That's true of course, but do we really want to encourage a climate where candidates are afraid to state any of their views except in pre-approved formulations and soundbites that are carefully calculated to avoid all negative impressions? I have no problem with hammering a candidate for genuinely ignorant or offensive statements, but when the statement merely seems offensive to those who can't be bothered to parse it properly, or refuse to parse it properly because that's politically convenient for them, well, then I think it should be defended. And I don't think he's an idiot just because he went and said something that (presumably) wasn't literally what his spin doctors had told him to say.
I think the climate is already here, for most. For those it isn't we have face saving climb downs which completely distract from what they originally said, if possible.
The latter seems to me to be the case here - any value from bucking the current climate is undone by Mourdock having to try to pour oil on the waters that his original comment caused.
Sensible would have been to get elected then try to start an intelligent debate on it, as the atmosphere would have been (slightly) less heated and there would have been less pressure on him to save face.
It may be the reality, but realities can be changed. Will have to be changed, honestly - the polarization and craziness in American politics has gotten so out of hand these past few years, it can't keep going on forever.
I hope so, but I'm not sure weeks out from the presidential election is a smart time to do it? Seems kind of kamikaze to me
*MySmiley*
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
every time a republican candidate mentions rape, i think of the following video
- 25/10/2012 05:58:16 PM
753 Views
that's hilarious and evokes a "what the shit?" much like all those gop jackasses.
- 25/10/2012 08:03:24 PM
429 Views
The sole difference between Western and Mideast fundamentalists is the god blamed for intolerance
- 26/10/2012 01:29:54 AM
410 Views
I am SO GOING to get flamed for asking this 
- 25/10/2012 08:45:21 PM
447 Views
- 25/10/2012 08:45:21 PM
447 Views
No, because God did not have sex with Mary.
- 25/10/2012 09:23:12 PM
555 Views
Closer than Roland, but still off.
- 25/10/2012 09:51:12 PM
436 Views
However parsed, since Marys supposed sinlessness is through Christs conception, it is retroactive
- 25/10/2012 10:10:48 PM
418 Views
The point I am horrible job making is this
- 25/10/2012 10:12:53 PM
443 Views
The biblical narrative states an act of CONCEPTION without an act of SEX.
- 25/10/2012 10:37:48 PM
404 Views
New GOP Congressmen daily refute the GOPs pretended support of rape exceptions to abortion bans.
- 25/10/2012 10:07:21 PM
653 Views
This is not a source I generally resort to, but let me quote John Cornyn:
- 25/10/2012 11:11:04 PM
417 Views
I think he is an idiot for saying it
- 25/10/2012 11:53:01 PM
419 Views
How cynical.
- 26/10/2012 12:02:14 AM
515 Views
- 26/10/2012 12:02:14 AM
515 Views
Realist, thankyouverymuch 
- 26/10/2012 12:14:38 AM
375 Views
- 26/10/2012 12:14:38 AM
375 Views
Calling y Gods will calls x Gods will, because y depends on x.
- 26/10/2012 12:14:27 AM
529 Views
I'm really not going to debate theodicy with you, especially since I'm not even a believer.
- 26/10/2012 12:24:57 AM
421 Views
Choice forms a critical distinction there; small wonder Cornyn and Mourdock missed it.
- 26/10/2012 12:48:18 AM
492 Views