Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest, he said at a Tuesday night debate, because pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended to happen.”
Mourdock, who is in a tight race with Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly, was responding to a question about whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.
“I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception,” the tea party-backed Mourdock said. “The only exception I have, to have an abortion, is in that case of the life of the mother.
“I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said, appearing to choke back tears. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Mourdock has "clarified" his remarks, saying that obviously "God does not want rape," but the damage has been done. He's being raked over the coals by just about everybody, even bus-undered by Mitt Romney. About the harshest reaction I saw was this "Richard Mourdock, misogynist" piece by Irin Carmon at salon.com:
Here’s why this is happening: The newer crop of Republican candidates and elected officials, are, more often than not, straight from the base. They’re less polished than their predecessors; they’re more ideologically pure. As a result, they’ve accidentally been letting the mask slip and showing what’s really at the core of the right-to-life movement.
For years, the movement has fought plausible charges that it is anti-woman by repackaging its abortion restrictions, in Orwellian fashion, as protections for women. They’ve done it so successfully that until recently, when so many alleged “gaffes” went viral, no one really noticed.
Even conservative sites like Powerline and American Spectator are on Mourdock's case, both of which point to him as an example of why the GOP is often called "the stupid party":
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.
[. . .]
While his explanations make sense in the context of a religious belief, his comment was political suicide.
There's a lot of criticism from the right saying Mourdock should have steered away from social issues in an election that is so obviously about economic issues. Some critics, while not exactly saying he should lie about where he stands, suggest strongly that he keep as many of his controversial views under wraps as possible.
My thoughts, for what they're worth:
1. Mourdock was simply trying to say that "all life comes from God and is precious," which is not exactly a startling pro-life position.
2. But he said it very clumsily. He seemed to be saying that rape is intended by God.
3. Of course he din't mean that.
4. But what he said can easily be construed to mean that.
5. It will be so construed, for great political gain.
Can you imagine, this single remark might cost Mourdock this very close election. That might make the difference between a GOP-controlled Senate and a Democratic-controlled one. That could change the course of the future. So much hinging on one sentence uttered in one debate.
I have to say I wasn't totally shocked by this. I've interviewed Mourdock several times, one for this Senate camapign and the other times in connection with his state treasurer's job. And he has always been candid to the point where bold honesty meets reckless abandon. During the most recent interview he had an aide with him whose main job, I suspect, was to keep Mourdock's tongue in check. At one point in the interview, Mourdock said, "I probably shouldn't say this. . ." and before he could get another word out, the aide said, "Well, then, don't."
It's a legitimate issue -- yes? -- whether a candidate's tendency to speak recklessly might be of concern to voters.
