Sloppy Polling Memo By Mason Dixon Says Akin's Getting Closer to McCaskill-Updated

Update: McCaskill campaign poll blows the Mason Dixon poll out of the water! (see below) A new poll paid for by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Kansas City Star, and KMOV and conducted by Mason Dixon is out claiming that Senator Claire McCaskill is only leading Todd Akin by 2 percentage points. However, the polling numbers are strange and the memo, if not the poll itself, is very sloppy. As Brandon H notes, they spelled Jason Kander's name "Kandor:"

Brandon also pointed out that the memo used "Conservative Party" instead of the correct name "Constitution Party" on the question about the Presidential race. But what's really strange, and possibly a larger problem if the sloppiness goes beyond just the memo, is that the poll questions as written on the document asked about third party candidates by name in all of the races *except* the Senate race (h/t Alexandra). For example, here's the wording for the question about the Treasurer's race, which includes the Libertarian Party candidate:

On the other hand, for the Missouri Senate race, the question on the memo only lists Claire McCaskill and Todd Akin, despite the fact that Libertarian candidate Johnathan Dine has been polling at anywhere between 6 % and 9 % in recent polls:

Note that Dine is listed as getting 4% of the vote, so perhaps he was included on the original question (despite what the memo says), but 4 % is lower than his averages in other recent polls. I'll also point out that in the two most recent polls Todd Akin's unfavorables have been waaay over 50%. In a poll taken on Oct 17, Rasumussen found 62% of respondents had an unfavorable view of Akin. And on a poll conducted from Oct. 19 through 21, PPP had his unfavorables at 57%. But on the new poll, conducted only a few days later from Oct 23 to 25, only 42% of respondents viewed Akin negatively. So yeah, after Todd Akin said that women's bodies can magically shut down pregnancies from "legitimate" rapes, after suggesting that McCaskill was "unladylike" because she was aggressive at a debate, after comparing McCaskill to a "dog," not to mention his crazy policy positions, only 42% of Missouri voters have a negative impression of him? I have a hard time believing this poll ended up with a representative sample. Anyway, what's always important to note is that individual polls should never be taken as perfectly describing the elections. Polling averages are generally much more accurate, and every once in a while even a well-conducted poll will end up with an average that's off the mark. And if the race was really genuinely close, would the RNC be acting like this:

An NRSC spokesman said it is a keeping "a close eye on this race" and hopes Akin can win.... But two Republicans with knowledge of the situation said the committee has looked at the race several times in the aftermath of Akin's remarks and decided he is too far adrift of McCaskill for them to get involved with the contest. The committee has instead poured money into other states. The Republicans spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the committee's decision-making.

Update:Scott Charton is tweeting out the results from an internal poll from the McCaskill campaign showing her with a lead of 53-39. And (cough cough) it shows Akin's unfavorable rating at 58%. So, if you're trying to decide which poll is more plausible, consider that the Mason Dixon poll requires us to believe that within a period of 3 days, 1 out of every 5 voters (20%) previously had an unfavorable opinion of Akin but then changed their mind. On the McCaskill poll, Akin's numbers stayed exactly where they have been in two other polls taken earlier this week.

Incompetent Akin Campaign Is Dialing Phone Numbers in Kansas

What's truly unique about Todd Akin among Republicans is not that he has offensive views or that he's completely clueless about science (although both of these are true).  It's that he's so amazingly bad at hiding his crazy views, and continues to act offensively when everyone knows he should be keeping his mouth shut.  Throughout the campaign, and particularly after Akin's "legitimate rape" comment, his campaign has exuded an aura of complete incompetence, and not just because of their never-ending stream of tone-deaf, offensive statements.  For example, after Akin's campaign spitefully leaked an email from the Post-Dispatch, the reporter Kevin McDermott said the following:

“I shared the top of it with the campaign in an effort to give them an opportunity to fully respond, not to allow them to hurl an incomplete story out there under my name,” McDermott wrote in an email to Roll Call. “Unfortunately, I assumed I was dealing with a professional.”

A letter to the editor in today's Kansas City Star provides further support for the idea that Akin's campaign is not being run by professionals:

Now I really have a reason to detest those automated political phone calls. I received a phone call from former Arkansas governor and current Fox News personality Mike Huckabee asking for my support for Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin.
Mr. Akin should be glad he could not hear my unladylike response. You see, I’ll never vote for Mr. Akin despite his calls to my home phone. 

I live in Kansas. 

Kathyrn Bach

Of course this is just one letter, but it certainly fits with a pattern of incompetence that permeates every single aspect of his campaign.

Todd Akin says McCaskill is "Like a dog" who "fetches" bureaucracy

Politicmo has audio of Todd Akin at a fundraiser tonight saying that Senator Claire McCaskill is "like one of those dogs" who "fetches" red tape and bureaucracy:

Here's the exact quote:

“She goes to Washington, D.C., it’s a little bit like one of those dogs, ‘fetch,’” he said. “She goes to Washington, D.C., and get all of these taxes and red tape and bureaucracy and executive orders and agencies and brings all of this stuff and dumps it on us in Missouri.”

I guess we should give Todd Akin the benefit of the doubt though, since he supports equal pay for women, doesn't accuse his opponent of not being ladylike just because she kicked his butt in a debate, and doesn't have insane views about pregnancy fueled by his religion fanaticism.  Oh wait, he actually doesn't support equal pay for women, said Claire McCaskill wasn't "ladylike" after he lost a debate to her, and claimed that women can magically shut down pregnancy in the case of "legitimate" rape?  Wow, he's got some real issues!

Todd Akin's Horrible Rape Comments Are Part of A Pattern

In case you somehow missed it, Todd Akin made unbelievably ignorant and misogynistic comments on the Jaco Report, claiming that women who are the victims of "legitimate rape," won't get pregnant:

(crazy comments start around the 4 minute mark)


Akin's quote:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

This isn't a simple one-time mistake based on talking to a couple nutty "doctors."  This is part of an incredibly disturbing pattern from Akin when it comes to rape.  Some of the lowlights from Talking Points Memo:

Akin is perhaps the boldest among a crop of conservative 2012 nominees who could hamperGOP efforts to take back the Senate in the fall. Akin has called for an end to the school-lunch program and a total ban on the morning-after pill [even in cases of rape].

His claim about “legitimate” types of rape is not completely foreign to the current Republican Congress, however. In 2011, the House GOP was forced to drop language from a bill that would have limited federal help to pay for an abortion to only victims of “forcible rape.” Akin was a co-sponsor on the bill.

Nor is this Akin’s first time suggesting some types of rape are more worthy of protections than others. As a state legislator, Akin voted in 1991 for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to a May 1 article that year in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

A New Level Of Cynicism From Todd Akin

I'm pretty sure there was a time in politics where people at least attempted, to some small degree, to have their claims at least remotely line up with reality and with their previous comments.  This is no longer true of the modern GOP.  For any documented negative consequence of their policies, they will simply spend millions of dollars on ads accusing the Democrats of doing the same thing in hopes of muddying the waters enough that low-information voters will simply shrug their shoulders and look for other reasons to vote for one candidate over the other.

Todd Akin has now taken this strategy to a new low.  Despite the fact that he claims that Medicare is unconstitutional, he's up with new advertisements, he's up with a new ad claiming that he's fighting to "protect and strengthen Medicare" and  claiming that Senator McCaskill is trying to weaken it.  It's the absolute height of cynicism, and shows clearly how little Akin thinks of voters.

On the other hand, Akin at least stood by his comments that offering students loans to go to college is "stage 3 cancer of socialism," saying he was "calling a spade a spade." But of course, in GOP minds, his standing by this comment now doesn't really matter at all.  If they decide this is a bad issue for them, they'll just drop a few million on ads next week claiming that "Akin is working hard to protect student loans, while Claire McCaskill destroys them."  They think Missouri voters are too stupid to know the facts.  I hope we prove them wrong.

Today In Crazy Things Todd Akin Actually Believes

Todd Akin thinks student loans are part of a "stage 3 cancer of socialism:"


Students loans are not like cancer.  They're not even like a hangnail, or a headache. They have been a godsend to millions of people, and are a crucial component of keeping the United States economy going forward in the modern age.  But then, Todd Akin doesn't really seem to be of the modern age, does he?

Photo via the Post-Dispatch.

h/t Politico.

Todd Akin's Dangerous Plans for Social Security

h/t Fired Up Missouri (on Twitter)

See also: the Roll Call story.

Todd Akin's Sketchy Ties

Christian Supremacists and militias.

New Ad on Akin's Extremism

Pretty effective ad from the McCaskill campaign:

Guy Who Said Conservatives Should "Kill The Claire Bear" Can't Figure Out Why Democrats Think Akin's Views Are Outside the Mainstream

When we last heard from St. Louis-based tea party activist Scott Boston, he was telling a Missouri tea party audience the following about Senator McCaskill:

“She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she’s an evil monster.” “We have to kill the Claire Bear,” he added.

This prompted additional security at Senator McCaskill's events and a harsh rebuke from the Post-Dispatch.

Today, as you can see from the above tweet, Boston is absolutely shocked about a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee email that stated the following:

From his record to his rhetoric, everything about Todd Akin’s Tea Party policies are outside of the mainstream and dangerous for Missouri families.

Noting first that the email was referring to Todd Akin's policies, rather than "conservatives," why would anyone think that Akin's policies are "dangerous" and "outside the mainstream"?  Well, aside from the fact that Akin refused to condemn Boston's "kill the Claire Bear" comments, here are a few reasons:

• The Hill: Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) voted against the creation of a national sex offender registry and against reauthorizing a program that assists runaway and homeless children.
• On CSPAN: In March 2011, Akin said he doesn't like Social Security. "Now, Social Security through the years, for many, many people, has been a terrible investment. It's really a tax, that's all it is. Social Security is a tax. The government has taken the tax. There's been more money coming in than going out. And we spend it. That's not been responsible. I don't like it. I didn't design Social Security. It actually came from Bismarck, FDR put it in place." [CSPAN Washington Journal]
• Fired Up Missouri: ...when giving an interview to Greg Knapp on KCMO, republican extremist Todd Akin stated that he would ban emergency contraception because he "believes it is abortion," and he would ban it for everyone, with no exceptions.
• The Washington Post: In 2012, Akin was one of 24 to vote against the Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act; 147 Republicans voted for it. A GOP press release described this as an effort to “advance training and education for autism service providers” so that “autistic children and adults can lead fuller, happier and healthier lives.”
• And: In 2010, Akin was one of only 13 to vote No on a motion “expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program.” 155 Republicans voted for it.
• And: In 2009, Akin was one of 11 to vote against a measure “expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that providing breakfast in schools through the National School Breakfast Program has a positive impact on classroom performance.” 152 Republicans voted for it.
• Buzzfeed: Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin drew fire from fellow Republicans in the '90s for praising a private militia group associated with extreme anti-abortion actions, according to a 2000 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article.
• Mediaite: Rep. Akin, a veteran and father of three Marines, clues us in about his confusion on the issue with very inarticulate language:

  There is a misunderstanding. If people are gay, they can serve in the military now. It’s just that they can’t allow their ‘gayness’ to get in the way of getting the mission done.

I could go on, but life is too short.

So yeah, even if you don't think that conservatives are "dangerous" and "outside the mainstream" you certainly have reasons for thinking that Akin's policies are.

Danforth Doesn't Seem to Think Akin Can Appeal To Independents

Fired Up Missouri reports on former Senator John Danforth's comments about Todd Akin to the News-Leader:

“Akin is pretty scary to a lot of mainstream Republicans,” [Kenneth Warren, a political science professor at St. Louis University] said, pointing to Akin’s habit of lacing his speeches with religious references, among other things. That can put off business-minded Republicans, not to mention independents. 

Former Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., is a case in point. Asked whether Republicans would unite around Akin now that the primary is over, Danforth said: 

“The real question isn’t divisiveness among rock-ribbed Republicans — the real question is, who is going to be able to appeal to the independents and the undecideds and the more centrist voters. I think that really is going to be the challenge for both congressman Akin and Senator McCaskill.” 

Asked whether Akin could or would make a successful pitch to those [independent and centrist] voters, Danforth said: “I just don’t know.”

Missouri Todd Akin Establishes New Olympic Record for Inserting His Foot in His Mouth

On Todd Akin's first day as the official Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, he made sure to remind people that he hates Medicare and wants to privatize Social Security.

Transcript via the McCaskill campaign from Akin's KCMO interview:

AKIN: Well, I think what we need to do is, what we have to do with Medicare is... It's a typically flawed, big government solution. In Medicare you have got the government setting prices for things. Anytime the government sets any price for anything you've got trouble. You need to have that done in the marketplace. So, first thing off I think you want to get rid of all of those government set prices for healthcare things and allow people to just bid on that business. So, people that are in Medicare will have the opportunity to choose somebody that's going to provide services for them and they can choose between different things, different providers. So, if somebody doesn't do a good job for you, boom, you move to something else. So, that's one of the first things that's in Medicare that's got to be done is to get rid of all the government price setting.

KNAPP: Are you still looking to partially privatize [Social Security]?

AKIN: Well, I think the first thing in Social Security, I don't know if you'd call this privatizing, I think, and this is where I think FDR was cheating on this system, that would be if you put money, and your employer puts money into Social Security for your retirement, why should that be in a little account that you can see the money and watch it grow? Why should be just take that money and spend it on general, all kinds of things that the government wants to spend money on it. We're spending other people’s retirement. Why shouldn't that money go into some account? Maybe it's held by the government; maybe you can’t get your hands on it very easily. But at least the money should go into your account instead of just sort of disappearing in the vapors as big government boys want to spend it all now and forget about what's going to happen tomorrow.

Why yes, you would call that privatizing. Please keep talking Todd.

As a reminder, here's video of Akin saying he doesn't "like" Social Security. And he's not just talking about the facebook group.

Todd Akin Seems Proud of His Ability to Convey False Information

First Todd Akin's senate campaign sent out a press release that strongly implied, without actually saying, that he had been endorsed by Paul Ryan.

Then his political director tweeted that he had been endorsed by Paul Ryan:

And on Mark Reardon's show, Akin clearly dodged Reardon's question about whether Ryan's statement was actually an endorsement:



By the way, Todd Akin was not endorsed by Paul Ryan.

What seems so strange to me is that pretending it's an endorsement seems to have so little added value (assuming you think being endorsed by a guy who wants to end Medicare as we know it is valuable) over just saying that Paul Ryan likes Akin's Congressional record. Why not just be honest and upfront about the fact that it wasn't an official endorsement? And it's not like he could possibly think that no one would find out that it wasn't a real endorsement. The only explanation I can think of is that he's trying to prove to the tea party types that he can play that "passing on wildly false information without technically lying" game they're so found of. But even so, he failed, because his political director falsely claimed that he was endorsed by Ryan.

KMOV Unsuprisingly Misrepresents McCaskill's Comments

KMOV, which enjoys running lazy hit pieces on defenseless food stamp recipients, claims they were "surprised" to find out that Senator Claire McCaskill disagreed with President Obama's position that unemployment benefits should be extended. What is not surprising, however, is that KMOV got the story completely wrong and failed to provide an accurate description of McCaskill's position. Here's what KMOV quoted McCaskill as saying:

MCCASKILL: I’m not for extending unemployment benefits any further. The payroll tax cut, I’m always for tax cuts for working folks, because I think that helps our consuming economy.

But, the Huffington Post's Arthur Delany, who unlike KMOV apparently knows enough about the issue to ask follow-up questions, found out that McCaskill actually agrees with the President's position:

Claire McCaskill actually DOES support keeping extended benefits, like Obama wants, her office says. She's against MORE weeks

Now I suppose it'd be easy to just claim that KMOV, being a TV news organization, is just too darn busy to understand the issues enough to accurately describe McCaskill's position, but on the other hand they have a long history of grinding an ideological axe, including:

The aforementioned hit pieces on food stamp recipients.

Ignoring rallies of 4,300+ union supporters while doting on the tea party.

Lazily attacking stimulus funds being used for important research.

Getting angry at Wash U students after they refused to pay $20,000 for abstinence lessons from Bristol Palin.

So I hope you'll forgive me for thinking that KMOV is now far beyond the point of deserving the benefit of the doubt.

Update: I called it correctly. KMOV got the story wrong:

McCaskill's office says additional context omitted from KMOV's report would show that she was responding to a question about giving the unemployed extra weeks of benefits. Her office said she supports preserving the existing extended benefits.

Also, they haven't issued a correction. Lame.

Blast From The Past: Akin Joked About Democrats Being Lynched

Joan Walsh of Salon reminded me on Twitter today of a nasty incident from Todd Akin's past, which seems very much in line with his recent hateful comments about liberals. Via Fired Up, here's Rachel Maddow's coverage of Todd Akin joking about Democratic politicians being lynched (comments about Akin start at the 4:33 mark):

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Joking about lynching Democratic politicians. Saying that the "core of liberalism" is a "hatred for God." Saying that "seculars" want to "snuff out the light of freedom." America is a country that should and occasionally does celebrate informed, reasonable discussions between people with different ideologies. A hateful extremist like Akin who demonizes his political opponents should not be allowed anywhere near the U.S. Congress, let alone the Senate.

Akin Staffer Goes to Work for Americans For Prosperity

KMOX is reporting that Todd Akin's St. Louis District Director, Patrick Werner, is going to become the state director of Americans for Prosperity in Missouri. Americans for Prosperity, if you recall, is the astroturf group bankrolled by the billionaire oil-refinery magnates David and Charles Koch.

Of course there's really nothing to see here, because I'm sure that AFP won't be spending all of their time and money attacking McCaskill in the upcoming election....right?

The Akin/Ryan Plan to Phase Out Medicare

For some reason, in the wake of the decisive victory by Democrat Kathy Hochul in the blood red Republican district NY-26, I feel like it's a good time to remind people that Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin voted for Paul Ryan's plan to phase out Medicare as we know it. In fact, he not only voted for it, he bragged about helping to craft the plan:

I had the privilege of being part of the process of crafting this budget.

And given that Akin is so proud of his role of helping to craft the plan to get rid of Medicare, I think we should do him the honor of renaming it the Akin/Ryan Plan to Phase Out Medicare.

h/t Fired Up Missouri

Clear Path To Victory for Senator McCaskill

PPP is out with some new polling, which shows that Missourians really, really like Medicare and Social Security:

McCaskill's Missouri shows the largest divide in surveys done by the Democratically friendly Public Policy Polling, especially on Medicare. When asked, "In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on Medicare, which is the government health insurance program for the elderly?" just 19 percent of respondents said they would, while an overwhelming 77 percent said they would oppose cuts.

And similarly with Social Security:

In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on Social Security, which is the retirement program for the elderly?
Ohio: 16% support, 80% oppose
Missouri: 17% support, 76% oppose
Montana: 20% support, 76% oppose
Minnesota: 23% support, 72% oppose

The problem for Republicans? Here's Fired Up Missouri on the candidate most likely to survive the GOP primary:

Akin proudly endorses the GOP plan to phase out Medicare as we know it. "I had the privilege of being part of the process of crafting this budget," he bragged to constituents last month.

So if 77% of Missourians oppose cuts to Medicare, and Todd Akin helped craft a budget that tries to get rid of Medicare, it seems pretty clear to me which message Senator McCaskill should be pushing.

Big Oil Shill Todd Akin Running For Senate

Todd Akin is officially running for U.S. Senate vs. Claire McCaskill, leading one GOP consultant to say that Missouri Republicans have a "less-than-stellar field." Most people probably already know that Akin loves oil companies much more than he loves working families, but just in case the Missouri Democratic Party put out this helpful press release:

Todd Akin: Standing Up for Big Oil, Not Missouri Families

Jefferson City, Mo.—The Missouri Democratic Party released the following statement today in response to Rep. Todd Akin’s announcement that he is a candidate for US Senate:

“Todd Akin’s extreme record of fighting for special interests speaks for itself,” said Caitlin Legacki, Missouri Democratic Party spokeswoman. “While Todd Akin votes to protect tax breaks for oil companies in exchange for $50,000 from his Big Oil friends, Missourians are getting gouged at the pump. In what will surely be a long, messy and expensive GOP primary, Missouri voters expect Todd Akin to answer a lot of important questions about where he really stands."

Since his election to Congress in 2000, Akin has established himself as a leading supporter of Big Oil and extreme special interests. While Big Oil companies continue to reap billion-dollar profits, Missouri families are paying nearly four dollars a gallon at the pump. Six times in the last five years, Akin voted to protect billions of dollars in federal subsidies for Big Oil companies.

BACKGROUND:

· As recently as May 5, Akin voted to protect the Section 199 domestic manufacturing tax credit for the five largest oil companies. [Vote 293, 5/05/11]

· Meanwhile, Todd Akin Has Accepted $47,750 From The Oil And Gas Industry. Since beginning his congressional career, Akin has accepted $47,750 from the oil and gas industry. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 5/16/11]

· Akin has repeatedly voted to protect tax breaks for big oil companies:

o In March 2011, Akin voted against a measure that would have repealed oil and gas production tax breaks for major integrated oil companies for the proposed two-week period in the House budget continuing resolution. [HJR 44, Vote #153, 3/01/11]

o In 2008, Akin voted against considering the rule to allow the House to vote on the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, which would allow for the House to vote on the bill. Included in the legislation was a provision to eliminate a manufacturing tax deduction for larger oil and gas companies. The motion passed, 224-186. [HR 5351, Vote 78, 2/27/08]

o In 2008, Akin voted against a motion to end debate on the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, which would allow for the House to vote on the bill. Included in the legislation was a provision to eliminate a manufacturing tax deduction for larger oil and gas companies. The motion passed, 224-186. [HR 5351, Vote 78, 2/27/08]

· Akin Opposed Repealing Big Oil’s Tax Breaks. In 2007, Akin voted against shifting certain revenue from royalties and tax incentives for oil and gas companies into a reserve fund for alternative and renewable energies. The bill would have required current offshore fuel producers who are not paying federal royalties to agree to pay royalties when fuel prices reach certain thresholds or pay fees based on how much fuel they produce. The bill passed 264-163. [New York Times, 1/19/07; Speaker Pelosi Press Release, 1/18/07; CQ Floor Votes, 1/18/07; HR 6, Vote 40, 1/18/07]

· .After He Opposed Removing Tax Breaks for Big Oil Companies from 2006 Tax Bill. In 2006, Akin voted against a motion to instruct conferees negotiating H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Bill. The motion instructed House conferees to 1) Accept three bipartisan provisions from the Senate that would require big oil companies would pay their fair share of taxes by removing subsidies and closing loopholes for large integrated oil companies and 2) strike the extension of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. The total for these two proposals was $51 billion. In 2005, the previous year, the top five oil companies reaped more than $100 million, three times their profits in 2002. The motion failed 190-232. [McDermott Talking Points, “Republicans Fight for Big Oil Subsidies and Loopholes”; HR4297, Vote 109, 4/27/06]

Only the Post-Dispatch...

The Post-Dispatch writes one, count it, one single article about Peter Kinder staying in St. Louis hotels over 300 nights on the taxpayer dime at a cost of more than $35,000 and already one of their editors is now lamenting that the paper has treated Kinder unfairly. The Post-Dispatch wrote over 10 articles about Senator McCaskill's plane problems, including two in the "lede position" according to editor Ronald Wade, yet Wade somehow comes to the conclusion that Kinder is getting "harsher treatment" than McCaskill. Absolutely pathetic! Why don't they just make Phyllis Schlafly the editor of the paper and get it over with?

Fortunately, though, Wade left us his email address: rwade@post-dispatch.com Please send him a polite email and tell him not to apologize for reporting unpleasant facts about Republicans, especially since the paper just spend the last two weeks writing negative stories about Senator McCaskill, continually coming up with flimsy excuses to write the same story over and over.

Update: Looking at it again, perhaps I've been a little harsh. My interpretation of Wade's article as being apologetic hinges on this sentence:

To paraphrase one commenter, Kinder's behavior -- "slime-ball" but legal -- appears to have gotten far harsher treatment than the "slime-ball" illegal behavior of Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Now, I think in normal usage if I say something like, "It's a rough year to be a Cardinals fan. To paraphrase Gordon, they're soft at third base," then most people would understand me as agreeing that the Cardinals are soft at third base. Thus, I read the quoted sentence as suggesting that the editor agreed with the commenter. However, applying the principal of charity, I believe that sentence might also be interpreted as "One commenter said Kinder got harsher treatment." So I think the best way to read the post is probably as simply asking a question, rather than as agreeing with the right-wing comment brigade. Now I personally believe that the Post-Dispatch should stand up for Jake Wagman's reporting on Kinder rather than meekly asking a question; but, given the current reporting ethos of balance-as-getting-quotes-from-both-sides-rather-than-standing-up-for-the-facts, I can see why they'd be hesitant to do so.