Why Won't Endangered Democrat Senate Candidates Repudiate Their Todd Akin?

Townhall.com ^ | September 1, 2014 | Kurt Schlichter

[Kaslin]

There are a whole bunch of Democrats running for Senate this year, though in this case “running” seems to mean running as far away as possible from failed liberal messiah Barack Obama. You’d practically think they were Tea Partiers by the way they publicly espouse conservative principles like support for the family, protection from crime, and respect for religion. But they can't run away from their duty to repudiate the single most offensive, anti-woman, anti-family, anti-Christian candidate running under their Democrat Party’s banner.

Meet Democrat Amanda Curtis. She took over as the Democrat Senate candidate in Montana after Democrat John Walsh disgraced himself by cheating on his Army War College thesis (As an actual Army War College graduate, I’d like to say, “Thanks for that, Johnny – those of us who did the hard work to actually earn our masters degrees really appreciate you devaluing it.”) Now Democrat Amanda Curtis is running as a free-spirited progressive, unconstrained by things like class and dignity and the concerns of her constituents.

Democrat Amanda Curtis makes YouTube videos. Here are some of her greatest hits, which run the gamut from merely obnoxious to aggressively bigoted, and which firmly entrench her as this cycle’s Todd Akin.

Albeit one with a nose stud, which would be an unequivocal signifier of an edgy nonconformist if it was still 1987. In fact, that affectation and Democrat Amanda Curtis’s general vibe tends to remind one of those strident feminists who hang around college quads busily endeavoring to take back the night from mysterious, unseen phallocentric oppressors. Except this one is a major political party’s candidate for the United States Senate, and unlike the goofy womyn’s studies majors we laughed at back in school, we can’t just ignore her. Nor, try as they might, can her fellow Democrat Senate candidates.

Democrat Mark Begich of Alaska, where do you stand on Democrat Amanda Curtis? Your silence has been deafening while she wages her war on women. In her video compilation, you see how she mocks the terror of women threatened by sexual assault and the right of women to keep and bear arms for their protection.

Democrat Mark Begich, where do you stand on Democrat Amanda Curtis’s attack on women’s right to be free of sexual assault? Do you consider women’s safety an appropriate topic of humor? Do you stand with the right of Alaskan women to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves from violent crime, or do you support a candidate from your Democrat Party who will vote with the rest of the liberals in your Democrat Party to deprive women of that right?

Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, we can only assume you agree with Democrat Amanda Curtis that women have no right to protect themselves from rape.

That’s the only conclusion one can draw from the fact that Democrat Mary Landrieu has not run to the nearest microphone to denounce this latest liberal attack on a woman’s right to live free of fear.

Democrat Mary Landrieu, repudiate Democrat Amanda Curtis and stop putting your Democrat Party ahead of Louisiana’s women.

Democrat Mark Pryor of Arkansas, where have you been as Democrat candidate Amanda Curtis was insulting and rolling her eyes at the mere mention of Christianity?

Democrat Mark Pryor, do you support your Democrat Party’s candidate when she thinks the religion that most of your constituents hold dear is a punchline?

Democrat Mark Pryor, why aren't you out there repudiating her anti-Christian bigotry? Why don't you stand with your Republican opponent, war hero Tom Cotton, and repudiate the kind of hate that the liberal establishment that gave us Democrat Barack Obama – who you voted with something like 97% of the time – tolerates?

Democrat Allison Lundergan Grimes of Kentucky, where do you stand on Democrat Amanda Curtis’s anti-Christian hate speech? Do you stand with the people Kentucky or with the liberal Democrat establishment in Washington, D.C.? Your silence is your answer.

Democrat Kay Hagan of North Carolina, why do you think it is okay for your fellow Democrat to make fun of Christians, and then to roll her beady eyes at the mere mention of the idea of family? Is that what you believe? Why do you want this woman in the Senate?

Democrat Kay Hagan, why won’t you take the side of the people of North Dakota instead of the bosses of your Democrat Party and reject the anti-Christian slurs your fellow Democrat is spewing?

Democrat Michelle Nunn of Georgia, why aren't you raising your voice against this kind of mindless progressive bigotry? You made a big deal of refusing to promise to vote for Democrat Harry Reid as majority leader, but in your first test you’ve chosen to tolerate the anti-Christian, anti-family hate of Democrat Amanda Curtis just because she’s in your Democrat Party.

Democrat Michelle Nunn, level with the voters. Admit to them that when it comes to choosing between their interests and the interests of the Democrat Party, you’ll choose your party over your constituents.

Democrat Bruce Braley of Iowa, Democrat Amanda Curtis isn't a trial lawyer so you aren’t risking losing your big money, out-of-state campaign contributions by standing up against her hate speech. It’ll be easy for you to criticize her if you just pretend she’s a farmer.

Democrat Bruce Braley, be like Republican Joni Ernst and emulate the example of courage that this Army lieutenant colonel has displayed by standing up to your Democrat Party for its nomination of an anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-woman extremist.

Democrat Amanda Curtis is truly the Todd Akin of this election cycle, yet in contrast to the Republicans, who immediately repudiated Todd Akin's bizarre biological misconceptions, the Democrats, by their silence, tacitly admit that they either support their Democrat Party over the people of their states or that they agree with Democrat Amanda Curtis’s radical and extreme agenda.

Why do you choose the Democrat Party over your people? The time is now to repudiate the anti-family, anti-Christian and anti-woman views of Democrat Amanda Curtis.

And it wouldn't hurt any of them to speak out against that stupid nose ring. It's not 1987 anymore.

[Ann Archy]

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??

[donozark]

Poor Amanda. Methinks the biker that drilled her proboscis for a stud, used a drill bit of an extended length...

[fieldmarshaldj]

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.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Todd Akin apparently didn't know he was Clair McCackle’s pick. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of politics.

[Stosh]

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.

[Former Proud Canadian]

This woman is insane.

Yet, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Barb Mulkuski, Al Franken, Patty Murray, Chuck Shumer. She would fit right in.

[SamuraiScot]

Why Won't Endangered Democrat Senate Candidates Repudiate Their Todd Akin?

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.

[Vigilanteman]

I consider myself fairly astute politically and, until I read this article, had never even heard of Democrat Amanda Curtis.

Todd Akin made one stupid statement in an ill-timed interview. Yeah, he was stupid for not stepping aside because it was easy to see that his entire campaign would be defined by that statement. His profound apologies only magnified it.

Meanwhile, Democrat Amanda Curtis does it again and all we hear from the media is crickets.

[buckalfa]

"But they can't run away from their duty to repudiate the single most offensive, anti-woman, anti-family, anti-Christian candidate running under their Democrat Party’s banner."

Why would the Democrat party want to repudiate this candidate when her views are becoming increasingly the views of the party as a whole?

[okie01]

Meanwhile, Democrat Amanda Curtis does it again and all we hear from the media is crickets.

By virtue of their posting on FreeRepublic, those YouTube takes have probably reached more audience in the last hour-and-a-half than they have totaled in Billings, MT.

[okie01]

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 is quite conceivable, for example, that Karl Rove's very public reaction to Akin did more damage to the party's candidates than Todd Akin himself did.

[clintonh8r]

Democrats learned, better than we did, from RWR not to speak ill of one of their own.

[Din Maker]

Todd Akin seemed like a fine man...
_____________________________________________________________

Well..... I don’t know. If he was a fine man, why in the hell did he not step down as the nominee when it became abundantly clear that he was going to be trounced because of his stupid statement? He could have kept Claire McCaskill in MO and out of Washington had he done so, but his pride and arrogance would not allow him to do so and we were stuck with Claire Broad-bottom for six more years. I DO NOT LIKE TODD AKIN!!!!

[DManA]

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.

[DManA]

It was not abundantly clear until the GOPe declared they were going to work to defeat him and hand the seat to the democrats.

[Timmy]

Well, one of the reasons was that the GOP planned to replace him with a RINO who didn't even run in the primary, rather than the conservative who finished second.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The Missouri GOP in and around Springfield refused to back Jim Talent for reelection, thus giving us Claire McCackle’s first term. Several historians have scrutinized the votes in SW Missouri and concluded it was Talent's support for medical research that caused a revolt in the GOP.
As far as Akin goes, he did the job on himself.

[DManA]

Talent’s support for medical research

Could you expand on that? Stem cells?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Stem cell research.
Yes.