Mark Harris: Is He A Todd Akin-in-the-makin’ ?
By now, politics-watchers are well familiar with the story of Todd Akin, the GOP challenger to Missouri senator Claire McCaskill (D) in 2012. Akin was a solidly conservative member of the US House with a lot of support from the religious right. Claire McCaskill was — and is — horrible. She never met a tax she didn’t like. She’s been an enthusiastic supporter of ObamaCare. And she’s now in the midst of harassing career military officers for not being as fascistic on the issue of sexual harassment as she would like them to be.
In 2012, McCaskill was seen as one of the easy pick-offs for the GOP. After winning the GOP nod against McCaskill, one of Akin’s first moves was to go on an obscure local public-access interview show. On that show, he made some comments about rape and abortion — which were not anywhere on the radar of most voters — that made him famous, cost him the support of the national GOP, and arguably the election itself.
Well, I found some video of a Harris appearance on a local Charlotte public-access show that has me thinking back to the Akin affair in Missouri. Roughly 25 of the 29 minutes worth of video are devoted to a discussion of gay marriage and the homosexual political agenda. Harris makes a good point occasionally — like using a medical power of attorney in place of a same-sex marriage to cover hospital visits and health care decisions.
But in the video, Harris may have stepped in it a little by describing homosexuality as “a choice” and declaring that there is “no scientific evidence” to support the idea that people are born gay. I believe the “Dr.” title granted to Harris is based on theology and not medicine or science.
I am no supporter of the gay political agenda. I voted for the 2012 marriage amendment to the state constitution. That amendment got 61 percent of the vote in May 2012. It is a settled issue that has NO bearing on the upcoming US Senate race.
I hate to say it — but I believe this talk show appearance will provide great fodder for the Hagan campaign. I am sure Kay Hagan would rather talk about “equality” and “ending discrimination” than about her sycophantic support for the agenda of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Barry Obama. She’d rather talk about “equality” and “ending discrimination” than her ranking as THE most liberal member of the North Carolina congressional delegation. I am also sure she would rather talk about the plight of the gays rather than her enthusiastic support for busting the budget and saddling us with ObamaCare.
A more seasoned candidate would not have sat there on-camera and let the host go on-and-on about gay marriage. Harris — or somebody close to him — is shelling out big bucks for Tom Perdue. You would think a pro like Perdue would have deep-sixed this TV appearance, or at least had his candidate better-prepared.
Debating the “science” of homosexuality is a no-winner for the GOP this year. ObamaCare and the woeful economy are the TWO TOP things on everybody’s minds. By spending so much time talking about this, Harris runs the risk of turning himself into a single-issue candidate who will be an easy target for leftists. There needs to be a CHANGE of subjects.
Harris’s campaign web site really doesn’t delve into his positions on any issues. Harris released a written statement about his campaign to News Channel 14 that reads like something originating from the NRSC press office. One particular sentence in the statement got my spidey-sense tingling:
[…] I really believe we can help make the federal government a partner for our future[…]
Huh? I don’t want to be a partner with the federal government on ANYTHING. I want it to LEAVE ME ALONE.
Harris also talks at length about being on a “listening tour.” Listening is nice. On the video, he talks about wanting to see if his views match what the people’s views are. Leadership is all about convincing people that your ideas are best, and that they need to follow YOU. The late Senator Jesse Helms didn’t go on a tour to try to sync his stands on the issues with the general public. He basically said: “Here’s where I stand on X, Y and Z. If you agree with me — Fine. If you don’t — FINE. But my way is the way to go.” Helms got 30 years in the US Senate by following that strategy.
There is no convincing evidence that homosexuality is anything but learned. The science is absolutely on Our side….and if we are to remain fettered by this lame notion that we cannot argue facts, we damn sure will get be losers in making our Moral Objections know in the uninformed secular world.
Are you sure you’re not working for the other side, DH?
Do you HONESTLY think we’re working for Kay Hagan? Have you been reading our stuff long?
My point in this post was that Harris is framing the debate in this race on the gay political agenda. Is that what we want to talk about in the effort to knock off Kay Hagan? I think Kay would much rather talk about gays than her record on taxes, the economy, ObamaCare, etc ….
Interesting that you only see KH as “other side” – how about Thom Tillis?
Seriously? How long have you been reading this site? I think even Mr. Tillis HIMSELF will confirm that I am not exactly his teammate.
I see your point, Brant. You say we shouldn’t get sidetracked by other issues and focus on the economy and Obamacare. I couldn’t agree more, but we still have to answer the questions we are posed. I saw no problems with his answers except he didn’t cut of the the “gay” line of questioning at 1 or 2 questions. There is, in fact, no evidence that anyone is born Gay. In fact, I know two gay individuals and I know exactly what lead them to be gay in each instance…and it wasn’t their birth.
I don’t see how the Reverend Doctor Harris will take votes away from Brannon. He might take votes away from the speaker, as they are both Meck based candidates.The Reverend Doctor Harris made his listening tour so he could hear what people wanted him to say, so he could then parrot it back to them. You hit it on the head Brant when you pointed out the the Reverend Doctor Harris idea of making the Fed gov’t our partner for the future. Reverend Doctor Harris reminds me of Rev/Gov Huck from Arkansas. Although I know the Reverend Doctor Harris’ family was not involved in killing dogs for fun at scout camp, like Huckabees’s son did a few years ago.
Akin was an underdog who won his primary. So if you are comparing, it kind of throws out the “Harris can’t win” argument.
If Harris is just a “tool” and he does in fact run, then what we need are more candidates. More candidates will dilute everyone’s vote total including Tillis’. It will make the race harder and tighter and will produce a stronger candidate who will be better prepared for Hagan. And it might produce a run-off which would give conservatives a chance to speak clearly for one candidate.
If you want to get it back to just two candidates that’s the way to go. This “pre-anointing” business is bad for everyone. A primary should be a primary. Work your butt off for the candidate you think is best and let the voters decide.
Akin won his primary because the Tea Party split between the other two candidates. Akin was solid on social issues, but not on tax and spend issues. He was Boehner’s lap puppy on the Speaker’s constant sellouts to the Democrats on budget / tax / debt issues, and was himself a notorious Earmarxist (user of earmarks to help special interests). The Earmarking issue made Akin poison in the primary for the Tea Party.
Not disagreeing with any of that, just pointing out that one cannot simultaneously argue that Harris equals Akin AND Harris can’t win the primary. There were 7 other GOP candidates in that primary with Akin. It didn’t turn out well to be sure after Akin blew himself up, but Akin won the primary. Votes are always “split” when there are multiple candidates.
There were three major candidates and four very minor candidates. The three major candidates ran very close to each other when the votes were counted. If the Tea Party had picked one candidate, he/she would have beat Akin.