Replies

Akin should definitely take a lesson from that.

I knew that Akin's wording would blow up in a big way, and because there were two reasonable conservatives to take his spot on the ticket, I thought he should have stepped aside.

Two things happened. The deadline for an uncomplicated withdrawal was very close. Even in far worse cases (Weiner, Jack Ryan, Spitzer, Craig, Foley, Sanford, Edwards), none of these guys EVER steps down immediately (Livingston might be an exception). Guys who "misspoke" also take a awhile (Trent Lott). They have some ego, because they are in the business; for a candidate, it may be the culmination of decades of work. You cannot take the race car and throw in reverse immediately.

And only a few days later, RINO names get floated as a replacement! That can be taken as partial vindication of Akin's position.

So, all the King's horses and men decided to pound Akin to get the quick withdrawal. What they didn't have was a PLAN B for if he said "No." At this point, more of this kind of pressure is ineffective and even may be counterproductive, except for those candidates who feel it necessary to put some distance between themselves and Akin.

Saying Akin should withdraw at this point is no more useful than saying Romney should withdraw, even though finding Republicans with greater likeability and qualifications would not be hard (we could start with Paul Ryan, for instance).

Akin's big hope is that he is running against Claire McCaskill. If an outside PAC put the pressure on her, and if Romney could win MO by 6+, Akin could get in on coattails, even allowing for those who decided he is too stupid/incompetent/insensitive to be Senator.

It is not the ideal situation, but it is the best one available if Akin won't step down.

Akin's big hope is that he is running against Claire McCaskill.

So let's say he steps down, Sarah Steelman (endorsed by pro-life women's groups and Sara Palin) becomes the candidate. The money floods back in to the race and in at least this one case, Palin and the GOPe are in agreement. Win Win.

At that point I'm pretty sure the Claire McCaskill factor would still be in play. But the Republican candidate would not be spending all their waking hours answering for what at best, is a misstatement. He has given the Dems the ammunition they need to defeat him. Yeah, McCaskill is a very weak candidate but somehow she has managed to win before. Why take that chance when the balance in the Senate, and thus the balance in the Republic, is at stake?