You hit on a key point.
Social conservatives, economic conservatives and national defense conservatives have overlapping agendas but don't always agree, and sometimes when we do agree, we don't agree on the order of priorities.
Look, I think Akin's comment was stupid. I've said it repeatedly, and I think he made Christian conservatives look really bad, and he has done serious damage to literally decades of solid conservative votes in the Missouri legislature and in the House of Representatives. I won't defend the comment, Akin won't get out, and now we have to decide what to do next.
I think it has become obvious in this race that Akin is willing to try to get major grassroots backing from social conservatives and try to win a Senate race without national Republican Party support. That is his decision and only he can make that decision and if the current polling data remains consistent he has at least a chance. This is Missouri, after all, where lots of conservative rural people still call themselves Democrats and will vote for a conservative Christian but will revert to voting Democrat if the candidates look similar on other issues. Akin might pull a victory off, just like secular Tea Party people have pulled off upset victories in other states.
I understand why the national GOP considers Akin radioactive. Fine. So let the national GOP put their money into races they think are winnable; they're going to do it anyway. Lots of social conservative Republicans didn't like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Rudy Giuliani very much, but we understood that they could win in California and New York even if they couldn't win in our states, and we let their supporters back their candidates without raising too much of a stink about their less-than-ideal views on other issues since we knew any Democrat would be much worse.
But don't have the head of the Republican National Committee run around saying "not one dime" goes to the Republican primary winner even if he's tied with the incumbent Democrat. That kind of talk really antagonizes Christian conservatives, does long-term damage, and is totally unnecessary.
The national GOP has now given lots of cover to moderate Republicans who see Akin as being a danger to their races in other states. Fine. You've made your point, so stay quiet now and let social conservatives try to win this thing in Missouri if Akin decides to stay in the race.
I can’t disagree with that.
In my opinion, Akin cares more about his own ego than the entire country. He opened his own big mouth and started this mess. I find that reprehensible and loathsome. He’s as much the problem as Hussein Obama.
We have men and women in our military dying for this country and Akin, the diarrhea-mouthed boob, thinks more of himself than his country. How disgusting!
It's damage control. One candidate vs. many. Even one penny of OPEN support puts other candidates at risk.
Hopefully social conservatives will realize the very real political problem this flap created for the party nationwide, and not become mired in long term resentment as a result, because the legitimate resentment cuts both ways.
For instance, when Huckabee compares the NRSC to "union goons" who "kneecap" their enemies, he is also turning off voters (including social conservatives) who view this critical election from a logistical standpoint and whose primary focus is on attaining a majority in congress with viable candidates in order to reverse the damage democrats have wrought.
Furthermore, moderate republicans will also be less inclined to sympathize with the social conservative point of view, if they see high profile social conservatives apparently willing to jeopardize election outcomes when the stakes for losing are so high.
It would be shortsighted and foolish to allow this political family fight to cause permanent damage in the party, but the democrats (and Alinsky) would certainly be pleased.