Last week in my latest edition of The Cornfield OOps! File,  I chastised Republican male candidates and elected officials for  opening their mouths about women's issues and particularly remarks about  abortion. Last night during a televised senatorial candidate debate in  New Albany, Indiana, State Treasurer and Republican Senate candidate  Richard Mourdock in the closing minutes of that forum opened his mouth  and stepped in it big time on the issue of abortion.

When asked his view on abortion and if there were exceptions, Mourdock said, "I  struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that  life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that  horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to  happen."

While  Mourdock was, according to a clarification within minutes of the end of  the debate, trying to point out his belief that life was a creation of  God, the damage was already done. Democrats immediately siezed on the  last phrase, "God intended to happen", that Mourdock was saying that rape was something God preordained.

His  Democratic opponent, Congressman Joe Donelly, is also pro-life and  conservative, which is typical of Democrats here in the Cornfield.  Donnelly remarked after the debate his belief when it came to rape that  it was infeasible, "my God, or any God, would intend that to happen."

A  new ad was released yesterday in Indiana in which GOP presidential  nominee Mitt Romney endorsed Mourdock's bid for the Senate. Romney  quickly distanced himself last night from the remark, reaffirming his  stand that there are exceptions for rape, incest and the viability of  mother and/or child.

I have previously stated shortly after Mourdock unseated incumbent Senator Richard Lugar in the  May Republican Primary, that I could not support Mourdock.

I also wrote shortly after Lugar lost to Mourdock in May:

Why Mourdock is not the right man to elect come November is best summed up in this remark from Mourdock:

"I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view."

For that reason alone I must vote for his Democratic opponent in the fall.

Mourdock's remark last night reemphasizes why I still intend to vote for Donnelly on November 6 to take the seat in the Senate.

The  Indiana Senate race has been the subject of national attention since  the fate of who controls the US Senate could very well turn on whether  Mourdock or Donnelly wins. While I would rather see a Republican  majority in the Senate, I cannot in good conscience vote for Mourdock.

Sometimes  one has to vote conscience and not be concerned whether Democrats or  Republicans are in control. As I noted, from when I was a reporter for  the Linton Daily Citizen, I first met Mourdock when he was in the early days of his political career. Last spring I shared my impression of meeting Mourdock and covering his campaign, which did not win:

Mourdock  came across all those years ago as a slick con man, the stereotypical  politician you have to grease to have influence. That was just my  impression.

To  his credit, Republican Congressman Mike Pence, who is running to  replace popular Governor Mitch Daniels, released a statement earlier  today saying he disagrees with Mourdock. Pence went on to call for  Mourdock to apologize.

Mourdock  did conduct a press conference this morning trying to undo the damage  he had done. Mourdock stated that he "abhors violence." He stated that  he does "implore evil". He went on to apologize if anyone took his  remark to mean that God approves of rape. He said he "regrets and  apologizes" if there are those who took what he said to imply God  condoned rape.

From  the Cornfield, Mourdock stepped in it and proved once again why he is  not good for Indiana and not good for the nation with so many weighty  issues and concerns which the US Senate must face in the coming 6 years.