Note: Mourdock's Democratic opponent is also Anti-Choice

Anyone in good conscious support someone who believes a woman who was raped must carry to term? I do not care if they have a D after there name, that,is garbage

If those are both candidates position without exceptions they are both anti- women

A Democrat must stand for at the very minimum exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the Mother, or they can go to hell to in my book

Same then in my view both believe women are inferior, and in good conscience if I lived in that state I would not vote for either candidate.

However, if he at least holds those exceptions, while not ideal, do differentiate him enough that the Democrat should be voted for

I say let him do what he has to do to get elected. The alternative is much worse.


Remember he will caucus with Dems. That keeps Mitch McConnell from being majority leader. That's a good enough reason to support him to me!



We need a big tent if we want to be a majority party.



Believe me, seeing Dick Lugar's old seat potentially go to a Dem is a big deal. Its like when Brown stole Kennedy's seat in 2010, only this time we have the advantage.


Lugar was untouchable here for nearly all of my life.

Some of them will post on this thread. *sigh*

Any Democrat is better than a Republican.

It's still one more vote for Reid as Majority Leader.

incest and to protect a woman's life.

From linked article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203937004578077122446378616.html

at least I could accept those exceptions.


Anyone who would force a women who has been raped to carry to term is not part of a civilized society

just a single issue. It is as abhorent as racism. To force a women who has been raped to carry to term is contemptible on many levels

Saying that "government policies should encourage life and make it easier to adopt children" is not the same as saying "make abortion illegal."