Posts Tagged ‘Win’

Beat the Media, Win the White House

by Daniel Greenfield on Monday, February 9th, 2015

This is article 30 of 30 in the topic 2016 Elections

One of the reasons that Romney lost is that he failed to take on the media. The ultimate lost opportunity came when CNN’s debate moderator Candy Crowley directly inserted herself into the argument between Obama and Romney to declare her favorite right and Romney wrong.

Romney had won the Republican primaries, but had failed to absorb the lesson of his most tenacious opponent. Newt Gingrich did not treat the media as a neutral moderator, but as a debate opponent, challenging its premises and agendas. And so Romney was left unprepared for Crowley’s attack.

On the road to 2016, the latest crop of candidates appears to have learned nothing from Romney’s failure. In response to the media blowing up his vaccine comment, Christie issued a sensible clarification that provided more fuel for the media narrative. And the media narrative is what most people know.

They know that Christie was behind Bridgegate even though the Democrats pushing the story provided zero evidence of it. They know that Congressman Steve Scalise spoke at a Neo-Nazi event even though that never actually happened. But what they know is the story that the media tells them. Not the facts.

The media is using Christie to churn out stories framing the GOP race as a debate over vaccines while painting Republicans as opponents of vaccination. Media attacks on Republicans come in three stages. The first stage reports on an individual Republican’s action or statement. The second stage projects that on Republicans in general as part of a “Culture of X”. The third stage asks whether Republicans will ever be able to break free of the “Culture of X” with “X” being anything from racism to hatred of science.

By now we’re in the third stage. Republican opposition to vaccination has become a media meme.

In response, conservative blogs and outlets have shown that Obama and Hillary Clinton both linked vaccines to autism and that parents who don’t vaccinate tend to be wealthy Democrats.

But the media won’t report that unless the actual candidates stop debating vaccines and start using those facts to challenge its lies and hypocrisy.

A media smear campaign can’t be met with sensible clarifications. They only strengthen the smear. Christie’s clarification that he believes in measles vaccinations has allowed the media to begin spinning him as flip-flopping on vaccines. Any further statements explaining his views will be used to continue reporting on the manufactured story of the “Republican vaccine controversy.”

The only way to break the cycle is for Republicans to stop explaining themselves and to challenge the narrative. The narrative is a lie, but no one will ever know that if the candidates don’t challenge it.

Sensible clarifications might have worked in 1955. They might have even worked in 1985. But they’re completely useless today. No doubt the fact that Obama and Hillary were vaccine skeptics will be acknowledged somewhere near the bottom of a Washington Post fact check of a Hillary commercial that blames her opponent for spreading disease and killing children. Maybe as many as five people will read it.

Today’s media has less respect for the truth than an elevator full of con artists.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Document Thief Helps Media Win Awards

by Cliff Kincaid on Wednesday, February 19th, 2014

This is article 528 of 577 in the topic Media

The George Polk Awards, given “to honor special achievement in journalism,” have been awarded to several recipients of stolen national security documents whose work has made America more vulnerable to terrorist attack and its military personnel more likely to die in conflicts with terrorist groups and enemy regimes.

In another major low point for the U.S. media, an official press release says that the reporters being honored “conferred with [Edward] Snowden to negotiate release” of the material and then “revealed the extent of secret surveillance and massive data collected by the National Security Agency.”

But these “revelations” are based on classified documents stolen by Snowden, a former NSA contractor who fled to Russia and is now under the control of the Russian intelligence service, the FSB, and charged with espionage by the U.S.

Glenn Greenwald, one of the Polk award recipients, appears regularly at communist conferences and has said the weakening of America is a “very good thing.”

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Director Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn has testified that the disclosures will cost American lives. He said recently that Snowden’s actions have “caused grave damage to our national security,” adding that “the greatest cost that is unknown today but we will likely face, is the cost in human lives on tomorrow’s battlefield or in some, someplace where we will put our military forces—you know, when we ask them to go into harm’s way.”

Paul Calandra, parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has strongly criticized the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for paying Greenwald for a story about the Snowden documents. Although Greenwald had worked for a British publication, the Guardian, Calandra also described Greenwald as “a Brazilian-based former porn industry executive,” as a result of his reported involvement in a business marketing videos on such sites as “” and “” He said the CBC had lined the “Brazilian bank account” of Greenwald, who is based in Brazil and lives with his homosexual lover there, but has American citizenship.

Responding to questions about whether media access to the stolen documents is being sold by those already in possession of them, FBI Director James Comey recently acknowledged that “fencing or selling stolen property is a crime,” and that “We should be concerned about all the facts surrounding the theft of classified information and its promulgation.”

Reporters disclosing Snowden’s stolen documents also broke the law and, like Snowden, could be charged with violating U.S. espionage laws.

Aspects of Snowden’s conspiracy to violate U.S. espionage laws are still coming out. An NSA memorandum uncovered by NBC News reveals that Snowden swiped a password from one of his co-workers in order to illegally download top-secret documents and turn them over to the reporters now being honored.

In a foreign policy speech on Monday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor condemned Snowden as a traitor and pawn of Russia, saying Russian ruler Vladimir Putin “rolled out the red carpet for a traitor—Edward Snowden—whose theft of incredibly sensitive classified information has done incredible damage to America’s security.”

Despite media praise and awards for Snowden, Greenwald and their ilk, a recent USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll found that, by a margin of 54%-38%, those surveyed say the former NSA contractor should be prosecuted for his crimes. Former national security aide Oliver North has predicted the Russians will kill Snowden when they are done exploiting his documents, and then blame his death on the U.S.

Click to continue reading “Document Thief Helps Media Win Awards”
Go straight to Post

Who Will Win the War Against Income Inequality?

by Dr. Robert Owens on Saturday, January 18th, 2014

This is article 75 of 83 in the topic Redistribution of wealth/socialism

From each according to their ability to each according to their need was the hollow promise of the Soviet Union. It was long known to be merely the cover for a ruthless Communist Party that pretended to build a worker’s paradise while in fact enslaving a nation for its own gain.

Today this infamous lie has been resurrected in America as the war against income inequality.

The war on poverty has failed. After decades of propaganda, trillions of dollars, and tens of thousands of regulations there is no less poverty in America than when LBJ sounded the charge of the contrite brigade. Of course it was a shell game all along. The idea that you could take money out of one pocket and put it in another while dropping some along the way aptly describes the effort to tax the rich to alleviate poverty. If all the money that has been expropriated to end poverty had been given directly to the poor we would have ended poverty.

However this isn’t what happened. It was never what was intended to happen. It will never happen because instead of a direct wealth transfer the loot is filtered through politicians, programs and bureaucrats who all siphon off enough to make sure the pennies that eventually dribble out of the welfare pipeline have little resemblance to the dollars that went in. They certainly don’t want to actually eliminate the poor since their campaign slogans and their jobs would evaporate with them.

Anyone who has ever stood hat-in-hand at a welfare office knows the scorn dished out with the meager fare always makes the meal a little less satisfying than imagined. Jesus told us that “The poor will always be with you.” Yet somehow the political savants who hold sway are always able to convince the low information voters that they will end poverty, or as we call it today, income inequality.

The only equality that is compatible with freedom is equality before the law. By this I mean that whenever society, as expressed through government, makes rules they should apply to everyone the same. In other words if a millionaire commits murder and a homeless person commits murder they should both stand before the same tribunal charged with the same crime. Or if a tax is passed everyone should pay the same percentage. We know that in the first case the difference between a dream team of lawyers and a public defender may mitigate the equality just as in the second case a progressive tax system will distort it. However, this goal of equality before the law is the only one where actual equality is what is required to make it work.

All other types of equality, of income or opportunity or outcome require inequality. If this sounds like circular thinking don’t be surprised; it is.

Since people are obviously not equal in talents, abilities, resources or nature the only way to make everyone start in the same place and end up in the same place is to treat them differently. Some must be slowed down and some must be artificially pushed forward. Some must get less than they earn so that some can get more. This is the dirty little secret hidden behind the campaign slogan to end income inequality.

Click to continue reading “Who Will Win the War Against Income Inequality?”
Go straight to Post

Win Some, Lose Some

by Alan Caruba on Saturday, October 12th, 2013

This is article 41 of 55 in the topic Government Shutdown

Here are some of the links on the Friday, October 11 Drudge Report:

Poll suggests disgust with Obama, Congress could bring big changes in 2014…
Americans Speaking Out: ‘I Think Obama Is Being Kind Of Crappy’…
GOP approval rating hits lowest point in Gallup poll history…
Democrats view of congressional job approval drops to 5%…
Americans’ satisfaction with gov’t falls to new low…
Perceived need for third party reaches new high…
Site urges users to ‘drunk dial’ lawmakers…
BUCHANAN: Is red state America seceding?
COULTER TO GOP: Change or die…
MAG: Fight or Give Up…

In politics you win some and you lose some. If the Drudge Report links cited above are any indication, the White House, the Congress, the Republicans and the Democrats are all on the losing side of public opinion. They have lost the confidence of the people no matter what side of the publical spectrum they’re on.

As the Wall Street Journal’s sagacious columnist, Kim Strassel, noted in the Friday edition “For months now, the GOP has been held hostage by a faction of its party that deluded itself into believing President Obama might be rolled on his signature health-care law. Witness now an equally grand delusion on the Democratic side, one that President Obama nurtures at his peril”

“According to Democrats, their steadfast refusal to negotiate on the government shutdown or the debt ceiling is rooted in a belief that now is the moment to “break” the GOP “fever.” Democrats are furious that Republicans today use every Washington deadline to extract a spending concession—and insist they must be broken of that habit.”

What we are witnessing is the collision of two different political delusions, one held by the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party that President Obama could be moved to accept any changes—other than those he arbitrarily and unilaterally makes—to Obamacare and the other by the Far Left of the Democrat Party that Obamacare, the Valhalla of its decades-long dream of universal healthcare can work without destroying the finest healthcare system and taking the economy down with it.

Those who lived through the Great Depression often refer to those times as “feeling tired all the time.” That’s a good description of the psychological condition of depression as well. After five years of President Obama, a lot of people just feel too tired to fight. By mid-afternoon on Friday it was clear that the trucker protest was not going to be the big event that its organizers anticipated. “Truckers Ride for the Constitution” may or may not pick up some more participants, but it will be far less than the 10,000 hoped for.

One has to wonder how many veterans will show up for the October 13 protest that is planned. The ones who tossed the barricades aside at the World War II Memorial on the National Mall may have done more to express the public’s exasperation with the government shutdown as any mass protest.

The curious aspect of the shutdown is how the blame keeps shifting back and forth between the President and the Republicans in the House. The shutdown has come about from the demand of the Republican leadership that the White House make some concessions to reduce the spending and borrowing that has produced a $17 trillion debt.

Click to continue reading “Win Some, Lose Some”
Go straight to Post

Why the GOP Lost and How it Can Win

by Alan Caruba on Sunday, August 25th, 2013

This is article 78 of 95 in the topic Republican Party
Throughout the 2012 political campaign, I was nagged by the feeling that Mitt Romney was “too nice” and said so, despite having supported him during the primaries. I kept waiting for him to wage an aggressive campaign, but it never happened. For the second time in a row, the GOP had selected a “me too” Republican more eager to demonstrate that he had much in common with Obama and the Democrats than with the core values of the party; smaller government, lower taxes, reducing the debt, and less regulation.
The first term of Barack Obama began with the “stimulus” that added trillions to the national debt and had produced no” shovel ready” or permanent jobs. The unemployment rate remained an example of an economy that barely showed signs of improvement. Welfare programs such as food stamps that added one out of every five families to their roles increased dependency on the government, and Obamacare was already proving to be a huge legislative disaster with consequences that killed jobs and was resisted by many states. The term ended with the scandal of the terrorist attack on Benghazi that killed a U.S. ambassador and three others.
If history was a guide, Obama should have been a one-term president just as was Jimmy Carter. What happened, however, as Jerome Corsi, Ph.D. brilliantly demonstrates in “What Went Wrong: The Inside Story of the GOP Debacle of 2012 and How it can be Avoided Next time” ($25.95, WND Books) was the defeat of Mitt Romney when, it turned out, a significant portion of the GOP base of white voters stayed home.
“In 2012, the true enthusiasm gap was a Republican problem,” says Corsi, noting also that “Roughly one-third of the U.S. population now receives aid from at least one means-tested welfare program each month, with average benefits estimated at approximately $9,000 per recipient.” The Democratic Party had successfully bribed large components of the voting population with programs that had also been expanded in previous Republican administrations, most notably George W. Bush’s, a “compassionate conservative”, a me-too Republican.
Sean Trenda, a senior election analyst at Real Clean Politics, estimated that “in 2012, minority voting increased by about 2 million voters from 2008, but white voters disappeared from the polls to the tune of nearly 7 million ‘missing’ voters.”
The campaign that reelected Obama was greatly aided by computer analysis of potential voters that identified who they were, what message would best influence them, where they lived, and a ground game that ensured they got to the polls. The GOP ground game utterly failed on election day in 2012.
In addition to the “African Americans who almost universally vote for Obama” (93%) the Democrats capitalized on a new Democratic majority coalition that included “Hispanics looking for citizenship and economic advancement, single women and radical feminists concerned about advancing against men in the workplace and managing the needs of childbearing without a husband, union workers, and especially government union workers who cling to the Democratic Party fearing the labor movement is fading into irrelevancy; and youths of the Millennial generation coming of voting age, desperately concerned that they will not be able to pay off student loans or find employment equal to their level of education.”
“All these groups look to big government to set the regulatory table unfairly in their advantage and to pay them generously from the public treasury to compensate for their economic plight,” says Corsi
The irony is that that their economic plight is the direct result of the Democratic Party’s an Obama’s policies throughout the years.

Click to continue reading “Why the GOP Lost and How it Can Win”
Go straight to Post

Liberal-Progressive Gun Control And The American Ethos

by Thomas E. Brewton on Wednesday, January 9th, 2013

This is article 136 of 201 in the topic Liberalism

Mass murder via abortion and lone-wolf mass killings with guns are both products of liberal-progressive hedonism.

Bill Ayers wrote in A Strategy To Win, appearing in New Left Notes of September 12, 1969:  …we’re also going to make it clear that when a pig gets iced that’s a good thing, and that everyone who considers himself a revolutionary should be armed, should own a gun, should have a gun in his house.

Self-centered mass slaughter of students in Newtown, Connecticut, as well as in movie theaters, shopping malls, and the work place, is a phenomenon unknown before the advent of student radicalism in the 1960s and 1970s.  It is an outgrowth of the moral corruption inherent in liberal-progressivism and its vision of social justice.

The overriding characteristic of liberal-progressivism’s conception of social justice is that individuals should not be required to take responsibility for their actions; the socialized political state exists to tell citizens, in every detail, how they should live their lives.  Comrades in such a society as it unfolds are not held responsible for anti-social or self-destructive actions.  Indeed, in order to destroy Judeo-Christian morality and clear the way for implementation of full socialism, people are encouraged by government, Hollywood, TV, and the mainstream media to reject as oppressive earlier standards of morality and to indulge in unlimited degrees of hedonism.

Before the ascendancy of social justice, school text books extolled the ideals of courage, wisdom, honesty, loyalty, patriotism, hard work, and temperance.  Students learned the primacy of self-denial and willingness to place the welfare of one’s family and political community above satisfaction of his own immediate pleasure.  They learned the importance of working hard and saving for the future betterment of their families.  Students expected to be judged by the quality of their individual work, which depended upon personal study, not upon membership in a protected social class.

Schools taught something called citizenship.  Pupils were expected to attend classes regularly, to arrive on time, to be polite to teachers and to each other.  They were expected to keep text books in good condition, to keep their desks and the school clean, without defacing either.  They learned that failing to do these things was a crime against all those who would follow them in the school system.  They learned that the future of America depended upon their willingness to think as much about the rights of others as about their own desires.  They were taught to revere the United States, its flag, and the principles of individual liberty for which they stood.

Social justice, in contrast, is a remarkably undemanding religion.  It requires nothing of the individual other than lip-service to currently-fashionable causes proclaimed by air-head Hollywood stars and rapsters.  Baby-Boomers and their progeny aren’t required to study or to understand any of this.  The media tell them what to believe.  The collectivized state will provide their needs.  Their only concern is to keep sex and drugs readily available.

Irresponsibility encouraged by the socialistic welfare-state is the precondition to horrors such as the Newtown massacre and to the murder of millions of babies every year in abortion labs.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

National Debt: Wake Up Media — It’s not a damn game, it’s our lives!

by Stephen Levine on Sunday, January 6th, 2013

This is article 434 of 529 in the topic Government Spending

I am disgusted with both the politicians and the national media who insist on portraying the political solution to our national debt problem as a “game.” It is not a game – each proposal and counter-proposal have significant and profound effects on the American public.

As it is, Americans are being screwed for the malfeasance of the government’s financial regulatory agencies and the criminal activity of the financial institutions the regulate. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the government failed to detect and deter outright fraudulent behavior on a grand scale. Now, as a consequence of the technical insolvency of many financial institutions, including the major signature-name banks, the Federal Reserve is holding the Federal Funds Rate artificially low with its ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) to recapitalize these financial institutions. With no consequences to those who took tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for essentially excusing fraudulent activity. What does this mean for the American public? All investors and depositors – especially senior citizens living on a fixed income – are denied an adequate rate of return while the financial institutions are being re-capitalized and the exorbitant and undeserved bonuses continue to be handed out for little more than making profits as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

So it angers me when ultra-liberals like Michael Tomasky couch the solution to our debt problem in terms of a fight (We the People vs. We the People) or a game (Steal All You Can Before The Public Wakes Up) …

Obama Can Win the Debt Ceiling Fight

But to pull it off, says Michael Tomasky, he needs to take a tough negotiating line. And he has to start laying the groundwork for it now.

First and foremost, Obama has to get the business world on his side.

He needs to bang this home with an intensity like it’s October in a presidential campaign. First and foremost, he has to get the business world on his side, such that they’re willing at least privately to come down on the Republicans like a ton of bricks. In 2011, these titans had to hedge their positions because most of them were hoping a Republican president would be elected the next year. But Obama is in the captain’s chair for four more years. There’s no political point to such hedging now.

Second, he should use the State of the Union to drive home the absurdity of the situation, and the outrageousness of it. He needs to turn and face the assembled Republicans and say directly to them: “You fooled me once in 2011. I won’t get fooled again. No negotiating means no negotiating.”

Look at Obama’s approval ratings vs. Congress’ and the Republicans’, and look at public support for Obama’s positions vs. the GOP’s (on entitlements and defense spending, for example), and tell me this isn’t plausible. It most certainly is. And remember: You’re not likely to go broke betting against Washington conventional wisdom. Source: Obama Can Win the Debt Ceiling Fight – The Daily Beast

Bottom line …

One, Obama has big business on his side. Think about it. No criminal prosecutions for financial crime. Big handouts to the special interests. And, a convenient whipping boy for all of the price hikes.

Click to continue reading “National Debt: Wake Up Media — It’s not a damn game, it’s our lives!”
Go straight to Post

How We Can Win

by Daniel Greenfield on Monday, November 12th, 2012

This is article 331 of 377 in the topic Elections
Let’s begin with what this isn’t. It isn’t a final statement on anything. It’s the opening to a discussion and the discussion is a look at how we can win.

The proposals and ideas that follow are not in compliance with any dogma. They do not call for abandoning principles, but they do call for pragmatic action in the here and now in order to secure the victory of those principles. That’s a tricky line, but that’s also how political battles are won.

Plenty of readers will have philosophical objections to some of what follows and I respect that, but you can either wait for the public to come around or retreat to high ground and wait for everything to collapse. Neither is a very useful strategy and it behooves us to remember that the left did not go up into the hills and wait for us to come around. They used these strategies to win.

1. We Are Going to Take Care of You

Laying out grand arguments. The romance of the open marketplace and the responsibility to our children are big ideas. Breaking them down into bite sized pieces and hitting people directly on the impact it will have on them is far more useful.

But the bigger problem is that we no longer have a united electorate that can be spoken to as if there is one America. A big argument for the future of the nation does not resonate with many people. It has no impact at all on many minority groups and even on many non-minority groups by class who think in terms of how something will affect them locally, not nationally.

Obama did not bother with big arguments. He made small arguments to different groups and those groups turned out for him.

Romney tried to talk to Americans about responsibility and his turnout ended up being lower than the turnout of those looking out for their own group interests.

Big arguments fracture into someone else’s responsibility. Small arguments zero in on local fears that “my group” will lose out. And that makes them more potent.

What does all this mean? It means that we will have to become community organizers. We will have to find and engage people who often don’t even bother to vote by tying their economic interests to our policies. And we will have to narrow that focus as much as possible, organizing at the bottom in sync with a larger argument.

We will not be making one big argument, but a thousand little arguments that fit a common theme. That means organizing coal miners against the EPA, organizing doctors against ObamaCare and similarly organizing workers and owners in every field, focusing on narrow issues that directly affect them, taking an item of legislation, a specific regulation, an omission that bothers them and turning it into our issue and packaging that issue within the larger program.

If we can do this, if we can make our politics bottom up, instead of top down, then we will be able to bring out a partisan tribal vote that is just as committed to voting Republican as welfare voters are to voting for free phones.

The Democrats have a simple appeal.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Go straight to Post

Can Democrat-leaning Voting Machines Win Election for Obama?

by Selwyn Duke on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012

This is article 1221 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections

voter-fraud-felony.jpgImagine you go to the polls and choose Mitt Romney on an electronic machine, but your vote comes up Barack Obama. So you re-enter your choice, but the president’s name still stubbornly appears. Then a third try. Ditto.

Innocent malfunction…or something else?

Whatever the case, this has already happened to voters in states such as Nevada, Ohio, Kansas, North Carolina, Missouri, and Colorado — four of which are swing states.

This hasn’t escaped the notice of the Republican National Committee, which has just sent a letter outlining its concerns to the secretaries of state of the aforementioned. The RNC’s chief counsel, John Phillipe, wrote that he understands how “the causes of this problem are varied, and include miscalibration and hyper-sensitivity of the machines,” verbiage diplomatic enough to avoid being branded a (paranoid) life form from another “inhabited planet,” as a complaint-barraged and incredulous North Carolina elections official put it. As for where this puts me, I guess I’m suspicious enough to be targeted by the Men in Black.

I’ll make my case. First, all these stories about uncooperative machines involve votes switched in only one direction: Barack Obama’s. Would this be possible if at issue were merely innocent errors?

If it isn’t true that these malfunctions are curiously monolithic in favor of the president, then where are the news stories to that effect? After all, if Obama votes were switched to Romney ones anywhere, the reliably liberal mainstream media would certainly make it front-page news. But have you gotten wind of such happenings? If so, I’d like to hear about it — honestly. It would be mind-easing.

Next, we’ve all used ATMs, and most everyone (except my quasi-Luddite self) has something such as an iPod. Now, have you ever, anytime, anywhere, had one of these electronic devices switch data input on you? So how is it that in our high-tech universe of flawlessly functioning electronic gadgets, voting machines are the only ones prone to human-like “error”? If there’s an explanation other than human meddling, again, I’d truly like to hear it. Experts, feel free to weigh in.

Lastly, while electronics may not be my forte, I do know something about man’s nature. And the nature of the man known as the leftist has been on full display this election cycle. Consider the OWS protesters who vandalized property, littered grounds, and committed rape and theft; the Democrat partisans who key people’s cars, steal Romney/Ryan signs (happened to someone close to me), and beat up Republicans; the Democrat operative caught on video facilitating vote fraud; the liberals who wanted to kill a conservative 6-year-old; and the progressive septuagenarian who told a conservative 12-year-old he should have been aborted. These actions — just a small sampling of many — reflect well the situational-values set, people who are beneath contempt and above nothing.

Now let’s apply logic. Some of the technicians calibrating electronic voting machines are liberals, and it follows that some percentage of them must be cut from the above stone. After all, does anyone really think that leftist political manipulation and bullying stop at the border separating low-tech and high-tech crime?

This election is within the margin of fraud, and I’ve already made my predictions and written that vote manipulators can, with little question, steal it for Obama.

Click to continue reading “Can Democrat-leaning Voting Machines Win Election for Obama?”
Go straight to Post

Todd Akin Could Win Missouri Senate Race

by Donald Douglas on Sunday, October 28th, 2012

This is article 1165 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections

Months ago, when the “legitimate rape” scandal broke, no one in their right mind thought Rep. Todd Akin had a chance. Well, there were some folks, some very solid and prophetic folks  — like Dana Loesch — who refused to throw Akin under the bus. But for the most part people couldn’t run away fast enough, and that included the Republican Party’s funding operations in D.C. My how things have changed — and my how wise it looks today for Akin to have stood his ground, apologized and clarified his remarks, and plowed ahead with his campaign.

Check out the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Todd Akin draws closer to Claire McCaskill in Missouri Senate poll” (via Memeorandum):

Congressman Todd Akin has dramatically narrowed the lead of Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri’s nationally watched Senate race, according to a new poll.

But the poll — commissioned by the Post-Dispatch, News 4 and the Kansas City Star — also indicates that Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment in August continues to affect the race. McCaskill still enjoys a significant gender gap, and three-quarters of her supporters call Akin’s comment “somewhat” or “very” important to their decision.

The results show McCaskill leading with 45 percentage points to Akin’s 43 points among likely voters. That’s within the poll’s 4-point margin for error, indicating a closer race than two earlier independent polls that showed McCaskill with wider leads.

Akin’s hammering McCaskill on corruption and hypocrisy. See the Columbia Daily Tribune, “Akin accuses McCaskill of profiting from husband’s deals“:

An ad from Republican Todd Akin calling U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill “Corrupt Claire” because of federal subsidies of low-income housing owned in part by her husband is “ludicrous, insulting and hurtful,” she said.

Akin, a six-term St. Louis congressman, is seeking to deny McCaskill, a Democrat, a second term in the Senate. His attack ad, which began running earlier this week, accuses McCaskill of playing “a corrupt Washington game” that sends money to her husband Joe Shepard’s businesses.

“McCaskill’s family pocketed $40 million in federal subsidies,” the ad asserts. The claim is based on an Associated Press report that low-income housing projects owned in part by Shepard received $39 million in rent subsidies from 2007 to 2011. The subsidies cover the difference between rents collected and the cost of operating the apartments.

See also the Daily Beast, “Todd Akin: Lazarus Rises in Missouri.”

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin