate Candidate"

This is Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith. This afternoon he compared rape to having a child out of wedlock (sigh).
Here's some free advice for Republican Senate candidates: stop talking about rape! Even if a reporter tries to bait you into it with some sort of rape-y/abortion question, just say "my Republicanism guarantees that I will somehow fuck this up and come across looking like an insensitive prick. So no -- I will not answer your rape question."

That -- or just about anything -- would have been better than what happened when GOP Pennsylvania Senate hopeful Tom Smith was asked about GOP Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin's idiotic comments last week about women having the magical ability to biologically end a pregnancy if the child is the product of "legitimate rape."

Nope, Smith answered the question (sigh) -- and ultimately explained that having a child out of wedlock is "similar" to rape (double sigh).

Smith was attempting to explain his "no exceptions" opposition to abortion -- which is similar to Akin's -- at a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon this afternoon. That's when he told a little story about his daughter.


"What that congressman said I do not agree with at all," Smith said. "He should have never said anything like that.

"I lived something similar to that with my own family," he went on to say. "She chose life and I commend her for that. She knew my views but fortunately for me ... she chose the way I thought. Now don't get me wrong. It wasn't rape."

Smith was then asked if his daughter's unwed pregnancy and rape were similar. "No, no, no. Put yourself in a father's position, yes, I mean it is similar," he said.


Smith then tried to shuck and jive his way out of the impending shit-storm he's likely created -- he followed up his rape is "similar" comment with some pro-life ramblings, all while insisting he didn't really mean rape is similar to the Godlessness of single-parenthood, despite saying just seconds before that "it is similar."

"No, I didn't not say that [the two are similar," he continued. "I said I went through a situation (with a daughter). It's very, very difficult. But do I condone rape? Absolutely not. But do I propose life, yes I do. I'm pro-life, period.

"A life is a life and it needs protecting," he added. "Who's going to protect it? We have to. I believe life begins at conception. I'm not going to argue about the method of that conception. It's life. And I'm pro-life. It's that simple."

We'll give Smith the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's talking about the decision to keep the child out of wedlock is similar to that of whether to keep a child who's the product of rape. If that's the case, his comment implies that per-marital sex is as evil an act as rape.

Either way, we will reiterate our advice for Republican Senate candidates: stop talking about rape!

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

This article is great but it either missed an important point or failed to mention the elephant in the room. Creationists and those that take the Bible literally cannot believe in manmade climate change. It is not that they are unconvinced but that they are not able (allowed) to believe in manmade climate change. The point is, this group believes the planet is only just over six thousand years old and all evidence to prove manmade climate change in based on scientific argument spanning tens and hundreds of thousands of years. Creationists argue that since the time frames that scientists use did not exist then the science is WRONG. As a sideline since the bulk of all scientists are evolutionists this group is automatically offside with creationists.


I have NO problem with creationists or their beliefs and they are even free to convince others they are right. I have two issues with their belief one is their lack of honesty and their influence over the political system. The question of honesty comes from the fact that many of these people denigrate the science, belittle the scientists and throw up conspiracy theories whilst never admitting their own position based on the teaching of the bible. The question of political influence is that politicians on either side are willing to alienate this group for fear of being seen to alienate all Christians. There is also the ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ at play on the right of politics.


What if Tony Abbott is a creationist? Would this obligate him to take his anti-climate change stance or what if he had creationists, in his support structure, would this colour mister Abbott’s position? Again it is NOT the believe that is the problem but how it effects important public policy. Australians would not accept the argument that, god created tobacco and therefore wanted people to smoke therefore the government should inhibit peoples access to cigarettes nor do I believe that Australians will accept the idea of not accepting manmade climate change due to the conviction that the bible is literal.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault