Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Richard Mourdock for Senate (still)

Richard Mourdock for Senate (still)

Nothing has changed, in my view.

Mourdock’s comments are being portrayed as “pro-rape” by his political opponents, but that is a gross mischaracterization. 

Some thoughtful writers have pointed this out even as they disagree with Mourdock on substance, including this post at WaPo by Melinda Hennenberger:

Last spring, I spent a morning shadowing Mourdock as he went door-knocking in Evansville, then interviewed him at length over coffee. This fall, we spoke again, at a campaign event in Indianapolis, and when his aides finally pulled him out the door, he called me from his truck and stayed on the line until every last question had been answered. He’s an earnest and emotional guy, tearing up repeatedly as he spoke of America’s greatness and challenges. As I’ve written before, one thing I appreciate about him — and was pretty sure would get him into trouble — is that he will answer any question he’s asked, directly, fully, and the first time. If he were elected, Washington would have one more straight-talker, but there’s a price for letting it roll, and he’s paying it….

What Mourdock says he meant is that life is always intended, though violence never is…. Donnelly commercials contain more than a kernel of truth about his avowed contempt for compromise. But because he worships a God who likes to see women humiliated? That’s willful distortion, it seems to me….

The writer I probably agree with more often than any other, Amy Sullivan, now at the New Republic, wrote Thursday that “I don’t think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape exceptions because they hate women or want to control women. I think they’re totally oblivious and insensitive and can’t for a moment place themselves in the shoes of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rape.” Just this once, even Amy and I part company, because I do understand those who oppose exceptions, though I myself don’t.

That’s because opposition with no exceptions is the logical conclusion of believing that life begins at conception — just as some have argued that post-birth abortion is the logical conclusion of believing that abortion’s fine at any point and for any reason. That’s why so many of us are in the messy, inconsistent middle, wary of the investigative nightmare that criminalization would set off, but also uncomprehending of the logic that it’s only a baby if and when we say it is….

[R]ape isn’t a joke, and shouldn’t ever be used to score political points; if you can’t get it right, maybe you really shouldn’t say anything at all.

As between Joe Donnelly, himself allegedly pro-life, and Richard Mourdock, it’s an easy choice.  

Donnelly is the shameless huckster who will wilfully distort his opponent’s words to try to take advantage of rape; Mourdock is the straight shooter who honestly and openly struggles with the slippery slope of his belief in the sanctity of life.  I’ll take that straight shooter any day.

I just made another donation to Mourdock.  You should too.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Nobody who takes Mourdock in context could conclude he is “pro rape”.

And only in the fevered, cartoonish visions of conservatives a’la GrrrrBuffalo (see the video side-bar) could the “pro rape” delusion actually live.

But that does not stop the Collective from projecting it as another boogeyman to divide and conquer.

If there were time I’d suggest an ad for Mourdock featuring a person who was the result of a rape.

“Joe Donnelly and Barack Obama wish I were dead. They believe that I could have been, no should have been killed without a second thought.

My mother is glad I’m alive. Why aren’t Joe Donnelly and Barack Obama.”

I thought M’s answer not crazy, but theological, not political. Even Obama did not digest thus eith much comprehension. I am still bitter over my own representative, Bart Stupak, and his professed pro life – catholic stand regarding Obamacare and how he folded like a house of cards.

Any one who is moderate and considering voting for a Democrat for US Senate or House should look not to the candidate, but skip right to Pelosi and Reid for information on what they will do in office.

That is not true of Republicans.

I wasn’t able to donate anything to anyone before but I will now. I’m appalled at what the left does to good people.

Professor: Your thinking and moral clarity as layed out in this post are unique. As are the bulk of the comments. At times there can be a bit much groupthink displayed but generally it is on target. The only other comparable spot is American Thinker. That LI is interactive makes it by itself.

I don’t know what is smart politics on this, but the visceral effect of using rape to argue, could be countered with the more visceral ideals of our pro-abortion president. Our cold blooded president doesn’t seem to think a nine month old that survives abortion is really human.

But maybe that is a waste of money, though web ads to use on social media might help. One social media ad I saw distributed argued some poorer people would die, because they wouldn’t be able to afford to travel to a state where abortion was legal. (if Romney judges overturned Roe v Wade)

casualobserver | October 26, 2012 at 11:20 am

It isn’t like this is a new topic or that rape is a new angle to the issue. It just amazes me that politicians and wanna be politicians aren’t well prepped or haven’t thought out exactly how to phrase their positions. After all, there isn’t an issue the press/media/left in general uses more to score points than abortion and the rape and incest exceptions. No answer should be vague. Every answer must decry the acts involved, without exception. Whenever you have to follow up with a “what I meant” series, you have lost.

    DemNoMore in reply to casualobserver. | October 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Thank you. I said as much in some comments on another site, but nobody seemed to agree. These candidates have to know this sensitive issue will be the basis for intense questioning and that whatever they say will be parsed and dissected and twisted. That they don’t spend enough prep time to get their stance condensed to a clear, concise response and stick to that just drives me crazy. It’s like they just decide to wing it and end up stammering around like Obama without a teleprompter. But unlike how they cover for Obama, the LSM does their best to crucify these guys. And now this pro-choice woman is again going to donate to Mourdock, because (although I disagree with him on substance) I understand his words are being unfairly twisted beyond all recognition; and he is still the best man for the job.

Our civilization is on the brink of oblivion and yet we still have the luxury of men running for office making idiosyncratic comments about rape and abortion that only draws attention to their (constitutionally protected) beliefs but doesn’t shed light on if they would conversely uphold the constitution for anyone with contrary beliefs.

Is Mourdock just a single issue candidate? Does he have an economic position that will benefit his so-called pro-life and pro-choice constituents equally?

Melinda Hennenberger concluded her WaPo article with “[R]ape isn’t a joke, and shouldn’t ever be used to score political points; if you can’t get it right, maybe you really shouldn’t say anything at all.”

A similar advice already exist in the same Book that is presumably the basis of Mourdock’s beliefs.

“Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.” Proverbs 17:28

Leaving aside the argument as to when “life begins”; if you are of the persuasion that it has clearly began at conception–which is certainly the position of the Catholic Church and like the position of any orthodox religion–then all abortion is murder. The death penalty for the child is imposed because of the crime committed by its father? Wow.

Agree or not with Mourdock’s position, it is entirely consistent. I salute him for standing by his principles. That salute will be followed with a small donation–I have no idea what else he stands for or doesn’t. I just appreciate any politician with the faintest evidence of backbone.

JackRussellTerrierist | October 26, 2012 at 2:27 pm

I happen to agree with Mourdock, but could he not have found a way to either dodge the question or more politic way of answering?

In other words, why did he have to pick this particular moment to FEED THE BEAST?????

Why are ‘pubs so politically deaf time and time and time again?

    I don’t think he picked the moment — I think it was thrust upon him. He should have been better prepared, but I don’t think weaseling around and trying to dodge the question is the solution. Like lichau in the above comment, I appreciate that he has a backbone. If his belief is that life begins at conception, I respect him for standing up and saying that. I disagree with him and you on substance, but I’m not choosing who to vote for or donate to on that one issue, especially this year.

[…] An Honest Man Posted on October 26, 2012 1:30 pm by Bill Quick » Richard Mourdock for Senate (still) – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion […]

Stay on message: It’s the economy, stupid. If these guys would stay on message, they would not have their words twisted by the liberal media.