To read the entire article CTRL + click on the title or Story Continued. Enjoy as the world turns.
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Monday that President Obama has embraced a passive foreign policy that retreats from the bipartisan consensus that has governed for generations, and said that under Mr. Obama the United States no longer shapes events on the global stage.
Speaking at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. Romney said in his campaign’s first major address on foreign policy that the world wants a strong America to underpin a stable world order, but said that with Mr. Obama in the White House, U.S. allies have been left wondering how the country will react. Too often, Mr. Romney said, the Obama administration has failed to take the lead in shaping events overseas that could threaten American interests or allies.
“Hope is not a strategy,” the former Massachusetts governor told the audience here.
The GOP nominee pointed to last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts in Libya and across the Middle East as symbolic of the Democratic administration’s failed approach to the region, where he said the president has abandoned the nation’s tradition — “written by patriots of both parties” — of taking a more forceful role to prevent “today’s crises from becoming tomorrow’s conflicts.”
“It is time to change course in the Middle East,” Mr. Romney said. “That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them, … no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them, and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America’s capability to back up our words.” Story Continued and to watch the video:
Actress Stacey Dash, who has starred in everything from the 90′s hit Clueless to CSI, prompted a firestorm on Twitter after publicly endorsing Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and then standing by her opinion.
“Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @mittromney @teamromney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney,” Dash wrote on her official Twitter page, accompanied by a photo of herself with an American flag.
Not long after, presumed Obama supporters began insulting Dash for her opinion, saying she isn’t “black” enough, several even asking if the actress would just “kill herself.”
One man wrote: “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u @REALStaceyDash.”
As news of Dash’s treatment spread, however, First Amendment-lovers nationwide began voicing their support for the actress using the hashtag #ISupportStaceyDash.
· Pew: Romney leads Obama among likely voters – Mitt Romney now leads President Obama by 4 percentage points among likely voters after a strong debate performance last week, according to polling by the Pew Research Center.
The GOP presidential nominee has a 49% to 45% edge, Pew says. Last month, Obama had an 8-point advantage among those most likely to vote in the Pew survey.
Registered voters by more than 3-to-1 — or 66% to 20% — said Romney did a better job than Obama in their first presidential debate last week in Denver. Romney was generally viewed as more aggressive and forceful in their debate on the economy and domestic issues, while Obama sometimes lacked focus.
The Pew poll has a different finding than Gallup’s daily tracking poll. In a seven-day rolling average Oct. 1-7, Obama led Romney among registered voters, 49% to 45%, according to Gallup.
Gallup, however, found that Romney pulled even with Obama in two days of surveys taken Thursday and Friday after the debate. Obama apparently did better over the weekend after the jobless rate for September went below 8%, as reported on Friday.
USA TODAY’s Martha T. Moore will have more on the latest polls in Tuesday’s editions. Story Continued:
· Penis Size Does Matter To Some Women, Study Claims – By: Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Published: 10/08/2012 11:36 AM EDT on LiveScience
Contrary to the reassuring catchphrase “size doesn’t matter,” penis size may matter in bed — but only for some women, and for certain types of orgasms.
A new study finds that women who have frequent vaginal orgasms are more likely than other women to say they climax more easily with men with larger penises. Women who tend to prefer penile-vaginal intercourse over other types of sex also say the same, researchers reported online Sept. 24 in The Journal of Sexual Medicine.
“Male anxiety about penis size may not reflect internalized, culturally arbitrary masculine stereotypes, but an accurate appreciation that size matters to many women — just as men feel legitimate anxiety when they enter the mating market about their intelligence, personality traits, sense of humor, social status, height, wealth, and other traits known to be favored by women across cultures,” study researcher Stuart Brody, a psychologist at the University of the West of Scotland, told LiveScience.
But other researchers were less convinced.
“There’s such variability in preference,” said Barry Komisaruk, who researches female sexual response at Rutgers University. Women who orgasm through vaginal stimulation may indeed prefer longer penises, Komisaruk told LiveScience, but not everyone prefers to orgasm that way. [10 Odd Facts About the Female Body]
“There are so many different factors,” said Komisaruk, who was not involved in Brody’s study. “Once it gets to the kind of specifics that they’re talking about, I get wary.”
The female orgasm
Both penis size and female orgasm are hot-button topics. There is still scientific debate about whether vaginal and clitoral orgasms are different phenomena. Different nerves carry signals from the vagina and from the clitoris, Komisaruk said, and stimulation of each activates different brain regions. But some researchers argue that vaginal stimulation is simply activating a different, internal, section of the clitoris. Women report different sensations from vaginal and clitoral orgasms, Komisaruk said, but which one women prefer largely comes down to personal preference.
In some cases, female orgasm is even more complex. For example, Beverly Whipple, professor emerita at Rutgers University and one of the discoverers of the G spot, a sensitive area felt through the front wall of the vagina, has found that women with complete spinal cord injuries can sometimes experience orgasm, even though the nerves that carry sensation up the spinal cord from the pelvis have been severed. It’s likely that the sensory vagus nerve, which runs in the abdomen but bypasses the spinal cord, is recruited to carry signals to the brain in these cases, Whipple told LiveScience.
Other research has found that abdominal exercises induce orgasm in some women, resulting in pleasurable spasms at the gym.
Brody holds a different view, pointing to studies finding that the ability to orgasm with vaginal stimulation alone is correlated with better psychological functioning, better relationship quality and greater sexual satisfaction.
“Earlier research with a large representative sample also found that women who are made aware in their youth that the vagina is a source of women’s orgasm are more likely to develop the capacity for vaginal orgasm. Therefore, those who deny these findings (and insist on maintaining the politically correct party line) are not doing women a favor, but might be injuring women’s health and sexual potential,” Brody wrote in an email to LiveScience.
Does size matter?
In the new study, Brody and his colleagues asked 323 women, mostly Scottish university students, to recall past sexual encounters. They were asked about their recent sexual behaviors as well as how important penile-vaginal intercourse and other sex acts were to them. They were also asked whether penis length influenced their ability to orgasm with vaginal stimulation.
Defining “average” as the length of a 20-pound banknote or U.S. dollar bill, which are 5.8 inches (14.9 cm) and 6.1 inches (15.5 cm) long, respectively, the researchers asked women if they were more likely to orgasm vaginally with a longer-than-average or shorter-than-average penis. [Macho Man: 10 Wild Facts About His Body]
They found that 160 of the women experienced vaginal-only orgasms and had enough sexual partners to compare size experiences. Of these, 33.8 percent preferred longer-than-average penises, 60 percent said size made no difference and 6.3 percent said longer was less pleasurable than shorter.
Supporting the hypothesis that size matters, Brody and his colleagues found the women who reported the highest number of vaginal orgasms in the past month were most likely to say that longer was better.
“This might be due at least in part to greater ability of a longer penis to stimulate the entire length of the vagina, and the cervix,” Brody said.
Finding sexual satisfaction
The data supports Brody’s claim, Whipple said, but the sample is limited to Scottish university students and should be replicated with a broader group. Nevertheless, she warned against worrying about the findings in bed.
“To me, all of this is just so goal-oriented, and it’s difficult for me to see researchers setting up another goal [vaginal orgasm] for women to experience,” Whipple said.
Whipple argued that sexuality is healthier when focused on the pleasure of acts from cuddling to kissing to other sexual sensations rather than the goal of reaching orgasm.
“I recommend for women to learn about themselves, learn about their body, find what they find pleasurable and enjoy that, as long as it’s not exploiting another person,” she said. Story Continued:
· Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away? – The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.
Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.
Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney – even though they are all much diminished. Obama still has an edge on Medicare, scores much higher on relating to ordinary people, is ahead on foreign policy, and on being moderate, consistent and honest (only 14 percent of swing voters believe Romney is honest). But on the core issues of the economy and the deficit, Romney is now kicking the president’s ass:
By a 37% to 24% margin, more swing voters say Romney would improve the job situation. Swing voters favor Romney on the deficit by a two-to-one (41% vs. 20%) margin…. Romney has gained ground on several of these measures since earlier in the campaign. Most notably, Obama and Romney now run even (44% each) in terms of which candidate is the stronger leader. Obama held a 13-point advantage on this a month ago. And Obama’s 14-point edge as the more honest and truthful candidate has narrowed to just five points. In June, Obama held a 17-point lead as the candidate voters thought was more willing to work with leaders from the other party. Today, the candidates run about even on this (45% say Obama, 42% Romney).
Lies work when they are unrebutted live on stage. And momentum counts at this point in the election.
Now look at Pew’s question as to who would help the middle class the most:
Look: I’m trying to rally some morale, but I’ve never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week – throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does. How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement? And after Romney’s convincing Etch-A-Sketch, convincing because Obama was incapable of exposing it, Romney is now the centrist candidate, even as he is running to head up the most radical party in the modern era. Story Continued:
· Feds paid $40M to firms tied to McCaskill’s spouse – Businesses affiliated with the husband of Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill have received almost $40 million in federal subsidies for low-income housing developments during her first five years in office, though it appears only fraction of that has made it to the family’s bank accounts, according to an Associated Press analysis.
McCaskill’s Republican challenger, Rep. Todd Akin, says the federal payments should be a cause for concern among voters. He’s attempting to portray the Democratic senator’s family as a prime beneficiary of government largesse.
“There is a conflict of interest and a breach of trust with the citizens of our state,” Akin said in an interview with the AP.
McCaskill campaign spokesman Caitlin Legacki called such assertions “flat-out wrong.”
There is no evidence that McCaskill personally routed the money to her husband’s businesses. But she voted for some – and against other – bills that funded the federal housing and agriculture departments, which in turn provide subsidies to businesses with federal contracts to provide low-income housing.
The AP reviewed five years’ worth of federal personal financial disclosure statements filed by McCaskill, which list more than 300 “affordable housing” businesses in which her husband, Joseph Shepard, had at least a partial ownership during the time she has been in office. At least one-third of those businesses also appear to be listed as recipients of federal payments in an online government database that tracks spending.
The firms affiliated with Shepard appear to have received about $39 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service or the Department of Housing and Urban Development between 2007 – when McCaskill took office – and the end of 2011. According to McCaskill’s financial reports, Shepard earned an income of between about $400,000 and $2.6 million from those businesses in the years in which they received government payments.
McCaskill’s campaign declined to make the senator available for an interview about the federal payments and – except for Legacki’s brief statement that Akin’s assertion was wrong – also declined to let campaign staff participate in an on-the-record interview. But the campaign offered a variety of reasons why the payments pose no conflict of interest, including the fact that McCaskill opposed some of the funding bills and that those she supported also included appropriations for a wide variety of government programs.
The campaign said the vast majority of the housing subsidy contracts were initiated before McCaskill became a senator, although Shepard invested in some of them after she was elected and others were renewed during her term in office. The subsidies are intended to cover the gap between the rent paid by the tenant and the value of the housing unit as determined by the federal government. Consequently, much of the subsidy goes to the owners’ operating costs, such as mortgage payments or facility maintenance, the campaign said. Were Congress to not fund the subsidies, the federal government would be defaulting on its obligations, the campaign said.
Akin said McCaskill could have abstained from voting on bills that funded agencies involved in low-income housing developments.
But McCaskill then could have been open to accusations that she shunned her congressional duties – an assertion she has made against Akin for missing numerous House votes during his Senate campaign.
“She has to vote for or against appropriation bills – that’s what the citizens of Missouri hire her to do,” said George Connor, head of the political science department at Missouri State University. But he added: “It seems to me that she has influence over federal policy that has directly benefited her husband.”
“There certainly is a legitimate perception of a conflict of interest, but that’s not the same thing as saying there is one,” Connor said.
McCaskill’s campaign said her position is no different than that of lawmakers who are farmers and vote for agriculture bills that include farm aid, or lawmakers who have family members in the military and vote for bills authorizing defense spending. Her campaign suggested it was a greater conflict for Akin to have supported a federal spending earmark for a highway near his suburban St. Louis home – though Akin’s family received no money to construct it. Story Continued:
– I like this portrayal even though it is not accurate with Romney surging ahead since the debate. PdC
President Obama touted it in 2010 as evidence “manufacturing jobs are coming back to the United States,” but two years later, a Michigan hybrid battery plant built with $150 million in taxpayer funds is putting workers on furlough before a single battery has been produced.
“Had it been private investors rather than government bureaucrats making the decision, there either would have been a reality check about the industry.”
Workers at the Compact Power manufacturing facilities in Holland, Mich., run by LG Chem, have been placed on rotating furloughs, working only three weeks per month based on lack of demand for lithium-ion cells.
The facility, which was opened in July 2010 with a groundbreaking attended by Obama, has yet to produce a single battery for the Chevrolet Volt, the troubled electric car from General Motors. The plant’s batteries also were intended to be used in Ford’s electric Focus.
Production of the taxpayer-subsidized Volt has been plagued by work stoppages, and the effect has trickled down to companies and plants that build parts for it — including the batteries.
“Considering the lack of demand for electric vehicles, despite billions of dollars from the Obama administration that were supposed to stimulate it, it’s not surprising what has happened with LG Chem. Just because a ton of money is poured into a product does not mean that people will buy it,” Paul Chesser, an associate fellow with the National Legal and Policy Center, told FoxNews.com.
The 650,000-square-foot, $300 million facility was slated to produce 15,000 batteries per year, while creating hundreds of new jobs. But to date, only 200 workers are employed at the plant by the South Korean company. Batteries for the Chevy Volts that have been produced have been made by an LG plant in South Korea.
The factory was partly funded by a $150 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. LG also received sizeable tax breaks from the local government, saving nearly $50 million in property taxes over 15 years and another $2.5 million annually in business taxes. Landing the factory was hailed as a coup when shovels first hit the ground.
“You are leading the way in showing how manufacturing jobs are coming right back here to the United States of America,” Obama told workers at the ground-breaking ceremony. “Our goal has never been to create a government program, but rather to unleash private-sector growth. And we’re seeing results.”
Randy Boileau, a spokesperson for LG Chem in Holland, told FoxNews.com that battery production is expected to pick up once Volt assembly lines in Detroit resume production on Oct. 15. He said the facility has spent the past two years building infrastructure and conducting pre-production “test runs.” Story Continued:
· New Obama ad uses Big Bird to hit Romney on deficit, Wall Street – The Obama campaign on Tuesday unveiled a television ad mocking GOP candidate Mitt Romney for his calls to cut federal funding for PBS, saying it would do little to address the deficit.
The sardonic ad compares “Sesame Street” character Big Bird, whom Romney mentioned during last Wednesday’s presidential debate, to corporate titans prosecuted for financial misdeeds.
“Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Dennis Kozlowski: Criminals. Gluttons of greed. And the evil genius who towered over them?” a voiceover says as a silhouette of Big Bird moves on screen.
“Big. Yellow. A menace to our economy. Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street you have to worry about, it’s Sesame Street,” the ad says.
The video then plays a clip of Romney vowing “to stop the subsidy to PBS.”
During his debate with President Obama, Romney said if elected he would cut funding to PBS, home to “Sesame Street,” as an example of one measure he would take to reduce the deficit.
“I like PBS. I love Big Bird. Actually, I like you, too,” Romney said to debate moderator Jim Lehrer, the host of PBS’s “NewsHour.” “But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”
“Mitt Romney. Taking on our enemies, no matter where they nest,” the ad concludes.
Sesame Street called on Obama’s campaign to take down the attack ad.
“Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns,” a Tuesday statement on Sesameworkshop.org reads. “We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.”
The campaign said they were reviewing the request.
The Romney team quickly dismissed the ad, saying Obama was attempting to distract voters from his own record.
“The choice in this election is becoming more clear each day. Four years ago, President Obama said that if you don’t have a record to run on, ‘you make a big election about small things.’ With 23 million people struggling for work, incomes falling and gas prices soaring, Americans deserve more from their president,” said campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg in a statement.
“Mitt Romney knows we can’t afford four more years like the last four, and he will lead us to a real recovery.” Story Continued:
· Sesame Street wants Big Bird out of Obama Campaign Ad – President Obama has ruffled some feathers at PBS by putting Big Bird in a TV ad attacking Mitt Romney.
“We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down,” Sesame Workshop, the PBS-affiliated non-profit behind Sesame Street, said today in a statement.
“Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns,” said the statement.
Big Bird in a new ad produced by the Obama campaign.
An Obama campaign official said that the campaign “received and will review their concerns.”
The 30-second spot mocks Romney for saying in the presidential debate last week that he’ll cut the federal subsidy for PBS.
The movie-trailer style ad sarcastically touts Romney as a hero ready to go after Big Bird, which is described in the ad as the “evil genius” behind Bernie Madoff and other real life Wall Street “gluttons of greed.”
“Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street you have to worry about, it’s Sesame Street,” the baritone narrator says in the ad. “Mitt Romney. Taking on our enemies, no matter where they nest.”
Obama has practically made the loveable Big Bird character an unofficial campaign mascot since Romney gave the giant puppet a shout out in the presidential debate last week in Denver.
“I like PBS. I love Big Bird,” Romney had said. “But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.”
Obama last week sent Big Bird — or at least a crude imitation — to pester Romney at a rally in rural Virginia.
The faux-Big Bird carried a sign that read, “Crack down on Wall Street not Sesame Street.” Story Continued:
· Romney hits Obama on Big Bird focus – Mitt Romney, speaking to a crowd of about 1,200 on a farm here in Van Meter, Iowa, criticized President Obama’s recent focus on Big Bird on the campaign trail.
“You have to scratch your head when the president spends the last week talking about saving Big Bird,” he said. “I actually think we need to have a president who talks about saving the American people and saving good jobs.”
Romney’s not the only one, as my colleague Dylan Byers notes, criticizing the Obama campaign for focusing on a “small” issue like Big Bird. Story Continued and to watch the video:
· Mitt Romney Declines Nickelodeon’s Invitation for ‘Kids Pick the President’ Special – The Republican candidate said he was unable to fit the taping into his schedule, though President Barack Obama sat down with Nick News at the White House.
One spot Mitt Romney won’t be hitting on the campaign trail: the Nickelodeon studios.
The Republican presidential candidate declined an invitation from the children’s network to participate in its special “Kids Pick the President: The Candidates.” According to a release from Nickelodeon, Romney’s camp said he was unable to fit the taping into his schedule after multiple attempts from the network.
The special, part of Nick News With Linda Ellerbee, gives kids across the country the opportunity to ask questions of each candidate. It premieres at 8 p.m. Oct. 15. On Oct. 22, Nickelodeon will reveal the results of its Kids’ Vote poll, which has correctly predicted the winner of five of the past six presidential elections.
President Barack Obama sat down for a taping in the White House, where he answered questions regarding gun control, jobs, immigration, same-sex marriage, outsourcing, bullying and obesity, as well as light-hearted questions including his most embarrassing moment. (“Running into the wall is par for the course for me,” he says. “I’m running into doors and desks all the time.”)
Romney still will be featured in the special, with producers selecting previously taped clips from the campaign trail in which Romney addresses various issues raised in the kids’ questions.
“By answering kids’ questions directly, candidates show respect for kids,” says Linda Ellerbee in a statement. “We are disappointed that Mitt Romney wouldn’t take the time to answer the questions but are thrilled that President Obama participated in the special.”
Now in its 21st year, Nick News — produced by Lucky Duck Productions — is the longest-running kids news program in television history. Story Continued:
– Why is President Obama making his time available to a children’s network? PdC
· Would Mitt Romney make the world a better place? – Mitt Romney has a stark warning for all of us: Another four years of Obama and the world will “grow darker”.
But if he is elected, he will secure America’s interests, further its values and prevent conflict. He’ll do so, moreover, “wisely, with solemnity, without false pride but also firmly and actively”.
He says he would do this by building up America’s military and spending more on the navy, building 15 new ships a year, by standing by friends and by standing up to enemies. He would put a new emphasis on free trade deals.
It is at the core of Mr Romney’s case that President Obama hasn’t led the world, allowing American power to atrophy and creating a dangerous vacuum.
As he put it today: “Leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.”
There’s no doubt there is a real difference in the way the two men see the world, and how they think America should behave.
What is less clear is what, other than rhetoric, would actually change if Mr Romney was in the White House. So I’ll try to pick out what President Romney would actually, practically, do differently.
Which course change?
There is a real, if subtle, difference over Iran. Mr Romney draws a red line much earlier. He says he would “prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability”. The current policy is to stop Iran from building a bomb.
He says “we must make clear to Iran through actions – not just words – that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated”. He does not say what these actions might be.
He does, like Mr Obama, promise tougher sanctions.
There is a very different attitude to Israel. Mitt Romney says strains between Mr Obama and the Israeli prime minister are dangerous for the world.
He’s made it clear in the past he would allow no daylight between Israel and America. In practical terms, Mr Romney has already said he would support any military action by Israel against Iran.
Most of the speech was spent on the revolutions in the Middle East. He criticised the president for having no overall strategy for the region.
“He wants America to aggressively support democrats in the face of tyranny, but he does not say what should happen when democracy produces results that America may not like. ”
That sounds like very big news indeed. But there is really very little flesh on it.
He does not say what he would have done differently in Egypt or Libya. He does not say how he would encourage democracy in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. In fact, he doesn’t reveal his own strategy.
On Syria, he does say that he would ensure the Syrian opposition gets “the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets”.
He doesn’t say if the US or other allies should supply them. He doesn’t suggest that the US should take military action there.
He says Iraq “has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence”. He doesn’t say if he would return them to the country.
He is critical of policy in Afghanistan as “a politically timed retreat… that abandons the Afghan people”.
But he doesn’t promise to keep American troops there, saying only that he would “evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders”. Story Continued:
· IRAN’S SECRET NUCLEAR-BOMB PLANT REVEALED – Source says project hidden underneath ‘medicine’ facility. Iranian scientists are nearing completion of a nuclear warhead, having already successfully tested an implosion system and neutron detonator at a secret site while enriching uranium to weapons grade, according to a former Iranian intelligence officer.
Zakeri previously testified at the federal district court in Manhattan in the Havlish v. bin Laden civil lawsuit, where he provided proof that Iran had materially aided and supported al-Qaida before and after 9/11. Story Continued:
· AKIN: LET’S ‘TAKE BACK SENATE FOR REPUBLICANS’ – GOP contender rebounds from controversy, climbing in polls. Rebounding from recent controversy, Rep. Todd Akin is climbing in the polls and fighting to win a valuable seat in the Republican race to take control of the Senate.
Two months ago, Akin, R-Mo., was riding high. He had just won a very competitive U.S. Senate primary and was comfortably ahead of embattled Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.
About two weeks later, all of that changed when Akin took heavy fire for saying that women’s bodies have a natural mechanism for preventing pregnancy in the case of “legitimate rape.” That triggered a swing in the polls and prompted scores of Republicans to call for his withdrawal from the race. Ultimately, Akin decided to stay in the race. And despite the pressure, he told WND’s Greg Corombos the decision was an easy one.
“Many people in politics make the mistake of saying ‘Can we win?’ or ‘How do we win?’ instead of ‘What’s the right thing to do?’” said Akin. My sense of this was it was really pretty straightforward. There had been eight people who’d been involved in the primary for about 16 months. When it was all done, Republicans in the state of Missouri selected who they wanted to run against Claire McCaskill. It turned out that it was me. ”
Akin said winning that primary carried a very special responsibility, regardless of controversy.
“Now there are people that want me to step aside so they can appoint someone else,” he said. “I don’t really believe that it’s even a moral thing for me to do. [I’ve] been given, in a sense, a sacred trust to try to take back the Senate for the Republicans.”
Americans are petitioning Mitt Romney to “dump” Karl Rove after the GOP strategist told donors at the Republican National Convention, “We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!” Sign the petition!
Akin said his initial instincts were confirmed a few days later when national Republican leaders asked him to drop out of the race, the same people who gave the cold shoulder to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in his Senate race against Charlie Crist in 2010 and who also tried to knock off Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul that same year.
“I’m not going to play their game,” said Akin. ”The people of our state chose me because of the beliefs that I have and what I have to offer. I’m not going to allow a couple of party bosses to chase somebody out and name who they wanted to replace him.”
Akin said his withdrawal would have triggered chaos as different camps jockeyed for their preferred candidate to be the new nominee – without the blessing of Republican voters in the state. He also asserted that he made the right decision, regardless of the outcome in November.
Right now, the race appears to be very tight. Akin cited two polls showing him ahead of Sen. McCaskill by one to three percentage points. Two other polls show her up five to six points. Akin insisted that the uproar over his comments is not distracting him or the voters of Missouri. He acknowledged that the media and Sen. McCaskill are attempting to keep the focus on his abortion comments, but he said it’s a tactic that won’t work.
“Claire McCaskill is going to try to make the race about all kinds of little things. It’s a distraction to get away from how she voted. They want to make it about how (Akin) thinks or what he said or what somebody else thinks or what they said about what he thought that she thought that he said,” mused Akin. “Anything but her voting record, which is just a disaster for the state of Missouri and a disaster for her politically.”
Akin said McCaskill has to answer for being the deciding vote for the Obama health plan, despite 71 percent of Missourians voting against it in a statewide referendum. Akin also slammed McCaskill for voting for the stimulus plan, and in the process cutting programs for education and veterans while managing to insert a million taxpayer dollars for her family’s business.
Akin is not impressed by the drop in the national unemployment rate to 7.8 percent in September.
“I don’t know how anybody who really knows anything about business or our economy could be very impressed with where we are,” he told WND. Story Continued:
· MCCASKILL’S SPOUSE GOT $40 MILLION FROM FEDS – Akin rips ‘breach of trust with the citizens.’ Businesses affiliated with the husband of Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill received almost $40 million in federal subsidies for low-income housing developments during her first five years in office, though it appears only a fraction of that has made it to the family’s bank accounts, according to an Associated Press analysis.
McCaskill’s Republican challenger, Rep. Todd Akin, says the federal payments should be a cause for concern among voters. He’s attempting to portray the Democratic senator’s family as a prime beneficiary of government largesse.
“There is a conflict of interest and a breach of trust with the citizens of our state,” Akin said in an interview with the AP. Story Continued: