Gay Event to Blame for Another Hurricane »« Miners Forced to Attend Romney Rally

RNC Chair: No Money for Akin

I’ve predicted that both the Republican party and the third party conservative groups will reverse themselves and pour money into the Missouri Senate race on behalf of Todd Akin, but Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus says he won’t get even a penny from the RNC, even if the race is a dead heat.

I have a hard time believing that. Time will tell.

Comments

  1. busterggi says

    Of course there is no need any longer to have the RNC directly fund his candidacy.

    They did afterall adopt what he said as a part of the party platform.

  2. Randomfactor says

    And we should believe him why? After he and the party “leaders” screwed the teabaggers, the Paulistas, AND Clint Eastwood in Tampa?

  3. jeremydiamond says

    I continue to disagree with this prediction. The guy is toxic. They cannot afford to give the Democrats any more ammo to connect them to Akin.

    And just as importantly, with the latest polls from Connecticut showing a tight Senate race there, they now have an obvious candidate to take the money that would have gone to Akin.

  4. d cwilson says

    Camera turns off. Reince walks off to a quiet corner and gets out his cell phone.

    “Hello, Karl? Yeah, I just publicly stated that we wouldn’t be giving a dime to support Akin.

    “Uh-huh.

    “Yeah, I’ve got several donors lined up to give money to an anti-McCaskill SuperPAC. How soon can you file the paperwork and get it up and running?

    “Great! Now, they all want assurances that there’s no way the money can be traced back to us.

    “Perfect! God bless Citizens United.”

  5. Reginald Selkirk says

    Randomfactor #2: After he and the party “leaders” screwed … AND Clint Eastwood in Tampa

    That was a mutual screwing, so I guess it at least doesn’t qualify as forcible.

  6. StevoR says

    @5. d cwilson : Yup. Wouldn’t surprise me intehlets if taht happened.

    Direct funding for Akin? Probably not.

    Indirect funding? Yeah, quite likely, I reckon.

  7. Reginald Selkirk says

    jeremydiamond #4: I continue to disagree with this prediction. The guy is toxic.

    How so? Do you think that if they back Akin, they may lose the pro-choice vote that was otherwise in their pocket?

  8. tbp1 says

    Certainly he OUGHT to be toxic, but as always in the GOP, his real sin was saying out loud what everyone is thinking. The utter contempt with which the Republics regard women (not to mention, you know, science) is abundantly clear to any thinking person, although they are pretending otherwise. He just had the temerity to make it explicit.

  9. StevoR says

    @8. Reginald Selkirk :

    How so? Do you think that if they back Akin, they may lose the pro-choice vote that was otherwise in their pocket?

    Hah. True.

    Mind you there is a big difference bewteen being an anti-choice coathanger lobby misogynist and a “There’s-such-a-thing-as-a-legitimate-rape” variety misognyist.

    Both are pretty awful but the former is socially semi-acceptable / electable in most circles whilst the latter, not-so-much. At least when it comes openly stating so. Overton window hasn’t quite shifted that far just yet, thank FSM.

Leave a Reply