Akin statement destroyed viable GOP pickup

Image: Sarah Steelman should have been chosen

The incredibly stupid statement by Todd Akin mentioned in the previous post is much worse for the GOP than was previously thought. His statements on ‘legitimate rape’ and women not getting pregnant under these circumstances have clearly destroyed any chance of ridding the Senate of Claire McCaskill, and even if the candidate was changed, this one is virtually lost.

What was not taken into account in the previous post was that Missouri was an almost certain GOP pickup. A Rasmussen Report prior to the primary had McCaskill trailing all three GOP candidates. Sarah Steelman, and John Brunner both led by 49/43%, while Akin led by much less at 47/44%. For some reason Akin got the nomination and blew the campaign immediately.

Fortunately, there is a great LP candidate standing. Were the GOP to get it’s act together and endorse Jonathan Dine they might at least hand the seat to a friendly face on many issues. From Libertarian Republican:

But in the event that the GOP chickens out, there is another alternative: Vote Libertarian! The Libertarian Party of Missouri has a viable and quite credible candidate on the ballot.

Jonathan Dine is a hardline Libertarian. He is a personal fitness trainer who lives in Kansas City. From his website:

Taxes at all levels -- federal, state, and local; hidden and visible -- take almost 50 percent of a family's income. We must work from January to June just to pay taxes. Ask yourself: Is the government spending that half of your income wis ely? The government didn’t earn the taxpayer’s paycheck and shouldn’t be entitled to it.

He's a huge marijuana legalization advocate:

I support the legalization of Marijuana, not because Marijuana is good or beneficial, but because marijuana does less harm to our lives, our property, and our humanity, than marijuana laws.

And thankfully, for conservatives and for us pro-defense libertarians here at LR, Dine takes a rather moderate approach to non-interventionism:

I believe the role of the military is to provide a strong national defense, but the optimum word is defense.. not offense. I support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. I support the offensive efforts to combat terrorism when attacked, but do not support the occupation and nation building of other countries.

Various areas in the US tend to support candidates with strong religious ties, and this is not unreasonable. Christianity offers quite a good grounding in values to live by and in the main is not extreme. Problems arise though, when unthinking idiots like Akin are chosen to represent a political party.

Anyone with more than half a brain would reject his statement no matter who he heard it from. Anyone even mildly rational would treat such an idea with extreme skepticism. How the hell did anyone with such idiotic views get chosen ahead of better candidates?