“One could dislike him remaining in the election while also being disturbed by the glee some took in his existence as the “rape” guy.”

Sure, but after the initial incident, the greatest gift he could give to those who took glee at his shame was to stay in the race and ensure that the Missouri Senate seat went to a Democrat rather than (for instance) a pro-life woman (though there was no guarantee that would happen either but I liked Ann Wagner’s chances a lot better than Akin’s.)

I don’t blame Akin for wanting to rescue his name. I blame him for putting his pride ahead of his alleged principles when it had become obvious he was politically toxic to the electorate. In most respects, I think that his refusal to leave and thereby concede a winnable seat was worse than his original statement. We all have gaps in our knowledge. We live and learn. We all sometimes say things that come out wrong. I always sympathized with Rick Perry over his slips of the tongue (though not the times when he showed obvious lack of preparation.) Akin had an especially unfortunate combination of the two. But the refusal to leave took place over a period of weeks. He had a lot of time to think things through and selfishness won out (whatever the rationalizations to get there). That is a lot tougher to excuse.

On the other hand:

1. He had every legal right to stay in.

2. He was responsible (very probably) for the loss of a Senate seat, and not the defeat of Linda Lingle, Scott Brown and Mitt Romney.

Besides his own vanity, Mr.Akin decided to stay in to salvage his name. He obviously didn’t want to forever be known as the “rape guy” and his position was the last bully pulpit he was ever going to get to attempt such rehabilitation.

Do not discount that politic which is post-Christian does not have the same sense of mercy and forgiveness that even a vainglorious man deserves. One could dislike him remaining in the election while also being disturbed by the glee some took in his existence as the “rape” guy.

Yes, only a prideful fool would have thought he could rescue his name, but it’s hard to fault him for trying to maintain his brand…if this election showed anything to me, it was about the importance of brand to the electorate.

1. He is incredibly vain and obtuse.

2. He did win the primary according to the rules and was entitled to stay.

As for the second paragraph. My sense is that Romney and his team would have said whatever they needed in order to win but just didn’t know what that was. I have my own thoughts but I’m not that confident I know either. New thinking would be hard for anybody. If Romney had real principles maybe he could have spent years trying to find creative ways to explain the most attractive version of his preferred policies. But I’ve been watching Romney for over 18 years and I’ve never noticed that he had any principles at all on the matters at controversy in our politics.

It is still possible to embrace new thinking and prosper without being a conviction politician. But that probably takes a sharper understanding of the dynamics of public opinion than Romney ever showed. Bill Clinton had that, but there aren’t a lot of Bill Clinton’s out there.

As for Stuart Stevens, what is he gonna say? That he was outplayed and that his cynical boss was outsmarted? He is a hack trying to maintain his viablity. I don’t respect what he is doing but it is a reminder that while guys like him might have their uses, nothing they say should be trusted.

I completely agree with what you’re saying here. Still, Akin is responsible for losing the MO Senate seat. Couldn’t he have been lured into withdrawing from the race by the offer of some face-saving (and well-paid) job at some foundation or other? For that matter, since it was always clear that Akin would be the weakest GOP candidate for that seat, why wasn’t this done BEFORE the primary? At that point, he could even have been offered a lobbying job – which is what I would guess he’ll end up doing now, anyway.

I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the Republicans – apart from the disadvantages they currently face – are just not very good at politics, and don’t even have much taste for holding power. See, for example, the pathetic piece in the Wash Post by one of the bigwigs in the Romney campaign, essentially saying how proud he was to have come in second. The man gives the strong impression that Romney and his people would accept victory if they could just coast into it, but did not want it if it required them to get their uniforms dirty or – God forbid – engage in new thinking.