As I predicted, the Republican National Committee is back in the Missouri race supporting Todd Akin. When the whole “legitimate rape” controversy took place, RNC chair Reince Priebus said there was no way in hell they were going to support Akin even if the polls showed he was tied and could seriously win.
And here he is a month later, changing his tune dramatically.
Asked directly if he considered Akin to be a better option for Missouri voters than McCaskill, Priebus did not hesitate.
“Well, absolutely,” he said in the interview. “That’s a given, and as chairman of the party, I have an obligation to make sure we win as many seats in the Senate as possible.”
Gee, who could have seen that coming? I mean, other than anyone with a brain.
13 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
John Hinkle
October 2, 2012 at 10:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hopefully many voters in Missouri will, if not remember his awful comments, at least have a residual distaste for Akin and not vote for that mouth breather.
Randomfactor
October 2, 2012 at 10:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So as the leader of the Republican Party, Mitt Romney has now signed onto supporting the “legitimate rape” expert Akin.
Good to know.
dingojack
October 2, 2012 at 11:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
‘…Priebus went on to say “After all, it’s not like politics is about party principles or candidate character, it’s solely about our side winning more votes than them”‘.
Dingo
tbp1
October 2, 2012 at 11:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This may be the least surprising political development in, well, ever.
Bronze Dog
October 2, 2012 at 11:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not at all surprised, here. Politicians think the urban legend about goldfish memory applies to voters. Sadly, they’re right about a lot of them, especially wingnuts.
Raging Bee
October 2, 2012 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This Priebus guy is probably just as much of a spineless tool as Michael Steele — and he probably got his change of heart from the same source: Rush Limbaugh.
Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)
October 2, 2012 at 11:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Apparently women vote, so lets pretend to care about them until their poor little ladybrains have wandered off to look at fluff or do the laundry and then we’ll resume the cashflow.
Modusoperandi
October 2, 2012 at 11:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from pundits, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate race, the Republican body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the media and not attacking Todd Aiken.
jeremydiamond
October 2, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I won’t believe it until they actually start buying ads for him again. Maybe they’ll be anti-McCaskill ads instead of pro-Akin ads.
But still. He’s just so toxic.
holytape
October 2, 2012 at 11:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But political support is kind of like the opposite of rape. It is only legitimate support if Akin wins. If he loses, then of course the RNC never had supported him.
Reginald Selkirk
October 2, 2012 at 12:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Off-topic; file under ‘what harm could it do to vote for a ‘moderate’ Republican?:
fifthdentist
October 2, 2012 at 2:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Alex, I’ll take “Easiest Predictions Ever” for $800.
Chiroptera
October 2, 2012 at 2:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You know, the Republicans giving money to the Akin campaign isn’t so bad. What’s bad is that they are giving him money because he has a shot at winning the election.
That’s right, a majority of voters (or a near-majority) may very well choose Akin as their preferred candidate.
That is what I find depressing.