The “legitimate rape” comment is hardly the first controversial thing rogue Senate candidate Todd Akin has said in his career. So why did national Republican leadership stand by silently as he shot to victory — with the help of $1.5 million in Democratic money — in such a critical Republican Senate primary? You would think the fact that Claire McCaskill was running pro-Akin ads should have been enough of a red flag.
One reason could be that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has declined to endorse and fund candidates in open seat primaries, after the blowback it received from the conservative grassroots in 2009 and 2010. Back then; NRSC came under massive fire from the Tea Party for backing “RINO” Republicans like Charlie Crist (over Rubio in Florida), Lisa Murkowski (over Joe Miller in Alaska) and Arlen Specter (over Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania). Conservatives inundated the phone lines of the NRSC and its chair Sen. John Cornyn’s office, demanding support for Tea Party-approved candidates.
In many cases, the Tea Party was right. Rubio and Toomey were far superior to Crist and Specter, and they were competitive candidates to boot. But the Tea Party also got some bets really, really wrong — like when Christine O’Donnell cost Republicans a Senate seat.
Faced with boycott calls and angry tirades from talk radio hosts and bloggers, the NRSC apparently decided it was best to just stay out of the open races rather than face the wrath of the grassroots. It’s not a bad policy, but it also makes it more difficult for them to protect critical seats from self-immolating candidates.
Also: In this case, the Tea Party Express endorsed Sarah Steelman (Palin did too).
nI think that the biggest problem was right after Christine O'Donnell won her Primary instead of getting behind her Karl Rove slammed her and basically blew up her campaign because he was upset that that his candidate got beat.
Good point! If the GOP is going to benefit from the Tea Party, they had better stop doing stuff like that.
That's the thing – some of them don't realize how much we helped them in 2010. Without them Princess Pelosi would still be the Speaker of the House.
actually, christine O'Donnell 's sin was that she did not look or talk like a senatorial candidate. Unlike Toomey and Rubio-serious candidates- O'Donnell was not (still is not, if you heard her interview with Geraldo Rivera) and Mike Castle would have won the seat in a walk. nAkin's s is that he is-how to say it- intellectually challenged. The more I hear him, the more I think he has no place in the Senate. n We have enough stupid people in government, we don't need any more.
Christine O'Donnell's problem was that she was a flake and a grifter. The people of Delaware showed good sense not electing her. n nBad as she was, Akin is even worse.
Mike Castle was a RINO that liked to vote for the big spending causes and his election wouldn't have helped conservative causes.
I said something in a post yesterday which I prefaced with a statement that my intentions were not to ridicule or to be disrespectful. Please keep this in mind in reference to what I'm about to say here. n nThe Tea Party, as such, has nothing to do with candidates like Aiken. My impression is those who are religious zealots are the problem. They simply do not know the necessary language of restraint of contemporary American politics, particularly for a conservative Republican, and cannot avoid using the language and imagery that serves them comfortably around their religious compatriots. This would be true, I'm sure, if a Lubvitcher were running as well. And I write this as someone who agrees with most of their social preferences.
Actually there is a Lubavitch (or former Lubavitch) candidate running: Rabbi Shmuely Boteach, in New Jersey.
in many cases the Tea Party was right. n nNo, in all cases the Tea Party has been correct. And Akin is not a Tea Party candidate. Not only is the moron not a Tea Party candidate, he ran against the candidate supported by Sarah Palin. The Tea Party is about smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Akin is about justifying no exemptions for abortion. n nPlease do better next time. Coherence counts.
no, as the article said, Christine O'Donnell was very definitely wrong.
The Tea Party has been the best thing that has happened to the GOP since Reagan. n nRid the party of Democrat-like liberals and state the orthodox view of the GOP: Christianity still matters, self-reliance is to be a goal, taxes should be reduced along with government.
Steelman was the Tea Party candidate in Missouri, NOT Akin, so what was the point of this post? Why are you "Strawmanning" the Tea Party?
There's an assumption here that I'm not sure is true. Would Castle have beaten Coon? If Castle couldn't beat O'Donnell, maybe it was, in part, because he ran a poor campaign and would have done so in November too. Obviously this is unknowable, but even the best candidate has to run a good campaign and can lose if he/she doesn't. nRegarding Aiken, he was not the Tea Party candidate in Missouri. nOverall though, it seems that the Tea Party candidates didn't do markedly worse than the establishment candidates.
From a remark I heard that came out of detailed 2010 election post mortem analyses Castle would not have won in Delaware either. And actually, this should not be surprising.
Do you recall the source of that remark?
I think Mr. Akin is an honorable man who truly believes abortion is always wrong, and I happen to agree with him. He's not moderating his message to pick up a few "independent moderates". I wish more politicians were honest about their beliefs, right or wrong. nWhat if Akin DID drop out, another candidate replaced him, and the Republicans STILL lost the Missouri seat? Who will you blame then? For the GOP to throw him under the bus is disgusting!
What Akin said was remarkably stupid. But the idea that forcible rape rarely results in pregnancy is so easily rebutted that if Akin had been treated properly by his allies he might have been persuaded to rehabilitate his candidacy by humbly admitting what a ignorant thing he had been persuaded to believe. Instead Romney adopted the Democrat talking point that what Akin said was "offensive" (to whom?) in a fruitless and therfor idiotic attempt to force Akin out. It's the intercene warfare that promises to make Mo hopeless. n nAnd, no, Akin is from the Religious Right part of the coalition, not Tea Party. Throwing either one under the bus will help Romney's lose. Goodman never gets this and is always trying to read core elements of possible Republican success out of the party.