-
Laughing to Keep From Crying
May 17, 2013 | 1 comment
-
I’m Melting, Melting!
May 16, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Delaware’s Unclaimed Property Racket: John Gotti Would Be Proud
May 16, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Rep. Cleaver: GOP Concerns with IRS Due to Obama’s Skin Color
May 16, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Lawsuit Accuses IRS of Stealing Medical Records of 10 Million Americans
May 15, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Perhaps Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock was living under a rock and didn’t see what happened to Todd Akin’s electoral hopes in Missouri with the idiotic Mr. Akin talked about “legitimate rape” only to see all his funding and his poll lead instantly disappear. And perhaps Mourdock doesn’t remember how Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck lost an easily winnable race in 2010 by making nearly as stupid comments on social issues and appearing “extreme” on abortion, i.e. opposing any exceptions for rape or incest.
But I doubt it. I think he’s just proven himself to be another person whose pro-life gut reactions trump what any intelligent person knows he should be saying in an election campaign — by which I do not mean to imply that he should say anything he doesn’t believe. He simply doesn’t need to say everything he does believe, especially when those things have essentially nothing to do with what the election — or the job he wants — is really about.
Proving to many of the Republican Party’s members who do not focus on social issues that those issues can be as much a liability as a benefit to the Party’s electoral hopes, Mourdock may have doomed the Republicans to remain the Senate minority with a comment on Tuesday night that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.”
While his explanations make sense in the context of a religious belief, his comment was political suicide. He might still win his election, and I have to hope he does, but he’s just the latest example of why so many call the GOP the “stupid party.”
(Sorry, but I’m really angry about this…)
View all comments (82) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/10/23/message-to-mourdock-shut-your
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.23.12 @ 11:37PM
Sometimes a wise man shows he is so by following his own advice, Mr. Kaminsky.
fmm| 10.23.12 @ 11:56PM
Kaminsky has a strong point in that unnecessarily controversial statements need not be made at all, especially if they are not well thought out. The pressure of being in a debate is not a good excuse. If a candidate is not aware enough to keep from putting him or her self in trouble in this way, then why should they be considered capable of carrying out the important, often complicated, and pressure filled work of a US senator.
Simon Templar| 10.24.12 @ 12:06AM
Now, if we could only apply your standard to our opponents who seem not to give one frigin rats ass about it when they step in a pile. Yes, you are essentially correct, they should exercise more caution and attempt to speak clearly about what they think and their positions. The thing is their human beings including the liberals and they screw up, some more often and others a few times. Some do it deliberately. Pelosi, Reid, Biden, and on and on. We do not seem to expect them to resign or call for it, only when it is one of our own, cause we have to walk on water and be not without sin.
fmm| 10.24.12 @ 8:32AM
Ahh but you are wrong on the expectations part. Conservatives concentrate on the facts and solutions to problems, and expect our representatives to do the same in logical fashion. It is not kowtowing to PC to expect intelligent actions by such powerful people. Kaminsky did not call for Mourdock to resign, but to simply put his brain in gear before he speaks. I think conservatives do expect the Pelosi's of the world to be given the heave ho by the general populace, and we do call for it. The severity of your several comments on this subject suggest you must be from Missouri.
Simon Templar| 10.24.12 @ 12:20PM
You have read things into my statements that I did not communicate much like the crowd out there wanting to throw the man overboard. You seem to be side stepping the real issue here. First, no, I am not from Missouri nor are my comments severe.
I never said Kaminsky was calling for the man's resignation. I was making a point giving reference to the double standard that we all seem to be comfortable living with and tolerating. You can expect all you want, but in the real world there are the flaws of all human beings. It is about kowtowing to PC and buying liberal narratives. We all agree that politicians should be careful as the media is ready to pounce. That is not the point. The point is OUR reaction to their mistakes and are unwitting participation in abandoning them and freaking out at every mistake they make. Do not force me to make a list of past evidence and events that prove this. If you can not see this or are unwilling to do so, then there is not point in discussing the issue.
Kaminsky has a record of this reactionary and stubborn behavior. I have argued with him on these points before. By the way, this has nothing to do with abortion itself or who is for it or not. The real story here is how we cooperate with the liberal narratives and bow to their perceptions and dictates of those narratives.
mike 3/505| 10.24.12 @ 8:07AM
"...important, often complicated, and pressure filled work of a US senator."
Important, maybe. complicated, possibly. Pressure-filled? I don't think so. Senators are legislators. Their responsibility is a collective one. No personal responsibility unless you are a tie-breaker on a serious national issue, and you know it. That is why, all things being equal, I'll choose a successful governor over a Senator/Respresentative as my preferred presidentail candidate.
fmm| 10.24.12 @ 8:35AM
Agree that governors are much more suited to the presidency than senators or representatives. Even Clinton was able to back off his ideology when pressed by the republican congress.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.24.12 @ 10:09AM
The point of my original comment to Mr. Kaminsky is not that carefully measuring words is not necessary. If in my attempt to be perhaps brief and witty (which, once again, may be a bridge too far), I obscured my message, it could perhaps be re-stated as follows: If someone thinks that a person speaking honestly and from the heart can ignite unnecessary debate and alienate those who might otherwise be inclined to support them, I don't disagree. Though not a politician running for office, Mr. Kaminsky is doing the same thing with this article.
I think the volume and contents of the comments on the thread here support that contention, as generally happens everytime Mr. Kaminsky (whose writings I enjoy) addresses his own views on the abortion issue.
While certainly the views of a politician are more germane and relevant than that of a writer/ blogger/ trader, a nurse can be told by a physician "Heal thyself", and vice versa. I actually find it preferable to have everyone speak with candor, but I recognize the perils of it, and am suggesting that it does not merely apply to someone running for office.
That was my original point, in the event it was unclear.
mike 3/505| 10.24.12 @ 10:16AM
Big Al,
We're still buddies partner. See you Friday!
Regards,
Mike
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.24.12 @ 12:28PM
Looking forward to it.
Joellen| 10.24.12 @ 2:08PM
Al, you didnt need to clear up anything - you are right and we understand exactly what you were conveying. Kaminsky is wrong and is as guilty as those on the left who wish to distort, and even silence Mourdock. As for his comment "why so many call the GOP the stupid party", why Mr. Kaminsky, because we dare to stand firm in our beliefs. They can call us whatever they wish, and they will, and you Mr. Kaminsky still dont get it that we dont care what they call us. Now, for the record, I wouldnt call you stupid because you cant seem to understand that when we devalue life, nothing else is relevant. I wouldnt call you stupid because you dont understand how the social issues, such as aborting 50 plus million babies not only is immoral, but affects our economy. And I wouldnt call you stupid because you allowed the left to hold the narrative, thus allowing them to dictate to you how you must respond if you wish to be relevant in their world. I would ask you to re-think your position and try and understand that for many LIFE is precious, and that since they are defenseless (the babies in the wombs); it is our duty to be strong in their defense. If you wish to apologize to Congressman Mourdock, why dont you do so by contributing to his campaign. I am sure you can look his campaign info up.
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 11:14PM
There was no need to explain yourself, Albert. You were perfectly clear the first time.
Remember, brevity is the soul of wit.
Simon Templar| 10.23.12 @ 11:43PM
You are essentially correct in the idea that all politicians should be more careful with their choice of words and communicate their viewpoints more carefully. You are also correct that they should keep their comments and communications centered around their election and the specific job they are attempting to acquire through election.
You are wrong when you say that a politician must approve of abortions in the case of rape and other circumstances. You are wrong in that a politician must kowtow to political correctness, or fear being labeled extreme by the Liberals because he has not knelt down to what they term acceptable or not acceptable. That is exactly why we are in the mess we are in now. You need to calm down and refocus. He did not say God intended the rape. We do not have to roll over and shoot our candidates in the head because of the liberal establishment and their expected media exploitation of his misstatements and poor communication. Take a look at how they defend their candidates even when they are boldly lying, have made worse statements that are CLEARLY offensive, and have made similar mistakes in communication. Do not pile up on our own and help the liberals destroy an otherwise good man or candidate. Why are we stupid? Why are they not the stupid party with the likes of Joe Biden, and a hosts of other idiots that have said much worse.
CLD| 10.23.12 @ 11:57PM
"Take a look at how they defend their candidates even when they are boldly lying, have made worse statements that are CLEARLY offensive, and have made similar mistakes in communication."
An excellent point, Simon. For some reason, however, it is one that cannot penetrate the minds of the conservative movement's movers and shakers. (I think a book could be written on just why that is.)
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 12:05AM
"Why are we stupid? Why are they not the stupid party..."
For an answer to that, Simon, see my reply to Ross below.
Simon Templar| 10.23.12 @ 11:49PM
You play into their hands by writing such columns of reaction, emotion, and fear. This is exactly how they want us to react every, and I mean EVERY TIME, our guys a make one single mistake on anything. They want us to go along with this double standard. You seem to want to accommodate them at each instance.
Simon Templar| 10.23.12 @ 11:54PM
What you need to be doing is reporting on what was actually said, what was meant, and the context of the remarks including some education on how different people hold different views on this subject.
You also need to report on how some people might use this for political exploitation and manipulation and do so with lies, distortions, and misrepresentations and intimidation. This is the story, not the liberal narrative. Do you understand?
Simon Templar| 10.23.12 @ 11:59PM
You have power in that pen you wield, use it.
I wish I could get you to understand that this should not be about buying into liberal narratives, accusations, their double standards, and their viewpoints.
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 12:03AM
"he's just the latest example of why so many call the GOP the 'stupid party.'"
Indeed, but not as you meant, Ross.
You see, if the GOP were anything like an intelligent party its leaders would have realized that to take a stand against abortion must be consistent to be principled. Now a principle objection to abortion as violating the rights of unborn children -- which is the public stance of the GOP and the various pro-life factions that support it -- MUST call a position that allows abortion for rape and incest as mere moralizing.
If your Republican candidates are in any danger for voicing objection to such abortions, it is only because the GOP has not been morally consitent in its chosen position on abortion. So blame the Party and not the politician.
ejp| 10.24.12 @ 12:06AM
The question that really ought to be asked is why liberal candidates are not called out for THEIR extremism on abortion, such as taxpayer funding, lack of parental notification or consent, partial birth abortion, i.e all the things that legislators actually VOTE on when it comes to abortion (when anyone with an IQ of a thimble knows that NO legislation or bill banning abortions in case of rape is EVER going to come up in this or any other Congress). That this irrelevant hypothetical arouses ire from a left wing crowd that I would note threw out their concerns over the seriousness of rape when it was Roman Polanski (why is Whoopi Goldberg still on television after her "that wasn't rape rape" comments?) is the thing we should be writing about and pushing back with.
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 12:26AM
The reason that "liberal candidates are not called out for THEIR extremism on abortion" is the very same that puts anti-abortion candidates in jeopardy for opposing abortion for rape and incest: the inconsitency of the GOP's stance.
The pro-abortion people and their leftist allies are consistent: the pregnant woman has ALL the rights; the unborn child has NONE.
The GOP and the conservative movement claim to oppose this mentality, but then get squimish. Therein lies the problem.
Simon Templar| 10.24.12 @ 12:09AM
What we should be calling for is a clearer explanation and an apology to his supporters, his fellow citizens for his miscommunication. Then he needs to get back to his campaign.
Simon Templar| 10.24.12 @ 12:14AM
By the way, excellent points by all of you, very nice thread. Some actual food for thought and great contributions in taking this apart and looking at it in a big picture way.
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 12:21AM
And Ross,
I really hope you reply to my comment. I really do.
Because you're not the only one who can get angry at these things.
I completely endorse "nothing I never said ever hurt me." However, when I read this:
"I think he's just proven himself to be another person whose pro-life gut reactions trump what any intelligent person knows he should be saying in an election campaign"
it demonstrates that the conservative movement has no desire to morally consistent -- which is to say genuinely moral -- in its abortion position. Its position is simply a political convenience for attracting the religious -- which can be sacrificed when attracting the not-so religious is more important. What bullsh!t.
So please give us an answer as to why a consitent pro-lifer is a problem just for admitting to being one while the GOP (and the conservative movement in general) hypocricy on the matter is not.
JD| 10.24.12 @ 1:33AM
"I think he's just proven himself to be another person whose pro-life gut reactions trump what any intelligent person knows he should be saying in an election campaign -- by which I do not mean to imply that he should say anything he doesn't believe. He simply doesn't need to say everything he does believe, especially when those things have essentially nothing to do with what the election -- or the job he wants -- is really about."
Ross again finds himself having to compromise ideals in order to make his pro-abortion stand. Everything about that paragraph stinks. Hiding beliefs, deceiving the electorate, winning is more important than integrity... Yeah, we know, the Democrats do it, but that's what's supposed to make us different!
Like most abortion supporters, and many small-minded liberals in general, he thinks that because his side is currently getting its way AND argues that abortion isn't murder and thus isn't a big deal, WE who consider it murder should all be similarly disinterested in the issue.
Expecting the whole world to share your perspective, and acting as though they do to the point that you act as though alternate perspectives aren't a possibility - these are the characteristics of the small-minded leftist.
Mourdock should have stated that he believes nothing happens without God's consent. Using words that can be spun was his mistake. Telling the truth was not.
Occam's Tool| 10.24.12 @ 10:44AM
He said that rape is a terrible thing, but that human life is precious and must be preserved.
I'd vote for him, AND for Akin. Our opponents are going to run a sleazebag who also happens to be acutely psychotic (and, no doubt, a druggie as well) Jesse Jackson, Jr., for Congress. And he's going to win.
Our lack of support for Akin was a travesty. I'm donating $50 to Akin this week, and $50 to Mourdock, and $50 to Cravaack, and $50 to Bachmann, and a final $50 to Romney. I want to win. What Liberals think of me matters not to me.
We are not perfect. But our opponents are vermin.
Bumr50| 10.24.12 @ 1:38AM
This statement is NOTHING like what Todd Akin said.
It's not even mildly controversial or radical to anyone hearing the words objectively.
Akin spoke of something like a "magic uterus."
geronl| 10.24.12 @ 2:39AM
It's been a while since I've seen attacks on the RINO's who will jump at the chance to keep ObamaCare from being repealed. Why do "conservatives" always go after their own instead of the real enemies?
Bob S| 10.24.12 @ 1:58AM
Wow, so many in the Republican Party are sharks, waiting for the single drop of blood to go into a frenzy. Ross Kaminsky just continues to whip up the frenzy.
geronl| 10.24.12 @ 2:36AM
Why don't you guys run some attack articles on RINO's instead of conservatives? All he said was you don't kill a baby because of someone else's crime. I totally agree.
Truth to Power| 10.24.12 @ 7:53AM
Doesn't Murdoch know what is at stake? Not the lives of 50 million babies but the fact that Ross Kaminsky will have to pay higher taxes and live in a country that is bankrupt. If Murdoch could just see it that way I am sure he would just look the other way. All you have to do to live like Ross is don't ever look in detail at where the murders take place and don't let the bodies pile up. Dehumanize the victims and we are in business. It is like the Germans of not that old. Then the morally bankrupt Ross can live the happy life in Boulder with his liberal friends. First things first, Murdoch.
Ross Kaminsky| 10.24.12 @ 9:28AM
Tell me how Mourdock will further your goals or mine by losing.
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 11:19PM
Ah, but are your purported goals furthered by your doing your best to keep pols like Mourdock from winning?
That is the question that should be asked, Ross.
RAM| 10.24.12 @ 7:59AM
This ridicule of Richard Mourdock, an honest and thoughtful man, offends me. We can agree or disagree. Whart I see here above all is contempt for voters, who are expected to think in slogans and platitudes, and must be catered to at all costs.
Ross Kaminsky| 10.24.12 @ 8:44AM
RAM, he brought it on himself. That's exactly the problem.
Joellen| 10.24.12 @ 2:14PM
Ross, brought what on himself. He answered correctly, that LIFE is a gift from GOD. Many commentors stated it correctly, why would you attack him and not those who deliberately distorted what he said?
Ross Kaminsky| 10.24.12 @ 8:06AM
Bumr50: I understand it's slightly different from Akin, but won't be played that way by Dems in Indiana.
CLD and others: I realize I always stir it up when I write this stuff because so many of you commenters strongly believe abortion should be illegal, and I don't believe that.
Nevertheless, you will note that my criticism of Mourdock was not that he is anti-abortion, just as my criticism of Ken Buck was not for that.
But if Ken Buck hadn't opened his mouth about it (actually his problem was more something he said about homosexuality than abortion), then he would have won and we would probably not have Obamacare today.
Between Akin and now Mourdock (no matter how different you may think they are) we now stand a real risk of Harry Reid remaining Senate Majority Leader and the tremendous damage to the nation that would cost. I hope Mourdock wins, but what he said was stupid.
Again, I don't mean that he's stupid for believing it (though I don't believe it). He's stupid for saying it.
I see the same problem with some of the comments above that I see with members of the Libertarian Party: More interested in proving themselves right than in winning.
What is the point in having a candidate who shares the vast majority of your beliefs if he loses?
Ross Kaminsky| 10.24.12 @ 8:10AM
This election is about much more than abortion. It's about repealing Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. It's about fixing our tax code. It's about stopping our out of control spending, and fixing our entitlement systems.
Even if you thought it was about abortion, which I don't, there is almost nothing (other than tinkering around the edges of funding questions) which the government can do about it. But even if that were not true, a candidate can do essentially nothing to further his values or yours if he loses.
I understand the argument that opposing abortion in any situation is the consistent position for someone who believes that abortion is always murder. I am not looking to debate that with you because that is not my point.
My point is that Mourdock's words can easily be respun by his opponents as "Republican believes God approves of rape." Really, I bet the ad has already been made.
And that is what makes his words so freakin' stupid.
fmm| 10.24.12 @ 8:45AM
Exactly.
Occam's Tool| 10.24.12 @ 10:49AM
It is also true, however, that unless we change the Supreme Court's composition, Roe will not be overturned. The way to do that is by winning the Senate. And the way to do that is to know when to say something, and when to not say something, and remember that the Media is THE ENEMY.
Most journalists have ethics lower than child molesters. Mike Wallace, for example. They are filth whose only purpose for existence is to be spurned by any decent human, and to be warned of to our children as an example of what can go wrong with the gene pool. Our candidates need to have that drummed in their heads. Journalists, like the majority of actors, are human filth and scum.
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 11:44PM
"My point is that Mourdock's words can easily be respun by his opponents"
You're spinning on a gnat, Ross.
Most comments can be respun into anything by the deceitful. So what? Politicians shouldn't say anything?
When someone deceptively respins your words you throw that right back in his face with the proper accusation: LIAR!
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 11:49PM
"I realize I always stir it up when I write this stuff because so many of you commenters strongly believe abortion should be illegal, and I don't believe that."
Uh, no, Ross. This won't do. Not at all.
Please RE-READ what I wrote in this thread:
I said nothing about what legislators should do as to outlawing (or not) abortions. I pointed out that either the GOP and the greater conservative movement were going to be consistent with their public position that abortion violates the human rights of unborn children, or be forced into the position of merely being moralistic -- opposing abortion when the woman asked for the pregnancy via willed sexual behavior. That was my point.
Your views on just what legal measures should be taken on abortion don't matter. First we have to know whether you think all the rights belong to pregnant women; all the rights belong to unborn children; or neither. You haven't told us.
Should abortion not be illegal at 2 weeks gestation? At 12? 24? 40? I don't know.
What I do know is this: If you agree with the lefties that "the pregnant woman has ALL the rights; the unborn child has NONE," then you are a prime example of why the GOP and the conservative movement tends to be so hypocritical on abortion: They have endless tolerance for heretics in their midst. But such tolerance doesn't serve political movements any better than it does religions.
Ross Kaminsky| 10.24.12 @ 8:10AM
For the record, I believe that even saying something like "nothing happens without God's consent", as was suggested in a comment above, would also be stupid.
This election is about turning out the base AND getting swing voters. Talk about God finding some benefit in rape, or even that God allows/controls everything that happens is very off-putting to many swing voters.
The appropriate answer to any such question is something like "I have very strong personal views about abortion and the role of God in my life, but I want to talk about how many Hoosiers are unemployed, how many will lose their health insurance, how many small businesses are being destroyed due to Democrats in Washington, DC."
None of that is untrue, none of that betrays a principle.
ESPECIALLY when it comes to principled candidates, getting them elected is more important than proving to the world that they are morally pure or consistent.
I stand by everything I wrote last night.
JimH| 10.24.12 @ 8:14AM
If the objection to abortion is the idea that a human being is created at the point of conception and thus killing it would be murder, then allowances for conceptions by rape or incest are indeed quibbles; unless one is saying that such are the result of sinful activity and thus wrongful in God’s eyes. If that is the reason, one must also allow for any conception outside of marriage.
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 11:46PM
"For the record, I believe that even saying something like "nothing happens without God's consent", as was suggested in a comment above, would also be stupid."
Why? Since God is supposed to be omnipotent, how could anything happen without His consent?
Perhaps you should leave theology alone, Ross. (Which is also good advice for politicians.)
mike 3/505| 10.24.12 @ 8:12AM
Ross My Friend,
We only are at risk if we weasel out and don't defend our candidates. We don't need to apologize for Mourdock. We need to vociferously support him and his statement. We need to turn it around on the likes of Whoopie & Obama. why do we eat our own instead of taking the conversation away from the liberals/statists?
Regards,
Mike
Ross Kaminsky| 10.24.12 @ 8:41AM
Mike,
There is nothing I can do to make Mourdock's situation better or worse. He needs to fix it if he can.
Again, I want him to win, but as far as supporting his statement, I disagree with it so I'm not going to support it.
But again that's not my point. My point is that Mourdock turned the conversation on to a topic which should not be the focus of the election.
Isn't the PRIMARY goal to WIN?
If Mourdock loses and Akin loses, those fervent anti-abortion members of the GOP who are praising Mourdock for his moral purity will be facing a senate which continues to be run by the most pro-abortion Democrats in history. And everything else about the Democrats is even worse than that.
Rarely has a Senate majority been more important, especially if Romney wins. So rarely has a boneheaded statement been as damaging to the nation as that made by Mourdock (and that made by Akin.)
Why do we "eat our own"? Because they fail us repeatedly.
CLD| 10.24.12 @ 11:55PM
NO!
It's not Mourdock failing any "us." It's the conglomeration that calls itself the conservative movement (along with its party, the Republicans) that is failing.
The movement and its party publicly state a certain position vis-a-vis abortion. But when it comes to being consistent about it there are problems -- such as "conservatives" like Ross Kaminsky telling men like Mourdock to shut up for being too consistent.
The Leftists have actually consistent positions on things because they don't tolerate this sort of heresy in their midst.
The "conservatives" have to make up their mind: If they want people who like abortion in their group then the pro-life stance must go. If they want the pro-life stance to stay then the likes of Kaminsky must go. C'est la vie.
JP| 10.24.12 @ 8:41AM
Ross,
I kindly disagree. Mourdock, if I am not mistaken, was asked this question by the moderator. Both Mourock and Donnelly are Catholic. And his big mistake was using to use the indefinite pronoun "It", whose antecedent was "Life". In this case he was guilty of imprecise langauge and nothing more. Donnelly, of course took full advantage of this imprecision, as it sounded as if Mourdock was referring rape being the Will of God and not Life being the Will of God.
Mourdock's position is no different than the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, a man of his political experience should have been very careful when stating his Pro Life views (all life, even life concieved because of rape is precious to God and therefore must be protected).
I think a follow-up question should have been asked Joe Donnelly: "Would you drive a rape victim to an abortion clinic? If not, then shut up. If yes, then please see visit your local Bishop (Bishop Rhoades of the Ft Wayne South Bend Dioeces).
I think it is high time the Catholic hierarchy defend those politicans who are willing to stick their political necks out in defence of life and "correct" those Catholic politicians who don't.
Ross Kaminsky| 10.24.12 @ 8:43AM
JP,
Mourdock should have learned the lessons of Rick Akin and Ken Buck.
It doesn't matter if his position is the same or different from that of the Pope, or of God himself.
It matters that he's saying something that could cost him the election.
Changing the subject is not abandoning principle.
And so what if he was asked by the moderator? The moderator is trying to get the Democrat elected, and probably did just that in a race this close, though I hope Mourdock still finds a way to win. Politicians are well trained to answer the question they wanted to be asked, and Mourdock should have done just such a pivot.
JP| 10.24.12 @ 11:30AM
I agree with you about Atkins. But, what he said was that women who are raped can somehow prevent conception (ie if they are traumatized enough). And yes, Murdock could have given the standard pat answer Republicans usually give - which is close to what all politicans give (personally against, but would not impose it on anyone else). But,he made a conscience decision not to. Good for him. Bad for the GOP.
I don't know how much you've followed the Indiana GOP senate race. But, Murdock's problems began shortly after he defeated Lugar in the primaries. I don't know if he hired outside Beltway consultants, but from June through August he changed the tone of his campaign from a conservative-libertarian theme to a more "compassionate conservative" one. He failed to highlight Joe Donnelly's critical votes on ObamaCare as well as Donnelly's support of Dodd-Frank. In the meantime Donnelly did a fantatstic job rebranding himself. Donnelly now brands himself as a fiscal conservative, pro gun, pro life Democrat who only wants to work with Republicans. By September Murdock and Donnelly were in a statistical tie. By last week, Murdock (thanks to outside PAC ads) was up by 6.
I do repsect Murdock's courage in standing up for Pro Life voters and I don't think it will be his Pro Life stance that will do him in (we're talking Indiana here and not New York). His campagin problems began much earlier.
This seems to be a theme for GOP Senate candidates nationwide.
CLD| 10.25.12 @ 12:02AM
Oh, no I've really had enough. I should no better than to be such a masochist as to read all the posts, but I can't seem to help myself...
Here is Ross Kaminsky telling all candidates to forget what they think God wants them to do -- just say and do whatever it takes to get elected.
Spare us the pretense that you give a crap about any principle here at all. You'd just as soon Donnelly be elected than a (consistently) abortion-opposing Republican. Men like Mourdock don't help your position in the conservative movement, now do they?
I know this sounds cynical, but how else are we to interpret your crass blowing off of JP's quite correct comment that "Would you drive a rape victim to an abortion clinic? If not, then shut up. If yes, then please see visit your local Bishop." SOB's like Donelly like to throw around their religious creds same as Republicans. Unlike Republicans, however, it's all just for show.
RTA| 10.24.12 @ 12:50PM
With all respect, I do not think this was an example of poor phrasing. If you believe that God “intended” a particular life, than either God intended the rape as well, or God did not intend the rape, but once it happened, swooped in not to stop the rape, but to “make the life.” God as opportunistic child-maker who will take advantage of a rape to get a woman pregnant, which almost makes God look like an accomplice to the rape. This is not the same as saying "all life is precious to God," which is silent about intent, and could be interpreted to mean God loves all life no matter how it came about -- very different position.
Worse, it undermines a logically consistent argument against the rape exception. That being that since 1) all human life has equal value, and 2) human life begins at conception, 3) there should be no abortion exception for rape, as that would violate point 1 (clear, logical). Mourdock’s comment is irrelevant to this. Is he implying that a life that God theoretically did not “intend” would be unworthy of protection? Is God then pro-choice toward unintended pregnancies? It’s just a bizarre comment all around IMO.
Mick Lee| 10.24.12 @ 9:31AM
Look. Anyone who is Biblically literate knows what Mourdock was alluding to. (Hint: Joseph confronting his brothers in Egypt.) The problem is that what most Americans know of the Bible wouldn't fill a thimble.
That being said, however morally inconsistent as it may be, the American public simply will not accept any bans on abortion without exceptions for health, rape, and incest—and that fact is not about to change for the foreseeable future. Mourdock should stress the compromise he can accept instead of a law he would approve in a more perfect America.
Truth to Power| 10.24.12 @ 9:53AM
This is the problem with Libertarians. They don't just want to agree where we can. They want us to shut up. Mourdock, in their minds should answer dishonestly so he doesn't offend their bankrupted sensibilities. We live in a country where more than a million babies are killed each year and hardly any of them are the result of rape and incest. They are the victims of their god-like mothers for convenience. At this time there is no legal compromise possible. Mourdock has to compromise his moral position to satify dregs like Kaminisky. As with mamograms at Planned Parenthood clinics this is a phony issue. This is a debating tool designed to compromise the pro-life candidate. Kaminsky would have us permantly surrender to this false argumentation. Thanks but no thanks.
By the way most Americans apparently want to see rich folks like Kaminsky pay higher taxes. Maybe we shouldn't try to argue that there is a problem with this idea and just vote with the Democrats to raise taxes until people magically change their minds. For this one election we could agree to let Kaminsky get it like the French and no doubt we could win the election more easily. This is a stupid approach here as well.
Ross Kaminsky| 10.24.12 @ 10:41AM
Again, nobody said he should "answer dishonestly."
Not saying "I believe X" is not the same as saying "I don't believe X."
For the record, if tax rates go up on the top 1%, I will not see my taxes increase. Not sure what you mean by "rich folks" though I suppose I'm not poor.
You stumbled upon one good point by accident: Letting America "get it like the French" is already happening, and maybe Americans need to get it even worse before they figure out that you can't just "soak the rich" and expect to thrive or even survive. We are living Atlas Shrugged.
Truth to Power| 10.24.12 @ 3:14PM
The American people think that you can soak the rich. Many think that it will solve all our problems. I understand what you say but if we want to win we need to get on board and give ourselves the best chance of winning. We have tried to make the argument and it is time to give up. They want higher taxes. Leading from polls is not leading, it is surrendering to demagogues. It is not surprising that a morally bankrupt country is a literally bankrupt country.
rightwinger| 10.24.12 @ 10:48AM
Anyone with a single digit political IQ should know that outlawing abortion in cases of rape is politically poisonous, about a 20% position. Also, senators will never even vote on the issue. What Mourdock should have said is something like "Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land so no one in the Senate can change it until and if the Supreme court overturns this decision. If that should occur, we still won't have any say in the matter. The abortion issue would then be returned to the states and each of them will be able to regulate it as they see fit. Some will keep it legal in most or all cases while others will put at least some restrictions on the practice. I, myself am pro-life."
In '10, the GOP lost winnable senate races in Del, Nev, and Colorado by nominating weak candidates who were easily branded as too conservative. This year Akin will almost certainly lose Mo and now Mourdock might do the same in In.
I live in In and voted for Mourdock thinking that Romney's coattails would be enough to push him over the finish line. Now even that's questionable. Geesh.
JP| 10.24.12 @ 1:25PM
Christine O'Donnell would not have won Delaware no matter what her politics were. But, that was preferable to having a GOP Senator who votes with the Dems 50% of the time. Additionally, if Carly Fiona and Meg Whitman are too conservative for the GOP than the GOP has problems (both are to the Left of Mitt).
For decades I've listend to Conservatives bitch about the fecklessness of our Republican Senators. From 2003-2007 the GOP ran the Senate in which the likes of Lindsay Graham, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and Arlene Specter ran things. And from 1950 to Present the GOP nominated and/or approved of Justices like Brennen, Stewart, Burger, Blackmon, Stevens, O'Conner, and Kennedy (Brennen, Burger and Blackmon were part of the Roe majority). In the big scheme of things the GOP is just as culpable for Roe and every abortion in this nation as the Dems. As I said before Murdock's biggest gaffe was his imprecise language. But, it does no good when Conservatives show absolutely no honor or guts in defendiing him (Mike Pence this morning went as far as to demand Mourdock apologize).
What Republicans and Conservatives are really saying is that Abortion is totally off limits. The Dems won and the subject should be avoided at all costs. It is a good thing the Republicans in 1859 had more courage vis-a-vis slavery than today's Republicans show concerning abortion.
rightwinger| 10.24.12 @ 2:14PM
Regarding Delaware, I'd much rather have a moderate GOP'er who votes with us half the time than a D who never does (remember we're talking about very blue Delaware here). Fiona and Whitman were not our senatorial candidates in Nev or Col, they ran for senator/governor of California. I was referring to Angle in Nev and Buck in Col.
CLD| 10.25.12 @ 12:15AM
No, stupid,
Mourdock shouldn't have said Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. It isn't.
Where did we get the notion that acts of Congress can be unconstitutional and therefore null and void, but nothing of the kind can be true of acts of the Supreme Court? Or more bluntly: who died and made the Supreme Court God all F*cking mighty.
CLD| 10.25.12 @ 12:34AM
"Anyone with a single digit political IQ should know that outlawing abortion in cases of rape is politically poisonous, about a 20% position."
Probably true, rightwinger. However, anyone with a single digit IQ (political or otherwise) should know that Republicans, conservatives, and abortion opponents in general have had DECADES to alter that reality. The way to do so is to point out the simple truth I have repeatedly above: that the rape/incest exception is just moralizing. But they haven't done so. Hence the problem.
rlranger907| 10.24.12 @ 11:24AM
I think Ross' point is that the question of what to do about a child conceived as a result of rape isboth an opportunity for elaborate digression into backchannels of moral theology, and a political trap. Saying the former is not intended to ridicule the beliefs of those who believe that no abortion should be countenanced under any circumstances. But it is to suggest that Ross may have a point when he grabs Mourdock by the metaphorical lapels to remind him that the principal crisis facing our nation is not an epidemic of conceptions resulting from rape.
And, to those who have been providing full throated support to Mr. Mourdock and his answer in this case, this question: If, under this reasoning, the State can compel a woman who is raped to carry the child that is the product of that rape to term, who is responsible for that child? Just asking. Yes, indeed, these are hypotheticals, but if it is to be the considered position of Republicans or conservatives that babies conceived in rape should not be aborted - period - which is a logical consequence of a sincerely held anti-abortion position, what is to be the State's ongoing responsibility in such cases?
JD| 10.24.12 @ 3:45PM
What is the state's responsibility if the child has already been born?
JP| 10.24.12 @ 11:38AM
This issue might resonate in the blogesphere and national media. But, Indiana is still Indiana. Mitt is up by close to 15 points here. And I don't think most Hoosiers will split their ticket this time around (they did with Evan Bayh and Lugar when Clinton was President).
In yesterday's news the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a law signed by Govenor Daniels that defunded Medicare subsidized abortions. People here are more upset with that ruling than with last night's Senate debate.
Donnelly will do well in the few Dem distrcits in Indiana. He might also get the few independents in this state. But, he will more than likely lose by 4 points or more due to Mitt's strong showing here. It is a GOP year in Indiana.
Tom Kyba| 10.24.12 @ 11:57AM
I agree with Ross and rightwinger.
CJW| 10.24.12 @ 1:30PM
From a practical realpolik analysis, it is a complete waste of time for Rep candidates to discuss their views on abortion for the simple reason that their views are largely meaningless and irrelevant.
The only way to outlaw abortion is a constitutional amendment. Period. Congress cannot limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide cases dealing with constitutional rights, which abortion is now such a right.
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe/Casey on the basis that there is no constitutional right to abortion, then the issue will revert to the states. Some states will be more pro life than others, and then there will be the issue of howt the constitution of each state applies.
There are 57 states so we may have 57 different laws on abortion ranging from no abortion to abortion on demand, which is essentially what we now have.
So if we want to outlaw abortion we need a constitutional amendment.
CLD| 10.25.12 @ 12:11AM
I'm sorry CJW, but your comment is rubbish.
If the Supreme Court ruled that killing one's grandmother was a constitutional right, that wouldn't mean that Congress, the President, and all 50 States (NOT 57) would be bound to recognize such right.
The Court has no power to force the States to obey its rulings. It cannot force Congress to fund it. It cannot force the President to enforce its rulings. We the People are free to tell the Court to stick its Roe ruling up its collective ass any time we please. It is only the fact that the American people are sheeple led by political careerists that this hasn't happened.
CJW| 10.25.12 @ 7:45AM
It may be rubbish to you, but it is the law, whether you like it or not.
CLD| 10.28.12 @ 5:27PM
Don't read well, CJW, do you.
I explained perfectly well that IT ISN'T THE LAW. The ruling is unconstitutional and therefore NULL AND VOID. Get it? Probably not as you're obviously stupid.
The next time you think about replying to me for the sake of disagree make sure you can offer actual arguments for why I'm wrong, or STFU.
God, I hate stupid people.
CLD| 10.28.12 @ 5:28PM
Oh, and by the way, to CJW and anyone else who likes to call court rulings "the law" regardless of what they say:
The next time a court tells you to jump off a bridge I expect you to obey without question. A$$holes.
kingsmill| 10.24.12 @ 2:18PM
Kaminsky is always available to echo the pro-aborts.
JP| 10.24.12 @ 2:30PM
Fiona ran for the California Senate seat in 2010. Meg Whittman ran for govenor. Sharron Angle's problem wasn't abortion.
And Mike Castle wasn't a moderate. He was a liberal who voted against the GOP 50% of the time while in the House. If he was a moderate, then I suppose Jim Jeffords and Arlene Specter were Moderates as well.
rightwinger| 10.24.12 @ 3:31PM
On 2nd thought, you're probably right about Angle. I certainly don't think that Fiona & Whitman are too conservative for the GOP, far from it. On Delaware, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It seems to me that you have to be realistic in blue states like Delaware. A strong conservative can't win there, that's just the way it is. Castle did say, IIRC, that he would vote to overturn Obamacare. He'd be with us on some votes and against us on others. It's similar to a D in Mississippi. An ultra leftist like Pelosi could never win a statewide race there, only a moderate to conservative would have a chance.
JP| 10.24.12 @ 4:27PM
You could be right. But, the track record of Senate GOP lawmakers isn't good. When the heat is turned up and lobbyists come a knocking, the GOP usually backs down and "reaches across the aisle".
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.24.12 @ 7:30PM
As a Delaware resident who voted for O'Donnell in the primary against Castle (though I was surprised that she won), while there were national implications, there were other things, as well. I posted this here at the time in 2010:
"My review of the record is that her views are much more in accord with mine than Mr. Castle’s. If a majority of those voting in the Republican primary concur, she will win on 091410. If not, then Castle will. I have, however, refrained from trumpeting my disappointments with Castle (other than his stands/votes on issues important to me) because I understand that should he be the victor in the primary, I don’t wish the bullets I used in the primary to be used against the Republican candidate in the general, thereby making Castle less electable should he be victorious in the primary. Those who have opposed O’Donnell have not been so restrained. "
I also added:
"I have yet to hear anyone from the Castle camp suggest that they would support O’Donnell should she be victorious. "
My last remark was quite prophetic. Though in the end, O'Donnell lost, my thought that Castle was a treacherous ungrateful RINO unworthy of my primary support (based on his performance in office) was further validated by his actions following his loss. While that means one less Republican in the Senate, he turned his back on those who had campaigned for him in the past (as I had), and didn't earn my vote.
As I said at the time, sic semper rhinocerous.
kingsmill| 10.24.12 @ 2:36PM
"For the record, I believe that even saying something like "nothing happens without God's consent", as was suggested in a comment above, would also be stupid."
Wow, this is the height of moral cowardice. You have just sided with Sebelius and Obama, who want to restrict the First Amendment to "freedom of worship" , e.g. your religious freedom stops at the entrance and exits at your place of worship.
Your call to restrict political speech to a utilitarian calculus is cowardly. By your standard Lincoln should have stuck to his earlier view that slaves should be repatriated to Africa or other remote climes because it would have played better electorally. Chilling.
ejp| 10.24.12 @ 3:26PM
Gee Ross, if you think the GOP is "stupid" if it has candidates who aren't afraid to be candid about a legit position in the moral debate on abortion (certainly more legit than the crap the left gets away with with their abortion as holy sacrament mentality and where NARAL and company must have veto power over judicial appointments), then I'd like to know if you think Ronald Reagan, who did not believe in either of those two exceptions (rape and incest) and said so publicly was "stupid"?
rlranger907| 10.24.12 @ 3:55PM
JD - You raise a good question. What is the state's responsibility if the child is born? Obviously, much depends upon who claims the child as its parents. And, again, this is all delving into the world of hypotheticals. I only raise the question because I would hope that even "hard line" (and I really dislike use of that modifier in this instance) pro-lifers would agree that the crime of rape ought not to be compounded by burdening the victim with the associated medical bills or any legal responsibility for the child so conceived. And no one ever seems to discuss these issues.
CLD| 10.25.12 @ 12:24AM
Here you are moralizing, rlranger907.
What does "burdening burdening the victim with the associated medical bills or any legal responsibility for the child so conceived" have to do with rape? Any woman who is impregnated without wanting to be considers herself a "victim."
As for medical bills being a burden, any pregnant woman -- rape victim or not -- either has pre-natal care and delivery to pay for, or an abortion to pay for, so I don't see where you going with this.
As for legal responsibility, we don't force that on any mother. She can always put her child up for adoption. So you've gone exactly nowhere with this.
"who claims the child as its parents"? Are you serious with this? REally? Either the biological parents claim the child or they give the child up for adoption. The state's duties to the child remain the same either way.
Simon Templar| 10.24.12 @ 4:16PM
I would like to make a prediction. When the onslaught lying and media blitz coming out about Romney and his testimony in a divorce case breaks the news, Ross will abandon Romney and pile on with the others who will run scared and throw the towel in....Do not expect a vigorous defense.
er| 10.24.12 @ 8:43PM
Aw, c'mon Mr. Kaminsky; don't get your bloomers in a bunch! Imagine , people believing that God creates children as a blessing, and not as a punishment. And imagine expressing those beliefs! And imagine reasonable journalists like you freaking out with Liberal verbiage to stifle that "free" speech. I'm betting on Akin AND Mourdock both win BECAUSE of the strength of their convictions. You go ahead and play the Karl Rove game of "win a majority at any cost", and see if that reduces the size of government and re invigorates the virtue of the citizenry.