The strongest language the Romney campaign has used is that they "disagree" with Mourdock, but "still support him". They haven't withdrawn their endorsement of Mourdock, or asked him to pull his campaign ad featuring Romney. Paul Ryan hasn't commented at all, which isn't particularly surprising since he opposes a woman's right to choose an abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

As for what's the bigger headline, here are the top three headlines from Google News' Election section: "Mourdock Rape Comment Puts GOP on Defense", "Will Richard Mourdock's Rape Remarks Hurt Mitt Romney?", and "Will Richard Mourdock's Comments on God and Rape Sink the GOP?" There isn't a single headline on the front page about Romney disagreeing with Mourdock.

Bottom line: Is it too much to ask Romney to withraw his endorsement of Mourdock?

I didn't say "shouldn't be allowed to," i said, "shouldn't." I'm not trying to repress freedom of speech, i'm trying to say that religious figures should avoid becoming invested in particular earthly political causes, for while it can have good benefits sometimes (like the southern churches that helped push Civil Rights in the '60s), ultimately it's distracting from the mission, because as the political class grows aware of religion's usefulness, they will work to twist it to their own ends (sometimes being objectively good ends, yes, but it works dangerously on the matter of faith)

Bottom line:  Well yes.

I mean, how many people vote and support for Barack Obama despite the fact that he signed a bill that allows americans to be detained indefinitly without trial, orders drone strikes on people with very loose guidelines on what consistutites a terrorist and leads to hundreds of children being killed.

Saying one stupid thing about rape is pretty light in comparison to what other people are willing to overlook for picking "The lesser of two evils".

Kasz, you clearly value intellectual consistency, and believe that people *shouldn't* compromise their principles in order to support "the lesser of two evils". So, in your view, if Romney strongly disagrees with the position that God intends some rapes to result in pregnancy, don't you think that he *should* withdraw his support for Mourdock?

Edit: Here's the new top headline on Google: "Romney campaign stands by Mourdock".

It's hard to argue they shouldn't be involved in certain political causes when they view those political causes are vitally important to their spirtual causes.

Kasz, you clearly value intellectual consistency, and believe that people *shouldn't* compromise their principles in order to support "the lesser of two evils". So, in your view, if Romney strongly disagrees with the position that God intends some rapes to result in pregnancy, don't you think that he *should* withdraw his support for Mourdock?

Edit: Here's the new top headline on Google: "Romney campaign stands by Mourdock".

I don't actually have any problem with the "Lesser of two evils" move.  It's why I voted for Obama instead of McCain... since both of them wanted the bailouts, and their positions were nearly identical on basically everything, but Obama was slightly more socially liberal and his election would mean a lot to a small portion of the country.  Hell i'll probably vote Gary Johnson... and he's still a lesser of three evils at that point.  He still has a lot of flaws.

I just believe that after a certain point, the lesser of two evils statment kinda loses it's point after a while when the evil becomes to heinous.

To use a crude analaogy that i think would apply to anybody... if i lived in Nazi Germany and I could vote for Hitler, or Super Hitler who believed in everything hitler did but that the jews should be killed in a more painful way....

I still couldn't vote for Hitler.

As for if romney should remove his support?  I think that would largely depend on if he critisized someone else for standing by someone who committed a lesser offense.

I don't think it would be that hard for them to advocate certain causes in a non-partisan way. If their views happen to match the views of one party, so be it, but no endorsements, no consultation on legislation, etc.