Skip to content

Why Akin Deserves to Lose

 

IN THE entry on the controversial remarks of Congressman Todd Akin, a reader says Akin, who is now trailing Claire McCaskill, should have dropped out of the race.

Clark Coleman writes:

Akin projects a certain stereotype that many voters detest, and some of them are in the GOP, such as myself: the politician who thinks that his moral beliefs are qualification enough for office, and he does not have to do the hard work of thinking through the details of all those issues that are not moral issues, nor even of learning to articulate his views on the moral issues that are seemingly most important to him.

….  Finally, these politicians who are pro-life but who are not particularly knowledgeable or articulate never seem to accomplish much of anything even on the pro-life issues, because they cannot articulate and persuade. So, what good are they? What is the list of major accomplishments of the pro-life movement after forty years of single-issue focus? Thomas Sowell has repeatedly complained about the inability to articulate and persuade that plagues GOP politicians. They will not get help from the news media, so they need to be forceful and effective in their communications and get their points across without assistance in interviews, debates, and campaign advertisements. If they are only able to preach to the choir, they have little to offer.

I conclude that if Mr. Akin cannot state and defend his views without my help, then he cannot win the Senate seat in Missouri. I have no use for such a candidate.

Laura writes:

 This controversy could cost Republicans control of the Senate and the opportunity to repeal Obamacare soon. I disagree with Mr. Coleman and think the party should have helped Akin defend his comments.

—– Comments —

Joseph A. writes:

Who cares what Akin said about rape pregnancy in the first place? Is he being elected to be a federal gynecologist? Did you Republican fools ever hear of stress as an impediment to pregnancy? Eclampsia, anyone? I was taught essentially the same thing he said as part of required undergraduate biology in the 1980s. Have people changed since then without my notice?

In any case, What does this have to do with success in the U.S. Senate? It’s not exactly a MENSA convention you understand, don’t you? Perhaps the Republican Party hadn’t noticed, being too busy skinny dipping in Israel.

In short, it is amazing, simply amazing to watch the Stupid Party at work. They just can’t help but kick their own to the kerb for offending Democrat sensibilities.

The GOP should die to give much needed breathing room to struggling third parties that would fill the void. A3P, Constitution, Libertarian even Greens would be better than their institutionalized suicide.

Terry Morris writes:

Mr. Coleman does a fine job of explaining why Akins should have avoided this whole controversy in the first place. Not to mention HOW he could have avoided it. And it is true that most “conservative” politicians aren’t particularly knowledgable or persuasive on the core issues. Which, indeed, is a huge problem for the conservative movement. But in fairness to Mr. Akins, I don’t think he ought to have been “thrown to the wolves” by his fellow Republicans based on this single gaffe. And on that point I should probably yield to Mr. Coleman’s judgment given that my knowledge of Akins himself is severely limited.

But in any event, I’m not clear on your point, Laura, as to how Akins’s election is supposed to effectuate repeal of Obamacare. A bare Republican majority in the Senate will not accomplish this, and isn’t a bare majority the best the Republicans can hope for?

Personally I think Justice Roberts and his partners-in-crime should be subject to impeachment proceedings for their ruling in Obamacare case.

In his opinion, Roberts gives lip service to the constitutional principle of limited government, then proceeds to effectively read into the taxing power of Article I, Section 8, an unlimited Congressional power to tax, thus control, every single facet of our daily lives. Apparently he either has not read Federalist no. 41 (last four paragraphs), or, more likely, he considers the intentions of the framers to be irrelevant, as with most modern federal judges.

Laura writes:

In answer to Mr. Morris, Republicans could use the reconciliation process — as the Democrats did in passing Obamacare — to reverse key provisions of the law, and this would require a simple majority. They would have to pick up three seats in November to have a majority in the Senate and would have to vote unanimously.

Terry Morris writes:

I see. Thank you for that answer. I was thinking “full repeal,” when I wrote that it couldn’t be done with a simple majority. [Laura writes: I should have chosen another word. "Repeal" is not right.]But getting rid of the individual mandate would go a long way toward satisfying me.

Incidentally, we worked very hard in Oklahoma to prevent Governor Fallin from creating a State “Health Exchange” by federal edict and with “federal money.” She had a hard time grasping the concept that tacit acquiescence is as good as saying that the federal government has the power that we’re saying it doesn’t have. She wasn’t even willing to put up a good fight. But she was finally persuaded, to her credit.

Share:EmailFacebook0Twitter2Pinterest0Google+0