The biggest knock against Australian rockers AC/DC is the band’s songs all sound the same. As a die-hard AC/DC fan, I say they damn well better! I’d lose what little faith I have left in mankind if I ever heard a synthesizer on any of AC/DC’s studio albums.

However, the problem with AC/DC’s live albums isn’t that the songs all sound the same — it’s that too many of them are the same.

Unfortunately that’s the case with AC/DC’s Live at River Plate, a new 19-song album chronicling three sold-out concerts in Buenos Aires attended by more than 200,000 insanely jubilant South Americans in 2009.

I’ll buy anything AC/DC puts out. I knew I’d grab River Plate when I learned of its November 19 release. But I immediately felt let down upon seeing the set list.

It’s been 20 years since AC/DC released Live, which chronicled the band’s 1990/91 The Razors Edge world tour. So what are we getting that’s new with River Plate? Not terribly much when it comes to fresh offerings.

Just like 1992’s Live, AC/DC’s River Plate features Thunderstruck, Shoot to Thrill, Back in Black, The Jack, Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap, Hells Bells, You Shook Me All Night Long, Whole Lotta Rosie, Let There Be Rock, Highway to Hell, T.N.T., and For Those About to Rock (We Salute You). That’s 12 out of 19 songs, many of which can also be heard on the two live AC/DC albums featuring the late Bon Scott on vocals.

We get newer songs like Rock ’n’ Roll Train, Big Jack, Black Ice, and War Machine, as well as the Bon Scott-era Shot Down in Flames and Hell Ain’t a Bad Place to Be (both previously released on live albums featuring Bon), and Dog Eat Dog.

And that’s it.

Don’t get me wrong, River Plate sounds great. It is the first live album featuring Phil Rudd on drums since his return to the band in 1994. Chris Slade had the drummer’s stool on 1992’s Live, and while Slade’s an accomplished musician, his drum booms and cymbal crashes sound weaker and too quick. There’s rawness to Rudd’s hi-hat beats; he admittedly likes to whomp the toms, and he kicks a heavy bass drum. His slightly slower timing simply makes for better AC/DC.

In addition to Rudd’s workman-like pounding, the boys stick with what works: brothers Angus and Malcolm Young perfectly layer their solo and rhythm guitar crunches, bassist Cliff Williams lays back in the pocket where he belongs, and Brian Johnson scratchily (and indecipherably) shrieks about sex, cars and booze.

Also, those 200,000 crazy and loud Argentinians make the album fun. Their boisterous singing almost overtakes Malcolm’s and Cliff’s miked backing
vocals. I found myself grooving to River Plate with the sound blasting in my Ford Escape.

There’s no substitute for attending an AC/DC concert, but the band’s tight sound on River Plate — accompanied by a kick-ass crowd — helps get closer to filling that void (if your speakers can handle it).

While River Plate is undoubtedly an enjoyable listen, I can’t help but feel River Plate is also a case of “what could have been.” Rather than highlighting the same exact set list that spanned three concerts in Argentina, AC/DC would’ve better served their fans by adding a few songs from the wider Black Ice tour that didn’t wind up on River Plate.

Anything Goes, one of the better songs from the Black Ice album, was played live but not in Argentina. AC/DC played High Voltage — made famous by Bon Scott’s howls, and released on previous live albums — in Australia and New Zealand as a tribute to their late frontman, and the fans loved it. It didn’t make it to River Plate.

Simply adding those two songs as bonus tracks on River Plate would’ve made for a more complete album. (I honestly don’t think AC/DC played any other songs than the ones on River Plate, and the two that didn’t make it to the live album.)

Even better, the band could’ve reached back to the mid 1990s Ballbreaker tour and pulled Girls Got Rhythm and Down Payment Blues, among many others not widely available on live releases.

River Plate could have and would have been a superior offering to any live AC/DC album had the Buenos Aires concerts been chronicled as they were, and a bonus disc packed with the aforementioned songs and other tunes — Stiff Upper Lip, Up to My Neck in You, Problem Child, What Do You Do for Money Honey, Gone Shootin’, Rock ’n’ Roll Damnation, Ride On, and others, played during the 2000/01 Stiff Upper Lip world tour and concerts from 2003 when AC/DC was inducted into the Rock ’n’ Roll Hall of Fame.

Certainly those songs can still be released down the road. Some of them surely will. Diehard fans already have Live at River Plate and are enjoying it as much as I am — my misgivings aside. Those on the fence might pass because of the repetitive nature of AC/DC’s live recordings. Honestly, I wouldn’t blame them.

If I had to grade River Plate, I’d give it a B-minus, but a damned good B-minus. It’s nice to have Phil Rudd back and fully represented on a live AC/DC album with the lineup that produced the monumental bestseller Back in Black. River Plate’s audience adds an element not present on any previous live AC/DC release.

But I just can’t get past the simple fact that we’ve heard much of this before, and before that, and before that. Please mix it up a bit in the future, guys.

The closest thing to news I got was Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update, during which Romney was mocked for wearing dark makeup to appeal to a Latino audience. Again, no idea if anything remotely like that happened.

I spent time with my 1-year-old son instead of checking Drudge or Real Clear Politics for the latest Democratic-weighted tracking poll undoubtedly showing Obama ahead everywhere. I read No Easy Day, by that Navy SEAL who helped kill bin Laden. (Great insight into the world of SEALs, and it lays waste to the White House’s official version of events.)

Oh, I did learn that the White House finally declared Sept. 11 a terrorist event. (In Libya, I mean, the spontaneously planned terrorist attack in Libya a few weeks ago.)

But my normal Sunday ritual of watching the Sunday morning new shows and the McLaughlin Group? I went for a long walk with my wife and son.

I typically listen to Rush in the afternoons. Sports talk will have to replace him until the election. I cannot express how nice it is not having to subject myself to the constant drumbeat of the President’s class warfare campaign, and not frustrating myself knowing Romney won’t reveal actual details about how his approach to managing the United States would be far superior to Obama’s. For all I know, he is! I’m just not aware of it. I don’t need to be. I’m voting for Romney. There’s no need to watch any of the 4 debates, and the pundits universally agreeing afterward that Obama/Biden won.

I am psyched for Election Day! I can’t wait. I’d advise all of you to avoid the aggravation of the media presenting the race how it perceives it to fit their preferred candidate. Why bother? The media cannot be honest, nor can the polls accurately reflect public opinion as long as they’re weighted to constantly favor one political party.

Polls mean nothing if you don’t pay attention to them. So don’t. What matters now is Nov. 6, supporting your candidates financially if you can, and getting people ready to vote, convincing them that abject failure doesn’t deserve another 4 years, and that you get what you pay for when you willingly line up to buy snake oil. (Great idea for a bumper sticker. It simply reads Snake Oil, but the O is that Obama O you see in his campaign ads. If anyone does that, please cut me in on the money.)

Six weeks to go! Ignoring the media’s false reality truly is bliss!

The 2012 presidential election has officially worn on me to the point where:

1. Hearing Barack Obama’s snake-oily slathered voice makes me cringe;

2. Watching Mitt Romney’s empty campaign makes me click off the television in disgust;

3. I realize the mainstream media is beyond redemption and cannot be trusted when it so blatantly advances the White House’s preferred narrative of the day;

4. I know public opinion polls that oversample Democrats are not meant to reflect opinion but shape it to discourage Republican turnout.

I choose to inflict this agony on myself because I actively listen to talk radio, get news from various mainstream and conservative news and opinion outlets, and view social media such as Facebook and Twitter.

I cannot wait to vote on Nov. 6, but until then, I’m going to attempt what I feel is almost impossible: ignoring it all. No more talk radio. No visiting The New York Times, Drudge Report, or National Review. No more watching cable and television news. I’ve already removed Facebook and Twitter from my Droid. I’ll have the remote handy so I can quickly mute or switch channels that will pump a neverending stream of political commercials my way.

This process began for me on Sept. 18 and hopefully will end on Nov. 6. During that time perhaps Barack Obama will make a gaffe that not even the media can try to excuse. Maybe Mitt Romney will actually present details pertaining to how he’ll lower debt and the deficit, reform the tax code, and create jobs.

I’m sure I’ll hear about Israel attacking Iran, if it happens. And I’ll read up on it if it does. My goal here is not to ignore news that could shape my life and that of my family’s, but to avoid the nonsense that either aggravates a person or builds up his or her hopes.

Election Day cannot come soon enough. It’s less than 50 days away. My reality until then will not revolve around what Charles Krauthammer has to say on the Panel, or what the intelligentsia at the Weekly Standard has to say about Romney’s discombobulated campaign. My reality will involve finding a second job so I can better support my family, playing with my 1-year-old son and enjoying every moment of it – putting aside the fact that his future likely hinges on the direction the country takes as a result of the 2012 elections.

Every man has his breaking point. Mine came on my 37th birthday (which happens to be my son’s first). My country is important to me, as is my family. I hope to do more for both

He argues that an early 1990s phenomenon in the United Kingdom called “the Shy Tory” factor — in which polls overwhelmingly showed Labour (liberals) candidates cruising to victory but were stunned on Election Day when the Tories (conservatives) won— might be at play.

Writes Shaw: “Since the ascension of Thatcher to Downing Street in 1979, the Tories had been presented as a nasty, evil party that wanted to destroy communities in their war against the miners, gut health care, and take money from the poor to give to the rich via the poll tax.  Does this sound familiar to any Americans at all?

“While the policies of the Conservative Party were popular, the media and the screeching left had helped turn the Tory brand into a toxic one that many people didn’t want to be associated with in spite of their secret support.  Therefore, when polled, the shy Tories answered Labour, but voted Conservative.”

Shaw also indicated that the Bradley Effect — “the idea that when a black or minority candidate is on the ticket against a white candidate, certain voters may lie under pressure from a pollster, worried about being seen as a racist for choosing the white candidate over the minority” — might be more of a factor this year than 2008.

While it would be nice if the former theory holds true in 2012 and the Bradley Effect not an effect at all, and that people be honest about who they’re voting for based on ideology and not race, I believe both concepts are what Republicans might seek hope from if Obama maintains his lead, as I suspect he will.

I believe Obama leads in the polls now not because of frightened voters unwilling to go on record as not supporting him, but because he’s done a so-so job at painting Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch Plutocrat, and because Romney has not highlighted a competing vision for resurrecting the country’s gloomy condition as opposed to Obama’s uninspiring message of “it’s too slow, we know, it’s not good enough, give us more time.”

Without Romney elucidating a positive conservative philosophy, the damage done by George W. Bush and his spendthrift Republican congress will remain the lasting impression voters have of truly failed conservatism: expanding entitlements without paying for them, borrowing and spending money, making it easier for the Democrats and Obama to borrow and spend even more money, which they’re doing with relish.

There was genuine outrage among voters in 2010 over Obama and the Democrats taking the country hard left with a healthcare plan that remains deeply unpopular today, and a stimulus plan that didn’t provide the lift Obama’s team said it would.

I believe a wave could effervesce and sweep parts of the country if only Romney would properly tap into it. “Repeal Obamacare, Save Medicare.” It’s a bumper sticker that gives voters reason to ditch one unpopular entitlement to rescue a woefully underfunded one. Why Romney is not making this a more central part of his campaign — it was immediately after the Paul Ryan pick but has since faded – is beyond me. Obamacare is on the ballot this year. Romney has to drill into voters’ heads that they can have the final say about whether it is enacted. Also, Obama faults Republicans for not acting on his “Jobs” bill that’s mired in Congress. This “Jobs” bill is nothing more than slightly less stimulus designed to flow into the coffers of public sector unions (striking Chicago teachers, municipal employees, etc.). It does little or nothing to rev the real engine of job growth: the private sector.

Yet, Romney fails to highlight that Obama’s plans are not new, just more government spending which is enormously unpopular on the heels of $5 trillion in new debt that helps account for the nation’s $16 trillion debt.

Nationally, Obama has a 1% to 4% lead in the polls. His margins vary in leads over Romney in swing states. Can all of these polls be wrong? I doubt it. Misleading? Certainly. Many oversample Democrats, and this tips the scale in their direction. I wonder what the polls would reflect if 9% of Republicans were always oversampled.

Republican enthusiasm is greater now than it was in 2008, and I believe more GOP-inclined voters will head to the polls on Election Day. Obama seems to have done a good job greasing the wheels with his Hopey-Changey snake oil to again agitate his base into action.

Romney cannot count on Chick-fil-A-long lines of voters magically appearing on Election Day. The Republican Party should not have to rely on theories pointing to underestimated GOP turnout as potential paths to victory.

George Will said it best on This Week last Sunday: If the GOP cannot win in this environment they should get out of politics. If Romney cannot explain why Obama’s policies have failed and why his will work, and simply relies on telling people what they already know — the economy sucks — then he will lose one of the most winnable elections in history.

1. The “You didn’t build that” speech made in Roanoke, Va. Heard in its entirety and not just one brief sound bite, it reveals Obama’s contempt for the ungrateful private sector and the individuals who conceivably risked everything to start a business from scratch. Obama’s view: Government helped you, you greedy bastards. You didn’t do it by yourself, so cough up your fair share for my Solyndra palls. The collective always trumps the individual! Sen. John Kerry eight years ago helped seal his campaign’s fate by playing into the narrative that he was an opportunistic flip-flopper when he told an audience,”I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.” “You didn’t build that” is 2012′s version of Kerry’s bungle — although, in fairness, Kerry was simply being honest, as was Obama. Honesty can doom a politician and that pol’s party. Which leads me to …

2. The day the Democratic Party booed God and Jerusalem: Sept. 5, 2012, at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. This year’s Democratic Party Platform originally omitted any reference to God, unlike previous years when He was mentioned. Also omitted was recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Sen. Dick Durbin got testy when asked about it by Fox News’ Bret Baier. He tried taking Baier to the woodshed for suggesting (which Bret in no way did) that Democrats were a Godless party. The very next day the Democrats realized they screwed up and put the following phrases back into the party platform:

• “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
• “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

A 2/3rds voice vote from among the attending delegates was needed to approve the measure – which took three times to get because opposition to this inclusion was so fierce. Eventually the chairman deemed enough people affirmed it (they didn’t; listen closely to the following link) and this was met by a chorus of boos.

This is one of the more surreal events I’ve seen in American politics. Sen. Durbin insists the Democrats are not a godless party – even though a majority of his own party stridently booed God’s inclusion in his party’s platform. Hundreds of thousands of people have viewed this scenario on YouTube. Countless others saw it on television or heard it on the radio. Somehow the Democratic party conflates the idea of God being mentioned in their platform as an endorsement of using religion to rule the country. Nonsense. It simply pays homage to the nation’s founding, that rights are not manmade but come from the deity. Remember the Declaration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Do I believe Democrats dislike God and religion? Not all of them, but what happened at the DNC revealed a party that clearly disdains religion and seeks to ban the mere mention of it where feasible. It should come as no surprise that this is the same political party that has forced the Catholic Church and other religious institutions to file suit against the federal government for being forced to provide abortion-inducing drugs and birth control to employees when this clearly violates their religious beliefs.

I can only hope that enough Americans felt the same revulsion I did upon witnessing John F. Kennedy’s party booing God. Americans, at heart, know the country is special because of its relationship to God, as was fully expressed by the Founding Fathers. The Democratic party, as expressed by Barack Obama, seeks to fundamentally transform the United States of America. Into what? Perhaps something that resembles a crumbling European nation? I don’t know, but whatever it is will be unrecognizable and decidedly un-American.

Hopefully there are ad men and women feverishly working on a series of political commercials for the Romney Campaign and for every close Senate and House race in the country.

People will remember the DNC booing God when they go to the polls on Nov. 6. They must. The nation, as founded, is at stake.

David Chalian up until a few hours ago was Yahoo! News’ Washington Bureau director who was covering the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. Just a few hundred miles away Hurricane Isaac was pummeling the Gulf Coast. Per Politico, he was fired for saying that Mitt Romney and his wife are “not concerned at all. They’re happy to have a party with black people drowning.”

Unbeknownst to Chalian his microphone was on and his witty comment went out live during an ABC News/Yahoo News webcast. Chalian’s been around the block. He previously worked for PBS’ News Hour and ABC News, and he also works (for now) as a journalism instructor at Georgetown University.

He posted a mealy mouthed apology stating, “I am profoundly sorry for making an inappropriate and thoughtless joke. I was commenting on the challenge of staging a convention during a hurricane and about campaign optics. …”

Those are weasel words disguised in high-minded phrasing. He was doing no such thing. Chalian lives in a bubble with his fellow journalists, most of whom despise Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, and he was irreverently spewing what many of them believe: Republicans are not concerned at all about minorities. He’s only sorry that he got caught being honest. Race-baiting at the expense of African Americans is perfectly acceptable among liberals if it serves the higher purpose of fomenting hatred against Republicans. Just go ask Vice President Joe “They’re gonna put y’all back in chains” Biden.

Unlike Todd Akin, whose comments about rape and conception were both illogical and unintelligent, Chalian had people immediately leaping to his defense. Gewn Ifell, of PBS’ News Hour, tweeted “One mistake does not change this. @DavidChalian is God’s gift to political journalism. #IStandwithDavid.”

NBC’s Chuck Todd and Adam Nagourney of The New York Times made similar supportive statements.

It’s certainly unfair to judge the entirety of Chalian’s career based on his one ignorant and hateful comment just as it’s unfair to judge Congressman Akin’s 12-year political career on his one blurt of idiocy. But that doesn’t prevent people from doing it. Do I believe Akin’s view on rape and conception are commonly held beliefs among a vast majority of Republicans? Absolutely not. That’s why he was roundly and justly criticized by a majority of Republicans who, like me, are horrified that this man honestly believed what he was saying and is attempting to represent Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Is it groundbreaking news that Akin, a conservative, is pro-life, and that a majority of Republicans are pro-life? Not at all.

Do I believe that Chalian’s attitude toward Republicans is widely held by a majority of journalists at big (and little) newspapers and television networks? I do. I worked for a newspaper for 12 years as a reporter. I was around reporters and editors from all sorts of publications. And while I never heard anything as vile as what Chalian said, the general feeling among most of the journalists I knew was Republicans bad, Democrats good. That doesn’t mean to say these journalists did poor jobs. Quite the contrary.

What I object to is when mainstream media journalists deny that there’s a liberal media bias. (These are the same journalists who decry Fox News’ conservative bent.) Chalian’s proof positive the mindset exists and no doubt impacts the way stories are selected and edited for publication or broadcast, and how headlines are written.

Fortunately there have been a few journalists who’ve been brave enough to acknowledge what all too many of us have been complaining about for years.

ABC News’ White House correspondent Jake Tapper on Barack Obama’s presidential run four years ago: “I have said before – I said that I thought the media helped tip the scales. I don’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, you know, campaign narrative, it wasn’t always the fairest coverage and I hope that doesn’t happen again.”

Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin on the Mitt Romney’s tax returns: “I think the press still likes this story a lot. The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this.”

Outgoing New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane: “When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”

David Chalian will land on his feet, of that I’m sure. By Current TV’s or MSNBC’s standards, he did nothing wrong and said what’s broadcast every day on those networks; he’ll fit right in. There should be no wonder, however, in the minds of journalists like him when they collectively descend on the Republican National Convention and are given the cold shoulder by people who know exactly how they’re viewed – whether it’s spoken or not – by members of the fourth estate.

The Missouri Republican Senate candidate’s breathtaking ignorance and stupidity regarding rape and conception not only immediately imperiled GOP chances to pick up a winnable seat held by the unpopular Claire McCaskill, but gave Democrats ammunition to lob at Republicans up and down ballots nationwide, including Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Everyone on the planet knows this. Everyone except the delusional Todd Akin, currently a congressman. He let pass a 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline that would’ve allowed him clean exit from the race, keeping this entirely unnecessary distraction front and center ahead of next week’s GOP convention.

Akin can still withdraw from the ballot, but would need a court order. So it’s still possible to salvage this potential pickup, but Akin’s obliviousness to the continued damage he’s doing gives me no hope. Here are some nuggets from radio interviews Akin did Tuesday explaining why he’s staying in the race (hat-tip to Sean Hannity for grilling Akin):

1. “My interest in this race has nothing to do with me. It has to do with who we are as a nation.”

Whenever anyone says that something of dire importance “has nothing to do with me” it usually means it has “everything to do with me.” Akin doesn’t realize that if this race truly had nothing to do with him, then there’s no reason for him to stay on the ballot. The same issues he champions can still have a voice in the Senate — an articulate voice connected to a sharp mind.

2. “I think it will help Romney and I think it’s going to help the Republican party.”

I audibly groaned upon hearing this and remember thinking “he has no clue.” Hannity asked Akin that if his continued presence indeed would help the GOP, wouldn’t the Republicans and Romney be asking him to stay on the ballot? Akin of course had no logical answer. Hannity asked Akin how many Senate Republicans asked him to stay in the race. Akin: “None, but …”

3. “Don’t you think he may have bid this thing up and made a bigger deal about it than he needed to?” Akin asked Hannity of Romney. “Why couldn’t he run his race, and I’ll run mine?”

With that final question, Akin cemented the notion behind the popular Tuesday Twitter tweet: “There is no reasoning with an idiot.” I don’t fault Hannity for not telling Akin the following because Akin clearly can’t comprehend it: “Because all of these races are interconnected. Democrats will continually link your ignorance and stupidity to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, who will not be able to effectively campaign in Missouri as long as you are there trying to salvage your political career. Romney and Ryan cannot campaign alongside you. Romney and Ryan cannot even be seen with you.” This gets back to Akin’s inability to grasp that he is making this race all about him. He believes Missouri exists in a bubble and that nothing he says or does will have any bearing outside of it. Savvier politicians, however, would.

So, why am I, a New Jersey resident, furious with Todd Akin? I live in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since the 1970s. Robert Menendez is up for re-election and likely will beat his challenger. Why? Because it’s New Jersey. We like high taxes, overspending, and ignoring the natural resources off of our shorelines. We reward our politicians who vote for huge stimulus packages and Obamacare. We believe in state Supreme Court-mandated financial redistribution to continually failing school districts. I’m mad because I wish we had a chance to pick up a senate seat in my state, but we don’t. Missouri was one of the best opportunities and unfortunately the choice is now between the unpopular incumbent and someone whose skull is an impregnable fortress protecting nothing.

One of our former corrupt senators, Robert Torricelli, was losing badly in his quest for reelection to the Senate in 2002. The Democrats forced him off the ticket with around a month to go before the election. (There was a court battle because a late deadline passed, but the state Supreme Court decided New Jersey deserved a choice.) The Democrats trotted out former U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who easily beat the GOP opponent who would’ve crushed Torricelli. I remember Torricelli’s tearful remarks upon ducking out of the race. His political career was over. But he understood what was best for his party and not him. It’s abundantly clear the Republicans in Missouri are not as fortunate.

I listened to Todd Akin mount an incoherent apology/defense on Sean Hannity’s radio show today and heard the nonsensical ramblings of a politician who clearly isn’t aware that his career is taking on the appearance of the Hindenburg.

First, I cannot think of any circumstance when it would be helpful to have your name associated with the phrase “legitimate rape.” I believe his tortured point was that a woman who is actually, conclusively, legitimately being raped can fire down her ovaries like the thrusters on a space shuttle. As opposed to what? An illegitimate rape? It makes no sense on an intellectual or biological level. It’s breathtaking mix of stupidity and offensiveness. Yet, somehow that was his answer in defending his position that abortion is inexcusable even in the case of rape.

Akin was roundly and justifiably criticized. Akin apologized, and I believe his apology is sincere, and on a personal level, I forgive him. But on a political level this cannot be forgiven. Which leads me to ask, What is Todd Akin thinking right now as the 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline nears to cleanly withdraw his candidacy so he can be smoothly replaced on the ballot?

Here’s what we know (rather than me linking, just Google it if you don’t believe me):

1. Several senators (Scott Brown, Ron Johnson) have either called for him to exit the race, or distanced themselves from him.

2. Sen. John Cornyn, who leads the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, flatly told Akin he will not get the $5 million in funds earmarked for his campaign should he stay in the race.

3. One of the GOP Super Pacs similarly said it was pulling its rescources from Akin if he doesn’t pull out.

4. Even the head of one of the national Tea Party groups called on Akin to quit, as did the National Review, Washington Examiner, and other conservative groups.

5. RNC Chairmain Reince Priebus has called on Akin to not only withdraw, but not even to step foot near the Republican National Convention next week.

6. His opponent, the land-slideably beatable Claire McCaskill, wants him to remain in the race.

So what is Akin thinking right now? Apparently, “I can still win this!” I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually believes this because it defies all logic and common sense, two characteristics he demonstrated he clearly doesn’t have.

It all boils down to pride. And as Marsellus Wallace explained to Butch the boxer in Pulp Fiction, Akin’s probably feeling a “slight sting. That’s pride f**king with you. F**k pride. Pride only hurts. It never helps. You fight through that sh*t.”

As I write this, Akin has less than 20 hours to realize the following:

1. He has zero financial support. He’s the Facebook of Senate candidates right now. Why would you invest your money in something that’s so clearly failed and not living up to expectations?

2. He has zero political support. Do you think Mitt Romney would step foot on the same stage with Todd Akin during a campaign stop in Missouri? If Todd Akin approaches another Republican, even if it’s to ask for a stick of gum, you will see that Republican flee for the hills.

3. Missourians may be displeased with incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill’s six years in office, but she’s not breathtakingly stupid and ignorant, and voters will reward her with another term rather than be represented by someone who should be frolicking in the Forbidden Land of the Sophists with Joe Biden.

4. Akin’s continued presence in the race will harm Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and other Republicans who will be continually tied to Akin as long as he’s pleading for votes.

I can see this. Everyone in the United States who has an inkling about how politics works, and who realizes perception plays a far more important role than substance (i.e., the 44th President of the United States) can see this clearly playing out.

One man’s pride prohibits him from seeing all of this. Todd Akin. Which leads me to my opening thought. What is Todd Akin thinking?

“Harry Reid, the majority leader, is my friend. He’s served this honorable body with distinction ever since joining it in 1987. But I cannot overlook the phone call I received today from a very reliable source who I will not name who stated the following: Harry Reid has been molesting young boys who have visited the Capitol building these last 10 years. Harry Reid is - and I quote from my reliable email sources - the Jerry Sandusky of the United States Senate. Now, I don’t know if this is true, but it’s out there: Harry Reid sexually attacks prepubescent boys who want nothing more than a fun civics lesson and a trip to the Lincoln Memorial. I feel it is now incumbent upon me to demand Harry Reid - who I must say acts very grandfatherly around his own grandsons - prove he’s never been a serial child predator. The focus shouldn’t be on me. Harry Reid is the one I’m alleging raped boys. He can clear this up right away by denying he’s never sodomized countless members of our precious youth. Harry, I know these boys are so terrified of you that they’ll never admit to what you did to them, so don’t bother asking that they show themselves to disprove me. They won’t. Harry Reid, you’re the child molester, and you need to prove otherwise to remove this taint that the media will help to linger. Now get going, Jerry.”

Mitch McConnell never said this. Nor would he. He is a decent man who would never allege – on the Senate floor, no less – that someone was a felon without the ability to prove it. The titles of Senate Majority and Minority Leader, in theory, carry weight and meaning for the people who hold them: they are high-ranking standard-bearers of their parties, not just in the Senate, but as a whole.

Harry Reid has no standards. There is nothing honorable about him. Barack Obama, the man Reid is trying to help, the man who has called for all of us to tone down the heated rhetoric in Washington, has not condemned this slander, nor will he. Doing so requires honor.

Unfortunately I won’t be attending, just as I wasn’t able to attend Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day today because there isn’t one friggin’ CFA within 30 miles of where I live in New Jersey. As it is, I’m on Weight Watchers. CFA would torpedo my Points Plus for the day in about five seconds.

I am not gay, but I do support gay marriage just so long as government doesn’t get involved in forcing religious institutions to perform ceremonies that go against their beliefs. I won’t rehash what I think about Rahm Emanuel and thugs like him who seek to ban businesses run by people who don’t conform to their ideology. You can read that here.

But here’s the deal with national Same-Sex Kiss Day, scheduled by a gay rights group for this Friday when gay couples are asked to stand outside of Chick-fil-A and smooch to protest CFA President Dan Cathy’s support of traditional marriage: Don’t hurt your cause by trying to help it.

Here’s what I mean: Nothing turns people off quicker than overtly gratuitous displays of public affection, gay or straight. There’s nothing wrong with a quick smooch with your significant other over dinner. But when two people embrace in the Burger King booth and begin smushing their faces together like Hannibal Lecter going after that nurse, well, it’s rude. And it sounds gross! Seriously! I was at the movies once, and the couple next to me would not stop French-kissing. It sounded like a Great Dane was gobbling up a watermelon. And you’re ultimately forced to say something, like, “Would you please cut it out, mom and dad?”

So, if gay couples checker-board the entrances of Chick-fil-A restaurants and begin to re-enact Jim Carrey kissing Lauren Holly from Dumb and Dumber, wide swaths of the population will be less likely to think, “You know, same-sex couples should be able to marry,” and more likely to think, “I just wanted some waffle fries and now have to wade through a sea of stereotypes that escaped from the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade.”

Perhaps Same-Sex Kiss Day will be orderly and respectful of others who aren’t focused on chicken sandwiches or gay rights, but who simply want to eat lunch. But if Kiss Day devolves into a spectacle of outlandish intimacy that disrupts commerce, the kissers will leave the same impression that continues to prevent the same people they hope to persuade from ever taking them seriously.