Sorry, but Todd Akin seemed like a fine man, and this article SMEARS him. The wench with the PIERCED NOSE is a DINGBAT!!! Montana....what has happened to your once great state??
Poor Amanda. Methinks the biker that drilled her proboscis for a stud, used a drill bit of an extended length...
The Dems could care less about this dingbat Stalinist. She’s cannon fodder for Steve Daines, they know she hasn’t a remote shot at winning. They’d have been better off keeping Walsh.
Todd Akin was not “Todd Akin” - the media made him “Todd Akin”. The media will never make any Democrat “Todd Akin”.
A Republican or a Libertarian could spit in the street and MSM would harp on it, grind on it, and obsess on it day after day week after week until the low info voters thought it was grand theft auto; with pretty much any Democrat, not even the “live boy/dead girl” standard matters any more.
The Democrats are nothing more than a form of organized crime with a patina a political legitimacy; the media are their facilitators and enablers, and so far as I’m concerned are even more culpable than the slime that get into office.
Yet, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Barb Mulkuski, Al Franken, Patty Murray, Chuck Shumer. She would fit right in.
Here's a hypothesis that could be tested statistically: that it's bad tactics to turn on your own party's candidate, since it supports the idea your party is fallible and weak. Turn-out for your entire ticket depends on maintaining team solidarity.
It could be argued that it was stupid to turn on Akin—that the cost to the entire GOP brand and all the candidates running that year was greater than any benefit from getting Akin out, once the campaign was in full swing. This is not a moral issue. It's not as if he's a bad man.
The hypothesis proposes that in this situation the GOP needs to think more like Democrats, who never apologize and never explain. It doesn't mean that "gaffes" are without cost, but that, once a bad quote gets out, among the possible outcomes for the party from that point forward, "moving on" with the campaign might statistically be shown to produce a better result.
It's true that press treatment of real or imagined missteps will never be similar between the Dims and the GOP, but that's the playing field. It seems to me this could be tested, and should be.
Why would the Democrat party want to repudiate this candidate when her views are becoming increasingly the views of the party as a whole?
Democrats learned, better than we did, from RWR not to speak ill of one of their own.
How much credit did the GOPe get for turning on Akin and handing the seat to the democrat.
What they did was model for me the proper way to act when you don’t like the Republican candidate - don’t vote for him.
Instead of crying about how unfair and inconsistent the left is, why not cut a check for right-to-life or the NRA? Or show-up at a school board meeting? Etc.
Sadly, Kaslin, it looks like Mark Begich has gotten his second gift following the show trial against Ted Stevens. It seems like the establishment Republicans have successfully nominated a guy named Dan Sullivan (some of his ads up here came from Karl Rove’s political action committee). The Tea Party guy, Joe Miller, got 1/3 of the vote with practically no advertising whatsoever. So now I have a choice between Obama in White Face or the Establishment Guy. By the way, a lot of this is Miller’s fault, again - he blew it against Murkowski (who, to her credit, ran a masterful write-in campaign), and now he blew it against Begich. The rest of everyone doesn’t see it, but the agitprop from Begich that shows up on my Facebook page makes me grab the Pepto every time I read it.
O’Rourke was correct about American politics. There’s the evil party and the stupid party. And we’re on the stupid side. It looks like Begich just might win, even though just about no one likes him or his politics. *sigh* It reminds me of all those years following the Red Sox, and then Bucky Dent gets up to bat.