Discussion: Should Todd Akin withdraw tomorrow?


This whole story is just depressing as heck.    There is no question what Akin said was stupid and inexcusable, but as I said on Twitter earlier today, watching Dems fundraise, demagogue, & smear others off of it is far worse – IMO.

On both my Twitter and Facebook accounts, the “he must go” votes have the edge, but some are  holding strong and saying he should stay – that he could still beat McCaskill.  I’ve read that the national GOP has pulled funding from the race and he is losing support from PACs, etc, so if he stays in he will have an uphill climb both from a fundraising standpoint as well as a PR standpoint. The MSM, Democrats, and the like will use his remarks to reignite the bogus “war on women” argument, taking the focus off of the economy – which is the central issue in this year’s election.

I don’t have a definitive opinion on this just yet. I’m torn.   I see both sides. We need control of the Senate, yes, but would him dropping out make it more likely we could snag McCaskill’s seat? I don’t know enough about that race to say.  OTOH, is he really “worse” than McCaskill? I don’t think so.

Sources say that Akin advisers are making preparations for him to withdraw tomorrow. What do you think he should do?

Another study confirms red staters are more generous than blue staters


Via Politico:

Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday.

The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.

The eight states whose residents gave the highest share of their income — Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, Arkansas and Georgia — all backed McCain in 2008. Utah leads charitable giving, with 10.6 percent of income given.

And the least generous states — Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — were Obama supporters in the last presidential race. New Hampshire residents gave the least share of their income, the Chronicle stated, with 2.5 percent.

“The reasons for the discrepancies among states, cities, neighborhoods are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity,” the study’s authors noted.

But it’s not just about politics — “religion has a big influence on giving patterns.”

I reference this article not to brag about the act of conservatives giving in and of itself, but to point out once again how liberals shamelessly lie about the generosity of conservatives. How many times have you heard or read a liberal talking about how conservatives want to “starve the poor”, “kick old people to the curb”, etc? They say that because they believe government should be allowed to confiscate whatever amount of money they need so bureaucrats can best decide how YOUR money is going to “help” others. This is one of the many problems I have with the liberal philosophy on the role of government in our lives, which I wrote about back in 2009 when it was reported how little the Bidens donated to charity:

I don’t doubt the Bidens have given generously of their time to worthy causes of their choosing. The fact that they have given so little of their money to charitable causes doesn’t really bother me. What does bother me is that Joe Biden and so many of his liberal pals in city, state, and federal government don’t mind being more generous with MY money than they are with their own. They’re famous for declaring that they are “more charitable” towards others than conservatives, but the dirty little secret is that their “generosity” involves taxing Americans higher and higher so that they (the government) can decide best where that money goes. That’s not “generosity.” Where I come from, excessive taxation and redistrubution of it is called “theft” – and socialism.

And while we’re on this topic, let’s not forget that this is not the first in depth report that confirms what we already knew about fellow conservatives:

George Will wrote in March 2008 on the “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” book done by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks.  Some of the findings:

— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

— Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

— Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

— Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

— In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

— People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

From December 2004 – “Generosity Index” Mirrors Red State-Blue State Divide:

The Catalogue for Philanthropy has ranked the fifty states on their relative generosity, comparing each state’s average itemized charitable deductions with its average adjusted gross income (based on 2002 IRS data).

The 50-state ranking has a decided Red State-Blue State flavor: 27 of the 30 “most generous” states are Red States that voted for President Bush (including all 25 of the “most generous” states), while 17 of the 20 “least generous” states are Blue States that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the “least generous” states):

Make sure to check out the graphs.

Next time a liberal gets snippy with you about conservatives supposedly being “scrooges” when it comes to helping out their fellow citizens, point them to these studies – and then ask them if they are talking about personal charity or government “charity.” And then watch as the steam starts to slowly blow out of their ears as they get more and more mad by the second … like they usually do when confronted with inconvenient truths.


Religion of Misogyny Watch: Iran bans women from college courses


**Posted by Phineas

Can’t have women getting an education; they might get uppity and think they’re men’s equals.

In a move that has prompted a demand for a UN investigation by Iran’s most celebrated human rights campaigner, the Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, 36 universities have announced that 77 BA and BSc courses in the coming academic year will be “single gender” and effectively exclusive to men.

It follows years in which Iranian women students have outperformed men, a trend at odds with the traditional male-dominated outlook of the country’s religious leaders. Women outnumbered men by three to two in passing this year’s university entrance exam.

Senior clerics in Iran’s theocratic regime have become concerned about the social side-effects of rising educational standards among women, including declining birth and marriage rates.

Under the new policy, women undergraduates will be excluded from a broad range of studies in some of the country’s leading institutions, including English literature, English translation, hotel management, archaeology, nuclear physics, computer science, electrical engineering, industrial engineering and business management.

Now there’s a smart way to develop your country — if your goal is to march boldly into the 12th century, that is.

The Iranian Minister for Science and Higher Education claimed the move was necessary to restore “gender balance” in the universities. How progressive of him. But an observation at the end of the article hints at the real reason for the imbalance, and therefore the ban:

Iran has highest ratio of female to male undergraduates in the world, according to UNESCO. Female students have become prominent in traditionally male-dominated courses like applied physics and some engineering disciplines.

Sociologists have credited women’s growing academic success to the increased willingness of religiously-conservative families to send their daughters to university after the 1979 Islamic revolution. The relative decline in the male student population has been attributed to the desire of young Iranian men to “get rich quick” without going to university.

In other words, too many Iranian boys are cocksure, lazy dummies, while the women are willing to work hard to get ahead. So the answer, of course, is to close the doors on the most energetic and ambitious of your people.

It was Muhammad’s favorite wife, his child-bride Aisha, who once said:

“I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women” (Bukhari 72:715)

Over 1,400 years later, not much has changed.

via PJM

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Could Obama lose Illinois?


**Posted by Phineas

According to Alexis Levin of The Daily Caller, Obama may have to start spending real money to guard his home base (1):

President Barack Obama could lose his home state of Illinois in November, a new poll shows.

A poll conducted by Illinois-based pollster and political strategist Michael McKeon found Obama leading Republican Mitt Romney by 49 percent to 37 percent in Cook County, the home of Chicago. That puts him ahead by a far thinner margin than expected in a county he should be winning handsomely.

Cook is the most Democratic leaning county in the state. It is also the most populous.

Those numbers do not bode well for the president.

No, they don’t. But… come on. This is Illinois, where everyone gets to vote. Twice. Even the dead. Surely the Combine will scare up/buy up enough voters to make sure their guy doesn’t suffer a humiliating loss in his home state. I’ll have a hot date with Kate Upton before that happens.

But then again…

As Levin points out, Democratic dominance of Illinois is largely dependent on the corrupt politics of Chicago itself and Cook County, and to a lesser extent in the ring of counties surrounding the two. “Downstate” Illinois is much friendlier to Republicans; in the last governor’s race, upstart Republican Bill Brady only narrowly lost to Democrat Pat Quinn by winning most of downstate. Obama’s number have to be worrisome to him and his team: Romney leads The One 45-38 in the area around Chicago, and among independents in Cook County Romney leads 43-31. Obama has to win big in these areas to overcome his unpopularity downstate, but his only lead is in core Chicago (which is huge, 60-29).

I still don’t expect Obama to lose Illinois, but the needle has moved from “not a snowball’s chance” to an intrigued “Hmmm…”. And anything that makes him spend money here means less he has for the traditional battleground states.

Maybe I should start planning where to take Kate for dinner. Just in case.

(1) No, not Nairobi, you silly people!

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)