This time you did not use foul language and say Rove was involved in “the big lie.” So, even though I do not rely on Daily KOS for truth, I took a look at the ad posted there.
The ad “accused” Akin of wanting to privatize Social Security, eliminate the Department of Education, and outlaw most forms of abortion, among other things.
These positions are supported by most movement conservatives and, so, communicates to many of them that Akin is the true conservative.
For example, on Social Security, when Bush proposed a partial privatization, 74 percent of Republicans supported it. In contrast, 88 percent of Democrats opposed it.
See http://www.pollingreport.com/social2.htm
ABC News/Washington Post Poll March 10-13, 2005.
Republicans are mostly for reform of the entitlement programs, returning education to the states (and even to local communities and to parents), and for upholding the right to life.
But, these aren’t the positions of the majority of Americans who, frankly, aren’t very educated as to the meaning of ordered liberty under a Constitution, or the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. And, the pathetic state of our citizenry only gets worse with each new cohort indoctrinated by our public school system and taught that they are entitled to taxpayer-financed everything.
As a result, our candidates have to careful in how they say things, not say stupid things that make them sound uneducated or unsympathetic to rape victims. And, they have to emphasize the poor consequences of socialist policies because the truth is a lot of Americans wish in their hearts that socialism worked.
So the rationale is that McCaskill wanted to face the most conservative candidate because he would be the easiest to beat? In actuality, each of the three Rep candidates took about a third of the vote with Akin getting 36%. Do you subscribe to the assumption that the most conservative candidate is the easiest to beat? Or is McCaskill just describing Akin's actual positions on the issues?
You left out the other items that McCaskill attacked about Akin: Akin wants to abolish the minimum wage and get rid of student loans, which he compared to stage 3 cancer. And he wanted to do more than just privatize SS, he wanted to take it away from today's seniors. Huckabee, Cong Hensarling, Jim Jordan, Steve King, Michele Bachmann, Pete Sessions, and Phyllis Schafly endorsed Akin.
McCaskill ad against Brunner described him as a "reliable conservative" who spent more than he earned almost bankrupting the family business and hadn't bothered to vote in 16 years. "Being a conservative means not spending more than you make." Senators Tom Coburn and Ron Johnson, Freedom Works, Augie Busch, and the Chamber of Commerce endorsed Brunner.
Against Steelman: More inside deals, more to hide, key documents missing, more politics as usual, more money from big contributors for favors. Palin, Sen Mike Lee, and the Tea Party Express endorsed Steelman.
When you look at the endorsements, it is very difficult to sort out who is the most conservative. All three candidates had heavyweight conservatives endorsing them. I just think it is part of this line put out by the GOP establishment that McCaskill orchestrated Akin's win. She certainly did not donate any money to his campaign and her ads painted him as a radical. She could use the same ads today against him in the general election if she truly believes that conservatives are easy to beat.
I might also add that Akin, Steelman, and Brunner held a series of debates televised statewide. They also ran ads against one another in a bruising, tough primary. So exactly how much did those few ads have on the primary election? Could it even be quantified?