Replies

As bad as Romney was, Allen, Mourdock and Atkins were worse. Not because they were liberals, just the opposite. They were professed conservatives who expressed views on abortion which were so bizarre that they set the pro-life movement back substantially.

Nope, you missed it completely.

Mourdock and Adkins statements were pounced on by the media, twisted, perverted and made a ridiculous cause celebre. The difference was that in decades past, the Republican party nominee at the top of the ticket at least pretended to be a pro-lifer with stones and was happy to fight with the media about the issue and articulate our side in a meaningful way.

Not so with Romney. He piled on Mourdock and Adkins and in doing so, we lost a major opportunity to educate the public on pro-life issues.

THAT is the difference. And THAT is why I will never vote for another Republican who is not a staunch, articulate pro-lifer. To hell with them otherwise.

I see.

A Republican senate candidate makes a politically insensitive, wholly inane, demonstrably false claim regarding the physiology of a woman during rape and it's the media's fault for jumping on it?

Mourdock and Adkins statements were pounced on by the media, twisted, perverted and made a ridiculous cause celebre

They were pre-twisted, and didn't require the media to do the twisting. If Romney had supported Mourdock and Akin, he would have lost by 2-3% more than he did.