I know that it is the job of partisans to be disgusted by the other party, and I have spent years watching the gocha's on both sides with a degree of cynicism. I have certainly posted my share of intemperate statements about George W. Bush, who while one of the most catastrophic Presidents in U.S history was probably not literally a sociopath.
However, Romney's support -- now made explicit -- of Republican politican Richard Mourdock after he joined the Republican list of rape supporters is a low unequaled in American politics -- yet Romney calls this a "defining election."
The Romney campaign tells CNN reporter Jim Acosta that “we’ve not asked [Richard Mourdock's] campaign to pull” an ad Romney cut this week asking voters to “join me in supporting Richard Mourdock for U.S. Senate.” And a subsequent campaign statement confirmed that “[w]e disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him.” Watch Romney’s ad supporting Mourdock:
While I do not believe that Romney considers pregnancy from rape to be a "gift from god" for the campaign to continue to support a candidate who does makes me wonder what a Republican would have to say to lose Romney's support. Keep in mind that this is a man who built a campaign around a (misqoute) of Obama in a speech, and is now trying to argue that the Obama administration didn't use the right words to describe the attack on our Embassy in Lybia. If words are so incredibly important to them, what does it say that the support candidates who seem to delight in talking about sexual violence?