Republican hopes for taking back the Senate this year have absorbed a variety of blows in the past several months. Olympia Snowe’s retirement and Todd Akin’s comments about pregnancy and rape dramatically reduced the chances of a GOP takeover. But Richard Mourdock’s saying that a pregnancy caused by rape is something that God intended to happen may have been the coup de grace. Here’s the quote from an answer to a question about his opposition to even the rape exception on abortion:
I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.
Mourdock, who toppled longtime moderate GOP incumbent Richard Lugar in a Republican primary, was locked in an unexpectedly tight race with Democrat Joe Donnelly even before last night. Donnelly has benefited from Lugar’s petulant refusal to endorse Mourdock, something that fed the perception that the Republican was a Tea Party extremist. But saying something that could be interpreted as meaning that he believed God intended rape to happen could tip the balance in the election. The loss of the Indiana seat would make it almost impossible for the Republicans to get to 50 or 51 even if they were able to pull off upsets in Ohio and Connecticut and hold onto Scott Brown’s endangered Massachusetts seat.
At the debate, Mourdock immediately understood that he had blundered and tried to explain that he didn’t mean that God wanted women to be raped:
God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does.
But that may have been too late. While his comment is really not in the same category as Todd Akin’s mind-boggling stupidity about women’s bodies shutting down during “legitimate rape,” it will be easily compared to it. No amount of explanation will prevent the Democrats from coupling him with Akin as a pair of Neanderthal Republicans who hate women and want them to suffer pregnancy as a result of rape.
In his defense, Mourdock’s position is based in a moral imperative that sees the life of a child conceived by rape as being no less important than that of one conceived by consensual sex. If you believe life begins at conception, then life is life–regardless of the circumstances. That is not a position even most of those who are morally opposed to abortion can stomach, but it is one that is based in logic. Nor is it the product of misogynist superstition such as Akin’s foolishness.
But by bringing God’s will into the equation, Mourdock opened himself up to an entirely different line of attack that could be just as damaging. If he had held a large lead over Donnelly, such as the one Akin had over unpopular incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri, he might have survived this kerfuffle, let the Democrats make what they could of it. But since the race was already a tossup, it’s hard to see how Donnelly can avoid pulling ahead in the coming days.
That creates a situation where even Mitt Romney’s coattails — assuming he has any — won’t be enough to win the Republicans the four seats they need to become a majority in the Senate. This means that even if Romney is elected and the Republicans hold the House of Representatives, the repeal of ObamaCare is going to need some Democratic support in the Senate. If the repeal effort fails, the two seats the GOP appears to be losing as a result of the issue of rape and pregnancy will loom large in the history of this chapter of political history.
What is it with these guys? It's not like Mourdock and Akin are political novices and are unaware of pitfalls. Don't they have discussions with advisers in order to identify topics that are too hot to handle or should be finessed? Or are they just stupid? If Romney wins, but Republicans don't take the Senate by the Akin and now Mourdock margins, I'll join the Tea Party critics within the party and agree that their candidates, in general, are not ready for prime time.
Truly. It's hard to say which is dumber – making the remark in the first place, or believing in good faith that he was saying that rape was G-d's will. Shame on him for being clumsy enough to leave himself open to this, and on those who are dishonestly twisting what he said. n nAs to those who are dumb enough to believe the charges, they are more to be pitied than condemned.
I haven't seen the movie in over 30 years, but I have a distinct recollection of a scene near the end: nLuke Skywalker is approaching the Death Star for the last chance at the kill. His commander steadies him: "Steady, steady. Focus." Or something like that. That seems a good message for us once more. Keep on, don't get distracted by the inevitable gaffes, mistakes, stupidities. We live in a 24/7 news society where Republicans will get nailed for anything while McCaskill's corruption- just to pull one example out of my hat – is largely ignored. Fair or not, it's the way it is. Is Mourdock an idiot? Was he wrong to say what he said? I don't know, and at this point I honestly don't care. nObama is going down, and the Republicans path to control of the Senate does not have to go through Indiana OR Missouri. Buck up!
If we can't regain the Senate as well as the white house, too much of Obama's destructive legislation will survive. That is exactly why we have to stay focussed.
I've thought about this when it's come up — if the Senate remains Democrat, Obamacare is here to stay. Will Reid be able to go another 2 years of passing nothing? I kind of hope, and don't think this is unreasonable, that with the White House Republican, the bully pulpit can and will be used to overwhelm Reid and company. A President Romney may be able to get millions of pieces of mail sent to Reid everyday and hundreds of thousands of demonstrators marching on Washington. I'm not sure it's possible to recall federal legislators, but something might be done. There's also the lessons of Obama's Presidency, executive orders and enforcing only the legislation that you wish to. The key is using the bully pulpit to make Reid acknowledge the will of the people. I think there's a chance, anyway.
I agree – if Romney wins and the Dems control the Senate only because Akin and Mourdock did whatever they did (depending on your view they misspoke, were stupid, were victimized by special interest groups or lily-livered conservatives), the survivors may be rethinking their position on Obamacare. Manchin, for example, might consider being the 50th vote to repeal.
Romney will have to issue the 50 state exemption as promised. The dems will hold the senate 51-49 most likely.
Mike, I, once again, admire and respect your optimism. But to offer a poor paraphrase of a recent Romney retort, optimism is no substitute for realism. Republicans are simply held to a higher standard by the press!! They are viewed with suspicions by single women. Of course it's unfair, but we must simply realize that!! To his credit, I think by and large, Romney has. These fools have not. I have always believed(even during my depression days)that if Romney were to win, the Senate goes Republican. But how many seats can we potentially give away? One, maybe. But now, potentially, two? It begins to get very thin and as much as we can cheer the closeness of Connecticut , Ohio and Pennsylvania races, I wouldn't depend upon them to get to at least 50.
What's the big deal? Some people seem to love to exaggerate? Why are his peculiar comments so important? A reasonable individual should merely shrug their shoulders.
The big deal is that too many people vote emotionally and not rationally and will see this as part of the supposed war on women. And too many people will cynically distort what he meant in order to encourage that emotional response.
Why are allegedly well educated women—and their intimidated male friends voting "emotionally"? Isn't is time we take them to task for behaving in such an immature manner?
We all vote emotionally, Mr. Thomson. Aquinas described us very aptly as "rational animals." Being an animal subject to inchoate and, often, literally incomprehensible drives, but also to passions and affections and, yes, "emotions" that are praiseworthy and noble and as reliable a guide for the heart as the law of noncontradiction is for the head and which, I feel certain, are as necessary to enjoying FULL humanity as intellect is, being such a creature, I say, carries no stigma per se. n nJust as our reason is guided by logic, our passionate nature must be informed by morality, which might, I don't know, be better understood as a set of precepts that come to matter for us only with emotional maturity—no, strike that—that ARE the emotions we should aspire to as we grow old. As someone who has raised two children to adulthood, I can assure you that moral behavior must be taught and learned.
It is a pleasure to read what you write. Thank you.
I appreciate your kind remarks. Too often one sees an unnecessary polarization in what might be called the question of the nature of man, including the so-called mind–body problem. Much of the argument stems, as you no doubt know, from René Descartes, particularly from his "Description of the Human Body" of 1647 (published after his death in 1650). n nCartesian Dualism has infected metaphysics ever since. Over the centuries, those with an interest in such matters tended to emphasize the one (mind) over the other (body) or vice-versa. Nowadays, the somaticists, the proponents of "body" are in the ascendant, scholars such as Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Patricia Churchland. Unsurprisingly the argument has taken a decidedly darwinian turn: the mind–body problem has been folded into what used to be called sociobiology, until, that is, that descriptor fell out of favor on frankly political grounds, going about now incognito, as it were, under the name "evolutionary psychology." n nA more or less unashamed Materialism is a predictable reaction to the Platonic strain long dominant in metaphysics. Platonism is radically "idealistic," consistent with the extreme position wherein one asserts that material objects are illusions! Platonism enjoyed a long run among metaphysicians before the so-called Enlightenment. n nWhat are often overlooked, though, are the brilliant contributions of the Dominican monk St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), whose opus to this day constitutes the "official metaphysics" of the Roman Catholic Church, meaning that his works have been endorsed by the Vatican not as a matter of dogma but as of sound philosophy. (Confession: I am not, nor have I been for some time, a professing Roman Catholic.) n nA little background (this thread is effectively dead; I very much doubt that anyone but you will be reading this, so I feel licensed to go "off topic"). Plus I will be generalizing unforgivably (lavishly perpetrating the logical fallacy known as secundum quid). But so what? Like Descartes, I was educated for eight years by Jesuits: It's only the end that matters! n nIn antiquity both Plato (d. 347 BC) and Aristotle (d. 322 BC) were universally read and revered. And why not? The latter had been the respectful student of the former. But their philosophies showed markedly different tendencies, which Aristotle was at some pains to disguise. For a host of reasons, it was the philosophy of Plato, not Aristotle, that survived the so-called Dark Ages. Two of those reasons can be named at once: St. Paul (d. circa AD 67) and St. Augustine (d. 430). Paul, though he never once mentions Plato, offers a Christology, namely, how is it possible for God to become Man, that is readily reconciled with Platonism. Augustine was a self-confessed Platonist. For approximately seven centuries, platonic Dualism held sway in Christian metaphysics as taught in the universities, e.g., at Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and Naples. n nThen, largely because of the Arab conquest of Spain—the Arabs all but worshipped the "Stagirite"—the writings of Aristotle were "rediscovered" in Western Europe, albeit cumbersomely, via Latin translations of Arabic translations of Greek originals. Aristotle, it was soon scholastically au courant to declare, was both much more "scientific" and less mathematical than Plato. (Aristotle was in fact a more than competent biologist.) He was also, mutatis mutandis, not particularly enamored of Dualism. n nIt was in that way that Aquinas learned of what might be called Aristotle's "corrections" to Plato, in particular Aristotle's lectures on the relationship of form and substance. If you grant form the role of mind and substance that of body, what Aristotle proposed was that the two could no more be separated than the roundness (the form) of a sphere can be separated from the material of which the sphere is composed. So disposed, the concepts of mind and body are obviously not opposites, so Dualism is ruled out. But what are they? Even Aristotle is at pains to clarify their relationship, and I shall not even try to reprise what he has to say here. It is his influence on Aquinas that holds the greatest interest because for nearly 600 years what the Roman Catholic Church taught, insofar as it taught metaphysics, was what Aquinas taught in his two monumental Summae, the many, many "Quaestiones" of which I was drilled in relentlessly. n nAquinas was much impressed by Aristotle (whom he always refers to very reverently as "The Philosopher"). In describing a man as a rational animal, he makes clear, the one polarity cannot be, nor should it be, separated from the other. The analogy he uses, if I recall correctly, is that of colored light, for instance, red light. Is distinguishing redness from light, equivalent to claiming that there is light AND that there is redness, he asks, anything more than a nominal distinction, namely, is it more than a matter of words? Certainly, a scientist may claim with confidence that red light is "that electromagnetic undulation having a wavelength of approximately 9000 angstroms [approx. 35-millionths of an inch]." But THAT is manifestly a PROPOSITION, whereas we do NOT perceive light propositionally! So too, then, Aquinas argues, our humanity is NOT experienced as being, on the one hand, mental whilst, on the other, somatic, but is both. The one assertion cannot be extricated from the other without doing violence to the residue, to the ACTUAL and HUMAN being.
I'm reading it! Thanks. It'll take me time to process it, though…
I think the problem is that they are Democrats first and women only afterward. What I mean is that the big problem with there being any dialogue, any compromise, any consensus plan about anything, is that Democrats have this strawman of what Republicans are (such as portrayed in all the negative ads on Romney, or that Romney's a liar because he doesn't say and think the things the Dems strawman of what a Republican is supposedly thinks and says). As Democrats, all that's left is froth at the mouth hatred, reason is gone, humanity is gone. You have empty vessels needing a jolt of reassuring platitudes of hate for that strawman.
well said
I want to add something that I pondered on my way to work. I am and have been for a long time optimistic about the Republican chances this year – even during the September trough. I believe Romney will win convincingly, and I will not be surprised if Republicans end up with as many as 54 seats in the Senate. If all of the signs pointing to such a victory were instead pointing to a Democratic wave in two weeks, we'd be hearing about it. As it is, Republicans have to cut through a lot of background noise to try to take the real pulse. nOK – who cares what I think? Nobody – but, if a significant majority of Republicans felt the way I do this kind of event would be far less important. As it is, because many seem to think the Republicans are poised to throw everything away, there is panic in some places. I'd suggest Mr. Tobin's headline is an example. This is where reasonable optimism is a good thing, and cautious pessimism can be dangerous. As Glenn Reynolds says, "Don't get cocky", but confidence is a good thing, too. Overreacting to Mourdock could be harmful. Blowing it off might, or as Davidthomson says, shrugging our shoulders, might be helpful. n
There are two large "minority" groups that need to grow up and start acting like adults. Blacks—and women! This is especially true for those of the latter who attended the "best" universities. Too many adult females believe they have a right to overreact and throw hissy fits. This man merely made a awkward theological assertion. Nothing more. The proper response is to treat his comments nonchalantly. They are really not that big of a deal. The heck with indulging these immature women. We have the full intellectual and moral right to demand a bit of maturity on their part.
David, you're right, but you cannot carry that attitude to the public if you are a candidate. Again,as I said to Mike above, of course it's unfair. Look, I believe that there are some legitimately sincere individuals without any anti Semitic sentiments who take a different position from mine on Israel. But, would I respect their sincerity if they offered their opinions like, for example, Chomsky? Of course I would be suspicious. I think the same thing is true on these issues of abortion and women's concerns(and race). And again, much to my very pleasant surprise, Romney has seemed to learn and look what's happening: not abandonment of principles(abortion, for example), but gains in support from groups that just a few weeks ago were solidly opposed to him.
Excuse me, but this Republican candidate's comments do not in anyway compare to anything said by Noam Chomsky! Not even remotely close. These women who are upset—-need to grow up and start behaving like adults. We should not be cutting them slack.
David, I think you underestimate many women's sensitivity to anything related to rape. I don't. In fact, I agree with them. It's one of the most nightmarish violations of personal control, safety and being one can imagine.
Sensitivity? I expect these women to grow up. Let's put a stop to this victim silliness. We must cease pampering them. This is especially true for those females who attended college. They are supposed to be able to calmly think and follow a logical argument.
Ah. Yes. They NEED TO!. Now about winning their votes…
The republican horror show continues. It get's even more surreal. Now Cornyn is backing Mourdock. nWhat has happened to the the real GOP? Akin and now Mourdock. This is horrendous. Romney must disavow any connection with this man's campaign. Any woman who votes for either of them or the GOP has lost her mind. Yes Gov, the GOP war on women continues. It''s about time you clamped down on these misogynists. You tried to come across as a moderate in the debate. Now's the time to prove it. Tell him to resign from the race. Where do you stand???
Nonsense! Grow up. We should not tolerate such immature responses by supposed adults.
I certainly hope this is the mainstream Democratic reaction! Let's talk about social issues and the War on Women for the last two weeks, because that will really help Obama and his minions now! Everyone I know is so concerned about abortion. Heck, it's all they talk about. Benghazi? Record level unemployment? Who cares? Misogyny – that's the ticket.
Sure. Drop everything this minute, Republicans, and besiege Romney with angry letters urging him to spur on divisiveness in the GOP. Oh! Oh! I almost forgot, while you're at it, please forget to vote on Nov. 6th. n nLiar55 simply has GOT to be the most egregiously clumsy troll in the history of internet trolling.
LAr55, what utter, hysterical nonsense. According to you, Akin is misogynist for saying rape does not result in pregnancy, and Mourdock is misogynist for saying it does. n nAkin's comment was ignorant. (Of course, Biden and Obama have each said things at least as ignorant, just not necessarily on that topic.) Mourdock's comment was clumsily phrased, but anyone who sees it as misogynist is either an idiot or willfully distorting what he said. n nIf you think he was saying that rape is G-d's will, maybe you are the one who needs to resign your voter registration. n n
Republicans need to do a better job of identifying and encouraging strong candidates to run for the Senate. We lost our opportunity in 2010 to take over the senate and now it appears we are losing a golden opportunity once again. And, it seems, in nearly every case it is social issues that bring weak candidates down. This is the biggest drag on the republican party; I know lots of folks who agree with republicans on fiscal issues but won't vote for them based on social issues. Stupid statements from the likes of Akin, Mourdock, O'Donnell and others defeat any argument I can make.
I would suggest that those people are simply looking for an excuse to vote for Democrats they know don't deserve their votes. I was one of them once. If they really are fiscal conservatives, they'll come around. nI know lots of folks who claim to agree with Republicans on fiscal issues but not on the environment. They are just acting like they have an open-mind.
I would not expect that those oriented toward Judaism would understand Christian Evangelicals; however, in eyes and minds of evangelicals, the all-powerful God is not to be questioned. Abortion of any kind is murder. n nMourdock first got into trouble by telling the truth about the futility of bi-partisanship. Joe Donnelly moved toward the center to capture Dick Lugar's moderates, but he is failing to convince many people. n nMourdock will win Indiana because Romney is leading Obama big time in the Hoosier polls. Mourdock will be pulled to victory right behind the presidential landslide. n n
I would guess that Orthodox Jews accept the idea of "the all-powerful God" and have more in common with Christian Evangelicals than Jews of a more secular mentality.
You do know that the Orthodox consider abortion a REQUIREMENT in certain situations do you not?
Very few, and even then only as a last resort. Even then, a woman who chose to take the risk of giving birth might be able to find a lenient opinion to let her do so. n nI do not know your background or beliefs, but I most oftern hear the "required" abortion card overplayed by those who are not Orthodox, and who care little what Orthodox Judaism has to say on abortion or any other topic. It is always very jarring to hear the supposed Orthodox position vehemently chamioned by some macher in Bnai Brith who, e.g., eats whatever he or she pleases, publicly violates Shabbos without so much as a thought, and champions same sex unions. But when it comes to protecting "required" abortions, they out-frum Monsey and Lakewood.
gad-fly, I seem to recall that Judaism also teaches that G-d is all powerful. And despite some differences from the Evangelical view of things, Jewish law views pregnancy resulting from rape no differently than any other pregnancy. Sadly, because of our long exile too many Jews do not know or care what Jewish law has to say on the topic. n n1. If the mother's life is endangered, abortion may be permitted or even required. Serious permanent harm such as blindness or loss of certain other major functions can be treated as equivalend to death for this purpose; a competent rabbi must be consulted in each case. By definition, a competent rabbi will be experienced in the laws governing these matters, will be familiar with medical science, and will consult closely with the physician. n n2. Even in cases of danger to the mother's life, the permission to abort ends once the baby's head or the majority of the body emerges, whichever occurs first. n nThis sumary is a gross oversimplification, but it will do for this discussion. As always, CALOR (Consult A Local/legitimate Orthodox Rabbi- which I am not).
This is a complete non-issue. It'll get some coverage from the same media, sycophants that are desperately trying to take some of the steam out of the Romney Steam Roller, but it'll be forgotten in a couple of days as the media moves onto the next non-issue. n nRepublicans need to stop apologizing for such trivial things and buck up.
If the Senate cannot muster 51 votes for full repeal in 2013, the House GOP and President Romney can neuter the bill through executive waivers and refusing to appropriate funding and the GOP can use the issue to make the 2014 midterms a referendum on Obamacare and an obstructionist Senate (recall the 2002 midterms).
Abortion is such a hot button issue and the media will do everything they can to play up an misstep respecting it. You would think an experienced conservative politician would be able to handle just about any inquiry regarding that topic from a hostile questioner. You would be wrong.
Yes it is mind-boggling. Every GOP Senate candidate should have been required to memorize the answer that Paul Ryan gave at the debate.
That's the media most people are concerned about getting a job.
Mr. Tobin really has to learn to distinguish between Christian voters in Indiana and voters who belong to the Ethical Culture Society, New York, between Main Street, Indianapolis, and Central Park West, Manhattan. He is eternally clueless as regards the ENORMOUS difference in values between, and the differential impact of Mourdock's remarks on, residents of the Midwest and the East Coast, absolutely without a clue. Let me stipulate: If Richard Mourdock were running this year against Kirsten Gillibrand for United States Senator from New York—Stop the presses!—Are you sitting down, Mr. Tobin?—Richard Mourdock would lose. Badly. But buck up! He's not! What a relief that must be! n nMourdock's remarks alone will NOT hurt him in Indiana except with those already lined up against him in both parties. IF he loses, it will be because of already existing antagonism between Lugar supporters and the Indiana Tea Party rooted in many more issues than abortion (as a matter of fact, abortion is NOT among them), chief of them, from the standpoint of Lugar's critics, being an increasing inability over the years to discern much of a difference between Dick Lugar and a Maryland-to-DC day-tripper who could not find Indiana on a map. Lugar also has been a Senator for some time who, for reasons unfathomable to unaided intellect, has many loyal supporters in what USED TO BE his home. Mourdock, therefore—and this cannot really be news to anybody—has NEVER been a shoo-in for re-election and has always depended on Romney's ability to pull him up if he's to succeed; but the notion that conservative, even very conservative, positions on social issues will hurt a Republican in Indiana is not to be taken seriously except by Democrats and, it would seem, liberal New York Republicans.
When a politician makes a comment that seems heartfelt and honest, instead of from a script, I have more respect for that politician. If I agree him him or her, that's even better. nI also agree with "anadessma" that Mr. Tobin's reaction is a reflection of the cultural differences between New York City and much of "Middle America".
When you have a candidate who is a "true believer" it should be obvious this is a double edged sword. Both of these men are good individuals who want to do the right thing. What got them in trouble was speaking directly from the heart rather than using their heads and being more than a little cynical. There are a lot conservatives like that. I'll take honesty over cynicism any day and then accept that this has a price in the way others look you.
Man up and change your soiled drawers, Tobin. Mourdock simply was saying that he believes God would want the fetus not to be aborted. If this costs him the race, so be it; but I don't believe it will.
What article were you reading? Tobin realizes what Mourdock was saying. What Tobin was lamenting is the opening that iMourdock gave to the stupid, the hysterical and the unprincipled to portray the statement as something very different. Which, of course, Mourdock's unprincipled opponent did within seconds after the remark was made.
I was reading the one suggesting that Mourdock has just lost his senate race. Why, which article were you reading?
The one that says that a deliberate and cynical misreading of Mourdock's remarks may cost him crucial votes among the gullible and the easily outraged in a tight Senate race. In other words, the same one you were. Tobin's only the messenger.
Thank you, Mama Tobin, for standing up for your little boy, but I think Tobin's writing off this senate seat is rather hasty. As I said, man up.
I hope your right. We'll see shortly.
I have a hard time believing that one comment will derail a whole campaign, if that was true Obama and Biden would have been toast a long time ago and be down 40 points in the polls.
It doesn't have to derail an entire campaign, it only has to cost him .5% to lose in a close election.
It won't be that close, Romney will win Indiana by double digits. There will be coattails.
If you go back to the earlier drop in Romney's polling, it started at about the time Akin made his disastrous gaffe. Luckily, there is no quotable term like"legitimate rape" from the gaffe. Of course, if the gaffe loses us 5000 votes in each state, we are in trouble. All campaigns are national. I wish our social conservative allies would remember that.
Nonsense.
Too many comments to reply directly but I commend anadessma for pointing out the obvious: Indiana is not new york. As much as I like Jonathan Tobin , he comes from a liberal jewish point of view that favors abortion in many aspects. Murdock believes that the fetus deserves to live-except when he/she endangers the mother- very similar to Orthodox Judaism (there are some differences)abortion is murder. This is a legitimate point of view and will not hurt him in Indiana. Akin's comments were just stupid and I felt- like many others- that we don't need more stupid people in the Senate. Additionally, there is a serious point of view that Republicans WIn when running on social issues. So, let it play out and let the good Indiana people make their wise decision.
I thought Tobin might be a Conservative or Modern Orthodox Jew.
Whatever he is, he doesn't know beans about socially conservative flyover states.
Jonatahn Tobin is a member of a Conservative synagogue. In recent years, the conservative movement has trended very liberal.
Conservative Judiasm began as a reaction to the extremes of Reform, but once it rejected the authority of Torah and the Sages, it was very difficult to stop the downhill slide. Since the 1980's it has been much closer to Reform than to Orthodox, and continues to move more toward Reform. This is particularly true on so-called social issues like abortion, ordination, and same sex unions, where its positions become harder and harder to distinguish from Reform.
If you get past the sloppy verbiage, Mourdock simply stated the position of the GOP platform. If Tobin has a problem with this (I do myself, by the way), he should get the GOP to change the platform.
Romney may have problems. A lot of republicans a simply moronic or cretin. It is beyond appalling.
Finally! Commentary admits that a Republican candidate is a total a-hole.
And what does that make the Democrats who are deliberately twisting his statement into "G-d wants rape to happen?"
First, this is why you do not mix religion and politics. Second, if God "intended rape to happen" then why are there laws in the Bible punishing rapists. Third, if you follow his logic that anything that happens happens because God intended it to, then he must also think that God intended the Holocaust to happen. What is amazing is that the party that claims to believe in limiting the power of the government insists that the government must have the power to force a woman to have a baby. I know, they claim their belief is based on the Bible. But the same Bible that says there is a time to be born says there is a time to die? So why don't we do away with all of these life-saving surgeries and shut down all of the cancer treatment centers. After all, if you get a fatal illness God intended you to get it and that means it is your time to die.
Did Mourdock lose the Senate for the Republicans? Probably.
I have a somewhat different objection to the Republican position. I think a war on abortion would be as disastrous as the War On Drugs.
A big problem for Romney is the number of morons & cretins (in the republican party) who are in politics.
But then shouldn't Obama be suffering at least doubly as much from the same problem? His party is chock full of morons. One of the biggest lives at the Naval Observatory.
It is not sufficient to be endorsed by the majority of the Republican base that turns out to vote in the primary; the person endorsed by the majority of primary voters must then go on to get the the majority of votes cast in the general election. Elementary, to be sure, but the concept seems to elude many of the GOP faithful,especially the most socially conservative and insistent on their personal thinking about abortion, including many of those commenting in this thread.
Seems to me the important issue is not Mr. Mourdock's strict adherence to an ethical-moral system that supports the right to life above all else, but whether he will govern in accordance with the law of the land.
Akin and Mourdock elected or not are fuel for the claim that 'tea party racists' are just a bunch of ignorant radical 'know nothings'. These people, no matter what party they represent do NOT belong in the Senate, House, state senate or house, or anywhere IGNORANCE might affect other people. This is not a matter of conservative principles, but academic adherence to FACT as a basis for conducting one's life. Romney should have at best avoided comment on Mourdock, but if that was not possible he should have blasted him from one end of the US to the other. Akin as well. nWhat's really sad is that this has nothing to with abortion policy either. These yutzes should be giving out shoes at a bowling alley (my apologies to those handing out shoes at a bowling alley for lowering your stds)1