When the revolution comes, I do hope that establishment media “liberal” professional concern trolls are among the first up against the wall. Here’s one of the worst offenders — Amy Sullivan — defending Richard Mourdock while insisting she’s not defending him:
Let’s get one thing straight from the start. I am not defending Richard Mourdock’s position on abortion, including his opposition to a rape exception. So take that twitchy finger off the “send” button. However, I do want to examine some of the outrage surrounding the latest comments of a Republican politician regarding abortion and rape.
Despite the assertions of many liberal writers I read and otherwise admire, I don’t think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape exceptions because they hate women or want to control women. I think they’re totally oblivious and insensitive and can’t for a moment place themselves in the shoes of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rape.
What’s the difference between wanting to control people simply because you want to control them and controlling them because you are insensitive and oblivious to their plight? It’s an awfully fine line, isn’t it?
If the point was “yes, he knows it’s fucked up to have to bear a child who is the product of rape, but he thinks that obeying the will of Lord Tebow overrides everything”, then fine, I’d see how maybe that’s different from hating or wanting to control women. But that’s not her point. She admits that if Mourdock were more sensitive, then he might think that the will of Lord Tebow is not quite so important.
And then to be shocked — SHOCKED — that liberals would dare try to get some political mileage out of some crazy shit a Republican said a few weeks before the election…what is the audience for this bullshit anyway? Why is someone paying Amy Sullivan a salary for this?