Posted on 07/17/2014 9:56:51 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
A defiant Todd Akin on Thursday conceded he misspoke some words regarding his infamous 2012 comments on rape, but he cast blame on those in both parties for politicizing them.
In an interview on MSNBC, the 2012 Missouri Republican Senate nominee didnt spare anyone criticism, calling out by name Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, Karl Rove, Senate Republican leadership and the political media. Continue Reading
Text Size - + reset Advertisement
Latest on POLITICO Marine general questions Obama on Afghanistan Boehner casts doubt on border deal Snowden: Not 'scared' about future Reid blasts Cruz on immigration Hillary PAC adviser: No coronation Skyscraper 'still pisses' off Kirk
I misspoke some words, Akin conceded to host Chuck Todd.
Thats as far as his remorse went, though, as the conservative firebrand continues his re-emergence to promote his new book and rail against the political establishment that largely abandoned him after his controversial comments.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
You are spouting revisionist history. Both John Brunner and Sarah Steelman would have kicked Claire McCaskill’s butt in the general election and one or the other would have beaten Todd Akin in the primary if not for the several millions of dollars that Claire poured into his campaign.
Thanks to Todd Akin, we now have McCaskill as Senator for life from Missouri.
Wrong gender.
One of DoodleDawg's postings on this thread could be viewed as potentially threatening to Akin's person.
Which one?
The goal of the pro-life movement is to save babies and not egos.
The voters abandoned Akin and for good reason given what he said. McCaskill clearly understood that the only way that she could win was if Akin was her opponent. That’s why she poured money into his campaign. It turned out that she didn’t have to do much to discredit him after the primary, he did that all by himself to her great delight.
I have understood that as yours and other posters references to Akin. Fine. The election is over. I concede it was likely lost for the reasons mentioned.
My posts on this thread have been referencing one poster’s vendetta against Akin PERSONALLY. I explained further in post 80.
Doesn't surprise me a bit. You're an Akin fanatic.
13
You have a vivid imagination.
It seems you are mostly pissed off at yourself for not realizing what an ego driven loser he was and apparently still is.
You've proceeded to take on multiple posters here for some reason over this loser, and from what I can see it won't take future historians to see you were schooled in each conversation.
Your entire argument rests on recounting events that occurred before Akin opened his big fat mouth. If he hadn’t, he probably would have won in spite of the money that McCaskill spent promoting his candidacy. She did it before the primary for the reasons you cite and independently of the Akin campaign. It’s the reason that Akin won the primary.
The obvious issue is what happened after he turned his campaign from a probable win into a cannot win. Akin and all of the knuckleheads who continued to support him long after he was clearly a dead skunk in the middle of the road cost us a Senate seat. Denying that it ever happened means that you will do it again. This is not bad politics, it is political suicide.
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.