Todd Akin: Claire McCaskill was more ‘ladylike’ in 2006

Washington Post ^ | 27 September 2012 | Rachel Weiner

[Lorianne]

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) reminds Republicans why they were hoping he would drop out of the U.S. Senate race against incumbent Claire McCaskill (D).

“I think we have a very clear path to victory, and, apparently, Claire McCaskill thinks we do, too, because she was very aggressive at the debate, which was quite different than it was when she ran against Jim Talent,” Akin told the Kansas City Star on Thursday.

“She had a confidence and was much more ladylike [in 2006], but in the debate on Friday she came out swinging, and I think that’s because she feels threatened.”

[longhorn too]

“You assume too much.
I am not offended in the least by Akin’s comment, I am vindicated!
The guy is an blithering idiot and I was right about him from the start. (Wish I weren’t and we could pick up a seat in the Senate ... but oh well).”

So you were right about him from the start! What gives you all this wonderful insight.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

You're right - I misremembered the details of McCaskill's support for Akin's primary campaign. So instead of posting:

Do we all understand now why McCaskill gave millions to Akin's primary campaign?

I should have posted:

Do we all understand now why McCaskill spent millions supporting Akin's primary campaign?

And I hope we do all now understand why.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

It’s been very clear that the people who have bashed Akin the hardest and most consistently dislike him because of his social conservative positions.

I don't know that I've "bashed" Akin, much less hard or consistently - and I am pro-life, and pro-ladylikeness (at least in women). What I dislike is his statements that do nothing to help him win: about the biology of pregnancy after rape, and whether McCaskill is "ladylike."

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The real debate should be, WAS IT TRUE?

I disagree - it's clear to me that in the context of a political campaign it's at least as important to ask if it needed to be said, was relevant, and helps him win.

[Lorianne]

You don’t speak for me.

I want him to win so we get a majority in the Senate.
Then I want him to step down so that another conservative who is not a blithering idiot can take his place.

I don’t want to spend the next 6 years having to explain that yes, I’m conservative and yes I’m pro-Life but I don’t agree with the moronic comments of blithering idiot Akin (and I know he’s going to continune making stupid irrelevant comments). I don’t want the pro-Life cause to be derailed everytime this blithering idiot opens his mouth.

Clear enough?