Slog
News & ArtsSunday, November 4, 2012
2012 Mitt Romney Cuts Another Ad for a Rape-Defending Republican Sleazball
Posted by Paul Constant on Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM
Here's a rare Romney endorsement ad for Republican senatorial candidate Rick Berg that just went live in North Dakota.
It looks a lot like Romney's endorsement for Richard "God Intended [Rape]" Mourdock. Which makes sense, since Berg shares many positions with Mourdock—especially when it comes to abortion and rape. Talking Points Memo says:
“Voters should take note that at the same time Mitt Romney is promising ‘bipartisanship’ on the campaign trail, he’s taping ads for candidates like Richard Mourdock and Rick Berg, who believes that rape victims who get abortions should face life imprisonment,” Lis Smith, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign, said in a statement.
If there is anyone on earth who still believes that Mitt Romney would be a moderate president when it comes to reproductive rights, that person is a fool.
1
Lots believe it. Each one has convinced themselves he's lying and playing the game on the positions they disagree with, but once elected he'll stand firm and do the exact opposite for some reason.
2
"Voters should take note that at the same time Mitt Romney is promising 'bipartisanship' on the campaign trail, ..."
You don't understand.
"Bipartisanship" means that Romney will accept the Democrats' concessions to his agenda.
And the Democrats will always make concessions.
You don't understand.
"Bipartisanship" means that Romney will accept the Democrats' concessions to his agenda.
And the Democrats will always make concessions.
5
Does anyone know when this was taped? I was kind of willing to give Rmoney a bit of a pass on the last endorsement, because it was obviously taped before Mourdock's incredibly stupid statement. But if Rmoney taped this one after the rape statement, then he's as much of an ass as Mourdock is.
Rmoney: Coat-hanger back alley abortions for all!
Rmoney: Coat-hanger back alley abortions for all!
6
I think we know exactly what kind of president R-Money would be should he win the erection. He's going to base every decision he makes on one metric: What course will get him the most votes in 2016?
He's going to say and do everything he can to win himself a second term.
To a very large degree, that's going to be doing what in fact is actually best for the country.
You could argue that's exactly what Obama's done.
Unfortunately, R-Money doing the same thing requires a great deal of pandering to his batshit base.
He's going to say and do everything he can to win himself a second term.
To a very large degree, that's going to be doing what in fact is actually best for the country.
You could argue that's exactly what Obama's done.
Unfortunately, R-Money doing the same thing requires a great deal of pandering to his batshit base.
7
@6: doesn't the fact that he believes election and re-election depend on pandering to that base suggest that his presidency will be one of following through on all those pandering promises?
8
Sigh. Do we really have to stoop to Republican tactics?
Advocating against abortion rights even in the case of rape != defending rape.
Advocating for the ius primae noctis would be defending rape. Saying that husbands have a right to conjugal relations would be defending rape. Opposing abortion is opposing abortion. It's not defending rape.
Advocating against abortion rights even in the case of rape != defending rape.
Advocating for the ius primae noctis would be defending rape. Saying that husbands have a right to conjugal relations would be defending rape. Opposing abortion is opposing abortion. It's not defending rape.
9
@8 it is defending rape when you start to use terms like
"Legitimate rape" to delineate exactly which rape victims are responsible for their own rape and can't get an abortion and which rape victims can.
"Legitimate rape" to delineate exactly which rape victims are responsible for their own rape and can't get an abortion and which rape victims can.
10
The only position Romney is firm upon is that Romney should be president. What he'd do, how he'd rule, is not an important consideration. The only thing that matters to him is that he's entitled to it.
11
@7--Yes. No president gets re-erected without fulfilling a fair amount of his campaign promises. There's no way he's going to govern purely as the moderate pragmatist he's tried to etch-a-sketch himself into seeming. He owes too much to the people who don't care what happens to the 99% so long as their own market share grows. He owes too much to the people who think Abortion = Murder and Gay Rights = Hurricanes.
12
Obama's lack of leadership during Sandy hurt more women, more children and more seniors than imaginable in your baseless remarks.
People died and are starving and freezing because resources were not effectively mobilized although we had days of advanced warning.
As in Benghazi, President Obama causes the most harm to the greatest numbers of people because of his ineptitude.
People died and are starving and freezing because resources were not effectively mobilized although we had days of advanced warning.
As in Benghazi, President Obama causes the most harm to the greatest numbers of people because of his ineptitude.
14
Why, that last line almost sounds like a direct comment on a particular Slogger we see so regularly whenever Romney's name comes up...
@12: That was intended to be taken as facetious, or a textbook example of Poe's Law, right?
@12: That was intended to be taken as facetious, or a textbook example of Poe's Law, right?
15
Look, I'm as pro-choice as pro-choice gets, and have never knowingly voted for a pro-life candidate.
But if we are going to preserve women's reproductive freedoms, we should be honest about our opponents. A large minority of Americans, and a majority in some parts of the country, believe abortion to be murder. They're only going to support abortion to save the life of the mother.
Conflating people who espouse that view with the anti-science, "legitimate rape" Christian Taliban blinds us to the sad truth that we have an INCREDIBLY difficult task in front of us to convince pro-life voters that we are right. Calling all of them Sleazballs does not make the task any easier.
But if we are going to preserve women's reproductive freedoms, we should be honest about our opponents. A large minority of Americans, and a majority in some parts of the country, believe abortion to be murder. They're only going to support abortion to save the life of the mother.
Conflating people who espouse that view with the anti-science, "legitimate rape" Christian Taliban blinds us to the sad truth that we have an INCREDIBLY difficult task in front of us to convince pro-life voters that we are right. Calling all of them Sleazballs does not make the task any easier.
17
@16: Well, yeah. What he meant was that most women are lying sluts who only cry rape because they're ashamed of their sluttiness. I'm just not sure that makes it any better.
18
#15 - While they may have previously believed abortion to be acceptable to save the life of the mother, their leadership has now backslid, supporting rapists with gray-area language that implies potential fault on the part of the victim (legitimate rape), and endorsing the imprisonment of rape victims who seek to remedy a medical condition after being brutalized. Rank and file republicans support this position by supporting at the ballot box republican candidates who have not explicitly rejected their national platform.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that we should be honest about our opponents. Unfortunately, much work has been done by their leadership to encourage anti-science, supernatural, and magical thinking to the benefit of the 1%. These cattle aren't the right-wingers of a bygone era. They are the product of modern right-leaning monotheistic institutions that stress the importance of indoctrination, a lack of honest inquiry and unquestioning loyalty, backed by an educational system required to give equal time to competing theistic ideas. We now face masses of fools working against their own best interests, as the 1% extracts all remaining value before pulling up stakes or shutting the gates of their private enclaves.
If pro-lifers were actually interested in reducing abortions, or promoting the living as their moniker indicates, then simple logic dictates they would embrace social and legal structures proven to reduce abortion rates; fact-based sexual education, unfettered access, and financial / social support for poor mothers. We know this is not the case with regard to pro-life supporters, and has not been for two decades or better.
The impossibility of reasoning with this cult of anti-intellect should point us to new strategies. They seek to limit our impact at the polls with obstructionist tactics and as politicians with unfettered corporate funding. We could similarly employ mechanisms to limit access for their candidates and voters alike, but without bias against protected classes; perhaps rejecting those who cannot demonstrate sound judgment and dispassionate reasoning ability. Our goal should be a noble war on anti-intellectualism with the intent of returning to these diminished right-wingers the ability to think clearly enough the we may again engage them in thoughtful, reality-based, solution-oriented debate.
More...
That said, I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that we should be honest about our opponents. Unfortunately, much work has been done by their leadership to encourage anti-science, supernatural, and magical thinking to the benefit of the 1%. These cattle aren't the right-wingers of a bygone era. They are the product of modern right-leaning monotheistic institutions that stress the importance of indoctrination, a lack of honest inquiry and unquestioning loyalty, backed by an educational system required to give equal time to competing theistic ideas. We now face masses of fools working against their own best interests, as the 1% extracts all remaining value before pulling up stakes or shutting the gates of their private enclaves.
If pro-lifers were actually interested in reducing abortions, or promoting the living as their moniker indicates, then simple logic dictates they would embrace social and legal structures proven to reduce abortion rates; fact-based sexual education, unfettered access, and financial / social support for poor mothers. We know this is not the case with regard to pro-life supporters, and has not been for two decades or better.
The impossibility of reasoning with this cult of anti-intellect should point us to new strategies. They seek to limit our impact at the polls with obstructionist tactics and as politicians with unfettered corporate funding. We could similarly employ mechanisms to limit access for their candidates and voters alike, but without bias against protected classes; perhaps rejecting those who cannot demonstrate sound judgment and dispassionate reasoning ability. Our goal should be a noble war on anti-intellectualism with the intent of returning to these diminished right-wingers the ability to think clearly enough the we may again engage them in thoughtful, reality-based, solution-oriented debate.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (19) RSS