Akin pledges to keep ads on TV in Mo. Senate race
COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) - Insisting his fundraising has rebounded after a nationally publicized gaffe, Republican Rep. Todd Akin said Friday that TV viewers in Missouri should expect to see his U.S. Senate ads all the way until Election Day.
One of the biggest questions surrounding Akin's campaign has been whether he will be able to raise enough money to spread his message after being deserted by some big-dollar donors because of remarks he made last month about women's bodies having ways of avoiding pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."
Akin has run two solid weeks of statewide TV ads since those remarks. His initial ads featured a public apology while subsequent ads sought to shift the focus to the record of Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, whom he is challenging in the Nov. 6 election. Those ads ended earlier this week on some major market TV stations, raising questions about whether Akin's finances were getting tight.
Advertising records show Akin's campaign booked additional spots Friday on at least one Kansas City television station to run through next Wednesday. The Federal Communications Commission only requires stations in the largest media markets to post their political ad sales to its website. In Missouri, that requirement applies only to stations in Kansas City and St. Louis.
"Our plan is to have enough money to stay on (TV) through the election," Akin said after a campaign where he solicited online donations from more than 50 people attending a meeting of the Columbia Pachyderm Club.
Akin told the group he has received a positive response from many rank-and-file Republicans since rejecting the calls of party leaders - including presidential candidate Mitt Romney - to quit the Senate race because of his rape comments.
"The first thing we saw was this massive level of contributions and envelopes and letters encouraging me: 'You stand up, don't you give into those party bosses,'" Akin said.
When Akin sought questions from the audience Friday, several people instead stood up to express how frustrated they were that national Republican leaders had turned against Akin. One club member, Wayne Ambrust, told Akin he initially thought Akin should have dropped out but then changed his mind and instead contributed money to Akin's campaign.
Akin has raised about $400,000 in a little over two weeks from a small-dollar, online fundraising drive launched after he apologized for his remarks, said Akin campaign spokesman Ryan Hite. He said Akin started the general election with several hundred thousand dollars in his account after winning the Aug. 7 Republican primary.
McCaskill, who was unopposed in the Democratic primary, entered the general election campaign with significantly more money. She had $3.5 million in mid-July, which was her last required federal reporting date.
McCaskill debuted a new TV ad Friday touting herself as a moderate and highlighting a report that ranked her right in the middle among senators on a scale of liberal to conservative.
One of the biggest questions surrounding Akin's campaign has been whether he will be able to raise enough money to spread his message after being deserted by some big-dollar donors because of remarks he made last month about women's bodies having ways of avoiding pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."
Akin has run two solid weeks of statewide TV ads since those remarks. His initial ads featured a public apology while subsequent ads sought to shift the focus to the record of Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, whom he is challenging in the Nov. 6 election. Those ads ended earlier this week on some major market TV stations, raising questions about whether Akin's finances were getting tight.
Advertising records show Akin's campaign booked additional spots Friday on at least one Kansas City television station to run through next Wednesday. The Federal Communications Commission only requires stations in the largest media markets to post their political ad sales to its website. In Missouri, that requirement applies only to stations in Kansas City and St. Louis.
"Our plan is to have enough money to stay on (TV) through the election," Akin said after a campaign where he solicited online donations from more than 50 people attending a meeting of the Columbia Pachyderm Club.
Akin told the group he has received a positive response from many rank-and-file Republicans since rejecting the calls of party leaders - including presidential candidate Mitt Romney - to quit the Senate race because of his rape comments.
"The first thing we saw was this massive level of contributions and envelopes and letters encouraging me: 'You stand up, don't you give into those party bosses,'" Akin said.
When Akin sought questions from the audience Friday, several people instead stood up to express how frustrated they were that national Republican leaders had turned against Akin. One club member, Wayne Ambrust, told Akin he initially thought Akin should have dropped out but then changed his mind and instead contributed money to Akin's campaign.
Akin has raised about $400,000 in a little over two weeks from a small-dollar, online fundraising drive launched after he apologized for his remarks, said Akin campaign spokesman Ryan Hite. He said Akin started the general election with several hundred thousand dollars in his account after winning the Aug. 7 Republican primary.
McCaskill, who was unopposed in the Democratic primary, entered the general election campaign with significantly more money. She had $3.5 million in mid-July, which was her last required federal reporting date.
McCaskill debuted a new TV ad Friday touting herself as a moderate and highlighting a report that ranked her right in the middle among senators on a scale of liberal to conservative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzPsdkTCufs&feature=player_detailpage
Â
Apparently, Akin likes to golf. Just like the President!
@Sid Vishess Even more loony tune equivalencies from your tbagginâ tbilly nutbagginâ tbagger nutbaggers "mind". Go figure.
Akin isn't much different than Romney or Ryan: he just doesn't have their slick ability to hide what he really thinks.
Well, I guess we're going to figure out just how profoundly stupid his state is soon enough.
I'm sure he got more contributions of from those whom don't beleave in separation of church and state.
Â
This is why the constitution was written, to stop the evangilcals from running the country.
@snoopy84 Sorry, Snoop, but that's actually backwards. While I am not an evangelical or religious conservative by any stretch of the imagination, I am a historian and I tend to stand up for the historical record.
Â
The fact of the matter is that the writers of the Constitution were men of deep faith and, having seen what happened in England with a State Religion, chose to protect the various denominations from state interference and offering nearly every religion a home here in America.
Â
As we have become a more secular society, the mistaken idea that 'The Separation Of Church And State [tm]" was to protect government from overzealous churchmen has cropped up into our national psyche and it's simply not true. How the Founding Fathers would weigh in on the debate about contraception and abortion is anybody's guess, but nearly all of them would vehemently argue for any given denomination's right to oppose it if that denomination chose to.
@svensson I'll disagree with you only slightly. The founding fathers wanted both concepts. They did not want religions interfering in Governement as much as they wanted to keep government out of religion. This was the only way to ensure actual freedom of religion. Secondly, if you read the treaty of tripoli. Article11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,âas it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],âand as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
@DeadRabitz Certainly true, but the basis of that belief was a] the Puritan religious persecutions that brought them to New England and b] the difficulties that the British government had fighting wars of religion and having a state supported religion to begin with.
 @svensson  @snoopy84 de·ismâ â[dee-iz-uhm]  1.belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation 2.belief in a God who created the world but has since remainedindifferent to it.
Â
Â
 @svensson  @snoopy84 Thank you for stating the truth so well. However, if Snoop wants to believe this way and vote for Obama, let's just let him please!
Well, at least he is only wasting GOP money...
 @OrcasThunder If only he could siphon off the Romney/Ryan treasury... I find Romney much more troubling even than Akin... and that as an evangelical Christian myself. Akin is willfully ignorant, but Romney is even more arrogant than George W., IMHO... maybe more on a par with Cheney.
 @JLS1950 "maybe more on a par with Cheney."
Actually, I'd say more on a par with Rumsfeld.
Chaney is a LOT more conniving, ruthless, lacking morals, and totally focused than Willard will ever be.
Rumsfeld is the technocrat, following a star in the distance, just not sure what he would do if he ever really got there, kind of mystic dreamer...just like Rumsfeld. He was on a "mission", just like Romney is.
Ryan is the one who scares me the most - the guy does not understand compromise, has the Messiah complex in a really bad way, and is on a Mission from God...
Â
The really scary part is the throughout our history, Presidents on both sides have had VPs that people really did not want to become President - it was almost like they picked the guy as a bit of insurance policy so people would worry more about the replacement if the President was killed than they would be to get the VP in the Oval Office.
I really do see some of Ryan's more strident followers as capable of doing what was needed to put him there. Not saying that HE would condone that, just commenting on a few of the most ardent and extreme minions. I've met some of the "True Believer" types, and there are some who would think this way.Â
Â
And no, I am not looking forward to Biden expecting the nomination in 2016 - I would much prefer Hillary and Michelle...the right wing wouldn't even know what his them! <G>
 @OrcasThunder  @JLS1950 I think you are right about many of the choices for VP. Who would have wanted Dan Quayle as president or Dick Cheney or Spiro Agnew or Hubert Humphrey?