The campaign of embattled Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin has responded to the furor created by his idiotic comments about rape with an ad asking voters to forgive him. In it a penitent-looking and sounding Akin apologizes for saying that women cannot be made pregnant when raped. Though a day late, it’s full-blown apology in which he walks back his offensive statement and seeks a fresh start from voters. That’s appropriate but it also misses the point. If Akin is still expecting conservatives to rally around him and claim he is a victim of media bias and double standards that allow liberals a pass on gaffes while conservatives are crucified, he’s mistaken. The stakes involved in this election are simply too high to allow right-wingers the luxury of sticking with the Missouri congressman.
The ad seems to signal that Akin is determined to stay in the Missouri Senate race. If so, that will set off a day of furious activity intended to convince him that he must pull out before the 6 p.m. (EST) deadline today that would allow Akin to be replaced on the ballot. The consensus on the right that Akin must go is based not just on revulsion against his stupid and insensitive crack. Conservatives understand that his determination to stay could allow the Democrats to hold onto the Senate this fall. Lest anyone forget, a Republican majority in the Senate next January is necessary if there is to be any chance that ObamaCare can be repealed before it goes into effect. Even if Mitt Romney wins the presidency and the GOP holds onto the House of Representatives, if Harry Reid is the majority leader when Congress reconvenes in 2013, ObamaCare will survive.
The math is that simple. The current RealClearPolitics map for the Senate shows 47 likely Democrat seats heading into the election and 44 for the Republicans with nine seats up for grabs rated as tossups. While theoretically the GOP can win a majority without Missouri, that is one seat they were already counting on to offset possible losses elsewhere. If McCaskill is left to run against the candidate of her choice, the chances of a Republican majority next year are dramatically reduced.
Just as important is the fact that if Akin hangs on, he will give Democrats a poster child for their effort to portray their opponents as waging a faux “war on women.” While they will do so whether Akin stays in or not, his withdrawal would be a strong statement of Republican intent and reduce the effectiveness of the effort to depict all members of the GOP as hostile to women. At this point, Akin’s resignation will mean as much to Mitt Romney’s chances of being elected president, as it will to Mitch McConnell’s hope to replace Reid as Majority Leader.
Akin may reason that if he hangs on his party will have no choice but to backtrack on their vows to starve him of funds especially if the race in Missouri stays close. But that would be colossal mistake for the party. No matter what he says, Akin’s candidacy is a lost cause and if they fail to isolate him, the taint of his stupidity will attach itself to every Republican in the country, including Romney.
Anybody can make a mistake but Akin’s belief that if he is sincere in his apologies, Missourians will forgive him and get back to focusing on McCaskill’s faults is wrong. Whether he knows it or not, he’s already lost his chance to sit in the Senate. The only question now is whether he is man enough to realize this in time and give some other Republican a chance. Republicans have only a few hours to remind Akin that this election is about more than his political future. If they can’t bring him to his senses, it will be bad news for Mitt Romney and those who understand that only a Republican sweep of the White House and both Houses of Congress can stop ObamaCare from becoming a permanent feature of American society.
Akin's remark was not a "crack." It was not made flippantly or in an attempt to be humorous. Apparently, it's so that women who are raped become pregnant at a far lower rate than women who have consensual sex. Akin should not have used the word "legitimate." But, essentially, his larger point is very correct. Unborn children should not be executed for the crimes of their fathers. But I guess because the left has freaked out about Akin's comment, Pavlovian conservatives must also freak out. We're never going to consistently beat liberals at the polls because they play harder harder and dirtier. They don't turn on their own when then make unpopular comments. Hilary used the expression "dirty Jews." Biden has said…well, what hasn't he said? Obama called traditional Americans bitter, clinging racists. Clinton is a total reprobate. Democrats have stuck with them all. Akin makes a remark that liberals don't like and we pull out the knives. Pretty pathetic. I don't think the Republicans chances are very good whether Akin stays or goes. Republicans just don't want ti enough.
whoa, pal! take off the tin-foil hat for a minute. Hillary Clinton never called anyone "dirty Jews" (in public anyway), and *you* added he word "racist" to Obama's bitter clinger remark. n nas for Akin: he's wrong about rape not resulting in pregnancies. and you're wrong; his "larger point" is NOT "very correct," it's the opposite of very correct. n nit took me all of 10 seconds to do a google search, where I confirmed what most people already knew: that this is TOTALLY untrue. please, check your information before posting! sheesh. n
Despite the bombast of your reply, I agree with Akin's point. I don't think that children should be executed because of the crimes of their fathers. I believe abortion is wrong, period, in all cases. I think Mr. Akin shares that point of view. This isn't a popular opinion, I realize. After all, we live in a society where infanticide is considered a moral option. n nAs to your defense of the various liberal icons I mentioned, we'll just have to disagree!
I was re-reading your initial reply to my comment and was struck by just how rude it is. It's sad how the anonymity of the internet seems to bring out the worst in people. Would you actually talk to a person this disrespectfully in person? I realize you disagree with me. That's fine. It's a (sort of) free country. But why would you be so unkind?
You have no idea what you are talking about, you need to stop getting your information from witch doctors.
I'm not really sure what you mean. I'm not aware of getting any information from "witch doctors," whatever they are. I believe that God creates all life with a purpose and it is a sin to destroy what God has created. All life is precious, from conception to natural death. Therefore, I agree with Mr. Akin that abortion is wrong in all cases (while I certainly recognize and deeply sympathize with the extraordinary difficulty of some pregnancies). Thanks for commenting!
Jim – nIt is difficult for me to accept your last sentence. Political parties are too big for us to personify them in the way you do. Every Republican I know wants "it" so bad we can taste "it"! Keep in mind that the two party system has to hold together scores of millions of voters across a continent (and then some), divided into 51 separate political entities (at least as far as presidential elections are concerned). That's a lot of diversity to be accommodated. nI do think Republicans are more principled and decent (at least at the grassroots level), as hokey and self-serving as that may sound. I have numerous liberal friends who are completely OK with the fact that Gitmo is still open, that unemployment amongst Blacks is higher than it was in Jan 2009, that drones are knocking people off left and right, and who never batted an eye when Obama had lots of dough but are suddenly concerned about money in politics again, etc. They seem OK with the nasty tone from the Democratic campaign. nThat willingness to ignore outrageous hypocrisy and behave like boors may give the illusion of "wanting it", and I guess it is evidence of a desire to win. But when you do win that way, how do you govern? Sloppily, if we go by the last 4 years, in a way that discredits most of what you claim to hold dear. (Look at the damage libs have done to, say, "green industry".)
, if Harry Reid is the majority leader when Congress reconvenes in 2013, ObamaCare will survive. n nEven if HReid is the minority leader,the GOP will need a Supermajority in the Senate.in addition to retaining the House,and replacing Obama. Good Luck with all that.
They passed it with 51 (final version), they can break it with 51.
Mr. Tobin and rexford – let's not jump to conclusions. What happens on Nov 6 will have political impacts impossible to predict now. Imagine the following plausible scenario: nRomney wins convincingly – say with 52-53% of the vote. The Republicans keep their same majority in the House (roughly). The Republicans have 49 seats in the Senate – McCaskill's victory over Akin prevents 50-50. nUnder those circumstances, isn't it possible that the surviving Democrats in the Senate, having witnessed two horrible elections for their Party, and led by a man whose buffoonery has been made obvious to all, are actually eager to vote against Obamacare? McCaskill, for one. Maybe Bennett, especially if CO goes for Romney. Wyden in Oregon, who is already playing footsie with Ryan and comes from a state that many forget narrowly supported Gore in 2000. nMany of us have been shocked by the refusal of the Democrats to moderate their agenda in the past couple of years. They seem to have doubled-down, actually. I suspect that once Obama is gone, many Democrats will heave a sigh of relief and look for ways to undo some of the damage he has done to the Party.
Reid doesn't have to schedule a vote.
I know. But if he is being pressured by his underlings to do so he will. If the Republicans control the political universe after Nov 6 with the exception of the Senate because of MO (which is the premise of the blog commentary here), Democrats will have felt the political earthquake. The problem with the "Akin could salvage Obamacare" argument is that it ignores the consequences of what would be decisive evidence of the country's disavowal of the Obama agenda. With Obama gone, I suspect many Democrats would be more amenable to compromise. nHeck – it wouldn't surprise me if under the scenario I describe above Reid is no longer the Majority Leader. nObviously, I don't know hat is going to happen, but I'm just saying we shouldn't be turning the lights out yet, or investing so much in one Senate race.
Buddy, Obamacare is here to stay. Nothing radical about it, it is similar to health-care in Japan, Israel, Australia, western Europe, and Canada. nThere is NOTHING to hate about Obamacare. I challenge anyone to post 2 bad things about O-care. Just 2. Come on, conservatives, give me your best shot, without tipping your racist hateful hand. ncaveat: do not send me meaningless nothings that will be worked out in time. nHit me with your best shots.
It's a giant, money-sucking, totally inefficient, on-size-fits-all, entitlement nightmare that will be impossible to pay for. However, I agree that it's here to stay! You sure are an enthusiastic defender of the program. Good for you!
1. according to Paul Ryan, Obamacare has taken $700 billion from Medicare, which puts Medicare at risk. (and Politifact says that's at least largely true ('truthy"!)) n n2. Obamacare forces Catholic institutions to pay for or facilitate payments for contraception and abortifacients, which goes against the Church's conscience and teachings. there's no constitutional right to free birth control pills, but there IS a protected right to freedom of religion. n n3. it will have the effect of making many current employer-provided healthcare options too expensive, which in turn may end with those options no longer being available. (many of us believe that the POINT of Obamacare is to get everyone on government insurance, and they're definitely stacking the cards so it plays out that way.) n n4. the SCOTUS decision that found the mandate was really a tax and therefore ok is one of the most dangerous precedents in our lifetimes. do you realize how much power we've just given Congress? you're ok with the Court ruling now because you like its outcome. but can't you imagine a time in the future when Congress decides to "tax" something that you DON'T feel like npaying for? it'll be too late then. n nthose are just 4 off the top of my head. not a meaningless nothing in the pack.
1) Ryan's plan reduces the medicare budget almost the same amount. n2) how do the Catholics and Repubs feel about a 13 year old pregnant rape victim with 2 bullets in the left lung, on a ventilator? does she rate an abortion? n3) cutting out the middleman is great. No employer input, no insurance company input. fabulous. n4) taxes do nor scare me. I pay federal income tax, state and city income taxes, social security tax, medicare tax, real estate tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, liquor tax, (also cigarette tax when i used to smoke), and unincorporated business tax. O.W. Holmes: "taxes r what we pay to live in a civilized society." n5) my closest friend and I are very upper-middle class. I am a Dem., he is Repub. due to crazy stuff, we each lost our health insurance. But BOTH of us were able to get new policies due to O-care laws that took effect in Jan. 2011. I am still Dem. he is still Repub. Man's beliefs r deeper than an intellectual argument can influence.
It's clear that you really love this federal program. However, not everyone shares your enthusiasm. Many people believe that it is wrong for the federal gov't to involve itself in healthcare. Many people believe that it's very wrong for the federal gov't to force a citizen to buy a product. Just because you're in favor of these things doesn't mean that they suddenly become acceptable to others. Again, it's nice that you're so enthusiastic, but your enthusiasm doesn't invalidate other peoples' concerns.
The government already "forces" me to buy car insurance, even if I do not feel like (my car is a necessity, not an option, because I use it only for work-related activities). If I have a car accident, I might otherwise be liable for impossible-to-pay sums, and the victims would not get justice. Similarly, in case of serious illness, most people without insurance would impose their insolvency on the general public. nTrust me, Jim, almost everyone has or will benefit from O-care. nO-care is expensive, u say? Well, nowadays everything is expensive. That's life.
I'm certainly impressed by your devotion to this program. While your "trust me" assurance is admirably insouciant, I'm afraid it's not very comforting. Also, your car is obviously not a necessity. You can always choose to get another job that doesn't require a car. You know that. Just announcing that something is a necessity doesn't actually make it one. I'm curious. Why do you so enthusiastically support this entitlement? Why do you think it will be more efficient and more successful than all the other failed giant gov't entitlements?
My car is a necessity because without it I would earn less money and pay less taxes. nWhy do I support O-care so much? because I have seen the future, and it works. I have lived abroad, and it is such a mechaya not to have to pay $3000 a month in premiums. not 1 country that has it has ever gone back. nit is inefficient, u say? well most of those countries have a health budget that is 1/2 ours (20% of GNP), with similar and better medical results. nalso, forget this Reagan mantra about the government's fouling everything up. Because it does NOT. Private industry does much worse. nu see what u want to believe. Romney said that he had to fill out a 30-odd page document to have his mail forwarded. Poor guy. I have filled out those forms whenever I move, and they r less than 1/2 a page.
OK. We'll just have to disagree. I sort of think that you're just yanking my chain here. It's hard to believe that an adult person could seriously conclude that gov't is more efficient than private enterprise, but every person is entitled to his own opinion, of course. In my own experience, I've rarely seen gov't perform any task more efficiently than does private enterprise. n nAlthough, again, I'm sure you realize that your car is not a "necessity." You could simply choose not to drive a car and you would not have to buy car insurance. You may like earning the kind of living that your car enables you to earn, but you could still choose to pursue a different occupation that doesn't require a car.
it is pure biology that we hold our beliefs as unshakeable. all of us. u simply cannot imagine that I really DO believe the incredible nonsense that I do; and the exact same thing applies to me. nMy brother believes, with his heart and soul, that Judaism is the 1 true religion, and I believe, with my heart and soul that there is no God. nthe cortex of our brain is not strong enough to prevail over the limbic system of our brain.
So you're an atheist. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you and your brother both come to know that God the Son, Jesus Christ, died for your sins and you can be forgiven and saved through belief in Him. May God bring you to true repentance and faith!
on Fox tonite, Sarah Palin suggested that she would support a third-party candidate to run if Akin refused to get out. I thought that was interesting. (she had apparently supported his opponent in the primary and warned ther party about this guy. they should've listened to her!)