Skip to main content

President Obama at an early morning rally in Tampa, Florida, pledging to defend the right of women to make their own health care decisions, whether the issue is abortion, birth control, or anything else:

Ever since Richard Mourdock said pregnancies resulting from rape are "something God intended," the president and his campaign have been relentless in arguing that Mourdock's comments illustrate the importance of keeping politicians—especially male ones—from legislating control over women's bodies. That's exactly the case the president made last night on The Tonight Show and as you can see in the clip above, it's what he's saying on the campaign trail. His campaign team is sending out statements, releasing web videos, and even airing new television ads on the topic.

But this issue isn't just about Richard Mourdock and Democrats didn't discover it 36 hours ago. The reason why we're seeing such energy on it is that Democrats are genuinely passionate about defending reproductive freedom and they are thrilled to be talking about an issue where their position is shared by most Americans.

But for Republicans, it's a completely different story. Mitt Romney has entered a virtual cocoon of silence. Here's his campaign yesterday:

While a Romney campaign aide has said he disagreed with Mourdock's remark, the Republican presidential nominee is standing by Mourdock and hasn't asked the Indiana state treasurer to take down a TV ad Romney filmed for him earlier this week.

Beyond the statement from an aide, the Republican nominee and his aides have worked to avoid the subject. Romney did not speak to reporters or address Mourdock's remarks during two public appearances Wednesday. His aides sometimes speak to reporters traveling on Romney's campaign plane but did not appear Wednesday, and were scarce at Romney's rallies. They ignored repeated emailed questions about Mourdock.

And according to Reuters reporter Sam Youngman, their silence is continuing today:
At breakfast stop, me, @sppeoples and @llerer asked Romney repeatedly about Mourdock. He did not respond.
@samyoungman via Mobile Web
The fact that Mitt Romney doesn't want to say anything about this tells you just how bad a spot he's in, because if there's one thing we know about Mitt Romney, it's that if he can find a way of speaking from both sides of his mouth on a topic, then that's exactly what he'll do.

::

Sign up to help get Democratic voters to the polls in swing states with Workers' Voice, the largest independent Democratic voter turnout operation in the country. You can participate no matter where you live.

7:37 AM PT: Another reporter says Romney ignored questions about the issue:

At breakfast stop in Ohio, Romney ignores questions from poolers on Mourdock
@EmilyABC via Echofon

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:31 AM PDT.

Also republished by Pro Choice and Abortion.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  October surprise? (15+ / 0-)

    eom

    Is there any room for Obama moderates around here?

    by Bagger on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:34:11 AM PDT

  •  Romnesia (10+ / 0-)

    A society is judged by how well it cares for those in the dawn of life, the children. By how well it cares for those in the twilight of life, the elderly. And, by how well it cares for those on the edge of life; the poor, the sick, and the disabled.

    by BobBlueMass on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:36:23 AM PDT

  •  All our positions are belong to ... Er .... (15+ / 0-)

    Someone else.

    I can’t decide who’s cuter – the dead guy with the arrows in his chest, or the guy in the ditch with the seeping wound. -- Game of Thrones (Heard on Set)

    by prodigal on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:37:00 AM PDT

  •  Romney knows he has a woman problem (23+ / 0-)

    He can't go within 20 feet of Mourdock, but he can't un-endorse either, because it shows a lack of judgment. He's between a dick and a hard place.

  •  Dear Diary: Amazing how many reporters don't (10+ / 0-)

    realize questions over how to deal with 'women problems" are best dealt with by guys like me in quiet rooms. Ann tells me women she knows of have no problem having one of their doctors deal with any such contingencies, here or at some comfy Caribbean locales.

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

    by TofG on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:40:24 AM PDT

  •  Pull a McMahon (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emcneill, shoeless, tardis10, beltane, sunbro, dewtx

    I will not comment on policies and positions because people will hold them against me.

    Republicans - they measure our national success by corporate profit margin, not the well being of the citizens.

    by egarratt on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:40:31 AM PDT

  •  From an Article at CNN (32+ / 0-)
    Paul Root Wolpe, the director for the Center of Ethics at Emory University, said Mourdock’s comments were the equivalent “of saying you shouldn't pull people out of the rubble because God intended the earthquake to happen or we shouldn't try to cure disease because it's God who gave us the disease,” Wolpe said.

    "That perspective was theologically rejected by virtually every major religion a long, long time ago,” Wolpe added.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:40:37 AM PDT

  •  Let him ignore. This way reporters will know (10+ / 0-)

    what kind of President he would be, and then they can think about why they've spent so much time trying to make this asshole look competitive with Obama.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:42:46 AM PDT

  •  Really?? (6+ / 0-)
    the president and his campaign have been relentless in arguing that Mourdock's comments illustrate the importance of keeping politicians—especially male ones—from legislating control over women's bodies.
    Would you like it better if you had Michelle Bachman or Sharon Angle legislate over women's bodies?

    This annoys me to no end. The fault lines in this battle are not between sexes but between paradigms, and we as liberals should at least know that. If you accept this men vs. women lens through which to process these issues, you've bought into their game already.

    •  I see your point (11+ / 0-)

      But I also see the perspective that it's particularly galling for these comments and decisions to be made by people who biologically will never possibly have to deal with the issues at hand.

      •  I really don't want to open this can of worms. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raincrow, prodigal

        But whites didn't have to deal with racial discrimination either, which didn't stop many of them from being instrumental in the civil rights movement.

        In addition, though men can't "biologically" get pregnant, to pretend that they're on some island unconnected to the issue is foolish at best.

        •  What if, throughout history, women (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nofear, Womantrust, jfromga

          were 99.44% of the world's legislators, generals, soldiers, artisans, ranchers, physicians, philosophers, landowners, business people, lawyers, judges, cops, clergy, professors, scientists, and heads of household; in most societies, women had an all but absolute right to commit every kind of physical and sexual violence against their male partners and other men; and women spent millennia telling men that their complaints of prostatitis, impotence, urinary difficulties, trauma resulting from sexual assault, etc., are "all in your head" hence a clear sign of male psychological inferiority, that men who show signs of agony when struck in the testicles are being histrionic and neurotic WATBs, that men who are furious at being circumcised without consent are (bless their hearts) pathetic, that the neurotic sex is not equipped to take on the pressures of position and wealth, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitem?

          What if it then seemed our society, Europe, Canada, and a few other places on Earth finally, slowly, grudgingly began making room for men; passing laws and instituting taxpayer-funded programs giving men more socioeconomic independence; acknowledging male reproductive and urinary problems as real medical issues and developing pharmaceuticals and other treatments for them; moving toward equal pay for equal work but stalling at about 75-85 cents per woman's dollar; and allowing men to enter the halls of power?

          And what if, over the course of the next 40-50 years, radically regressive women, serving the interests of wealthy, regressive, authoritarian corporate matrons, quietly made a nationwide move to retake political power, succeeded, then set about methodically passing laws to strip men of the gains they had made?

          * * *
          I understand and appreciate what you're saying; and, intellectually, I agree with you fully. But my woman hindbrain knows far too well that these forced-birth men -- and women under the influence of the Stockholm Syndrome -- want to drag me back decades, even centuries, by ruthlessly chipping away at the legal foundations of my independence.

          !! Four more years !!

          by raincrow on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:05:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  you're misreading. (12+ / 0-)
      the importance of keeping politicians—especially male ones—from legislating control over women's bodies.
      A males-only panel on women's health issues is an affront to women.  But this seems to be saying that all politicians should keep their personal views to themselves, rather than trying to force them on others.

      That said, I do think the pro-rape crowd is pretty exclusively male.

      "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

      by SottoVoce on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:51:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  and the paradigm (7+ / 0-)

      we are battling is religious based male dominance where men make decisions and women shut up.   So how do you unscramble this particular egg?

      Not all men buy that particular paradigm and some women do buy that paradigm, so yes, it cuts across gender lines. Nevertheless, the power players in the movement and in the legislature that will make these beliefs into law are almost all men.  Tell me again how many Republican women are in Congress, state legislatures as total of all Republican legislators?

      We are fighting patriarchy, and yes, that does have something to do with gender roles, power and why women aren't allowed to control their own bodies because of men.

      •  As I said in a comment yesterday (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfromga, tardis10, OldDragon, raincrow

        I believe patriarchy and male dominance is THE worst scourge on the Earth in history of humanity, bar none. Worse than wars and racism and slavery combined.

        And I happen to have a penis.

        •  I understand (5+ / 0-)

          that you are not supporting these right wing Republicans' pro-rape positions and that you are not supporting patriarchy.

          But while it is true that all legislators ought to stay out of areas of health care choices of individuals (I wouldn't support a law outlawing vasectomies because every sperm is sacred), especially when those laws are inflicting religious views on everyone in contravention of the Consitution, this particular battle runs largely down a divide between women and a particular group of men.  

          I also think it is easy to stand on the outside, having a stake in the outcome of a pregnancy is different than being forced to be pregnant.  I think the other response pointing out how hard it is to understand racism if you are white and it is not aimed at you on a daily basis is a good analogy.  You know racism is bad, you oppose it, you can get angry when you think about it, but quite frankly, most of us white people get to walk around without it coming up routinely in our daily lives as something we have to swallow, ignore when it is some minor point ( a long look that asks 'why are you here, your kind shouldn't be here'), to something we have to fear and anticipate such as comments, or even being actively  persecuted by police or beaten up by a gang, etc.

          I am sure I think about things as a women, about where I could go,  would I be safe, should I do this alone, that can occur to men, but probably not as often or as deeply or in as many situations.   I think the wingnut judge someone diaried about a few weeks back is an example of just how different it is to be female,  the judge lectured a victim of sexual abuse by a police officer, that it was her fault for being at a bar.

          •  All good points but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raincrow

            Two things:

            1) As a general principle, I don't believe social progress is made only by the subset of the populace who is most directly affected by a certain phenomenon. This goes far beyond legislating: I think that historically, paradigms shifts, tectonic changes in human consciousness, tend to happen as wide epiphanies. "It's none of your business because you weren't born [a certain way]" -- insert "female", "black", "Jewish", "gay" -- is not exactly an enlightening rallying cry for social change.

            2) One of the reasons that racism isn't exactly a great analogy with this issue is because... Well, to put it in completely rough and trivial terms, were my fiance to get pregnant, I wouldn't simply walk away and say "Your problem, good luck!" -- nor would she think that my desire to have the baby or lace thereof would be an irrelevant factor in her decision whether to keep it or not. So one of the reasons I'm pro-choice is because I want US to have that choice, not only because I want HER to have that choice.

            •  I understand that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Goldmund

              real progress is made by large numbers of people who aren't directly the victims of persecution/deprivation of rights, because most humans are capable of empathy, they can feel, to some degree, the pain of the group that is being discriminated against, they can hold ideals intellectually and emotionally about fairness and what is wrong and right, etc.    Nevertheless, I think there is a difference in how one experiences an 'ism' if one is a victim of the prejudice or deprivation or just empathizing and supporting other people, how it affects a person emotionally and mentally, shapes attitudes and beliefs, etc.

              I think your second point is interesting,  you speak of your fiance,  you have already made certain commitments in that relationship, and presumably your fiance has as well, most importantly, you've committed to the idea of sharing your lives, so any important decision, you've already assumed will be shared.

              What if it were a woman you'd dated a few times, had sex with once, the birth control failed, and she became pregnant.  Would you have the same expectations about the decision making?   Not that you would walk away, I assume you are a responsible person, and that if she chose to have the child you would still want to be a part of the support and rearing of that child, but very possibly not be willing to get married, you don't see this woman as someone you want to share your life with on that level.  

              Not that I am assuming you would have a one night stand, but if you did, what then?

              If your fiance was raped, how much input would you expect in that decision?

              I think each situation probably causes a different gut level reaction as you first think about them.  I think you might reach the same decision once you think about it, weigh the factors, etc.,  but that most initial emotional reaction, is it really the same?

              I think that is the more accurate way to perceive this, what you think is sometimes different than what you feel.   And I think most of what you are hearing from women here, when they say, men can't make these choices, is that feeling.

              •  I take no offense at that assumption. (0+ / 0-)

                I was a self-admitted slut before my fiance, so it isn't like such a thought has never crossed my mind.

                If you accept the -- ahem, patriarchal -- premise that the act of casual sex is inherently asymmetrical, then things are much clearer. In other words, if you accept paradigms that run so deep that they're even embedded in the language (the man "gets some" and the woman "puts out"), that the woman merely pleasures the man in such an act, getting nothing in return -- and that therefore he owes her complete deference in deciding how to deal with consequences, then yes, things are clear-cut: the decision is hers and hers alone.

                But I reject that premise. I certainly never saw my casual sex partners as mere pieces of meat whose job was to pleasure me; it was a short-term exchange of pleasure for both, and both had an equal interest in it.

                Now, biology makes pregnancy, and the short period after pregnancy, asymmetrical, yes. The man doesn't have to deal with morning sickness or with hemorrhoids, the man's health and perhaps life is put at no risk at all, the man doesn't have to breast-feed, and furthermore, the man doesn't have to deal with the pain of abortion if that is the decision. And because of these things, vested interest of the woman does tip over in her direction if there is an unresolveable disagreement afterwards.

                However, let's not pretend that the man simply has ZERO interest in what happens with the pregnancy. Unless he is a cold bastard, there is an immense emotional investment with the outcome of the pregnancy -- whether it is in bringing it to term or not. If the baby is kept, then there is a life-long vested interest, emotional, financial, investment in time and energy.

                And if the man IS a cold bastard? Then of course, the decision is hers and hers only, and the courts should make sure to extract all financial burden from the said bastard.

                But most of us are not cold bastards, and this "dear-men-with-penises-STFU" attitude is painful to hear (and I'm not saying that this is your attitude, don't get me wrong). In an act of casual sex, both parties enter that contract with certain risks (even if the woman's is higher, again), and therefore both parties should have a say in the outcome.

                I'll even say that in any healthy act of casual sex, an unresolveable disagreement if pregnancy happens is very unlikely. If it does happen, the woman has the primary say; but that doesn't mean that the man's say is ZERO.

                If my fiance was raped, I'd definitely expect to have a say in that decision, because as you say, we've already committed to making all major life decisions jointly. I wouldn't even bring a pet hamster into our home without her prior agreement.

                In addition, the freedom of choice is NOT just a women's issue. It's a human rights issue.

                •  I strongly disagree (0+ / 0-)

                  with you that is a patriarchal assumption that the woman gets to make the decision.

                  If you accept the -- ahem, patriarchal -- premise that the act of casual sex is inherently asymmetrical, then things are much clearer. In other words, if you accept paradigms that run so deep that they're even embedded in the language (the man "gets some" and the woman "puts out"), that the woman merely pleasures the man in such an act, getting nothing in return -- and that therefore he owes her complete deference in deciding how to deal with consequences, then yes, things are clear-cut: the decision is hers and hers alone.
                  I don't view consensual sex as the woman putting out, either in a casual or committed relationship.  But ultimately,  while the man can have an opinion, he doesn't make any decision.  The decision is always the woman's decision ultmately.   She may decide to make that decision with you or without you.  I understand that a man may have a commitment to parenthood, a strong desire to have a child, be willing and able to raise the child without the mother if necessary if the woman was agreeable with having the child and handing it over.   But I personally would never feel it was the man's decision.  I would always feel it was my decision and mine alone.  No one should decide I should be pregnant if I don't want to be.
                  •  As I said (0+ / 0-)

                    if there's an unresolveable disagreement, she makes the decision.

                    But anyway, what about the other way around? To me, that's where the crux of my emotional investment is. During my "slut-years", my nightmare scenario wasn't that I'd want one of my partners to stay pregnant while she wanted to abort, no no no, far from it. It was the exact opposite: "Whoops, you know what I said that night about how I didn't want children? Well I was just kidding. And you seem to be a healthy specimen and a fine sperm donor." What then? Do you think that's fair?

                    •  using people (0+ / 0-)

                      without their knowledge or permission isn't fair.  That's whether you steal their sperm without their permission to impregnate yourself,  or just assuming you can use their garden hose.

                      I still disagree about 'unresolveable disagreement' she makes the decision.  No conditions.  My attitude would be thanks for your permission, but I didn't need it toin the first place with  that kind of position.

                      •  Permission?? (0+ / 0-)

                        I think a lot of this discussion comes from the fact that your primary scenario is, bluntly, the woman being pushed to stay pregnant against her wishes; mine is the woman insisting on staying pregnant despite the man's wishes. So emotionally, I think we may be talking from two slightly different perspectives.

                        So, it's not about "permissions". It's about two people engaging in an act that can have consequences. Those consequences are the responsibility of both.

                        •  you keep vearing (0+ / 0-)

                          away from the point that this is a woman's decision, regardless of the choice.   You don't want the child to be born, not your choice.  You do want the child to be born, it is not your choice.

                          As for responsibilities, yes, both have responsibilities, but not the same power to make the decision.

                          •  I'm not veering away. I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

                            I think both should do their very damn best to come to a consensus, and that neither's input should be dismissed. The woman has veto rights to be deployed only after all other avenues to come to consensus have been tried and failed. That is how reasonable human beings embark on long journeys together, or decide not to.

    •  I hear what you are saying but (7+ / 0-)

      as a woman, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard a friend or relative say 'why do men think they get to decide this for us?'.  Yes, there are crazy women too, and we dislike them just as much as the men, but I do think the overall representation of women in Congress is pathetic and really bothers a lot of women (seeing as they make up half of the country).  So, the two issues do go hand in hand.

      Another point I might add is that men, while they may be pro-choice,  it is not their 'deciding issue' (except the nutty religious ones).  Many liberal and moderate men I know, while supporting the pro-choice position, do tend to view it as a bit of a side issue, and don't really get as angry about the issue as one of fundamental equality and public health.  I know some of you on here will disagree, but I can honestly say I have rarely had a man list 'pro-choice' as the top reason he supports the Democratic party.  

  •  Because the best way to demonstrate leadership (10+ / 0-)

    is to ignore press questions two weeks before election day... If Romney had any conviction he'd address this head on, and demonstrate some leadership.

    But in reality he's a soulless automaton governed by nothing other than greed and personal ambition. He's so afraid of the rabid right wing base that he won't stand up to them, even if it undermines his chances with moderate voters.

    This exemplifies why he is unfit to lead. And sadly, there are so many other examples.

    Time to stop flirting with the Rombot America; we've already got the President we need.

    "Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel." -Sepp Herberger

    by surfbird007 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:44:28 AM PDT

    •  Romney's waiting to see how this polls (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow, MaikeH, OldDragon, DSPS owl

      Then he'll make a comment. Fox will say he's showing wisdom in not jumping into the fray early. And the media will give him accolades for looking presidential. After all it took the President two weeks for the comments on Libya...creeps

      He's not perfect, nobody is, but he is my President. Obama 2012.

      by emcneill on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:57:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It worked for his tax problem (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OldDragon, carrps, tb mare

      because of course the MSM let him off the hook. Why not try it again?

      !! Four more years !!

      by raincrow on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:13:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure it totally worked on the tax problem. (0+ / 0-)

        Romney grew to be heavily disliked in swing states where they were exposed to the problem over the summer, and those voters never really warmed up to him even during his peak after the first debate.

        Some of the polling has shown his tax evasion issue has been a big part of why swing voters are loath to trust him.

        "Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel." -Sepp Herberger

        by surfbird007 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:47:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Responds to Libya in 20 minutes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      surfbird007, tb mare, NoMoJoe

      To this asshat? Never. Or 14 days. Whichever comes first.

      It ain't 1916 Mr. Romney.

      A society is judged by how well it cares for those in the dawn of life, the children. By how well it cares for those in the twilight of life, the elderly. And, by how well it cares for those on the edge of life; the poor, the sick, and the disabled.

      by BobBlueMass on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:41:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you hit it out of the park (0+ / 0-)
        Responds to Libya in 20 minutes(3+ / 0-)

        To this asshat? Never. Or 14 days. Whichever comes first.

        It ain't 1916 Mr. Romney.

        what a compelling ad this would be. it shows romney as a chickenhawk, and a craven SOB running away from the "test" of leadership.

        WILLARD ROMNEY THE TEFLON LIAR who is channeling his inner JOHN GOTTI

        by longtimelurker on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:39:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks. Detroit called today, I play tonight. (0+ / 0-)

          Go get'em, Detroit Tigers!. Go get'em Tigers!

          Detroit Tigers. My first love. Summer of '68.

          But, I digress.

          A society is judged by how well it cares for those in the dawn of life, the children. By how well it cares for those in the twilight of life, the elderly. And, by how well it cares for those on the edge of life; the poor, the sick, and the disabled.

          by BobBlueMass on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:56:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Republican men on female-type "lady-parts:" (8+ / 0-)

    "It's a series of tubes.."

    Perhaps one day the Fourth Estate will take their jobs seriously. Or not..

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:44:36 AM PDT

  •  Again........... (18+ / 0-)

    My wife and I do not understand it.

    How can any woman in her right mind vote republican.

    You are essentially voting against yourself, just like an African American or Hispanic American who votes Republican and for that matter anyone who is expecting to receive medicare and SS down the road.

    I mean the evidence is right ther in their platform.  They can not even agree to pass an equal pay law, I mean seriously what century is this???

    They want to help the poor by removing programs aimed in protecting the poor....I mean when does it end.

    Hopefully it will end this November 6, 2012.  I hope and pray that 11/6/2012 marks the end of the Tea Party and all its minions !!

    •  Self righteous slut punishment bolstered with (0+ / 0-)

      Gods will for others which I must enforce.

      I give the Big Bird to those who say Obama lost the debate.

      by 88kathy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:48:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm in Kansas (sigh...) and these women... (6+ / 0-)

      for the most part, vote against their own interests every, single time. They are moms who want good schools but who vote idiots into the state legislature who defund schools every chance they get.  They are hard working women who don't seem to care that they will get paid less for their time. They hate seeing arts and other programs cut from schools but elect Brownback--who cut state funding for the arts! It's amazing. They LOVED Sarah Palin.  But I think the sad reality is that for some, they will vote for ANYBODY that will get this black man out of the White House. They absolutely DO NOT see the truth for what it is. They are operating with different--false--facts and there is no reasoning with them whatsoever. You can show them hard evidence and they just don't care. I would say they are low-information voters, but they actually are not. They are just WRONG-information voters and again, there is nothing you can say to change their minds.

      Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed...

      by langstonhughesfan on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:19:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Every reporter should be screaming... (8+ / 0-)

    "Mr. Romney, do you still support Mr. Mourdock for Senate in IN?"

    "Mr. Romney, does Mr. Mourdock still have you permission to run the ad in which you endorse his candidacy?"

    Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

    by JCPOK on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:46:49 AM PDT

  •  Give him a break (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfromga, raincrow, sunbro

    Mitt's got other things to think about - he's reuniting with Mr. Bus today!

    I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

    by hulibow on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:47:24 AM PDT

  •  But but but Ann Romney loves us 'Wiiiiimeeeen' (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, jfromga, raincrow, sunbro, SaintC

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:48:22 AM PDT

  •  Awesome. Love seeing Democrats on offense (9+ / 0-)

    Keep hitting!

  •  Clobber him on this! (12+ / 0-)

    Do not let up!  Every elected Democratic official and every Obama surrogate should be pounding this issue relentlessly.

    Not just the idea that women should be in control of their own health care decisions, but the fact that Mitt Romney has endorsed the latest poster child for anti-woman zealotry and refuses to even comment on the matter for days afterward.

    Akin mattered... this should matter even more.

  •  Romney finally figured out what he should (6+ / 0-)

    have been saying all along.

    When you don't vote, Mitt happens.

    by shoeless on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:53:42 AM PDT

  •  Romney doesn't have the courage of whomever's (5+ / 0-)

    convictions he happens to be supporting.  In short, he should be convicted.  

  •  mitt: follow what you say ... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, tardis10, litoralis, SaintC, DSPS owl

    Mitt in many a foreign policy comments has said that America should project strength ...

    Mr. Mitt: Where is your strength when dealing in social issues? Why cannot you even stand up to a senator candidate? Why cannot you get your party to toe your line on women's right? How can you get foreign leaders to respect you when activists at home are running all over you?

  •  Stupid question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    langstonhughesfan

    How do you do those twitter quote boxes?

    My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball. But tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

    by hishighness on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:55:51 AM PDT

  •  MSM now has excuse to pivot from "toss-up" mode (6+ / 0-)

    MSM may be relieved to have the Mourdock comment to talk about, because they can use it to explain that their beloved "toss-up" meme was accurate up until this triggered a sudden Romney collapse.

  •  But Willard is all for (10+ / 0-)

    gender equality in the Muslim world....yeah, right

    under these pitiful circumstances, better that he not made THAT comment about gender equality in the Muslim world since he can't even speak about gender equality in the country that he wants to "serve"

  •  Romney prefers rape issue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, sunbro

    over tax return issue.

  •  Hell has no fury as a woman scorned (0+ / 0-)

    Not in  America anymore , lots of women   should be outrage how  Romney may of help  the founder of  Staple beat his  wife out of her equal share of thier divorce  settlement, i guess lots of women are  insterested in the Republcan Barefoot and Pregnant policy that the will impose on them , Women around the world use too look too american women for thier inspiration of liberation ,when some American women  are voluntarily willing too submit themselves as second class citizen ,without putting up a fight

  •  The main thing is we CAN NOT let anyone, Dems (13+ / 0-)

    included forget this lesson: NO bargaining away of our basic rights will be tolerated.

    No more Stupak stumbles, no more talk of "exceptions."

    Women's lives matter. Withour our autonomy, we are NOT full and equal citizens.

    Please push back on ther whole "pro life" PR spin. These people are anti-choice, or anti-abortion.

    Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

    by Catskill Julie on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:06:25 AM PDT

  •  i wish someone in the fearless (cough, cough) (5+ / 0-)

    media would ask romney about the woman he badgered into carrying her pregnancy to term even tho the blood clots she suffered b/c of it threatened her life! -- & the elders in the mormon church had already given her permission to terminate the pregnancy for medical reasons.

    i understand the episode pissed her dad off so much that he threw mitt out of their house.

    a character issue if there ever was one.

  •  There is no way Romney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaintC

    can address this situation and keep both his base and his faux moderate mojo happening. Maybe he should just head off to Montecito for a fundieraiser.
    Romney Boo Boo bye bye.

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:17:29 AM PDT

  •  but but but (0+ / 0-)

    That Jansing hack on msnbc sez that the wimin is flocking to mitt

    CNN has called it: Luke Skywalker vs. the Death Star is a tie!

    by GOPGO2H3LL on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:22:55 AM PDT

  •  The Pundits and Politicians All: Way Too Polite! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaintC, Jerry056, Womantrust

    Santorum, Ryan, Aiken, Walsh, King, Mourdock and their ilk are getting off way too easily.  These guys are fricking weird, sick, perverse, and generally paragons of abnormal psychology.  Some develpmental issues occurred early in their upbringing or really bad toilet training derailed otherwise normal brains.  Pundits and politicions all are far too polite on these freaks and should call them for what they really are: psycho sickos who need professional clinical help!

  •  Unfortunate Juxtaposition (0+ / 0-)

    This diary, talking about "Women should make their own health care decisions", appears with an ad for SnorgTees, showing a woman wearing a tee shirt saying "I can't brain today.  I have the dumb".    

  •  Mitt is a coward! This just reconfirms it! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaintC

    "Mitt Romney has more positions than the Kama Sutra." -- me "Social justice is love, made public." -- Cornel West

    by billlaurelMD on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:30:28 AM PDT

  •  Mitt Romney believes rape conception is God's will (0+ / 0-)

    Mitt Romney believes conception through rape is God's will and that abortion of the unborn fetus should be illegal.

    He just doesn't to say it out in public.

  •  Principle, yes; grammar no. (0+ / 0-)

    I quarrel with the President's grammar, not his principle.

    Each woman should make her own health decisions.
    Clearly, she should consult. Just as clearly, whom she consults is her decision to make.

  •  The fundamentals are still the same (0+ / 0-)

    as before the debates in this election -- women will decide it... and women really "get" this issue.

  •  I bet he just smirked while they asked questions. (0+ / 0-)

    There's the future folks.  If he doesn't like a question, he'll just ignore you until you get tired of asking or until he goes into his "quiet rooms".  I want to see that picture of the media (who made this guy) and him ignoring them with that damn smirk.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site