Sen. John Cornyn: Republicans Can Win Senate ‘Regardless’ of What Happens in Presidential Race
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, made the rounds on radio row this afternoon. During an impromptu press avail, the senator addressed questions about the Republicans’ chances for taking the Senate majority in November. Asked if the Republicans can win the majority without winning the Missouri seat, Cornyn answered:
I believe that we can, and there are some polls that sort of demonstrate that pathway through places like Connecticut, where now Linda McMahon is two points up in a blue state. In Michigan, where that race has become much more competitive. Josh Mandell is closing in on Sherrod Brown in Ohio.
Sen. Cornyn is referencing a new Quinnipiac poll, which shows Republican Linda McMahon now leading her Democratic opponent by three points in a state that is usually very tough on Republicans. McMahon’s lead is outside the poll’s 2.6 percent margin of error.
Cornyn added:
I always thought that there would be a late shift in the momentum once Gov. Romney establishes himself as a viable alternative to Barack Obama, which I think he is in the process of doing. … You’ll see a lot in common with what happened in 1980, and of course we have a number of Senate candidates who can run and win regardless of what happens at the top of the ticket. Like in Virginia, Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, just to mention a few, where the stronger that Gov. Romney runs the better our chances are for our candidates.
Asked about the NRSC’s call for Rep. Todd Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race, Cornyn said that it was a “purely business decision” based on how the campaign must allocate its resources. Cornyn said, “The disappointing thing about Missouri is that was the one with the most endangered Democrat incumbent. But for the unfortunate circumstances, she would be leaving the Senate in January.”
More Cornyn:
I still hope that Todd Akin, being a fundamentally honorable man, will understand that he can’t win and will step aside and allow somebody who can win and who believes in the same values that he shares, can win that seat. So, we’re not giving up.
Onward! We need to take as much as possible in order to minimize Obama’s predations, as best we can.
The country is falling apart. We drowning in debt and Missourians are going to vote for McCaskill because of one abortion remark? Are people that easily led by feelings and emotions? My gosh, vote prosperity. Vote for drilling for oil & gas, approve the Keystone Pipeline, back off the onerous regulations and taxation. Trim entitlements and welfare benefits. Love your country enough to do the right thing. And send Akin some money so he can outlast the establishment Republicans.
That’s the point I’ve been making, Patty. I disagree with Akin’s statement and agree completely it was, at best, exceedingly ill-informed and poorly worded, but even if he believed 100% everything he’s been accused of by the Democrats, he individually poses no risk at all to “women’s health” (as defined by abortion access). Were he to offer a bill with the left’s nightmare restrictions, it would have 0% chance of passing, 0% chance of being signed, and 0% chance of surviving the court battles. On the other hand, McCaskill has demonstrated a clear and present danger to our economic recovery, having enthusiastically supported and voted for terrible laws that were passed, signed, and weathered Constitutional challenges.
You. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
Akin essentially has made it clear that he doesn’t give a damn about jobs, about the economy, about foreign policy, about energy… i.e. the stuff people send senators to do. Instead he’s wasting bandwidth on a subject that is already settled and has been for 40 years. He’s announced that he’s the puppet of his fundamentalist evangelical knuckle dragging masters to the detriment of what the people elect senators to do. That’s the image he portrays.
Does this spell out what the problem is? Do you need it in crayons?
“Akin essentially has made it clear that he doesn’t give a damn about jobs, about the economy, about foreign policy, about energy… i.e. the stuff people send senators to do. Instead he’s wasting bandwidth on a subject that is already settled and has been for 40 years.”
Really? Is that so? Had he really said that? Or has he been asked those questions, answered them with common sense answers, and then had all that ignored by an MSM that has publicized only one answer he gave to one question because they are desperate to keep the Republicans from taking the Senate?
Yes. By screwing up what should have been a simple restatement of the platform plank, and not stepping down, he said all that.
So, tom Perkins, your argument boils down to demanding that your betters trust that there’s a voice that only you can hear.
His opponent is not better. One of the worst senators in history.
Agreed. A pair of socks would be a better Senator than Claire M.
Social conservatives however have about 3 million years of evolution to go through before to they rise to the pair of socks level.
Care to show me where he said any of that? Bet you can’t.
He said a very stupid thing. If that’s all it took to disqualify someone from public office, Joe Biden would never have been elected along with about half of the other members of Congress.
Larry it would help if you could read. I’ll even requote myself, please read this v.e.r.y..s.l.o.w.l.y.
“That’s the image he portrays.“
You’re a moron and a punk hiding behind anonymity, engineer. The Ellen Barkin of PJMedia. I guarantee you’re a 97lbs wienie.
You’re too vile and stupid to speak for any part of the platform of the Republican Party. Get lost and take it back to the Dimocratic Underground where you belong. Cast your Obama vote with them, as you read just like them.
You’re going to have to deal with how perception works. And maybe some anger issues. Dem Claire M is up by 10 points and Rove says Akins will get an historical pasting. I suppose Rove is a 97 lb commie as well?
I agree. I don’t agree at all with Akin’s statements, but if I vote for him, he’ll instantly go on a back bench for 6 years. If I vote for Claire, it just might put Reid back in charge of the Senate. To me, that seems like an awful clear choice.
Exactly; while we’re—I’m searching for words here, Akin’s response to his gaffe is substantially worse than it—anyway, my parents and I will be voting for him come this November, because as you point out, he’s going to make one most important vote, for Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader and not Harry Reid.
Not that that’s the strong argument, since McConnell is more part of the problem than the solution (although that also determines who’s going to be running the committees), but it’s at least in the direction of the “first do no harm” principle.
McCaskill is particularly loathsome; e.g. she’s now changed her tune, but the first time her people came in contact with the Tea Party they closed their blinds and called the police. It’s hard to say Akin, egomaniacal as he is, is worse, and as you note he’ll have little influence in the Senate Republican caucus if seated.
It doesn’t work that way. If the two candidates in the highest profile race on the ballot other than the presidential race both have super high negatives and lots of money to spend on the message the result can be to turn everyone off to the idea of voting at all. That endangers every other Republican on the ballot because the urban Democrat machine in Missouri is well schooled in getting out the vote and vote fraud is not unknown.
My advice is to let Akin stew while the spotlight is on the national conventions. Let him see his poll numbers aren’t recovering as his bank balance shrinks and how little enthusiasm there is during personal appearances. (Even Huckabee noted if Akin can’t raise money on his own its a game changer.) Then let Missouri Republicans make Akin an offer to step aside with assurances the replacement will be suitably pro life. Maybe jobs for his campaign staff, which includes his relatives. Maybe covering any campaign debt.
Very correct. Don’t create a public pissing match within your own party. Provide a “Golden Bridge” for Akin, and allow him to fade away.
The second thing worst to having Obama re-elected is to have all three branches to fall under the same party. We had already had this happen twice within the last 10 years, both times with horrible consequences. Anyone who thinks that this time around it really will be different is delusional. My preference – Republicans (if we must) House and Executive; Democrats – Senate.
Ordinarily, I might agree with you, but this time we need real change. If the Senate stays with Reid, he will continue to refuse to do anything. There will be no budgets, no appointment votes, no nothing as long as he stays the Senate majority leader. We can’t afford that.
How many times will Lucy have to yank the ball away before people stop hoping for “real change” (hope & change… hmm… where have I heard that before… and before that… and before that… and…)? In 2005 Bush couldn’t push through the Social Security reform all the while Republican enjoyed majorities in both houses. Pushing through the ObamaCare repeal will be even harder. As much as it pains me both morally and financially I see no political reality under which ObamaCare has a chance of being repealed. The best we can hope for, at the moment, is keeping both parties from inflicting more harm on our economy under the guise of fixing it. A gridlocked Congress will provide a more stable environment for businesses to absorb and adapt to the sea of regulatory changes inflicted on us within the last 6 years and to start bringing in wealth again.
In normal times you might be right but I think even RINOs now know that the days of dodging the issues are over. With Obamacare about to eat what little lunch we have left, we have to have all three branches to do any meaningful reform. As the TEA partiers grow in number you will see more people that ignore their own re-election and do what’s right for the country.
you really believe that even after the stunt the Republican establishement pulled at the NRC today and how is that any different from they way Democrats passed ObamaCare? And you want these people completely in charge of two branches of the government?
It is the only way to get rid of Obamacare.
I’m having trouble believing anyone would want the Senate in Reid’s hands again. How many years – YEARS – has it been since the Senate has passed a budget?
yes, 3+ years. And now there is a strong precedence for this. Plus, it’s obvious that a large chunk of the electorate simply don’t give a damn. So I fear that should Republicans win back Senate, they’ll just keep the practice (on the other hand, as soon as they miss the first budget, the media will suddenly rediscover how important passing a budget really is for governing).
I think people don’t give a damn because our beloved leaders rarely, if ever, work within the financial confines of a budget anyway. Dirty Harry has just brought it out in the open and proven how well justified our cynicism really is.
Under ordinary circumstances a united majority in all branches would be a bad thing for sure–but we have legislation that has to be repealed, desperately. I think however that any majorities will be slim enough to still allow for some divided government.
Still, it would be rash to underestimate the danger of Republicans pushing through stupid measures like SOPA, for instance. All voters need to make clear that if a new measure looks like it’s going to harm the economy or harm freedom, we absolutely will not tolerate it. In fact, we need to hold both houses of Congress accountable to the idea that the only new laws should cause explosive economic growth, and otherwise their job is to repeal laws that hinder explosive economic growth. Any attempt to push through a social agenda would be misguided, and pushing the Hollywood agenda is just plain stupid for Republicans anyway.
Ben Swann Reality Check was given a few minutes with Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan. Ben asked Romney about the RNC stripping Maine delegates of their credentials. Did Romney answer honestly? Published on Aug 27, 2012 All I can say is WOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llg-a8FamJg&feature=plcp
I’m going to guess that once the furor ages some Rep. Akin will be elected by the voters of Missouri regardless of his lack of understanding of female physiology.
Nope. Not even close. Akin is a perfect example of the type of Republican that scares moderate voters – the crazy religious fundamental type. No one but hard core Republicans are going to vote for him. As bad as Claire is, at least she’s sane.
Sad, but I fear, an accurate comment. For the forseeable future evangelicals, unless they are extremely artful with their interviews, are going to be bridesmaids and not brides when it comes to high profile elections. There are enough in the electorate who are repelled by any strongly held religious doctrine to make the devout practically unelectable in most places. The media will go after them and try to elicit remarks like Akins’ or force them to repudiate their core religious beliefs.
And then there are the Mormons… .
“Artful”, you mean LYING. Yes, that would help, especially since no one watches Rachel Maddow. But it also helps to talk up a) Obama axed work requirements for welfare, b) Obama stole $718 billion from Medicare, and c) You didn’t build that, and other CANARDS! Keep it up, it MIGHT work, ya never know.
Obama has already demonstrated that he can go around Congress to get what he wants by appointing numerous czars and using federal agency regulations. He is, essentially, governing by fiat, and if we don’t get rid of him, the first term troubles will look like a Sunday picnic.
I hope and pray when the furor dies down Akin will decide it’s no fun playing the martyr to the half dozen equally sanctimonious fools who show up to listen to him and he will quit the race.
If he waits past a certain date, I’ve read that Akin will need a court order to drop out.
What burns me on this whole thing is not the substance of Akin’s remarks. I’d heard of and accepted as true the notion that women have ways of countering fertilization in cases of forceful rape. I’m still unsure on that, frankly, tho the fact that this idea comes from a planned parenthood guy should be broadcast as much as possible, I think. Akin’s reWal error was in mixing the words “legitimate” with the word “rape”. Now, I know why this happened, given the deliberate watering down of rape by the lefts feminazi set. Still, no excuse for stupidity. Worse, Akin has distinctly not distinguished himself in attempting to explain things. So, the real question now is whether to trheat Akin like a hobbled, limping mule threatening to drag the whole freakin mule train over the side of the mountain. Or whether to try to explain, defend, and make a possible go of things with him in Missouri. Not an easy decision truthfully. My sense is that our commentariat and consultant class are a little unduly biased against the man.
There is zero scientific validity to that theory. And politicians have zero business just making things up are peddling them as fact. We have enough of that from the climatati and their ‘ZOMG the world iz on fire!!!!!’ crap. We don’t need any more of that.
Really? You’re saying so doesn’t make it so.
I notice that the cheap talkers hooting and hollering and saying such things aren’t putting up any scientifically valid research of their own.
Just like global warming, it’s presumed false until proven true.
It’s your burden of proof, not mine.
Yeah because there’s no document cases of women becoming pregnant from rape.
[[rolls eyes]].
Seriously, though, the only documented study that I’ve seen is from the FBI in the 90s and said that 5% of raped women became pregnant as a result of the rape. Which, if true, means that there is a higher probability of conception from rape than there is from consensual sex.
My sense is that our commentariat and consultant class are a little unduly biased against the man.
The standard left comment re republicans is that they’re uneducated bible beating morons, most of whom live in Jesusland in the continental interior and unfit for much outside of working in jobs with french fries. Akin just made it to poster status, personifying the very image.
Hell, I’VE given up on Missouri, and I have to live here.
I hate, HATE being put in a position where I HAVE to vote for an arrogant, selfish creature totally indifferent to the likelihood of his inevitable loss to McCaskill possibly causing the Democrats to hold the Senate , guaranteeing obamacare will last until the final collapse of the US economy, and possibly (though not as likley) that bad feelings over his remark will hurt other Republicans running, up to and including Romney/Ryan.
Had he made his dumbass statement the Sunday before election day, it WOULD have been enough to guarantee an obama victory. I am sure of that.
And even if I and every Republican and Conservative votes for Akin-rewards him with our vote for his utter selfish indifference to what tiny tatters of freedom remain-it will NOT be enough. WE may be able to hold our noses and vote for akinthing, but the independents, “undecideds”, and moderate Dem votes will not be forthcoming, and we NEEDED those votes. Missouri is not 80% registered Republican and Conservative , you do realize? Between St Louis, KC, and Columbia, the rural conservative voters are just about matched by the urban/liberal/Democratic voters.
We’ll do what we can, but Akin is doomed.
It is not true. It is so not true. It is the physiology equivalent of the flat earth theory. This would have been a shocking and outrageous statement even without the word “legitimate.”
It would have been like saying, “Don’t worry about getting raped, because your body has ways of keeping you from getting pregnant as the result of rape.”
I don’t understand how Akin defenders can possibly fail to grasp this.
No, a woman’s body does NOT have that capability.
Pregnancy caused by rape is the violation that goes on violating.
I don’t understand how Akin defenders can possibly fail to grasp this. Maybe if I said, “If you think that, you are certainly no gentleman!”? Maybe if I said that makes you what the false accuser of the Duke lacrosse players claimed those young men were?
Would you care to offer that explanation to your daughter or your sister if either of them were raped?
What does it take to explain that Akins is … legitimately … toxic? Beyond the pale of civilization, much less the Senate?
The sad truth is, a sizable segment of the Republican party pretty much is Akin in terms of belief. He’s really no different than Huckabee.
And yet, Ron Paul (and his followers) are deemed the crazy ones, because they consistently want a smaller government, not a small one on economic issues and a big one on social issues.
Your betters are not cowed into substituting this strawgirl of yours for what was really said.
No “strawgirl” whatsoever, for that is pretty much what Akin said. Go back & read his statement again.
Plain and simple: Akin is indefensible. I see from the above posts that there’s the temptation among conservatives to rationalize: ‘gaining control of the Senate and overturning Obamacare are so important that we are justified in closing our eyes and pulling the lever for him.’ I understand teh realpolitik impulse. However, I think the real point of conservatism is that we try akways to be guided by prinicple and logic. Principle and logic tell me it’s better to lose the Senate majority this time around than to support this very poisonous politician.
I disagree.
“Indefensible” is how fast the GOP party-archs and conservative establishment collapsed in their zeal to prostrate themselves before the idol called feminism.
Cheer up GOP. If McCaskill wins, she might just replace Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. She used to channel Harry Truman, so at least we would get a budget.
I think Cornyn needs to be less complacent about Indiana and Connecticut.
I agree with Angry Chihuahua.
This is a completely avoidable MCF but Akin is too selfish to stop the damage. This could affect not only the US Senate but the presidential race.
Ghosts Of Independence: Old Ink, Eternal Ideals.
The tea partiers know its not just about the high taxes. Its about the rulers behind them who have lost touch, like too many of us, with a simple question: why are we Americans? Bill Whittle finds a simple answer in recalling our founding ideals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEdLPq9YSlU
Let Akin stay and lose, although I think it will be very close- Romney keeps MO either way. A squeamish swing voter in another swing state (esp. VA, FL and OH) may conclude that since the Dems may keep the Senate, it is imperative for the Presidency to change hands.
Akin isn’t the only one. The GOP Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, Tom Smith, was recently quoted as comparing pregnancy from rape to a pregnancy out of wedlock. Sounds like he’s mixing up an unwanted pregnancy (rape) with one (consensual sex) where the baby likely is wanted. Also seems to be saying that the only legitimate baby is one whose parents are married. And this guy is another one who believes that human life begins at the moment of conception.
Joe Scarborough said it best recently on his Morning Joe show. Republicans just don’t want to win the Senate. With candidates like O’Donnell, Angle, Buck in 2010; and Akin & Smith this year, I see where he’s coming from.
So long as the republican candidates keep nattering about overturning (how?) 40 year old law, all the democrats need to do is point out that their opponents aren’t paying the required attention to jobs/energy/etc i.e. what the voters want them to do. You have to wonder how hard this is to figure out.
Mr. Akin represents what I fear is a prevalent view of politicians of both parties – he knows better than us. As such, he his perfectly within his rights to tell us what to do, how to live and what to think. This arrogance is totally unaccteptable to me. I want and expect public servants to be just that, servants, i.e. taking their direction from those who elected them (the majority). He and all those like him are operating on false pretenses and for that alone, he needs to go. Political, utititarian considerations are fine, but having principles and living by them, I think, should be the overriding concern.
Why-oh-why can’t the republicans understand that Harry Reid is the path to a Senate Majority. I live in Virginia, and like Tim Kaine better than George Allen, but cannot vote for Kaine because it would increase the chances that Harry Reid will stay majority leader. The Senate is completely broken–it has been unable to pass a budget since Obama became President, supinely allowed him to make recess appointments when it was not in recess, and will never allow a vote on Obamacare repeal to come to the floor when that man is in charge. He is a sourpuss, and the folks in Mo. may even vote for an idiot like Akin if they think it is the difference between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell running the Senate.
It wouldn’t help us much, if we would win the Senate but Obama would get re-elected. He would ignore and sneak around the Congress (see: Crap and Fake, formerly known as Cap & Trade, War in Libya, etc.), would do whatever he wants, would govern via Presidential Executive Orders and at the end he would blame the (Republican) Congress for whatever went wrong….
Bright: what you describe is not unique to Barack. G.W. Bush was known for his “signing statements” saying what he might not do in implementing a new law.