Replies

Palin didn’t say that third party was “the” solution. She was answering a hypothetical question of if Akin did not go just a few hours after the deadline, what were the possibilities. It was obvious she had not spoken to Steelman about it. If she had, she would have then known that any effort by Steelman at that time was not withing the law. She was throwing out hypothetical possibilities, not a definitive solution.

The main topic of the discussion was about Akin’s arrogance to think it was only the “legitimate rape” reference that got him in trouble. Sure it was the catalyst for all of the brouhaha but he went on digging the hole with his totally baseless claim of scientific and biological science. I’m sure the interviewers face took on a look of total surprise and Akin should have known he said something incorrectly but made no effort to correct his remarks then and only when it became a national issue did he finally say he made a mistake. The reality is that it took someone else to tell him that.

Palin, like so many of us were pissed to no end that the Democrats knew something about this guy and mounted a campaign to have their voters cross over to insure he was their challenger instead of either Steelman or Brunner. Adding insult to injury, a number of voters in one county decided it was more important to cross over and vote the Democrat ballot because of a local Sheriff’s race. Those potential votes were lost to the Republican primary as well. Yep, those OPEN PRIMARIES are just a friggin good idea, aren’t they?

So, when thinking out loud, faced with the immediate realization that this idiot was not going to quit and continue to dig the hole he was in, did the possibility of a third party effort not run through your mind to start shoveling the dirt in on this goof? It would have needed to be in order to find out the law does not permit it. I’m positive you did not drop everything in your life to rush out to read the statutes at that very moment.

One other factor that very few consider when contemplating the “what ifs” provided he actually can be granted a miracle and win against McCaskill. That is someone knew about his stances to the detail of having the interviewer ask the question and the Democrats to make an all out push to cross over to insure his victory which was not seen in any polls. Surely as there were these two that slipped out somewhere else, what else has this scientific expert uttered in the House Cloak Room that can be used to blackmail him into voting a certain way, totally counter to his record? How many will just make things up just to put him on the defensive and sway his vote as well?

Palin is a big picture thinker. Her anger at Akin was on only partial display and its effects shown as she was asked a hypothetical question at which she answered in a hypothetical way. I am sure she did what I did the next day and researched the laws of Missouri to realize, as we all did, that it was not going to happen for her chosen candidate in the race no matter what tact was considered.

To counter your assertion that Steelman is very squishy is a gross mischaraterization. She was just as “conservative” as Akin on the right to life issues and many other bedrock issues. Where she got into trouble was her voting record on tort reform where she voted against it while many believe she did so because her husband is a trial lawyer. By saying Palin supported a squishy it implies that you think Palin is supportive of squishy as well. Therein lies your true biaes not supported by fact and in essence just makes you another one of those PDSers.

Palin, like so many of us were pissed to no end that the Democrats knew something about this guy and mounted a campaign to have their voters cross over to insure he was their challenger instead of either Steelman or Brunner.

I didn't know that, FRiend. I knew McCaskill has made it clear she wants to continue to run against Akin -- not that he was a designated 'Rat fall guy.

And a Karl Rove potted plant to boot. Found that on a news show early yesterday morning. Hadn't heard it before, that Rove is Akin's money tree (so they said).

Palin didn’t say that third party was “the” solution. She was answering a hypothetical question of if Akin did not go just a few hours after the deadline, what were the possibilities. It was obvious she had not spoken to Steelman about it. If she had, she would have then known that any effort by Steelman at that time was not withing the law. She was throwing out hypothetical possibilities, not a definitive solution.

I see little difference if a person suggests a third party move is a way to fix this. You want to be able to run from the suggestion, and I'm stating I don't agree with it period. In this type of a situation a person who is well grounded says something like, "We'll have to study our options, and take whatever measures we can to win this seat." Throwing out bad ideas isn't a leadership quality.

The main topic of the discussion was about Akin’s arrogance to think it was only the “legitimate rape” reference that got him in trouble. Sure it was the catalyst for all of the brouhaha but he went on digging the hole with his totally baseless claim of scientific and biological science. I’m sure the interviewers face took on a look of total surprise and Akin should have known he said something incorrectly but made no effort to correct his remarks then and only when it became a national issue did he finally say he made a mistake. The reality is that it took someone else to tell him that.

I do agree with that. And Palin is right to call him on it. I have myself. I'm not even convinced he gets it yet. As I understand it, he's still saying he's sorry, but what he was saying was actually a sound thing. I disagree with him, and from what you've said, so do you.

Palin, like so many of us were pissed to no end that the Democrats knew something about this guy and mounted a campaign to have their voters cross over to insure he was their challenger instead of either Steelman or Brunner. Adding insult to injury, a number of voters in one county decided it was more important to cross over and vote the Democrat ballot because of a local Sheriff’s race. Those potential votes were lost to the Republican primary as well. Yep, those OPEN PRIMARIES are just a friggin good idea, aren’t they?

No, open primaries are not a good idea. (Clarification: I understand we agee on that.) Frankly it angers me that the GOPe doesn't seem to grasp it. When the measure came up in California to approve/disprove open primaries, I didn't hear one single Republican voice in opposition, other than here. I should have been bombarded with admonissions not to vote for it. Perhaps it went down the same way in Missouri. I wouldn't be surprised. Why is the Republican party essentially surrendering to Leftists? It's infuriating!

From states away, it's hard for me to know if I'm getting the straight scoop or not. Just yesterday some guy listed Akin's voting record, and claimed he was 90%+ a staunch Conservative. I have also heard that Steelman isn't that strident a Conservative. So which is it? The person saying these things yesterday claimed to be a Missourian.

So, when thinking out loud, faced with the immediate realization that this idiot was not going to quit and continue to dig the hole he was in, did the possibility of a third party effort not run through your mind to start shoveling the dirt in on this goof? It would have needed to be in order to find out the law does not permit it. I’m positive you did not drop everything in your life to rush out to read the statutes at that very moment.

I won't be able to participate in correcting this situation, so it's something I am going to allow Missourians to correct on their own. I didn't offer up any suggestions, other than that Akin should step down.

One other factor that very few consider when contemplating the “what ifs” provided he actually can be granted a miracle and win against McCaskill. That is someone knew about his stances to the detail of having the interviewer ask the question and the Democrats to make an all out push to cross over to insure his victory which was not seen in any polls. Surely as there were these two that slipped out somewhere else, what else has this scientific expert uttered in the House Cloak Room that can be used to blackmail him into voting a certain way, totally counter to his record? How many will just make things up just to put him on the defensive and sway his vote as well?

I don't necessarilty see this guy as a Leftist. I see him as a person who opened his mouth and inserted both feet. Good people can make huge mistakes. Once you do, you need to fix it. And if fixing it means you have to step down, then step down you must. I'm not getting into the idea of blackmail. He's been in Congress and seemed to do okay. I think he could do it again. The problem is, he must end the Democrats ability to capitalize on this. That means he has to go.

Palin is a big picture thinker. Her anger at Akin was on only partial display and its effects shown as she was asked a hypothetical question at which she answered in a hypothetical way. I am sure she did what I did the next day and researched the laws of Missouri to realize, as we all did, that it was not going to happen for her chosen candidate in the race no matter what tact was considered.

Perhaps so, but don't get out front with a bad idea. That's not productive. And if Steelman isn't as Conservative, I wish Sarah would take a pass on the idea of, "I told you so." It is reasoned to vote for the person with the best record, and as I understand it, what was Akin at the time of the election.

Please tell me what Akin had been up to, that caused you to think Steelman was better? Perhaps you have some good reasons.

To counter your assertion that Steelman is very squishy is a gross mischaraterization. She was just as “conservative” as Akin on the right to life issues and many other bedrock issues. Where she got into trouble was her voting record on tort reform where she voted against it while many believe she did so because her husband is a trial lawyer. By saying Palin supported a squishy it implies that you think Palin is supportive of squishy as well. Therein lies your true biaes not supported by fact and in essence just makes you another one of those PDSers.

Okay, well you've just told me that Steelman voted against tort reform. That, to me, is squishy. I'm not trying to be mean here, but Conservatives are for tort reform. You can't just pass that off because someone is married to an attorney. In fact that makes it a conflict of interest, which Conservatives should try to avoid. Either vote for tort reform, or vote present, if you can't.

I do not agree with Palin on her fix to illegal immigration. I do not agree with some of the candidates she has opted to support around the nation. I've seen people explain that she was backing the wrong person in their district. I did not agree with her trying to pass off John McCain as a fellow traveler with the Tea Party. If John is going to be a fellow traveler with Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, George Soros, and members of the Tides Foundation, he's not a fellow traveler of mine or you.

I have reasons for not appreciating Sarah Palin. I am not shy about explaining them to people. So dismissing my objections to her actions as if it's just PDS, is as misguided as dismissing objections to Obama policy on the grounds it has to be racist.