You'd think candidates for public office, especially high office such as the U.S. Senate, would learn.
You'd think after one such candidate says something stupid that garners national attention of the sort no candidate would wish for that other candidates would get the message and steer clear of saying the same sort of stupid thing.
And yet Republican candidates for Senate don't seem to understand that when it comes to subjects of women and rape it's best to shut your trap.
So now we have Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock saying that if a woman becomes pregnant as the result of a rape then "that's something God intended."
Mourdock's comment came near the end of a debate with Democratic candidate Joe Donnelly in a race that's tight and closely watched nationally.
Afterwards Mourdock said he didn't mean to say God intended the rape, but that God is the only who can create life.
His remarks will get piled on the already popular remarks of Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin who famously claimed that in a "legitimate rape" of a woman the female body "has ways" of naturally preventing pregnancy.
(Dems are now using a clip of his comment in `talking' campaign brochures.)
Add to that the assertion of Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate Tom Smith that rape and having a child out of wedlock are "similar" and you have what can be called a pattern.
(There was also Idaho Republican state Sen. Chuck Winder who back in March suggested some women might not understand when they've been raped and then falsely use a claim of rape as an excuse to get an abortion. I am not making this up.)
I have no idea why men running for high office feel they need to talk about women and rape at all. If their point is they're pro-life, why not just say so and let that stand?