The time has passed and Todd Akin has not withdrawn from as the Republican nominee for the Senate from Missouri. Virtually every Republican has called for him to step out as it would be in the best interest of the party and the nation.
Of course, to Todd Akin, Todd Akin is more important that a nation. He is more important than any other consideration. Not party, not nation or anything else.
The Cook Report, a respected political analyst has moved Missouri from a toss up to a safe Democrat seat.
How does Akin think he is going to win? The Republican National Senatorial Committee has said it is pulling $5 million in support if Akin stays in the race. Crossroads GPS has pulled its advertising in Missouri.
Well, Todd how the hell do you think you are going to pull this off? You are not going to have national support. Mitt Romney and every major Republican has called for you to step out.
His stupid comments on rape are going to be blasted all over the airwaves and what is he going to do about it? He won’t be advertising his version because he won’t have the money to do it.
Rush Limbaugh today said there is a double standard as it is applied to conservatives. He is right. There is. But what would he have done if Joe Biden had said something that stupid?
Scott Walker today came out telling Akin to drop out of the race. He is right.
This decision, the triumph of Todd Akin’s ego over any loyalty to party or nation may have additional consequence of hurting Romney in the national election. Right now most polls have Missouri as leaning Republican. However, a recent poll showed Romney with a single point lead over Obama.
Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R) is staying in the race, he stated today on The Dana Show and The Mike Huckabee Show. “I haven’t done anything morally or ethically wrong,” said Akin to Huckabee, two days after commenting on local television that in cases of “legitimate rape … the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin, who has apologized for the comments, insisted that the media backlash against him has been “a little bit of an overreaction.”
Akin also said, “We believe this stand is going to strengthen our country, going to strengthen, ultimately, the Republican Party.”
That’s not what the Republican Party believes, to be sure. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said yesterday on national television that Akin should drop out of the race, and shouldn’t show up to the Republican National Convention. Senators Scott Brown (R-MA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) called on Akin to leave. American Crossroads, a super PAC run by Karl Rove, said they’d pull their cash out of the campaign; so did the National Republican Senatorial Committee. In fact, there was virtual unanimity across the conservative spectrum that Akin should drop out.
The Democratic Party, though, is eager to keep Akin in the race. In fact, they spent some $1.5 million in the Republican Missouri primaries to boost him to victory over two other candidates. And Claire McCaskill, his incumbent Democratic opponent, has carefully avoided calling for Akin to step aside.
The fallout for Republican hopes to win a Senate majority are severe. Earlier this morning, pollster Larry Sabato moved the Missouri Senate race from a leaning Republican race to a toss up. Snap polls show Akin’s support dropping dramatically. And he’ll have far less money to spend now that vast swaths of the conservative movement have pulled out of his race.
There are many names that we can call Todd Akin. Patriot is not one of them.
I invite you to read your bible. Jesus Christ ignored politics, although he lived in a very political time.
He NEVER mixed religion with government force and he NEVER advocated police enforcement of religious rules. I believe it is our duty as Christians to do the same as He.
Religion and politics should not be mixed. It damages both our nation and our church.
If I come off a little heavy in my commentary, it is because of strong belief.
Saying "religion and politics should not be mixed" is an overstatement of what the founders meant in the Constitution. The government is not supposed to endorse any religion, but it is also not supposed to prohibit it, either. To advocate that the two cannot coexist would be denying any person on government property from expressing any religious belief. The founders themselves had prayers and made many religious statements on government property during government work hours. They apparently "mixed" the two without prohibiting anything.
Hey JC Patriot. You went back a long way for that post! I think I was a different person back then. Just kidding.
I think what you are saying is correct, but that is not really what I had in mind. I believe that government should have ZERO influence over religion, religious beliefs, or religious institutions. I see the practice of one's religious beliefs to have nothing whatsoever to do with government.
Government is about FORCE. That force is sometimes necessary, for instance to protect the nation or to protect the God-given rights of individuals. Religion is not about force.
I also wouldn't give them any tax breaks, but that is a whole other can of worms.
Be careful with that idea of protecting the God-given rights of individuals -- next thing you know you might end up thinking that a fetus is a new individual created by God, and that the government should be protecting that individual from some big blue meanies trying to kill it. And I know you don't want that wild and crazy idea in your head ...
About that other can of worms: if our government, our politicians, our IRS, with their fine records of never letting fraud, waste, or politics enter into their decisions, were now allowed to enforce tax laws onto religious entities ... we can all rest assured that they will never, ever apply any favoritism or hostility toward any particular set of beliefs in any way ...
Now you have me thinking about that word "exempt" -- they like to use that word as if religious entities are akin to some corporation getting away with tax breaks because they greased the politicians. I think we should use terminology that emphasizes that it is the government that is PROHIBITED from exerting any influence on religious entities, and that surely includes financial "persecution."
I wonder which branch of the government is empowered in the Constitution to tax any religious entity, and how would any such tax be reasonably interpreted as not infringing upon people's rights to build and worship at a church of their own. Any thoughts on this?
I read this today. We have to get back to faith and strength and stay united. Here is Obama's Army. Go to second comment if you can stomach it and watch what happens to Christians. This Army is now on American Soil.
:P.S. My last comment was to Steve Johnson, not to you, Steve Savage.
If Todd Akin did nothing else, he forced open a Pandora's box. All the evils attendant to the American political process are now flying about and all public figures are running for cover. The one place none seem to have gone to hide is the musty library of empirical data. Turns out that repository holds disappointingly little data and when all the specious, agenda driven presentations have been recorded, little accurate data remains.
For those who have been disappointed in the coverage and commentary generated by a single statement by a conservative Missouri Congressman seeking a Senate seat, the following sites just might offer a useful starting place in seeking some firm ground to stand on.
Pregnancies from violent rape:
A woman conceived in rape:
Todd Akin’s politics:
Apparently the meanings of the words ethical and moral eludes the majority of the country so the bar has been lowered to
legal vs illegal, and the politicians, lawyers, muslims and communist vermin are playing us for idiots.
Akin is a Patriot in my book for putting his values before his job, and his values happen to be aligned with mine.
Since the issue of funding of abortion and contraception is one he will be asked to vote on, if I were in his district, I'd want to know where he stood on it, and would hope he wasn't a typical lying politician.
Is the argument whether to approve, outlaw, or force funding of abortion?
I don't approve of it, I do not have the power to outlaw it, and I will do whatever I can to avoid funding it.
Maybe that will mean dropping out of the workforce to minimize my contribution to the Federal Spending Orgy.
That's who is dropping out of the work force, not those tired of looking for work, it is those tired of seeing their tax dollars wasted on Egypt and Martha's Vineyard, and bailouts etc. etc. (etc.)
I can see ethics and morality in the context of burning the flag. I would never make it illegal, but if someone tries to do it in front of me I just might beat the crap out of them.
As for dropping out of the work force, I have to make a living somehow. Where is Galt's Gulch anyway?
I hear you about earning a living. I actually have three jobs!
But if you are in the correct age range you have the option of taking disability or going onto SS.
Like every other news report, they (Federal government) are misrepresenting the statistics regarding jobs and employment to mutually cover their behinds and confuse the segmeant of the public who are lucid enough to watch the news and try to understand what is going on