Posted on 08/20/2012 3:20:03 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
I won’t hate Todd Akin officially unless he refuses to withdraw from the Missouri Senate race. If he does withdraw, honorably sacrificing his personal interests to save the country, it will be time for all good men to rally around Akin as an American patriot.
Akin was one of nine GOP candidates in the primary to challenge Missouri’s left-wing, tax-cheat sitting Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill. McCaskill is Chuck Schumer in a dress. Totally out of step with the good voters of Missouri, her seat should be an easy win for Republicans this year.
Curiously, Democrats ferociously supported Akin in the GOP primary. McCaskill’s supporters spent $2 million to make Akin her opponent and also crossed over to vote for Akin in the Republican primary – and that’s been admitted in The New York Times.
Now we know why. The rape comment was a totally unforced error on a day that should have been a smashing triumph for the Romney-Ryan ticket.
Akin wasn’t asked some out of the blue question no Republican candidate has ever been asked: He was asked the most jejune, obvious question every Republican is asked in any race for any office. How can a Republican not have an answer for: “What about abortion in the case of rape and incest?”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Instead, Akin rambled about “legitimate rape” – violating an ironclad rule of politicians that the word “legitimate” should never appear within 15 yards of the word “rape.” And he talked about the medical possibility of becoming pregnant from a single traumatizing rape.
He’s not a talk radio host. He’s not sitting around shooting the breeze in a college dorm room. This is a politician who should have a clear, nonthreatening answer at the ready for the most cliched question in the MSM’s playbook.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Not if they keep stepping on landmines.
Voting conservative is one thing, backing up those points properly is another. It is not that difficult to take a congressional voting card and shove it in a slot when it's time to go to the floor. However, defending your views is a whole other ball game and if Akin cannot express those well, that is a problem.
If Ann Coulter loves her country she’ll keep her “somebody please look at me/attention grabbing” opinions to herself.
You must be confused: Aikin is a Republican. If he were a Democrat, I might be inclined to agree with you, but this gaffe from a Pubbie is 100% fatal. If he selfishly toughs it out and stays in, not only will he lose big, he’ll take Romney’s chances in MO with him. And we won’t gain the Senate.
If you don’t think the enemedia will beat this drum each and every day between now and November, you are a *fool.*
I agree. This has to be fixed now. The Professional Right usually shoots first and asks questions later. This time they got it right.
If Mr. Akin drops out of the race, the state Republican committee would choose a replacement.
That rules out Steelman. State party hates her.
Brunner- Possibly.
Akin stepped into a deliberately set trap. He used poorly chosen words and conservatives want his hide.
Claire McCaskill keeps her senate seat. She is laughing her ass off at how easy this was.
While campaigning for the pro-abortion Romney, Ann takes a break to kick around the pro-life Akin. What is the world coming to?
LOL, the media beats EVERY drum against Republicans all the time. Which Republican candidates are going to get a pass from the media this cycle, in your estimation? The fact that Democrats will attack our candidate is not a reason for them to withdraw, because then they’d all have to withdraw. The media’s going to beat up Paul Ryan on his prior Medicare policies and say he’ll be dumping granny over the cliff. Should he withdraw too? No candidate should withdraw because of a simple verbal gaffe. People can understand that and if the Democrats keep harping on it, people will vote against them because they’ll be upset they’re wasting their time on a shallow issue of no substance.
If Coulter loved the country, she never would have endorsed Romney before the primaries began.
As always? Like her support for Romney before primaries even began? Or her decision to serve as a GOProud board member?
Wrong. They shot first and have no intention of ever asking any questions. They'll withhold funding from Akin and willingly hand his seat to the Dems just like they did O'Donnell simply because they both stood up for Christian conservative values. Being popular with the elite establishment cocktail party set is far more important to them than winning elections. And the Tea Parties that are going along with them are either infiltrated by the elites or they are simply ignorant and don't yet understand that the Republican party is more often than not the enemy of real conservatives.
You have to understand the GOP would love to annihilate any and all Christian conservatives from their ranks. They don’t agree with their values and they falsely believe they are a drag on the party’s popularity, because the only people they socialize with are wealthy beltway liberals who think Christians are hicks and rubes, so they think most Americans are like that. The GOP simply can’t purge the Christian conservatives because they would become immensely unpopular with the base. But whenever they see an opening where they think they can get away with destroying one of them on some nonsensical pretense without getting much blowback like they’re doing with Akin, then they will take it. And I’ll be damned before I go along with this undeserved lynching.
I saw Santorum spend a LOT of time on Hannity and O'Reilly explaining away things he said, saying he misspoke, could have phrased something better, etc. Maybe it was true in some cases. But I'd rather a candidate actually try to say he stands for something and make a slip up now and then than have a Romney who tries really hard to say not much of anything at all.
A statement like that, made by a Republican on the subject of rape, is not like other dumbass statements. It plays into every negative stereotype about Republicans the media’s been bleating about for decades. If you need proof they’ll keep it up, and this never blows over, there it is.
I pray we never have to prove your foolishness because I hope he figures out he needs to go, before tomorrow 5:00 PM.
I can’t argue with anything of that. Here’s the problem; it would be nearly impossible to elaborate or explain the statement regardless of how technically accurate it was.
That's absolute nonsense. It was shown time and time again how the primary voters voting for Romney were making a stupid decision without thinking or doing research and were just being led around like sheep by the GOP endorsements and Romney's dishonest advertising. We don't know how the other candidates would have done against Romney on a level playing field where they had equal money to spend. And that's all that counts in the general election where the Republican party will be putting more or less the same money behind whichever candidate won the primary. Newt was destroying Obama's approval ratings on the gas price issue in the spring in ways Romney could only dream of doing.
And so does Mr. Moneybags 1%'er Romney. So why are all these elites not asking him to step down and let Ryan take the mantle? But then Ryan plays into the stereotypes of Republicans cutting Medicare, so we can't have him either. Lesson is if you let Democrats choose your candidates for you, you won't have any candidates.
He said he meant "forcible rape" today. Not only is it not impossible to explain the statement, he has already done it perfectly. And I didn't need an explanation, because I said yesterday I was sure he meant to say something like "violent rape." It's obvious from the contect. It was just a verbal gaffe. His main point was right on. Move along. Nothing to see here.
So why give them an opening?
I'd love to only have only perfect conservatives and politicians who never make a verbal gaffe. But the idea that anyone who makes one must be thrown under the bus is functionally insane. That would mean we'd have to get rid of Reagan, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. Where is the Republican who never made a gaffe that gave the opposition an opportunity to attack them? We'd be doing a lot better if we didn't show fear in the face of attacks like these. This just makes us look weak.
Nobody cares about the explanations in politics, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
Once you do or say something that requires an explanation, you’re toast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.