Huckabee unleashes on GOP Establishment - Could he go rogue at RNC?

[BigSkyBob]

Huckabee and I never agreed on much of anything, and that template remains intact. He's useless.

While I have my differences with Huckabee on issues such as "comprehensive immigration reform," the assertion that he is "useless" is beyond the pale. Maybe, he isn't "useful" to further your agenda, but, he doesn't exist for your sake. Best as I can figure it, he believes that he exists for the sake of himself, his family, his country and his God Jesus Christ. I don't think he considers himself "useless." I don't think his family considers him "useless." I suspect the folks in Arkansas have some gratitude for his public service as governor. Certainly, the folks whom subscribe to his e-letters don't find it "useless" time spent reading. Nor, do I think you are in any position to render final judgment on the man.

[BigSkyBob]

Huckabee and I never agreed on much of anything, and that template remains intact. He's useless.

While I have my differences with Huckabee on issues such as "comprehensive immigration reform," the assertion that he is "useless" is beyond the pale. Maybe, he isn't "useful" to further your agenda, but, he doesn't exist for your sake. Best as I can figure it, he believes that he exists for the sake of himself, his family, his country and his God Jesus Christ. I don't think he considers himself "useless." I don't think his family considers him "useless." I suspect the folks in Arkansas have some gratitude for his public service as governor. Certainly, the folks whom subscribe to his e-letters don't find it "useless" time spent reading. Nor, do I think you are in any position to render final judgment on the man.

Yes, my opinion of Huckabee is my own subjective opinion.

You have an amazing ability to couch personal subjective opinions in the language of ex cathedra pronouncements.

Todd Akins believes something about human biology that isn't true.

Claire McCaskill cast the decisive vote for Obamacare.

Huckabee has a point there, no?

[BigSkyBob]

The only logical point that can derived from the first two is that Akin should get out of the race, not that the establishment should throw millions at a doomed cause and risk other seats as well. The man was done by Monday when he kept talking about it himself. He can't win this race and he isn't going to, because he couldn't possibly keep his mouth shut long enough to get his favorables back into a reasonable range to allow him to win that last seven percent (and that was in a very GOP sample I might remind you).

If Palin gets this, why doesn't Huckabee.

Whether, or not, a duly nominated candidate ought to drop out because his situation is hopeless is one question. Whether, or not, that duly nominated Republican candidate ought to have the right to hire Republican campaign consultants without the fear of retribution is another question.

[BigSkyBob]

They retribution they would get would be brought upon themselves by virtue of them association with such a buffoon and his statements. Or are other candidates and organizations obligated to hire consultants who have been associated with scandalous candidates?

Except your formulation misses the fact that consultants were threatened with being blacklisted by the national committees if they worked for Akin.  That not reserving the right not to hire anyone, they are positively threatening to blacklist people. Nor, do I see how a consultant whom advocates Akin apologize and repudiate his statements is somehow tarred by them.  Were any of the consultants whom worked with Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham or Tom DeLay blacklisted? They all ended in jail.

[BigSkyBob]

Yeah, I think at least one of the many takeaways from the last two election cycles is that runaway nutter candidates should not be permitted by the party to run for the Senate.  Not that runaway nutter candidates are ever any good, but still...

And, who shall decide whom is a "runaway nutter" and whom has the right to stand for office? In a democracy shouldn't that be the voters?

[BigSkyBob]

Maybe the national party could have been a bit more discrete on this whole thing. Now he's still in the race, but by making him persona non grata the GOP has made it even harder for him to win.

It was a very dumb statement, but for it to be the major news story of the past week is a bit much isn't it?  It must be because it's a swing state, which makes the party leaders care, which drives the news cycle. If he was running in OK or ID no one would have heard of him, much less care what he thinks.

Is there precedent for a party to so publicly pressure a candidate of theirs to forfeit his campaign on the basis of a comment made?

Republicans know they can't get blown away in the women's vote and this is why we saw the visceral reaction. Romney's economic message is tailored towards the "waitress moms" and they could switch back to the Democrats if this comment seemed to be in the mainstream of the Republican party.

And, the spectacle that a Todd Akin draws a "visceral reaction" while a Claire McCaskill does not must create the perception among some Republican that the folks running the party seem to consider conservatives to be the enemy. Liberal Democrats seem to merely be the competition to them. Claire McCaskill can vote for Obamacare, and evade taxes on her private jet and receive a pass from the RNC.

I can see why Mike Huckabee sees that as an odd position to take.

[BigSkyBob]

Huckabee continued his campaign against the GOP establishment in a conference call with pastors and Christian talk radio hosts on Friday. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/24/huckabee-rallies-missouri-pastors-to-akins-side-attacks-gop-establishment/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't sound like Mike is calming down.

These are the two quotes I find most interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Either Huckabee or Walsh is lying, and, I don't think it is Huckabee.

[BigSkyBob]

Great comment by Huck. This party better learn to keep all three major ideological factions of the party together under one roof or we are in for some very dark days.

But, like usual, we will have to hear from those in the middle or even left leaning about how we have to be a "big tent party"...unless we're talking about social conservatives. They have to go and there shall be no discussion about it.

Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but not when the idiot in question openly discussed expelling one of the three in his Presidential campaign. He is not for keeping the three together, he is for social con supremacy at the expense of the other three (and even at the expense of their destruction if necessary).

Social conservatives at the back of the bus = "big tent."
Social conservatives at the wheel of the bus = "supremacy."

Got it!

[BigSkyBob]

Great comment by Huck. This party better learn to keep all three major ideological factions of the party together under one roof or we are in for some very dark days.

But, like usual, we will have to hear from those in the middle or even left leaning about how we have to be a "big tent party"...unless we're talking about social conservatives. They have to go and there shall be no discussion about it.

Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but not when the idiot in question openly discussed expelling one of the three in his Presidential campaign. He is not for keeping the three together, he is for social con supremacy at the expense of the other three (and even at the expense of their destruction if necessary).

Social conservatives at the back of the bus = "big tent."
Social conservatives at the wheel of the bus = "supremacy."

Got it!

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't being "at the wheel" imply somebody is in control?

In a bus, someone is in the drivers seat, and the others are in seated in the back. In politics, some folks set the agenda by such means as formulating the legislation that is actually debated on the floor, and other folks are more of the rank-and-file. What I object to is the sinisterization of social conservatives taking a leadership role in politics. I don't read a similar sinisterization of economic conservatives driving the agenda. Like on the Animal Farm, it seems to be the case while all "conservatives" are equal, some consider themselves more equal than others.

[BigSkyBob]

Great comment by Huck. This party better learn to keep all three major ideological factions of the party together under one roof or we are in for some very dark days.

But, like usual, we will have to hear from those in the middle or even left leaning about how we have to be a "big tent party"...unless we're talking about social conservatives. They have to go and there shall be no discussion about it.

Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but not when the idiot in question openly discussed expelling one of the three in his Presidential campaign. He is not for keeping the three together, he is for social con supremacy at the expense of the other three (and even at the expense of their destruction if necessary).

Social conservatives at the back of the bus = "big tent."
Social conservatives at the wheel of the bus = "supremacy."

Got it!

I don't have to take this from you. I have been just as critical of the very moderates who do in fact find it inconvenient to be in a party with social conservatives, as I have been of the social conservatives. Both are at fault for the party's problems and thus I am not to going to carry water for either.

Huckabee's campaign did in fact openly state a desire to purge fiscal conservatives, back in 2008. He is not a conservative, he is a pro-life statist and a big gov't populist.

We seem to be existing in different realities. In my reality, there are folks whom fancy themselves so-called "libertarians" whom are being welcomed into the Republican party with open arms. They openly advocated chopping off one of the three legs to which you refer. Time after time, I have read formulations like, "conservatives and libertarians...," while rarely, if ever, reading formulations like "conservatives, libertarians, and populists...," or "conservatives and populists...." It is as if the acid test is whether, or not, you embrace a certain economic agenda regardless of your stand on social issues. So-called "libertarians" and "populists" are equal in the regard that they both want to chop one of the legs off, while adhering to another leg consistently. The difference is that so-called "libertarians" are more dogmatic about it, and use more insulting rhetoric. When you state, "Ron Paul's campaign did in fact state a desire to purge social conservatives. He is not a conservative, he is a pro-life anti-government libertarian," then I will have to admit you have been more consistent than I thought.

[BigSkyBob]

Huck may have a point but Akin is clearly the wrong battle to try and make it over. There are certain things you just can't say while running for elected office and Akin said one of them. Basically that's it.

Surely, there are some things that a candidate running for office just can't say. What I doubt is that Todd Akins' remarks reach that standard.

Roman Polanski drugged a thirteen year-old girl, stripped her, and had sex with her after she repeatedly told him to stop. While raping her he had the presence to inquire about her birth control method. She replied that she wasn't contracepting. When his attempts at calculating the calender rhythm returned the wrong answers he anally sodomized her. Whoopi Goldberg denied that this was "rape rape." I don't remember the Democrats blacklisting her, or any Democrat whom voluntarily associated with her.

A sleeping woman whom had consensual sex with a condom with Julian Assange woke up to discover Assange penetrating her without a condom. A British member of Parliament characterized his actions as not those of "a gentleman," but not rape. I don't remember reading about the firestorm of criticism that ended with every political party in England blacklisting him.

As to picking the wrong battle, I would only note that when you are on the attack you can choose your own battles, but, when you are attacked your battles are chosen for you. Mike Huckabee didn't threaten to blacklist campaign consultants if they didn't abandon Akins,  Republicans in Washington did. Mike Huckabee was given the choice to quietly assent that that was acceptable, or stand up and note that it was not. Since Huckabee did not find it to be acceptable, his hand was forced.

[BigSkyBob]

Huck may have a point but Akin is clearly the wrong battle to try and make it over. There are certain things you just can't say while running for elected office and Akin said one of them. Basically that's it.

Agreed

I don't understand why saying something is what seems to bother you two so much, but not the actual policy in question that the stupid splitting-hairs-about-rape thing comes from. Absolutely granted that Akin has terrible opinions on literally everything, but sometimes I feel like Republicans get more upset about bad press than anything else, as if you're afraid to look in the policy-mirror and see Akin, or you've compartmentalized campaigning and policymaking from each other to such a degree that you can't understand how there is such a small leap from holding that policy position to making that statement.

Uhhh... because he just suggested you can't get pregnant by being raped.

The problem with your formulation is that it simply isn't what Akins said. Akins said some doctors told him that pregnancy after [forcible] rape was "really rare."

[BigSkyBob]

Huck may have a point but Akin is clearly the wrong battle to try and make it over. There are certain things you just can't say while running for elected office and Akin said one of them. Basically that's it.

Agreed

I don't understand why saying something is what seems to bother you two so much, but not the actual policy in question that the stupid splitting-hairs-about-rape thing comes from. Absolutely granted that Akin has terrible opinions on literally everything, but sometimes I feel like Republicans get more upset about bad press than anything else, as if you're afraid to look in the policy-mirror and see Akin, or you've compartmentalized campaigning and policymaking from each other to such a degree that you can't understand how there is such a small leap from holding that policy position to making that statement.

Uhhh... because he just suggested you can't get pregnant by being raped.

The problem with your formulation is that it simply isn't what Akins said. Akins said some doctors told him that pregnancy after [forcible] rape was "really rare."

He said that you can't get pregnant by being legitimately raped, which is the exact same thing.

Again, that is the false narrative promoted by the media and his critics. His exact words were "really rare."

[BigSkyBob]

If Akin had actually said "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape" his problems would have been greatly reduced.

True, but in context that was his intended meaning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That interpretation is rather damning, and, he was very impolitic in his use of "legitimate." He has acknowledged that fact, and apologized for his choice of words. However, that simply wasn't his intended  meaning.  He made a distinction of "legitimate rape" for two reasons. The first is that he was noting pregnancy after forcible rape was, according to information he had read from doctors, "really rare" due to a number of factors including natural defenses, whereas, pregnancy after say, statutory rape, or drunken-consent rape would be not be as improbable. Even this formulation isn't quite correct. Rohypnol-rape would certainly be "legitimate rape," but, not apt to trigger any natural defenses. The second reason, I suspect, is a variation of Whoopi Goldberg's distinction between "rape" and "rape rape."

You talk about how Akins' remarks damaged the pro-life cause. What of the damage caused to the movement if the media is granted a right to put words into the mouths of pro-life persons with immunity?

[BigSkyBob]

As I understand it, to his credit, Akin has claimed that he has "checked the facts" about his original assertion, which he claimed came from medical experts, that pregnancies resulting from rape are rare because of supposed female bodily defenses, and he has found out that is not true. Whether a woman gets pregnant from any act of intercourse depends primarily on her ovulation cycle, and so the probability of her becoming pregnant as a result of rape largely tracks with that.  As for the so-called "defenses," there really aren't any; any woman's fertility might be effected by a considerable number of factors, but being raped isn't one of them.  

Actually, science isn't so sure about that. The science is clear that the chance of conception is not equal in all cases. For instance, females whom orgasm at/after ejaculation are more likely to conceive because the cervix mechanically pulls semen into the uterus. Since that doesn't happen during rape, the odds of conceiving during rape are slightly lower. About half of rapists don't ejaculate. Science is studying the amount of backwash [the size of the "wet spot"] to see if there is a form of mating selection occurring. Medical science is showing a relationship between stress and reduced fertility. Anti-ovulation drugs given to rape victims further lower the odds.

[BigSkyBob]

Actually, science isn't so sure about that. The science is clear that the chance of conception is not equal in all cases. For instance, females whom orgasm at/after ejaculation are more likely to conceive because the cervix mechanically pulls semen into the uterus. Since that doesn't happen during rape, the odds of conceiving during rape are slightly lower. About half of rapists don't ejaculate. Science is studying the amount of backwash [the size of the "wet spot"] to see if there is a form of mating selection occurring. Medical science is showing a relationship between stress and reduced fertility. Anti-ovulation drugs given to rape victims further lower the odds.

Science is clear that chances of conception are not equal in all cases across the board.  The relationship researches have uncovered between stress and reduced fertility link chronic stress, and not the acute stress of rape, to decreases in fertility.  Anti-ovulation drugs will lower the odds that anyone would conceive, and the fact that they are given to rape victims itself demonstrates that rape victims can become pregnant--otherwise giving them the drugs would not be necessary.  Papers in academic journals have estimated that over 30,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape every year--so however "rare" the occurrence may be, it isn't nearly rare enough.  

First of all, the number of 32,000 doesn't make any sense. As a one-time event, sex between a fertile man and woman would result in a pregnancy about 4% of the time.  This would be about 800,000 rapes a year. When you consider the rape of women too young or old to conceive, those using the pill or an IUD, those sterilized, those over 35 with declining fertility, those naturally sterile, rapists naturally sterile, the victims who use anti-ovulation drugs, very early miscarriages, and the fact that rapists don't ejaculate about half the time it would take millions of rapes to result in 32,000 pregnancies. Crime statistics simply don't show such a number of rapes.

Clearly, statutory rape and "I was drunk" rapes are being conflated with forcible rape to arrive at that number. It was clear to me that Akins was talking about forcible rapes when he noted pregnancy was "really rare" in such cases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really.  I am noting that the scientific Truth lies between Akins' "really rare" due to "shutdown," and his critics claim that the odds are identical to every other act of sex.

[BigSkyBob]

Maybe the national party could have been a bit more discrete on this whole thing. Now he's still in the race, but by making him persona non grata the GOP has made it even harder for him to win.

It was a very dumb statement, but for it to be the major news story of the past week is a bit much isn't it?  It must be because it's a swing state, which makes the party leaders care, which drives the news cycle. If he was running in OK or ID no one would have heard of him, much less care what he thinks.

Is there precedent for a party to so publicly pressure a candidate of theirs to forfeit his campaign on the basis of a comment made?

Reince Priebus has doubled down on his commitment to purge Todd Akin from the Republican party by saying,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There it is simple English. It isn't about a seat in the Senate, control of the Senate, or ideas greater than the man. It is all about purging Todd Akins. Olympia Snowe voted Obamacare out of committee. Didn't read Priebus saying she wouldn't receive a dime.

Reince Priebus has just stated he is willing to forfeit the Senate to stop Todd Akins. All his calls for Akin to step aside for the sake of Republican control of Senate ring hollow.

[BigSkyBob]

The man is unquestionably down by about 10% and has favorable numbers equivalent of Bob Taft/Frank Murkowski approvals. Not giving him a dime is, in fact, about adding motivation for him to get out so that someone with a better chance can get in there and win. Giving him money would not only encourage him to stay, it would be flushing it down the toilet as no amount can save the man.

Snowe is retiring anyway and the difference is, she can win. Wow, GOP committees send money to those who can win? Who would have guessed that is how it works?

Hypothetically, if he pulled back into a tie in the polls, obviously he could win. Even then, even if he could win, Priebus has stated his intention to sandbag him.

Karl Rove has laid down the gauntlet more egregiously. He is trying to claim Akin will lose by the largest margin in modern Senate history. Given the fact that he is running in a Republican-leaning state against an ethically challenged Democrat whom cast the decisive vote for Obamacare , it would take massive Republican establishment support for McCaskill to even begin to approach that number. Rove is obviously lying. But, the point of his lie is to dry up Akin's fundraising. That's a practical de facto support for McCaskill. Isn't that a tad bit nuts for someone whom wants to be a Republican powerbroker?