If that seems harsh, well, it is. Politics is a harsh business, careers can be ruined in seconds and his wouldn’t be the first. If he wanted a more forgiving line of work he shouldn’t have gotten into this business.
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 ...
It’s pretty clear political vision to have backed the guy who became the nominee. We’re talking political vision, not wishful thinking or the conservative purity Olympics.
On the gay issue, Ann sent a strong message at CPAC: She persuaded GOProud to drop their backing of gay marriage. She has spoken out against sodomy! She loves the sinners while disapproving of the sin. What would you rather have her do?
You're repeating cliches in a ridiculous context. See my previous post. If you can find me the perfect Republican standard-bearer who has never made a gaffe, I'd like to see them. Just to start, we need to cross off Reagan, Gingrich, Palin, Romney, McCain, Bush, Quayle, Santorum, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. If any haven't made a gaffe, it must be uber-boring ones like Dole who couldn't get elected anyway. Ryan's got a good record I guess, and I'd be happy if we start a campaign to dump Romney and put Ryan at the top of the ticket.
Where were you thirty years ago. I could have used you as a manager during my pitching days. As I was getting lit up, you would have let me stay in the game instead of pulling me for the guy all ready in the bullpen.
Agree. I’m ashamed of the whole slew of them.
On one point, and one alone, I agree with her. “Legitimate” is indeed the poison word. How DARE we question the women who fail to bring charges in court, or, for that matter, those who bring false charges (think Duke)?
On the other hand, I pray for a time when the truth can be made palatable.
I give up. You’re more than a fool, you’re an imbecile. I pray to God Akin has more sense than you. Goodbye.
“Why is it only Christian conservatives who get thrown under the bus by their fellow Republicans but not narcissistic, liberal New England RINOs who spend half of their campaign making excuses for not releasing their tax returns, with no possible perceived benefit to the party or the campaign for doing so?”
Big difference in one candidate creating a fatal eternal soundbite “legitimate rape” and a rich candidate not wanting to release his tax returns to accomodate a opponent’s fishing expedition.The electorate does not understand reason for the former but does understand the reason for the latter There is no equivalence here.This guy
should have enough sense to throw himself under the bus and get off the stage now rather than forcing others to do it for him.
LOL!
“You’re more than a fool, you’re an imbecile. I pray to God Akin has more sense than you.”
Meet another imbecile. I’m with Jedi.
The Goddess of Infanticide is greedy, she doesn’t care if fornication or rape brings her prey. Just bring!!!
Not all gaffes are equal, some are minor and can be written off, this one is major. Anytime you’re talking about something violent and personal like rape, you’re on thin ice, and there is no margin for error.
If that seems harsh, well, it is. Politics is a harsh business, careers can be ruined in seconds and his wouldn’t be the first. If he wanted a more forgiving line of work he shouldn’t have gotten into this business.
Well said.
It's unfair and it stinks, but it is what it is. There is too much at stake for us to take one in the pants for this klutz.
Greetings. I sure hope you don’t run a campaign. Unless you’re on the other side. Bye.
If by understand the reason for the latter, you mean, they'll assume that Romney did some skullduggery on his taxes, might be a felon, etc. The bizarre reluctance to release one's tax returns when there can't POSSIBLY be any reason not to UNLESS there's something awful in there is indefensible. This is why Romney got SCARRED AND CHARRED in the South Carolina primary. Just see how he answered the tax return question in the debate when he got booed and then got trounced by Newt in the primary. Romney wants to be President where he'll never have privacy again, so why does he insist on being so private about the tax returns?
That is a FAR more serious problem than a simply verbal gaffe of a word or two that every politician makes and become more or less forgotten after a few weeks as people look to more serious issues. Romney's not releasing the tax returns creates a "fear of the unknown" factor which has a life of its own.
Throwing him under the bus could be even more damaging to the party. It reinforces stereotypes that average Republicans out there are engaging in some "war on women." It looks like the party found such a Republican and told him he's fired. Let him stick around, make things right, explain himself, and we can counter the stereotype.
The seat is gone. The media says jump and many on FR and Republicans say how high.
If that seems harsh, well, it is. Politics is a harsh business, careers can be ruined in seconds and his wouldn’t be the first. If he wanted a more forgiving line of work he shouldn’t have gotten into this business.
First of all, a candidate's ability to get contributions is part of the picture. It's not something you can't dismiss. Nor can you assume that all candidates have equal drawing power when it comes to contributions. Some candidates are stronger than others in that respect. In any case, when Gingrich had big money from Sheldon Adelson, it didn't help him much.
Secondly, "level playing field" or not, I don't see Gingrich or Santorum or Bachmann or Perry or Cain doing any better than Romney against Obama. Romney won because the other candidates self-destructed earlier (remember Bachmann, Cain, Perry). That may happen to Romney as well, but the fact that it hasn't happened yet made him the stronger candidate. Money and endorsements might have given Romney a greater margin for error, but in a weak field, he did have more experience as a candidate.
When all this anti-RINO stuff started decades ago conservatives had a single qualified candidate they could rally around: Taft or Goldwater or Reagan. That hasn't been the case for decades. If there really were a strong, qualified conservative candidate in the race, the bellyaching would make sense. But then if there were such a candidate there wouldn't be any complaining, because he or she would have won. The problem isn't with outcomes so much as it is with inputs: the good contenders just aren't there.
The only think Akin did wrong was give a poor explanation of factual information.
The only thing Akin did wrong was give a poor explanation of factual information.
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.