In recent weeks, some conservative Republicans have revolted against the party’s mainstream consensus that held that no effort should be made to help Rep. Todd Akin’s doomed Missouri Senate candidacy. Deceived by polls that showed him within range of unpopular incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill, they rallied to his side with fundraising and moral support. Their efforts were a misallocation of scarce Republican resources, but there were some who thought it possible that Akin could overcome the opprobrium that had rightly rained down on his head after his shockingly stupid and offensive comments about pregnancy and rape.
This past weekend, Akin dug himself a little deeper with comments that likened McCaskill to a dog. While not all that terrible in of themselves — most politicians have been called worse things than little dogs who play fetch — this latest gaffe ought to be a wake-up call for any conservative inclined to waste any more time on his behalf. Akin is the gift that keeps giving for Democrats, and Republicans would be well advised to follow the Romney campaign’s example and ignore the congressman’s forlorn campaign until it finally goes away of its own accord on Election Day.
It is a tribute to McCaskill’s unpopularity that Akin remains not all that far behind in some polls. But for all of the attempts by some on the right to either rationalize what he said or to pretend that he has a chance, it’s obvious by now that the majority of Missouri voters have no intention of putting him in the Senate, even if means re-electing McCaskill.
McCaskill spent a lot of her own campaign funds on ads that helped Akin win the GOP primary over more electable opponents, and right now that investment seems like the best political money spent in any race in the country. Akin’s dog comment is also a reminder that the rape/pregnancy atrocity that he uttered was not an unusual event. He is an ongoing embarrassment who is not only responsible for single-handedly costing the Republicans a certain Senate pickup but has become the poster child for liberal efforts to brand the entire GOP as morons as part of their faux war on women theme. That even now he doesn’t understand that he needs to be on his guard against comments that denigrate women shows the depths of his cluelessness.
The sooner Akin goes away for good the better it will be for conservatism. That’s a message his bitter-end enablers should have learned by now. Just because a man is attacked by liberals doesn’t make him a victim or a hero. Sometimes a fool is just a fool, no matter what his political label might be.
Please, don't remind us of this guy. When his first inane statements hit the air,and then he refused to withdraw, I went as ballistic as I'm capable of going(in other words, in spite of my intense interests nin political matters, I'm usually calm). If Republicans lose the Senate because of this idiot, he should be ostracized from all respectable company and made to work on a Missouri manure farm for life.
Right now the only question that matters regarding Akin is: Do Missourians dislike him more than they do McCaskill? I believe they dislike McCaskill a whole lot more. And why the hell shouldn't they? She has been a BIG Obama supporter and enabler in the US Senate. I don't like that. Most Republicans don't. Are Missourians expected not to notice such things because of Akin's anti-abortion zeal, which, as a practical matter, threatens no woman's rights anywhere? Are Missourians expected to weigh Akin's silliness versus McCaskill's disastrous record and support McCaskill? Or, what amounts to the same thing, vote against Akin? Romney is ahead in Missouri by 13 points, for pete's sake! And it's not as if Akin is an otherwise unknown quantity. He's a Congressman, a Missouri Congressman. n nLooking down one's nose at a Christian fundamentalist is NOT a big draw in Joplin, no sir, not at all, no matter how well disdain plays in Brooklyn, Manhattan, Hyde Park, Cambridge, West Los Angeles, or Marin County. Any Republican who sees it in his or the country's interest that Akin be defeated is either plain nuts or an anti–Evangelical Christian bigot.
Well put. I agree and i'm originally from Brooklyn, but with many Evangelical Christian friends and acquaintances. Akin's an ignoramus but he's our ignoramus.
Claire is a disaster. If she is reelected, it will be almost impossible to get rid of ObamaCare. Now we learn her husband is cutting tax-favored deals in the Senate Dining Room.
Quote what he said guys. Micheal Medved was laughing about the idiots on the left making a big deal out of this. Yes the far right wing wack job Medved thought this was nothing. Goes to show what a bunch of assholes you guy’s here are.
I don't find his dog comments all that outrageous, nor his ladylike comments. The legitimate rape comment certainly was, but how many times does he need to apologize. n nRepublicans should support him. It's the seat that counts not his foolish statements.
Sheesh, Akin is now being raked over the coals for insulting dogs. n nPersonally, I would give this guy a break. n
What's outrageous here is that idiots who call themselves Republicans and conservatives think that somehow they would be put in respectable company by making themselves look congenial. Look, the Democratic presidential candidate just said that a) the Republican presidential candidate killed a man's wife years after he was let go from his employer
It is one thing to run an unelectable candidate in a race the couldn't be one anyway. But the Republicans have been doing the unthinkable, that is putting up unelectable candidates in races they could win. Two years ago they threw away a sure Senate seat in DE when they nominated that ding-dong Christine O'Donnell and effectively conceded to Harry Reid in NV with their way out there nominee Sharron Angle. Now they are giving up another Senate seat in MO, which would have been theirs had they not nominated this ignorant jackass Akin. When the party gets reasonable and stops going with these unappealing sorts, and stops trying to purge every last "RINO" from their midst, then reasonable people will consider voting for them. n nA horse's behind like Akin ought not be serving in the House, and he sure as hell ought not be a US Senator. Jonathan Tobin gets this, but some here seem willing to vote for anybody the GOP nominates, no matter how grossly unsuited for office they may be. And it isn't about an unwillingness to vote for Evangelical Christians
Yeah yeah yeah. Your entire argument is either historical, which means subjunctive and hypothetical, or consists of sermonizing on the Tea Party. Akin IS the nominee. What's to be done? If you want McCaskill re-elected, say so. A simple declarative sentence would be nice. n nTodd Akin has been in Congress for some time now. What has he done there, how has he voted, in what way exactly has he betrayed the Republican Party in Congress so as to justify your calling him "a horse's behind"? I very much doubt you know ANYTHING about Akin's record . . . unless . . . hmmm . . . . Say, this wouldn't REALLY be about you being a BIG pro-choice guy, would it? I mean, if it is, say so. Matters would become a lot clearer, you wouldn't have to pretend that your umbrage is based entirely on two sentences uttered by Akin on the radio and HYSTERICALLY dramatized by the national, pro-life-despising journalistic fellowship, or that you are inspired by much more than animus toward the Tea Party, who, it is quite true, backed O'Donnell and Angle but also three-dozen other winners in the House and Senate n nThe 2010 elections, judged by the number of seats that changed hands (68), which is not a bad way to judge an election when you think about it, were the biggest setback to the Democratic Party since 1938. Oh, lest I forget, in my opinion the people of Nevada made a big mistake. Or are you going to tell me now that a corrupt scoundrel like Harry Reid, who probably should be in jail, is preferable to Ms. Angle when it comes to passing laws? The Tea Party is without a doubt a far greater threat to the Democrats than to the Republicans. The Democrats know it? Why don't you?
Hmmm, do I agree with Jonathan Tobin or anadessma? I and the non-lunatic Right, including the ever rarer "moderate Republicans" disparaged by the true-believing, Koolaid-drinking lunatics, enorse Tobin's views here.