Skip to comments.In Search of the Perfect Candidate
Posted on 08/25/2012 9:12:34 AM PDT by A'elian' nation
Akin has got to drop out. His Luddite ideas are an embarrassment. Get him off the ballot so that the Missouri GOP can pick a better candidate than the voters of the state. This mad headless chicken scurrying, firing squad panicking has got to stop. I got a better idea. Let Akin make the Keynote speech at the Republican convention to counter the Keynote rapist at the Democrat convention.
Let's say Akin drops out and sacrifices himself to the cause of capturing the Senate for the GOP. Who is this flawless, perfect candidate that's going to replace him? How do we know he or she won't say something equally stupid or worse the next day? Maybe Akin is staying in, because he knows the candidates he defeated have skeletons in their closets that are bound to come out.
I'd like to challenge Mark Levin. As much as I love the guy, he is going off the deep end with his anti-Akins drivel. Ok, Mark, I got the perfect candidate for you. I want to know if you would support him come hell or high water. This candidate is even a close personal friend of yours and a famous Missourian to boot. He's just been elevated to the Missouri Hall of Fame. He has been in the forefront of conservatism for 25 years. Known as the Godfather of the GOP. Yes, Rush Limbaugh.
Let's imagine Rush taking Akin's place. Rush; the perfect conservative candidate, right? But Mark, I want to know, will you still hang with him when the ex-girl friends come out and the doctor shopping and the Fluck slut stuff starts being rehashed? Will you? Or are you going to freak out and insist he drop out for the sake of the country? Or are you going to hang with your good buddy who expounds the conservative message?
Rush is always instructing us by using the absurd to counter the absurd. Ditto in this piece.
What exactly are Akin’s ideas?
This whole argument over Todd Akin within the GOP over whether Akin should bow out of his fairly-earned nomination wouldn't even be necessary if the electorate in Missouri - and presumably in just about every state - was not so dumb that so many would change their vote from Akin to McCaskill on the basis of one gaffe for which he sincerely apologized.
The same thing apparently happened in Virginia in 2006 when George Allen uttered the word "macaca," a word that 99.9 percent of the voters probably never heard of before.
Now who is more of a fool: a candidate like Akin or Allen or a significant percentage of the electorate who would change their vote because of some otherwise trivial mistake by the candidate that the opposition and its lackeys attack like wolves devouring a carcass?
The MSM and the 'Rat Party think that the electorate is stupid (just as Rush Limbaugh said the other day) and it seems that the electorate doesn't usually disappoint them. That's one of the main reasons why the country in such trouble.
Jim Talent has said “I’m totally ruling out” any effort to take Akin’s place on the ballot. However, he did say that John Cornyn’s call of Akin to drop out of the race was “very appropriate.”
Other possible replacements include Akin’s primary opponents, Sarah Steelman and John Brunner. Steelman had Sarah Palin’s endorsement and could put up a good fight for the seat. Jo Ann Emerson and Sam Graves, with their length of service in the House of Representatives, would also be viable candidates.
You’re correct, of course, Akin is a very serious legislator who made one verbal gaffe. He hasn’t done anything illegal, immoral or unethical. But the DNC lackeys at MSNBC are in full attack mode over that one verbal gaffe.
The truly sad thing about all this is that the Democrats’ “Republican war on women” propaganda had finally started to go away. Akin has single-handedly given their propaganda a new lease on life and it will last until the election. For that reason, he’s got to go. We need to capture more of the women’s vote at all levels, especially the presidential election.
The democrats have long since learned that the republicans will eliminate themselves with just the right prodding. remember Trent Lott and his “horrifying” comment?
Here in Michigan they’re squealing that Pete Hoekstra wants to stop people from voting for senators. What he actually said was that he would like to see the 17th amendment overturned. Thankfully he isn’t about to apologize just like he didn’t apologize over the Asian ad back in the spring.
We’ve got to treat democrats the same way we should be treating muslims. Neither respects weakness.
His first mistake was to make the remark. His second was to apologize for it. Once you apologize, the box is opened, and all the forces of of evil are loosed to make angry chimp noises about the remark that you already apologized for, and drown you out. You will never escape from an apology, because it puts the focus of the campaign, the media and the opposition on the remark, more about the remark, and nothing but the remark. They’ll want to know what ever possessed you to make such a dumb remark in the first place, whether your apology was truly sincere, and whether you’ve ever made similar remarks in the past. It never ends. Once you apologize, it’s over except for the screaming.
What to do about a macaca moment? Give a half-assed explanation about what you “really meant,” sufficiently vague to mean anything, and announce some bold initiative that totally steals the spot light from the remark. Those who keep harping on the remark will then be seen as narrow-minded partisans who can’t get over a simple gaffe and are stuck in the past. The focus will instead be on the merits of this bold initiative, whatever it is. And this is the law of the jungle.
Go to thread # 2922300 here on FR & read post # 13.
Says it all, IMO.
We have already seen the perfect candidate, and her name is Sarah
I STILL want akin out, but you know what, if he is staying in, then I am going to shut up and hope for the best. This horse is done beat,.
I’m not in Missouri, and really don’t know much about Akins other than he is on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and has a 96% ACU rating. He has a degree in Divinity and worked in the family steel business. Not sure if he made that though - lol.
I found this interesting as well. In 1998 Fay Boozman, a friend of Huckabee, said much the same thing as Akin in his Arkansas senate race against Branch Lincoln. Boozman lost, but, ironically, his brother beat Lincoln in 2010. Guess the folks of Arkansas didnt hold his brothers ideas against him. Nor will most sensible folks believe that Akins ideas represent all republicans. The economy will decide the presidential race.
Another peculiar twist - Fay Boozman was a medical advisor to a crisis pregnancy center. You just cant make this stuff up.
I’ve heard Huckabee is defending Akins just like he did Boozman way back when.
No Missouri conservative is going to change his vote.
Many moderate women we were counting on to remove Claire Frightwig from office are no longer going to be counted in the GOP column. And, this could spread to the presidential ticket, too, if it hasn't already.
That's the big picture.
That's why Capt. Ahab must go.
"On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show: Todd Akin has decided to stay in the race in Missouri and although Mark doesn't necessarily agree that his decision was the best one to make, it is more important to defeat McCaskill than to not support Akin. We have the country at stake here and the future of it, and we must stop people like Claire McCaskill and other liberals that want to continue the direction the country is heading and vote them out. We may have some resentment that Akin didn't resign and step down from the race, but that's over now and we must support him if we are serious about wanting to take the Senate."
“We have already seen the perfect candidate, and her name is Sarah”
I couldn’t agree more. I hope that once these vile progressive/fascists have been defeated and licking their wounds that Sarah and all she represents will re-emerge. It’s disgusting the way such a good individual has been defined and trashed by hateful democrats and media.
I wrote this post not so much to defend Akins, who I think can still beat McCaskill due to Missouri sensibleness, but to mock the alarmists. Now if Scott Brown had made Akins’ remark, he wouldn’t have a chance in looney-lib Massachusetts.
I listened to two days of Mark Levin wringing his hands over this Akins’ affair. Yes I know he would still vote for Akins. What other choice is there if he stays in? I referred to one of his podcasts in which he plays Hamlet over this issue.
The point I was trying to make is my disappointment in Mark joining the firing squad, and would Levin be so quick to pull the trigger if his friend Rush was in the hot seat. I don’t think so. Nor did I hear him come up with a better candidate who he could guarantee would not embarrass us.
I don’t see how the agonizing helps anything. Democrats never do. They double down.
Can someone please try to explain why it seems many more women turn out to vote than do men? Of course they tend more to vote for the 'rats, while men tend more to vote GOP.
I heard that women began outnumbering men in the presidential electorate about 1980. Before that, men outnumbered women because politics was traditionally a man's interest.
As well as capturing a larger share of the women's vote, maybe the GOP ought to be doing things to attract more men to the polls.
Thank you for this info.
But, again, we might know what he said, but the ideas which he intended to convey (obviously botched) still remain obscure. What exactly was he trying to argue?
That women have a magical uterus that can prevent pregnancy. He also called foreceful rape legitimate rape, as opposed to statutory rape which no trauma is involved. Get it? Neither does he.
He based his comments on the views of the National Right to Life Committee founder , the medical genius Dr. Jack Wilkee.
Dr. Wilkee is an obvious Nobel Prize in Medicine winner in waiting (to whom an ungrateful public gives no recognition). The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are also at odds with Dr. Wilkee. They say a woman who is raped "has no control over ovulation, fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg. ... To suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths."
As a politician, Akin failed the basic test of communication 101. He needs to go.
“What exactly was he trying to argue?”
He was being questioned about his stand on being anti- abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He was trying to defend his stance by his ‘legitimate rape’ explanation implying that rape victims have some hormonal ‘shut-down’ system to prevent them from becoming pregnant by the rapist.
Not that I’m subscribing to the idea of ‘legitimate rape,’ but Mona Charen had an interesting column recently about the role of stress and pregnancy.
As an example, men watching their team win a game had higher testosterone levels than the guys whose team lost.
From her article:
“Though dismissed as a myth for some time, the role of stress in infertility is being reconsidered now by specialists. Dr. Margareta D. Pisarska, co-director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles told WebMD that “it’s becoming more and more important, in terms of what studies we do, to focus our efforts on the physiological effects of stress and how they may play a role in conception.”
Yes. I agree with you.
Yet, Hillary and Biden can talk as if they are wearing Blackface in a Minstrel Show, and they get away with it.
There have been more women voters than men voters since 1964, and women register and vote at a higher percentage than men.
Men were taught to be self-reliant. Women were taught to be dependent on men, and, since the Great Society, on the government.
Now they are the dumb ones I was talking about, those that would change their vote on a largely irrelevant and trivial matter. Were any of them thinking that they might want an abortion or might get raped? And even if they did, abortion law is largely a state matter (within the paramaters of Roe V. Wade) over which a US Senator is likely to exercise little influence.
Is Frightwig her real last name, or did Charles Dickens dream it up?
Charles Dickens, at your service, sir...
Women voters had been skewing politics toward more government largesse long before the "Great Society," in fact even before the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified c. 1920.
I saw a study that evaluated state spending data from the period just before the Nineteenth Amendment. States that allowed women's suffrage had significantly greater increases in state spending in the years immediately following the start of women voting, when compared to states that did not allow women's suffrage in a comparable time frame. Conclusion: Women in general supported more government spending than men and put more pressure on government in that direction.
That pattern continued at the federal level, but with a lag period. Harding and Coolidge, the first two presidents elected with a significant number of female voters, were fiscal conservatives. But then came Hoover, who introduced some new government programs, followed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who could be viewed as "Hoover on steroids" in terms of government expansion.
If the "ministry of propaganda" has as much clout as you fear, things are even worse than I thought.
Hard to see how the flap over Akin could depress Republican voter turnout in MO in a presidential election year in which Republicans own a significant advantage in the enthusiasm gap.
The question was when women voters began to outnumber men voters.
First, thanks for the ping! Been out of the loop a bit today as preparing for possible trouble with Issac. Really think FL panhandle area and AL,MS,LA will get the brunt but hope it isn't over a CAT 2!
As far as reports that “women tend to vote for the ‘rats’, I believe that is what the Media wants everyone to think and that is what they hope for! I find it hard to believe but maybe it is because I am a Conservative woman. AND even when I was a registered Demrat years ago, I was still conservative in my thinking! Hard to believe, right?
I will add that this coming election gives us all a clear choice, and women will no doubt turn out in droves. It is also my opinion that the women AND men who choose Obama in November will clearly be those who have done NO research, listen ONLY to Liberal Media, AND preally don't CARE that they know NOTHING about Obama!
It's pretty well known that in just about every general election contested between a Republican and a Democrat for any office anywhere in the country, the Democrat will do better among women than he/she will do among men. This is the so-called gender gap. It does not necessarily mean that the Democrat will win the majority of the women's vote, but the percentage of women voting for the Democrat will be greater than the percentage of men doing so.
The most common explanation given for the gender gap is that women in general have more of a vested interest in government handouts and thus agitate for the big government programs advocated by 'Rats more than men do. This statistically holds much more strongly for single women than it does for married women.
Thanks for the ping!
I just hope in November it doesn’t prove to be true!! We need a landslide AGAINST Obama!! That is what I pray for!!
Thanks justiceseeker93, well said.
Unfortunately, the "gender gap" is one of those things that will not be eradicated this year nor in the near future. It's kind of built in to the big government mentality and demographic structure of the population.
But don't get depressed about it. As I said, it doesn't necessarily mean that the women's vote will go overwhelmingly to Obama. Not at all. If Romney can come close to even with Obama among women voters, let alone beat him narrowly among women, men will vote very decisively for Romney so as to give him, if not a landslide, a decisive victory, perhaps on the order of Obama's win over McCain in '08 (6-7 percentage points difference in the popular vote). I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a greater Romney margin which could be termed a "landslide."
The "ministry of propaganda" (formerly known as the "mainstream media") still has a HUGE amount of clout.
I hate to say it, but FR is something of an "echo chamber" where it's easy to forget that not everyone thinks like many do here. I work in an industry where we have to deal with SOX, Dodd-Frank, and the CFPB, yet far more than half of the people I work with are Obama supporters. Everyone on them could very well be put out of work by Obama and his regime. But they're going to vote for him.
With very few exceptions, everyone I know get their new from the ministry, whether it's the NY Slimes, the KC Red Star, or any of the alphabet networks. Even people with access to high speed Internet don't really use it for keeping up to date on news and current events.
You might want to plug the FoxNews evening lineup to them: O'Reilly-Hannity-Van Susteren. Far from perfect, but still an improvement upon what they are currently reading and watching. Also, would it be dangerous to expose them to Limbaugh or Hannity on radio while you're at work?
Dang right they do! They circle the wagons and more often not come out no worse for the trouble.
One guy on our side stumbles and everyone's in a wobbly panic to put them down. Never an "On your feet, mate. Steady on and watch yer step."
The GOP should have clarified his statement, brushed it off as a misunderstanding, and gone immediately after McCaskill's record.