Todd Akin: Some of my staff ‘conceived in rape'

Politico ^ | 7/17/14 | Jonathan Topaz

[centurion316]

You are spouting revisionist history. Both John Brunner and Sarah Steelman would have kicked Claire McCaskill’s butt in the general election and one or the other would have beaten Todd Akin in the primary if not for the several millions of dollars that Claire poured into his campaign.

Thanks to Todd Akin, we now have McCaskill as Senator for life from Missouri.

[Resettozero]

Both John Brunner and Sarah Steelman would have kicked Claire McCaskill’s butt in the general election and one or the other would have beaten Todd Akin in the primary if not for the several millions of dollars that Claire poured into his campaign.

Thanks to Todd Akin, we now have McCaskill as Senator for life from Missouri.

No. That's illogical and does not follow. Thanks to the GOP abandoning Akin and the influx of money you say came from McCaskill, you now have McCaskill as Senator for life from Missouri -- just as we are stuck with Lindsey Graham in S.C., one might think.

[DoodleDawg]

The original topic of this thread is Akin's book tour and appearances on TV, not the election. My comments were founded on the observation that DoodleDawg has posted on several FR threads of his disdain of Akin AS A PERSON long after he's lost the election and moved on.

Wrong gender.

One of DoodleDawg's postings on this thread could be viewed as potentially threatening to Akin's person.

Which one?

[Resettozero]

Wrong gender.

Don't care.

Which one?

13.

[Darren McCarty]

Todd. Swallow your pride. You f'ed up with your mouth. Shut up.

The goal of the pro-life movement is to save babies and not egos.

[centurion316]

The voters abandoned Akin and for good reason given what he said. McCaskill clearly understood that the only way that she could win was if Akin was her opponent. That’s why she poured money into his campaign. It turned out that she didn’t have to do much to discredit him after the primary, he did that all by himself to her great delight.

[Resettozero]

I have understood that as yours and other posters references to Akin. Fine. The election is over. I concede it was likely lost for the reasons mentioned.

My posts on this thread have been referencing one poster’s vendetta against Akin PERSONALLY. I explained further in post 80.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

And, the fact that McCackle was aided in her first run by nut jobs around Springfield, who withheld support for Jim Talent.

[DoodleDawg]

Don't care.

Doesn't surprise me a bit. You're an Akin fanatic.

13

You have a vivid imagination.

[Resettozero]

Doesn't surprise me a bit. You're an Akin fanatic.

Nonsense. YOU seemed fixated on him, though.

You have a vivid imagination.

True. And YOU do not consider the effect of your words before you post.

-30-

[Lakeshark]

It won't take "a future historian" to see that it was you who addressed me first, or that you came on the thread as one of the few defending the idiot Akin.

It seems you are mostly pissed off at yourself for not realizing what an ego driven loser he was and apparently still is.

You've proceeded to take on multiple posters here for some reason over this loser, and from what I can see it won't take future historians to see you were schooled in each conversation.

[so_real]

Not at all revisionist -- just a different point of view and likely a more accurate one. I too have heard that McCaskill's democrat supporters spent $1.5 million tearing down Steelman and Brunner (I can't find verification of that, but several articles allude to it). However, it *is* revisionist to say, as you did, that McCaskill poured this money into Akin's campaign. As far as I know, Akin did not receive a cent from McCaskill and I would challenge you to evidence otherwise. Furthermore, the $1.5 million was spent *prior* to Akin's statement on rape and the Washington Post in their article on the topic attributed this move by the democrats to the fact that Akin was "the most conservative candidate in the field --- and the most unpredictable one". Akin was considered the "extreme conservative" in a three-way primary. As the most conservative, McCaskill felt her chances for victory were best against the most conservative opponent -- stands to reason. Maybe you are wired differently, but the idea of having the most conservative candidate win the Senate seat appeals to me. And it appealed to Missourians who chose Akin 36% to Brunner 30% to Steelman 29%. That's not revisionist; that's a fact.

[centurion316]

Your entire argument rests on recounting events that occurred before Akin opened his big fat mouth. If he hadn’t, he probably would have won in spite of the money that McCaskill spent promoting his candidacy. She did it before the primary for the reasons you cite and independently of the Akin campaign. It’s the reason that Akin won the primary.

The obvious issue is what happened after he turned his campaign from a probable win into a cannot win. Akin and all of the knuckleheads who continued to support him long after he was clearly a dead skunk in the middle of the road cost us a Senate seat. Denying that it ever happened means that you will do it again. This is not bad politics, it is political suicide.