Romney campaign: We still support Mourdock
Source: Washington Post
Mitt Romney has disavowed the comments made Tuesday by Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who called pregnancies resulting from rape something that God intended. But the Republican presidential candidate still supports Mourdock.
The Romney campaign has not asked Mourdocks campaign to pull a television advertisement featuring Romneys endorsement, a Romney campaign official said Wednesday morning.
Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr. Mourdocks comments do not reflect Gov. Romneys views, Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him.
President Obamas campaign is working to tie Mourdock to Romney, while a number of Republican senators have distanced themselves from the Senate candidate.
-snip-
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/24/romney-campaign-we-still-support-mourdock/
Kber
(5,043 posts)pointsoflight
(1,372 posts)It's fair game. National ads. Right now, Romney has a little bit of an out since he endorsed the guy before the statements. Much harder to defend continued support after the statements.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)central scrutinizer
(11,666 posts)He may have chosen his words better but the outcome for a woman pregnant as the result of a rape is the same. Romney is joined at the hip with Akin/Ryan/Mourdock
beac
(9,992 posts)in a OFA ad by the end of the day.
What the hell would someone have to say to lose Romney's support??
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)order to produce children. Have it your way, Mittens.
LisaL
(44,980 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)mentally challenged.
.99center
(1,237 posts)This is the first time he hasn't shook the Etch N Sketch since his primary ended. Mitt stands firmly for rape!
doublethink
(6,823 posts)MrYikes
(720 posts)marble falls
(57,461 posts)was honest and he won't deny or disavow the disembowelment, their positions are 99.44% the same. No reason to vote for one if you won't vote for the other.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Rising Tide
(5 posts)What people don't realize is a rapist if convicted will serve about 5 years in jail.
If the victim is forced by the government to bear the child, the rapist can apply for visitation after he gets out of prison.
If the rapist is convicted of a lesser crime, sexual battery for example, he'll serve about two years in prison.
Then he can apply for visitation.
If the rapist isn't prosecuted... there's nothing but bad news for the victim and the child.
The perpetrator or convicted felon can apply for visitation at their local Family Court AND the court will side with the perpetrator AGAINST the mother.
At the expense of the taxpayer the judge may appoint an advocate or even an attorney to aid the perpetrator or felon in securing visitation through the court.
Imagine the victim being FORCED by the Court to turn the child over to their rapist every other weekend, half the summer and every other Christmas.
What do the republicans have to say about this?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Welcome to DU, btw
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Chain Willard to this troglodyte and watch them BOTH sink into the mud at the bottom of the swamp.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)...even though his comments are just as outrageous as Akins.
daleo
(21,317 posts)The fact that rape keeps being brought up - it just seems to indicate a very peculiar episode in the political culture's evolution, or perhaps devolution. I suppose it's a concrete example of how religious fundamentalism turns back the clock, even in an advanced society, if given half a chance.