Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Akin defies GOP leaders
Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, right, listens to Paul Ryan, R-Wis., before a news conference on Ryan’s budget agenda in April 2011, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Akin’s Senate campaign is under fire after he “misspoke,” and other Republicans are withdrawing their backing of him. Photo by The Associated Press.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Rep. Todd Akin defied the nation’s top Republicans Tuesday to forge ahead with his besieged Senate campaign, declaring that GOP leaders were overreacting by abandoning him because of comments that women’s bodies can prevent pregnancies in cases of “legitimate rape.”
Local news crews report from outside the Secretary of State’s office Tuesday. It was rumored Todd Akin would send someone to end his bid for election senator, but no one showed up at the last minute to do so.
Akin pledged to carry on with his quest to unseat Democrat Claire McCaskill. But his bid faced tall obstacles: a lack of money, a lack of party support and no assurance that his apologies would be enough to heal a self-inflicted political wound.
“I misspoke one word in one sentence on one day, and all of a sudden, overnight, everybody decides, ‘Well, Akin can’t possibly win,’” he said on a national radio show hosted by former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. “Well, I don’t agree with that.”
Akin predicted he would bounce back from the political crisis threatening his campaign and capture a seat that is pivotal to Republican hopes of regaining control of the Senate.
“I’m in this race for the long haul, and we’re going to win it,” he told radio host Dana Loesch in St. Louis.
If he stays on the ballot, Akin will have to rebuild without any money from the national party and with new misgivings among rank-and-file Republican voters who just two weeks ago propelled him to a comfortable victory in a hotly contested three-way primary.
At several points during the interview with Huckabee, Akin focused on the idea he had misplaced a single word during a Sunday interview with St. Louis television station KTVI. But Akin has been roundly criticized both for using the phrase “legitimate rape” and saying a woman’s body has the ability to prevent conception after such an attack.
Hours earlier, Akin posted an online video in which he apologized again for his remarks. Campaign spokesman Ryan Hite said the apology was intended to cover both the reference to “legitimate rape” and Akin’s assertion that rape victims have a natural defense against pregnancy.
In a potential sign of his strategy, Akin appealed Tuesday to Christian evangelicals, anti-abortion activists and anti-establishment Republicans. He said he remains the best messenger to highlight respect for life and liberty that he contends are crumbling under the big-government policies of President Barack Obama.
Pressure to withdraw
As a key deadline to withdraw from the ballot loomed, Republican leaders intensified their pressure on Akin to exit.
Sen. Roy Blunt issued a joint statement Tuesday with all four of Missouri’s living former Republican senators — John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, Jim Talent and John Danforth — saying “it serves the national interest” for Akin to step aside.
Pointing to the group, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the congressman should “accept their counsel.”
A Romney aide said the candidate had been inclined to let Akin make the decision on his own. But after the Missouri lawmakers called for Akin to go, Romney wanted to make his position clear, said the aide, who requested anonymity because the aide was not authorized to publicly discuss Romney’s thinking.
Meanwhile, the Senate’s top-ranking Republican says Rep. Todd Akin’s apology isn’t good enough and is reiterating calls for him to step aside.
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky says he’s certain Akin truly is sorry for comments he made Sunday suggesting that women can prevent pregnancy in the case of “legitimate rape” is sincere. But McConnell says that “when the future of our country is at stake, sorry is not sufficient.”
The deadline to withdraw passed without any paperwork from the increasingly isolated Akin. He can withdraw from the race as late as Sept. 25, but after Tuesday, he would need a court order to do so.
If he does withdraw, state law gives the Republican state committee two weeks to name a replacement.
Akin provoked a political uproar when he was asked in the KTVI interview whether his general opposition to abortion extends to women who have been raped.
“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said.
In the apology video posted Tuesday on YouTube, Akin acknowledged that rape can lead to pregnancy, adding: “The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness.”
The video will be running as a 30-second ad on TV stations statewide for several days, Hite said.
But it’s not clear if Akin’s campaign will have the financial support to wage a prolonged advertising battle against McCaskill in the expensive St. Louis and Kansas City markets and the Republican-rich area of southwest Missouri.
Campaign funds vanish
The campaign arm of the Senate Republicans has already withdrawn $5 million in advertising planned for the Missouri race. The Karl Rove-backed Crossroads organization pulled its ads, too.
Crossroads President and CEO Steven Law suggested Tuesday that Akin was potentially helping Democrats retain their Senate majority by remaining in the race.
“The stakes in this election are far bigger than any one individual,” said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. By staying in the race, Akin “is putting at great risk many of the issues that he and others in the Republican Party are fighting for.”
While repeating his apology, Akin began taking a more aggressive tone Tuesday.
Asked by Huckabee if Akin felt betrayed by fellow Republicans, Akin replied: “I hadn’t done anything morally or ethically wrong, as sometimes people in politics do ... It does seem like a little bit of an overreaction.”
To continue his campaign, Akin will need the support of social conservatives, who have formed his political base through a 12-year congressional career.
Noreen McCann, who lives in the same suburban St. Louis area as Akin, said Tuesday that his rape comment hasn’t weakened her support for him. McCann expressed frustration that Akin was being publicly flayed for his ill-chosen words while other Democrats — specifically President Bill Clinton — have survived scandals that included accusations of sexual impropriety and lies.
Akin “is a man of principle. I trust and respect his integrity and his commitment to defending American values,” said McCann, who had passed out Akin fliers on primary election day. “I think he wants to defend all innocent human life. If he misspoke, or it was in the wrong context, that is not a major problem for me.”
But other Missouri Republicans are second-guessing their support for Akin.
Steven and Carolyn Sipes, a pair of retired public school teachers who are GOP committee members in southwest Missouri’s Christian County, both voted for Akin in the primary. Carolyn is now doing some soul-searching prayer about whether Akin remains the best choice. Her husband believes Republicans will have a better shot of unseating McCaskill without Akin.
“If he decides to stay in, I’ll back him to the hilt,” Steven Sipes said. But “I think it would be better probably if he did drop out at this point. He’s getting a lot of negative publicity.”
Akin’s campaign released an open letter Tuesday from Jack Willke, former president of the U.S. National Right to Life Committee, stating he was “outraged at how quickly Republican leaders have deserted” Akin.
Akin “remains a strong and courageous pro-life leader — and awkward wording in one sound bite doesn’t negate that,” Willke’s statement said.
Marry Me
Comments
David_K 9 months ago
The idea that Todd Akin's remark is simply a "mistake" he made in the words he said, not in the heart he holds, is outrageous, since he already co-sponsored the "Protect Life Act" (H.R.358.IH) and "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R.3.IH) with Paul Ryan and many others. These bills clearly say abortions cannot be funded with taxpayer money except in cases of "forcible rape." As if rape is ever non-forcible. Todd Akin's record on abortion and the definition of rape goes back far enough that you can be positive he meant what he said very strongly. And now, like a spineless, lily-livered coward, he is running from his words in the hope of keeping his power.
Akin's problem isn't that he said something wrong. It's that he said something Republicans in government think is right. Most just know not to say it out loud. Anybody who follows the news knows Akin wasn't referring to the rapist when he said "legitimate rape." He was obviously referring to the victim, and strongly implying that women generally lie about being raped. And that's worse, because it denies that most rapes occur at all.
In addition to being callous towards women, Akin possesses a pathetic (and dangerous, considering his position in power) understanding of biology. As an aside, this makes it even more obvious that we desperately need science taught in our public schools, and that religious education ought to be kept where it belongs: in religious institutions. Otherwise we end up with ignorant people making mis-informed decisions that can ruin people's lives.
Frankly, Todd Akin is an embarrassment to the great state of Missouri, to the South, to politicians, to the Republican Party, to all men, and to this county. But it's not just him that needs to retreat to private life and give better people a chance to govern this county. It's the Republican party that needs to officially rid itself of the ideology that there can be no exceptions to their anti-abortion stance. Todd Akin is a symptom of a much larger problem with the GOP itself.
As Todd Akin's statement was way more than just a "mistake," the Republican Party has way more people than just Todd Akin attempting to end women's access to abortions and belittle women. The Republican Party platform even makes no exception for abortions in the case of rape, and has been that way for decades. I dislike using the term "war" on women, because I think using the term "war" should be restricted to describing actual war. But I totally understand the sentiment when people say the GOP is waging a "war on women." Want this to change? Todd Akin: get out of the Senate race, out of Congress, and out of public life entirely. The Republican Party: stop trying to take away a women's right to have an abortion, and stop belittling women. Instead, do something good for this country, the way you once used to, over 100 years ago.
asb 9 months ago
Well said, thank you.
asb 9 months ago
You take David_K's words quite out of context Grace, your gift, and then imply that he and all who support choice have "a desire to butcher the unborn." He actually is interpreting what he and every leading Missouri Republican thinks Akin said, whether actually meant or not. David_K said Akin's words "imply," by the use of the word "legitimate" that most women lie about rape, and by extension that most rapes don't occur at all.
Sequoia 9 months ago
I just love the fact that Graceful bemoans "demonizing" language, and in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE accuses anyone who disagrees with her on abortion as having "a desire to butcher the unborn."
That is classic Graceful. That's the red meat I love to read!
I can't wait to get off work so I can go home, crack a brew, and kill some unborn babies. Really takes the edge off after a long day.
Paroquet 9 months ago
Oh Grace. I should feel pity for you.
"There is no feeling of good by the people on the left. The left cannot accept that people hold honest, heartfelt differences of opinion. No, in the eyes of the left anyone that disagrees with them is evil and must be silenced by any means. It is a situation that continues to build and it does not bode well for the nation."
You must really have trouble looking in the mirror sometimes. Your idea of "compromise" must truly vex your raging spirit. There is no peace down that road, Grace. You know in your heart of hearts that everything which happens is God's own will. The Almighty is omniscient and omnipotent, and everything which occurs does only by his intent and his leave. We cannot thwart Him singularly, or en-masse.
Paroquet 9 months ago
Good! Wrap yourself in "that they'll be responsible for their actions one day." But, do not presume to know the Will of the Almighty. God's Will is what it is. What it isn't, doesn't occur. One cannot know something that never happened. All has happened only that the Lord Wills it. To determine otherwise is to acknowledge God as less than perfect.
Sequoia 9 months ago
A nice little piece making a good point: Obama is the conservative in this race, as against a Republican party that is pseduo-populist right.
Obama is not a leftist. He's the centrist everybody says they want.
andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/americas-tory-president.html
Quote: "Against a radical right, reckless, populist insurgency, Obama is the conservative option, dealing with emergent problems with pragmatic calm and modest innovation. He seeks ... to reform the country's policies in order to regain the countries past virtues. What could possibly be more conservative than that? Or less conservative than the radical fusion of neoconservatism, theoconservatism and opportunism that is the alternative?
For thinking conservatives of a classic variety, Obama is the best president since Clinton and the first Bush. We need him for the next four years if we are to avoid the catastrophes that always follow revolutionary ideology. Like another Iraq; or another Katrina; or another Lehman. "
Indeed.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
AP and The Daily Beast...both leftist transcribers of DNC talking points.
Any numbskull who thinks Obama is centrist is devoid of a cogent thought. Even centrists won't spend $1 trillion more that they bring in. He is essentially a socialst who wants everyone's property to be doled out by a central government machine. I mean, a guy who isn't used to being the 4th or 5th most interesting person in the room can stand for nothing less. He must control everything, otherwise the U.S. won't achieve nirvana.
Narcissism and liberalism are psychological disorders that have much in common (IMO).
dokeus6 9 months ago
" I mean, a guy who isn't used to being the 4th or 5th most interesting person in the room can stand for nothing less. He must control everything, otherwise the U.S. won't achieve nirvana."
Is this a personal opinion of him or do you know this for a fact?
Seems like you and POTUS have a lot in common. You both feel like you must control everything!
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
Just diagnosing based on the symptoms, in this case the behaviors and statements of a narcissist. Only a narcissist thinks he can fix the world, make the sea levels drop, and spend $1 trillion more than he brings in with no ill effect.
asb 9 months ago
Now I'm really worried. I didn't know Obama was trying to take away my property. Tell me more. Oh but first, tell me about the $trillion debt that Obama's two wars have put us in . . . oh wait, they're actually his to end, not start. And don't bother telling me how conceited he is, I'd completely missed that so far and don't want to think less of him than I already do for his centerist nature. I'm all confused now; guess I'm just a numbskull with no cogent thought. Maybe I'll vote for the Ameican Taliban candidate, Mr. Akin.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
You can tell when a liberal is desparate because their lies become more outlandish, and they continually try to deflect attention from the topic at hand (e.g. the Akin comment). There isn't a person on this board that thinks America is on the right track. If you do, you think 8.3% unemployment is great and $3 trillion in new debt for the last three years is terrific. Obama owns it, and wants to double down on the mistakes. You cheer the boob that is taking us down the tubes, and it seems the only reason for it is so a doctor can legally kill a baby and remove it from the mother any time the mother wants.
Paroquet 9 months ago
Gus,
You style yourself a conservative (or anti-liberal), but want the government making personal choices for people? Could you rationalize your position for our benefit? Tell me your feelings on gay marriage too and rationalize those as well.
Keep it simple though. I'm busy still cleaning up the wreckage & paying for damage that happened when "conservatives" dominated all three branches of government simultaneously. Where they got involved, things got worse. Where they quit being involved, things got worse. The price of everything went up while salaries stayed stagnant and jobs were eliminated.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
You libs are all over the place when being pinned down on your beliefs. We talk about killing babies and you run to "its Bush's fault the economy is bad". We talk about the present state of the economy and you run to "all Republicans are named Todd Akin". But to you "point".
The government puts people in prison for killing every day, and I am grateful for this service the govt. provides at our expense. That is what we are talking about right? The killing of people? In this case, the killing of an innocent who didn't ask to be conceived? So if we say it is OK for the govt. to pass laws against killing, why can we not pass laws against killing innocent unborn babies? I subscribe to the Church's position on the matter, because I think it is the most dignified and humane. If the egg is fertilized, then you should not kill the baby, because he/she is a human being. If a woman is raped, and she is not yet pregnant, you give her drugs to keep her from getting pregnant and you support her as a community of faith. If she is pregnant, you support her through the pregnancy as a community of faith, and help her through the struggles she will endure. Punish the sinful rapist, but don't turn the victim into a sinner as well by killing a baby. A life is a life, and we are not tainted as souls because of who our parents are. All children are born with the same original sin and nothing more than that.
As for gay "marriage", there is no such thing. Marriage through history and sacred teaching means a union between a man and a woman recognized by God and ministered by the Church. I have no problem with civil unions, or whatever. But, marriage is a sacred thing and men and women can't "marry" someone of the same sex. Homosexual sex is a sin, not because I say so, but because God tells us. God tells us to only engage in sex within marriage. People with homosexual inclinations cannot engage in sex without sin, because they connot engage in sex in a state of marriage. If someone who has homosexual inclinations stays chaste, there is no sin, as there is no sin when any unmarried person stays chaste. Clear enough?
As for the rest of your rant...feh...
Paroquet 9 months ago
Gus, I'm Pagan, and an Ordained Minister. I married a Catholic to a Baptist last year in the Governor's garden. I even helped them to bridge their doctrines when I wrote-up their ceremony. I focused only upon them, and what they wanted for themselves.
One thing I don't do is run about waving my arms with my eyes closed and try to force others to believe as I do. Because I am conservative. You are a Biblical liberal, and blind to it.
My hand and sides were sore after the wedding from all of the handshakes and hugs.
You, I am sorry to inform, may not be right. And it is not for you to judge, nor force your belief upon others. Also, my religion is older than yours. Why do you think the dates of your Holidays fall so closely to mine? We have different views about marriage. Doesn't make them any less legal, or any less sacred, but you would diminish that? For shame.
Jesus, who was most likely a Pisces btw, conquered through love. St. Patrick came in the spirit of compromise and compassion. Martin Luther through unification of a fractured people by words.
Hate is a sin, my good man. So is pridefullness. Passing a law in the guise of a religious doctrine is improper and immoral by itself. How full of pride, a cardinal sin, would you be if abortion was outlawed?
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
What a shame that they focused only on themselves and not their Savior whom they should put first in their lives.
Anyway, I was asked what I believe on the topic of killing babies, and homosexual "marriage" and I obliged with my beliefs. You have judged them as being wrong, you are entitled to your opinion as well.
On the contrary, passing laws based on religious doctrine is what keeps us from tearing our society to shreds. The idea of not killing was famously codified in the Ten Commandments. We just copied them. You are OK with killing babies, I am not. Not much middle ground here. If they outlawed abortion tomorrow I would be relieved, because life would be given a chance.
Paroquet 9 months ago
You are as entitled to your beliefs in this country, and a few others, as much as anyone who dwells within them.
As for the couple, I've no doubt of to whom they gave thanks to for their day. You should not be so quick to judge others about whom you know nothing more than the season, the location, and faith as I have informed you. I do not think your Savior would look with favor upon your zeal, but he would likely forgive you your trespass.
What unconditional adoption waiting list(s) are you on and are you waiting to receive foster children? Are you really going the extra mile to give life a chance, or just spouting-off like so many other hypocrites?
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
I am going off what you said, you focused on what they wanted for themselves, and their personal Biblical teachings and sacred tradition played no part, or was watered down. If I am wrong, be more clear. Was it a Catholic or Christian wedding or not?
I personally don't have the ability to adopt for financial reasons, but I do know there are hundreds of thousand of loving families that want to adopt and can afford a new life in their family. Perhaps when my own children are grown and out of the home we will be able to adopt. Thanks for assuming about my financial circumstances.
Boy, pagan ministers are nasty cusses. But I know hypocrisy is much worse than killing a baby in your world view. Besides, what do you care about orphans, we should probably kill them now like they should have been in the womb right? If only your parents would have been a little more liberal...just kidding, your life is as valuable as anyone's.
Paroquet 9 months ago
-Gus,
Oh, their ceremony was straight from the books of several Revered ministers of both churches. And I don't think it matters whether it was this denomination or the other. They chose words strung together in an order that sounded beautiful to them, and by which their commitment to themselves would match that of their faith in the Almighty.
-I didn't presume as to your financial situation. I did not say put your money where your mouth is. If you suddenly found yourself with another one on the way, you'd find the time and resources, right? So, you have room for one more. Even presuming you can't be put in the position to find yourself with another one on the way, if it did happen, you'd find what you needed, right? That's my point. And the State compensates you for fostering, so there's no need to beat around the bushes there.
-I'm such a nasty cuss I took over guardianship of a good friend's foster son when my friend passed-on and have been asked to baptize a pair of twins that are expected later this year for the couple I mentioned. Who, by the way, I didn't know until the mother of the bride contacted me and asked. I also performed the ceremony at no charge.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
Amazing...such a self proclaimed compassionate person having no regard for the life of the most innocent among us.
As for adding another to our brood, we cannot. Thanks for bringing up such a painful subject captain compassion.
There is only one thing we know about each other. I am for a culture of life, and you are for a culture of death. Nothing you or I do on this earth will help us answer for these positions in the end. Good luck with that.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
Your last post stuck in craw and I couldn't nail it down til now. If I understand you correctly on your position of life, you believe the life of a child has value so long as it is any child of a friend of yours otherwise you are indifferent to whether they live or die. And one of the reasons you are indifferent is because you don't like the perceived hypocrisy of those who are pro life but don't or can't adopt. I find that repugnant because your view of life is only centered around you fundamentally (what you think and want). I think the pro life position is focused on what we are taught God wants. God gave free will, but also commanded us to follow his laws. These are natural laws, and not killing our own children is one of them. As a polytheist minister, I would assume you would understand these laws. But I'm not seeing it.
Paroquet 9 months ago
I don't anthropomorphize or apply human-like sentience in my beliefs. I'm well-versed in many religions and more than a few doctrines. You are speaking of but one. You are free to believe and have faith in that belief. You are free to practice it, so long as it doesn't interfere with my beliefs. And that is what you are willing to force upon myself and others who might have similar notions, not unlike the Taliban. Can you see that? And they don't allow abortion, either.
Sequoia 9 months ago
Why would you call the attention being paid to the Akin comment a deflection from "the topic at hand"?
For any woman interested in maintaining her rights, Akin's comment surely is "the topic at hand."
It is also the topic of this article.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
Apologies, the topic of the series of posts, not the topic of the article. A tangent, but starting with your Sullivan post, which was also off topic from the article, so I would ask for some deference.
asb 9 months ago
Thank you, for several of us.
Sequoia 9 months ago
Indeed. Good point. Deference granted.
Sooooo, on that note, one more point about the global warming thing. Do you really think that the idea of man-made climate change is a hoax by "leftists" to destroy capitalism? Where do these supposed "leftists" get all the money to buy off the 99 percent of scientists who say man-made climate change is real? What's the incentive? Isn't that kind of a stretch?
Doesn't it make more sense that big companies are funding climate change skepticsm because they stand to lose money from any sort of carbon tax or climate legislation? Isn't the incentive there pretty easy to see?
And look, even a lot of big companies acknowlege that man-made climate change is real. Even a study funded by the Koch brothers and conducted by a climate change skeptic found that man-made climate change is real. businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
I am saying I don't know, but that doesn't make my position irrelevant. We have NASA scientists saying climate change is real, but we have no control over it and it is a natural occurence. I do know that we have gone from warnings of ice ages in the 70s, to melting polar ice caps in the 90s, to calling it generically "climate change" today. That says to me, nobody knows. But, we did throw $300 million down the Solyndra rathole for "green" investment. (Really just a money laundering scheme for Obama money budlers.) Huge govt. grants are given to universities to fund reasearch on what is ostensibly uncontrollable. Algore is rich from it. And it is another way for the central govt. to control business, get the dollars to D.C. This contributes to all of the economic woes I outlined in other posts.
Sequoia 9 months ago
Except that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative! He endorsed Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and now Obama.
Not sure how that makes him a "leftist," eh?
Socialism means that the state controls all means of production. Obama hasn't proposed anything remotely like that.
In fact, federal spending under Obama has increased by the smallest amount since President Truman. So, if he's a socialist, every Republican since Truman is an even bigger socialist!
Speaking of adhereing to talking points, though, the reason conservative commentators describe Obama as a "socialist" is because Republican pollsters have identified the concern of "protecting the country from sliding towards socialism" as the most effective talking point against Obama. It's a great talking point: vague, emotional, unproveable.
That's why you hear it all the time. It is manufactured advertising language.
Some people are just suckers. When they hear the TV say the soap is "new and improved," they think "that soap sure is new and improved."
Suckers.
Sequoia 9 months ago
Why don't you read Sullivan's post for yourself, and tell me what part of it is incorrect, or not "cogent"?
C'mon, Gus: engage the substance. Don't name call. I'd like to see your brain work. What exactly did Sullivan write that is incorrect, or not cogent? Can you do the intellectual work? Or can you just repeat the word "socialist" over and over again?
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
Just finished reading it. So many leftist opinions based on factual errors, not enough space to debunk. Here are some things that are not opinion. 8.3% unemployment (actually closer to 15% with the U6), $1 trillion in new debt (just this fiscal year), CBO revises its score of Obamacare as a new debt not a cost savings (as was predicted by anyone who can do math), regulations that are choking out business (go ask any chamber of commerce). So if Sullivan is such a wizard of smart, how in the he11 are we in the mess we are in 3.5 years after the messiah took office. He made things worse, you know it and I know it. But because he doesn't mind the killing of babies, the left chooses to ignore it. I don't mind you having a leftist opinion, but I can't believe you think we are headed in the right direction in this country and that Barry hasn't contributed to the decline.
Sequoia 9 months ago
So, with all those "leftist opinions based on factual errors," you couldn't debunk just ONE?
I mean, you STILL haven't explained why you think a single thing in there is wrong. You just breezed right to the same points you always make. You've stated several times it is "leftist" (whatever that means) and inaccurate, BUT YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY EXPLAINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.
You keep saying you want a cogent, honest debate, and not talking points. I'm here giving you a real chance to do that, and you keep shying away and going straight to the same talking points.
I'm beginning to think you're all bluff and no stuff, Gus. You're fake, man. You got nothing.
I never thought of Obama as a "messiah." I never expected that he would completely fix huge economic problems in a couple years. I don't think anybody could. I certainly don't think the Republicans have some magic silver bullet to "unleash the American economy" as Romney likes to say... his plan is a re-hash of decades-old Republican policies that got us into the mess we're in now.
You do understand that the tax cuts in Ryan's budget would increase the deficit far beyond anything Obama has done (or alleged to have done), right?
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
I didn't claim that you thought Obama was the messiah. I am stating that HE thinks he is the messiah, and that is half of his problem. The other half is he is a liberal, thinking that the central govt. can perform better than local govt. or the private sector. I've got $3 trillion, and 8.3% that tell me he is wrong. We would have to have Billl Clinton/Republican House/Senate surpluses for 50 straight years to make up for Barry's mess.
dokeus6 9 months ago
Gus your getting owned.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
Well founded argument...
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
Just to name a few Sullivan article problems. 1. He claiming theory as fact (man-made climate change), that is a leftist opinion, not truth. But somehow disagreeing suddenly makes one a fringe kook? There is still debate, but the shifting stance of man-made climate change believers makes their point dubious. 2. He thinks that people being in this country illegally is perfectly fine, and disagreeing with that point makes you a fringe kook. Sorry, then we have about 70% of this country made up of fringe kooks, including legal immigrants. 3. If he is a lover of Reagan, he knows that raising taxes is the last thing you should do to increase revenue to the govt. Moderating taxes and unleashing the private sector, that is how Reagan did it.
Believe me, if Obama reversed course right now and publicly adopted the Reagan model, the economy would turn around immediately and he would have 4 more years in office. But he is a socialist (OK last time) and he can't change his stripes. He is an Marx/Ayers/Wright true believer.
Sequoia 9 months ago
Dude, c'mon. Nobody really believes that cutting taxes raises revenue. Even if the Laffer Curve weren't just a hypothetical, it DOES have a midpoint beyond which even the curve itself indicates that further tax cuts wouldn't increase revenue.
The entire idea behind the Laffer curve is widely considered by economists to be a farce. Don't be a sucker, dude. That curve was cooked up to justify tax cuts. Tax cuts don't actually increase revenue. Believe me, if it worked, Obama would be doing it.
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/laughing-at-the-laffer-curve.html
Yes, the idea that climate change is not man-made is fringe among scientists. Just because a lot of people believe climate change isn't man-made doesn't make it mainstream science. The view that climate change is NOT manmade is what is an opinion.
Here's what Sullivan actually wrote:
"Of which other Western right of center party could the following be said: it holds that man-made climate change is a hoax and that more carbon energy is harmless and indeed vital. On immigration, the party supports a vast wall across the Southern border, and eventual deportation by attrition of 11 million illegal immigrants."
He didn't say that illegal immigration is "perfectly fine." He said that a physical wall and mass deportation are ineffective and unrealistic. Which is true.
If that's the best you can do, that's weak.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
On the economy: I have 1982-1988 real world experience and data to back up my beliefs. Tax rates went down, economic activity skyrocketed, and revenue to the govt. went through the roof. I know one economist personally and he is a leftist like you. He says most are. So economists don't really carry much weight compared to hard data.
Your climate opinion is weak. See how that works? Its all opinion and thus irrelevant. But of course we should build tax code and govt. regulations around opinion, not truth right. That's how you really spur the economy.
I agree, if we do nothing about illegal immigration, we will continue to have an illegal immigrant problem. I would propose doing something about it however. We have some states with plans, but you know those rubes in state govt., they don't know as much as Barry and his centralized govt.
RobHunterJohnson 9 months ago
Hey Gus, How about 1989-90? Now tell me where Trickle down played into the Bush 1 era? Rob
dodgeball 9 months ago
Graceful and Gus are both misinformed, or they have buried their head in the sand because they want someone else to do their thinking for them. The AP has long been an established source for objective journalism. Further, if you look at Obama's policy decisions, they are mostly moderated, towards the center. He kept several policies of "W" on the books after being elected and getting briefs from military and intelligence leaders. He continued the bailout that a REPUBLICAN president and Sec. of Treasury started. He continued policies that helped to preserve the auto industy in America. You need to stop and think - when Obama makes a tough call and tics off the left b/c he didn't lean far enough their way, and angers the right b/c he didn't totaly capitulate (a republican's idea of compromise is "do it my way"), he's probably doing something right! I don't agree with every decision he's made, and time will tell if health reform works in our favor. FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Drudge, or Graceful and Gus- none of these folks know if it's a good thing or not at this point in time. If they do- ask them how they know. I have friends that work at the Congresional Budget Office as policy analysists and economists, and THEY can't say for sure - so HOW in the @#$# do you know?!? I forgot- you people are master's level policy analysists, not florists, truck drivers, or salespeople, etc. Talk about being a numbskull- if you think that a guy who is worth millions of dollars is going to give a tinker's dang about you and I, and is going to enact policies that make our lives better instead of making it easier for his fat, rich, white, bigoted friends to get even richer- you live in a parallel universe. Romney will do no better at getting the economy growing faster. The median household salary in MO is $44,000.00 as of 2011. Under republican leadership, the have's will get more, and the rest of you rubes who vote them in will get bent over your kitchen counter.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
So your point is, if I had 2 million dollars to give you, you would cease caring about your fellow man? Classy! Actually the CBO just came out and said that Obamacare is not even cost neutral, and definitely not a cost savings. It is a never ending debt on all of us. Of course each week the unemployment numbers are released by the feds and are revised upward the next week (for three straight years mind you). So we know how great the feds are with their math. Meaning $1 trillion this year is probably closer to $1.3 trillion, but who's counting with that many zeros.
dodgeball 9 months ago
Oh yeah- and one more thing.... the "bailout" that everyone loves to hate.... why did we need that again? Oh yeah.... because the LAST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT gutted regulatory oversight of folks like Romney and his friends on Wall St. When they were left to their own devices, enough wasn' enough for them... they went and almost burned the whole thing down, just to get one more bonus. The fat cats and banks are salivating at the idea of a Romney presidency, b/c they know it will mean they can go back to business as usual. Obama isn't perfect, but I don't want my kids to wait in bread lines for their evening meals, either. Ah- but wait.... none of that is important, b/c the democrats are baby killers.... oops. forgot. KNow what? If Romney and the GOP win, ther American citizenry will get everything it deserves.
connor 9 months ago
The bailout was needed because of all the bad loans, called toxic assets in the media, which were bundled together and sold to investors. When these loans began going bad those investors which include many pension plans were loosing money fast. Banks were forced to make these toxic loans by the community re-investment act and other liberal/progressive groups and the democrat controlled houses.
No big business/financial fat cat moves made these loans available to people who couldn't afford them. The Libs did and now the producing American's are forced to foot the bill for them.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
The textbook example of the leftist version of a well thought out and cogent argument. Well played, I don't know how I could parry such a insightful blow... Meanwhile back in Washington, Obama owns $1 trillion in new debt...oh wait, no he doesn't. We do, the unelected serfs who must send their tribute to the king and his court to pay for his largesse.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
How is choking out the tax base going to raise revenues to the govt? Use your head as something more than a table to put Obama's beer on.
Typically as tax rates decline, income to the govt. increases because of the increase in economic activity. Just ask Reagan. However, on top on that you have to have a private sector that isn't shakled by regulation, paying fines for stupid healthcare policies, and generally in disarray because of D.C. stupidity.
I don't think tax rates neccessarily need to be lowered, but D.C. has got to loosen the stranglehold on the private sector to increase revenues to the govt.
asb 9 months ago
The private sector presently has more leeway, more cash, lower taxes, fewer regulations being enforced, cheaper labor, and the best PR source ever invented (FOX). but the middle class that buys their stuff has had nearly half of their wealth stolen and the economy is struggling as a result. Greed, theft, lying, gambling with my money, and rampent tax dodging (in effect if not in fact) is what's hurting the private sector, not Obama.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
Right, the private sector is forgoing huge profits on purpose. Obviously every small business owner is racist because they refuse to take part in Barry's roaring economy and want him voted out of office. You cracked the small business code, congratulations.
Paroquet 9 months ago
I keep seeing quarterly record profits in some sectors Gus. The only record losses in recent times I can pull off the cuff were bailed-out by us. The small guys are still feeling a pinch, the big guys not so much.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
So we all agree, bailouts did no good. But you want to vote for the dimbulb who enacted most of them, and says we should do more...maddeningly incongruent thinking.
asb 9 months ago
Sorry Gus, your attack mode is more than I can keep down on a Friday afternoon. Grumpy indeed.
GrumpyGus 9 months ago
peace out...
Paroquet 9 months ago
Gus, He was left with no choice by his predecessor. You keep failing to see that. The policies and actions of Bush II's party are what made those entities "too big to let fail" and also afforded Madoff and the rest their opportunity for defrauding hundreds of billions of dollars. There was one even mentioned in the paper today for Missouri that took place when? From 2003-2006.
dokeus6 9 months ago
maddeningly incongruent thinking is what you have with Trickle down economics.
An example of this maddeningly incongruent thinking. Let's keep giving the rich tax breaks and let them keep the money they could be using to create jobs in the US to help the US workers out but they take that money and put it into low paying jobs so the companies that are taking those jobs overseas can make even more money on cheaper made products. Thus eliminating most of the good paying jobs American has had for over fifty years.
I'm sorry but this seems like common sense to me. You eliminate the taxes that were being paid by the skilled workers in America and send those jobs overseas. The taxes that were being paid by the skilled American workers is now down to collecting taxes from minimum wage service industry jobs which is the American business model now. Then you wonder why our economy is in the tank because the tax base we used to have is no longer there.
Sequoia 9 months ago
C'mon, Gus. Engage the Sullivan piece if you can. Engage the substance. You're the one who keeps demanding thought and cogent argument. Let's hear yours. Do you have one? You criticized the piece, but didn't actually engage it. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's see what you've really got.
connor 9 months ago
Since Sullivan is about as spread over the political map as one individual can get any labeling Mr. Sullivan cares to partake in carries about as much weight as your own claims to being a conservative Sequoia. His colored glasses let a large amount of conservative ideology through but turn into mirrors on anything touching on Gay rights.
However since you wish to place so much importance over Mr. Sullivan's complete whitewashing of the number one political maneuver that clearly shows a politician as being a liberal/progressive: Namely the expansion of government. In Obummer's case Sullivan makes one small off hand reference to it dismissing it and attaching it to the Detroit bail out of all things. No mention of the other massive increases in Federal employee gains with more to come.
There is hope however, If you value Mr. Sullivan's opinions so much Sequoia will you also follow his recommendations on hate crime laws, abolishing Roe v. Wade, affirmative action and welfare entitlements? If you take that stance I would willingly agree with any label you want to place on yourself and the "Golfer in Chief".
Why I might even vote for your messiah if he followed Sullivan's beliefs.
RobHunterJohnson 9 months ago
Grace if President Reagen was a True Conservative. I would like to know what Presidents Bush 1 and Bush 2 rate on Grace's Conservative scale? Rob
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID