Some in G.O.P. Choose to Return to Akin’s Corner

Should they return to Representative Todd Akin’s corner?

Many quickly withdrew their support for Mr. Akin weeks ago after his controversial comments about abortion and belief that victims of “legitimate rape” have a biological mechanism to fight off pregnancy, hoping to force him aside so another Republican candidate could battle the Democratic incumbent, Senator Claire McCaskill.

But Mr. Akin called their bluff. He stayed in the race, reckoning that election math would oblige them to stick with him.

Now, with Mr. Akin’s name legally bound to the ballot, the election approaching and new polling data presenting a clearer idea of his chances, Republicans are deliberating whether to renege on their reneging.

It is one of the trickiest dilemmas facing Republicans this election cycle: whether to give up on a race that could help decide which party controls the United States Senate or stand by Mr. Akin and risk hurting Republican candidates in other states.

“Are they willing to let a guy who should win a seat lose a seat because they sat on their hands?” asked Michael Centanni, the chairman of Freedom’s Defense Fund, which announced late last month that it would spend a quarter of a million dollars in support of Mr. Akin. “They’re going to be in a much worse situation if he ends up losing by a point and they sat on the sidelines.”

Newt Gingrich, who attended a fund-raiser for Mr. Akin on Sept. 24 near St. Louis, said Republicans who rushed to judgment needed to consider the error of their decision.

“Akin’s not the only one who made a mistake,” Mr. Gingrich said in an interview. “Just as he had to eat a little bit of crow, there are some other folks” who will, too.

Some of the deep-pocketed donors, most notably the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who withdrew their financing and support of Mr. Akin will inevitably return, Mr. Gingrich said.

“I don’t see how they’ll avoid getting in the race,” he added.

But Republicans should focus on more than the Senate math, said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri who quickly distanced himself from Mr. Akin after the comments in August.

“Akin has come to symbolize a version of the Republican Party that’s just not acceptable to an awful lot of people,” Mr. Danforth said in an interview. “I don’t know if he can win or not in the election in the Senate race, but I think this is bigger than one Senate seat. I think it’s the brand of the Republican Party, and I think he taints the Republican Party.”

While Mr. Danforth is maintaining his opposition to Mr. Akin, other Republicans are returning to his corner. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri and two former senators from the state, Christopher S. Bond and Jim Talent, recently endorsed Mr. Akin after initially urging him to step aside after his comments about rape and abortion.

“They’re going to have to explain to voters whether they support his position on these issues or whether they’re just acting in political expediency,” said Caitlin Legacki, a spokeswoman for Ms. McCaskill.

Mr. Blunt declined a request for an interview. But in a statement released shortly after the Sept. 25 deadline for dropping out of the race, he gave Mr. Akin an endorsement that sounded more obligatory than excited.

“Congressman Akin and I don’t agree on everything, but he and I agree the Senate majority must change,” Mr. Blunt said. “From Governor Romney to the county courthouse, I’ll be working for the Republican ticket in Missouri, and that includes Todd Akin.”

Other Senate Republicans have also backed Mr. Akin in recent days, including Tom Coburn and James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The four conservative senators hosted a fund-raising luncheon for Mr. Akin on Wednesday, with tickets ranging from $250 to $2,500. Rick Santorum, a former senator and presidential candidate from Pennsylvania, also announced his support of Mr. Akin.

View the original article here

Attacks on Mitt Romney Over Tax Return Issue Are Unfair (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Few presidential candidates have faced more pressure to make available their tax returns than Mitt Romney. Despite the fact Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have also not released their tax returns, as revealed in a South Carolina debate, the former Massachusetts governor is being singled out by the media. The hyperbole scrutiny of Romney's tax returns reveals bias in the part of the media.

If Romney was a salaried man with less than eight-digit figures in his bank account, he would not have faced the same pressure to release his tax returns as he is now. People love a narrative. A successful and wealthy businessman must have a lot of skeletons in his closet, and hence we need see his tax returns. Even if Romney decides to release his tax returns at this instance, the media will follow up and demand to see returns from previous years and decades.

What the media seems to forget is that they are journalists and not auditors. It is the job of the IRS to scrutinize Romney's tax returns for problems. All the media will do is scouring the Michigan native's returns for politically inexpedient details and magnifies them. The decision to release tax returns should be his to make and for the public to judge.

Legally, Romney has the right not to disclose his tax returns. Moreover, he is only a candidate and not the president. If Romney is elected to the presidency, he will likely follow traditions and release his tax returns every year of his term. The media obsession over Romney's tax returns gives the impression that presidential candidates are required to make public their returns, which is incorrect.

Ultimately, it is more prudent for Romney to release his tax returns as soon as possible to temper the controversy. To his credit, the Michigan native has indicated that he will make available his tax returns in April. Four years ago, GOP nominee John McCain also released his tax returns in April. All in all, Romney's wealth is expected to continue to be a hotly debated topic in the 2012 Republican race.

View the original article here