<< Another condescending LA Times editorial | Main | Follow-up on Ferguson >>

Mourdock's comments

| 1 Comment
Oh, God, not again.

From the standpoint of victims of crime, there is no question that a United States Senate with a Republican majority will be far better than our present Democrat-majority Senate.  In particular, a Judiciary Committee chaired by Chuck Grassley would be a vast improvement for victims of crime and the law-abiding public over the present committee chaired by Patrick Leahy.

Yet the majority that once seemed within reach has grown another step more distant today, as a Republican candidate in a tight race has made an astonishingly stupid comment about rape and pregnancy.  This time it is Richard Mourdock in Indiana.  Aaron Blake and Chris Cillizza have this post at the WaPo with Mourdock's statement and sort-of-apology.

It is better for rape victims, along with all victims, if Mourdock wins the race, but he is not helping himself or them with a boneheaded comment and an insufficient retraction/apology.

1 Comment

In another venue, I spelled out this morning how Repbulican candidates should answer this sort of question. It's not that hard to figure out.

"I am pro-life and have been for years. Human life is sacred and deserves protection. Beyond that, I am not going to get drawn into these sorts of "gotcha" questions on wedge issues. They are brought up so that my opponent can divert attention from his support for Barack Obama's disatrous record on jobs, growth and unsustainable debt. Those are the issues voters are interested in and the ones I'll be talking about."

Two fundamental rules of campaigning are don't let the questioner establish the vocabulary for your answer, and stay on message. Like I say, this is not that hard to figure out.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives