OK, Time For Todd Akin To Go

The other day I took the contrariwise position that the GOP should have circles the wagons around Akin. Alas, then we get this

AKIN: You know, Dr. Willke has just released a statement and part of his letter, I think he just stated it very clearly. He said, of course Akin never used the word legitimate to refer to the rapist, but to false claims like those made in Roe v. Wade and I think that simplifies it….. There isn’t any legitimate rapist…. [I was] making the point that there were people who use false claims, like those that basically created Roe v. Wade.

Making a really, really dumb statement is forgivable, especially since he apologized: following it up with another dumbass, bat guano insane statement is inexcusable. A long term politician should know better than to clarify. You just move on. Time to go, Todd.

That said, I stand by one of my main points about circling the wagons instead of immediately running the person over with a steamroller. Consider what happened with Larry Craig.

When that issue popped up the big shiny bus peeled out, aiming right for him. Exactly what did he do wrong? Soliciting consensual gay sex with no money involved isn’t a crime in a sane world (if that was what he was actually doing). Instead of supporting Craig in his personal life and attacking the Dems for gay bashing, Craig was assaulted by the GOP, I guess because they were embarrassed or something.

Just hours after Christine O’Donnell won the GOP primary, the NRSC said the6 would help her out with money, advice, and training….oh, wait, they said she’d get no money and was on her own. Why? Cause she was a bit wacky? Then Republicans started denigrating her. Do we want robots or something?

There was no real support for Sharon Angle or Linda McMahon. And others have had the same thing happen. Some went after Joe Wilson after he said “You Lie!”

Maybe instead of saying Akin had to go originally the GOP could have denounced him and then told him STFU, let’s move on and win this race. Too late.

Of course, the follow up is still on Akin, and he needs to go

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “OK, Time For Todd Akin To Go”

  1. john says:

    you do realize that under that state’s law it is now too late for the GOP to put anyone else in? As for the circling the waqgons the GOP did that for Duke Cunningham right up until he was convicted and stuck by Delay far too long. And what about poo snowbilly Sarah who was not even invited to the convention? or Cheney ?

  2. Very few backed Cunningham. Delay was circled because the charges were bullshit, and he was acquitted.

    But, hey, lets remember how the left has circled around tax cheats like Rangle, Geithner, and, yes, McCaskill.

  3. Gumball_Brains says:

    or how the left circled around KKK Bird, or “our soldiers are murderers” Durbin.

    Teach, you make the comment about how we suck at sticking by our people, how the RNC fails to support the people’s candidates, and bails when they even deign to sneeze. But then state, yeah, he needs to be dumped by RNC and he needs to go.

    Did he screw it up even more by claiming his statement was about real rape and lies about rape? yeah.. very odd. Just don’t vote him in to office if he is strange, but to abandon him and turn on him like liberal vultures seems a bit extreme.

    I dunno, I still see nothing wholly wrong with HIM as compared to myCATSkill.

    Again, this time around, it comes down to two choices for the sake of this country. Socialism and the old guard, or new blood and at least a turning away from direct-line suicidal cliff we are heading to.

    Can we afford to keep MYscatsRkillin in office any longer just because the other guy, who is a conservative, said something creepy?

    If he turns out wrong, then vote him out next time.

    I mean, hell, I don’t care who is running right now. I’m voting them in to get rid of a democrat or a rino.

  4. From my POV, the original blunder was bad, but, people make mistakes, sometimes big ones. In a case like this, the politician apologizes, then moves on. You don’t try and explain it. When it’s brought up, you shift the topic. The fact that Akin continued to yammer on shows a lack of restraint and common sense. And we don’t know what he will do next.

    Consider John Kerry, who insulted our troops multiple times. His handlers surely understood how bad the comments were. So, Kerry moved on and refused to discuss it. As the saying goes, stop digging that hole. Akin doesn’t inspire confidence in me at this point.

  5. Gumball_Brains says:

    confidence to speak, or confidence in doing his job?

    Seems he did his job well enough to get elected several times and then get in to the senatorial primaries.

  6. I have confidence in him doing his job, but not confidence in him doing what needs to be done to not embarrass the GOP and being a distraction when we have to win.

  7. david7134 says:

    To think that this idiot may be responsible for the ruin of our country. But also consider that the whole topic of abortion is one that the Republicans should have put to bed long ago. What is the alternative to abortion? A child that is not wanted, ever seen one? I have seen many and it is not a pretty sight. Or a young woman whose life is ruined because she can not obtain her dreams due to an unwanted pregnancy. People argue that women are ultimately hurt as a consequence of the abortion, and that is true, but the fact is that it is an issue between them and their doctors, we don’t need laws that selectively force a person to do something that could cause death or injury.

    To me, the issue on both sides is a liberal one. Our government was not founded on the concept of the central authorties telling an individual what to do. In fact, at the time of the signing of the Constitution, abortion was one of the main means of birth control. So lets strive for a government that gets out of our lives. For those who want to challenge the statements, obtain a copy of the Skeptics View of American History produced by the Teaching Company.

  8. Gumball_Brains says:

    Or a young woman whose life is ruined because she can not obtain her dreams due to an unwanted pregnancy

    I have never understood that comment. I really don’t understand it. Will a person’s life be a bit harder and the choices made be a bit more difficult? Yes. But, to say that a pregnancy quashes dreams? First off, if it is unwanted, then there are many alternatives that can be sought. However, if it is wanted, then there are also many alternatives and resources available now than were available 250 years ago.

    My child was unexpected. I wrestled with the notion of being a parent to the child or not. I was in college at the time. I decided to BE A FATHER. I also decided that my dreams would not be stopped. Why should it. I even raised my child myself since he was 3 months old. NOthing got in my way for my dreams. Did they get “adjusted”. OF course. Who’s plans aren’t adjusted when there is a family involved (at least those people who are not selfish narcissists).

    However, david, I do think that it is the role of a government to place value on life. To determine that a growing life has worth and is meant to be protected, even if from a mother. Why does she alone get to make that choice on whether a child dies or not? Now, we can then argue about what kind, if any, of punishment is attached to those who go against this law\agreement\foundation\understanding\?.

    We value clean water, so we have laws against polluting it.
    We value clean air, so we have laws protecting it.
    We value life, so we have laws against murder and even suicide. (which granted is rather odd).

    We must place value on life else life has no value.

    Teach, so you think if he should win, he will be a continuing distraction? To the detriment of the entire party? Or, are we basing the level of “distraction” on the liberal\socialist media’s whining about it?

  9. david7134 says:

    So as I understand it, you are a socialist. You think that government is the answer for many ills. And you have no problem with their bumbling efforts as they control our lives. Interesting that you would chose environment issues as an example. Many, including me, feel that one of the reasons that we are in a depression is that we are over regulated. We will not have an economic recovery till that is corrected.

    Then you have no problem with our “great” government controling the lives of women. Lets turn it around. At age 12, all males must have implantation of a drug delivery system that would prevent an erection. Such a concept is viable. Then when you desire sex, you can apply to the government and they will give you a pill to allow an erection for just a short period. That would be equivalent to telling a woman she must have an unwanted child.

    Then in my work, I have seen pregnancy destroy young people. Even kill them. Personal testimoneys are nice, but basically worthless in dealing with large populations. It is best to allow people to make their own decisions. In the world of medicine, we define life as the ability of a child to live independent of the mother. That is a good definition and one we should adopt rather than the fact that a few cells are life.

    But the point is we have too much government and many people do not understand what freedom really is.

Pirate's Cove