Not to mention, I don’t see what being pro-life has to do with thinking women have magical sperm catchers in their uterus that activate upon “legitimate rape”.
Both Steelman and Brunner were 100% pro-life.
Here’s the only way I can see this guy redeeming himself at this point:
Announces the day before the DNC convention that due to the constant pressure the RNC has been exerting for the past weeks that he finally saw the light. He appreciates why the RNC wants him to leave and he will not endorse any candidate in the race only that we must focus on the economy.
DNC has a line-up full of anti men harpies and no means to change the lineup.
It’ll never happen but it would be like 5 dimension chess ;)
“This goof ball is an national embarrassment. If you don’t see that, you are too blinded by emotions.”
I’m not in Missouri, I’m not “an Akin supporter”, nor am I even a “hard pro-lifer” (my attitudes on the issue are more realistic).
But from a viewpoint of reason, and not emotions, the Pubbies are in a pickle with Mr. Akin.
There is no “clean way” to remove him from the ballot — he has to remove himself, and it may take some “dirty dealing” in order to persuade him to that effect.
If Mr. Akin doesn’t wish to abdicate, the rest of the Republicans are going to have to figure out just how to handle him for the remainder of the campaign.
They can choose to ignore him, to castigate him, to claim he “is not one of us”. They can do all of that, but he will still be there, still be the Republican candidate for senator from Missouri, and still be the only person who can remove Claire McCaskill from office. The outcome of such a scenario may indeed be bleak, for if Mr. Akin remains the candidate, the Republicans will lose not only one seat but may lose the possibility of taking the Senate from the ‘rats as well. In an absolutely worst-case situation, Obama may win there, as well. Regardless of how overly-optimistic others here on FR about Mr. Romney’s chances of beating Obama in November, I still predict it will be a very close race, and a squeaker in the electoral college (but that’s a subject for another thread). Lose Missouri, and Romney may lose the presidency.
Suffice to say, I fully-realize the implications of Mr. Akin remaining in the race, as much as you do.
But again, he IS THERE. He may or may not withdraw. His resolve seems to be strengthened (not weakened) by the controversy. He believes he can and will win. Short of doing to him what the fictional network UBS did to Howard Beale, the Pubbies had better figure out how to make the best of this, and they had better figure that out soon.
Which is why I proffer that given the realities of the situation in Missouri, if Todd Akin chooses to stand his ground and fight for McCaskill’s Senate seat, the Republicans will have no choice other than (after allowing him a “probationary period” in which to rehabilitate himself) to re-introduce at least some measure of financial and tactical support for him. This becomes the only pathway out of the imbroglio.
If he is going to remain the candidate, the only possible choices are:
1. To NOT support him, in which case he will certainly lose, or
2. To support him, in which case he may lose anyway, but then again, he might just beat her.
The air here at FR is going to get thick with the huffin’ and puffin’ of the self-righteous who say that Akin is a (insert your favorite epithet here) and should be run out of town. But as long as he ain’t goin’, those are but reply after reply of wasted words that aren’t going to change the situation.
If Akin stays in, the only logical choice that advances conservative interests will be to support him.
And perhaps suggest that in the future, he attend a few classes on human biology…. ;)