National Review Starts Ginning up the Prolife Sucker Routine

PROLIFERS!  YOU *MUST* UNITE BEHIND ROMNEY!!!!

because he just obviously cares so much about human life

and is not transparently a politician who says whatever he thinks will please you without a shred of personal integrity or conviction.

I can understand a prolifer voting for this guy on the theory that, “Hey! He’s a complete cynic but at least he will not embark on a missionary quest to crush the prolife movement and smash Catholic conscience since he just doesn’t care. I’ll take a completely unprincipled fake whose only interest is money over an apostate puritan with a religious zeal for imposing abortion on the world.” But any prolifer who votes for this amoral cynic with the conviction that this empty suit and unprincipled Mammon-worshipping non-entity has the slightest interest in unborn babies is a sucker of the first water. Romney’s sole interest in the unborn is, quite literally, in the medical waste firm he invested in which makes a killing disposing of aborted fetuses–much as the Reich economy got a real shot in the arm from all those no-longer-needed gold fillings. That Romney is one smart business cat.

This is what 30 years of staying on the GOP reservation has won the prolife movement: cynical manipulative demands from the Stupid Evil party demanding that we support the guy who owns the baby incinerators–or the babies get it.

I. will. not. play this cynical manipulative game any more. I will not vote for any candidate who supports (much less invests in) grave intrinsic evil.

Think differently about your vote. Other things are possible if we choose to do them.

  • John

    Mark, you could write the same post about Dr. Bernard Nathanson too…. Or Abby Johnson. Take a decade old clip, show the person being for abortion…and then use it as proof that he’s STILL for abortion (wink, wink, nod, nod). But do we know for sure that’s the case or do we just surmise that’s the case (that people don’t change/covert)?

    Romney wasn’t my first pick (or 4th). But I’m not entirely conviced that he’s lying now when he claims to be prolife. He might be. But there’s no doubt where Obama stands and again, those 2 are our only choices as no one else is going to be on the ballot.

    • Mark Shea

      What possible reason could anybody have for thinking that Romney’s “conversion” is anything other than an utterly cynical play for votes? Johnson and Nathanson both made a serious sacrifice to change their position. What has Romney done but play to the base in the hope of gain, not in the willingness to sacrifice. He just had a huge fundraising dinner with the manufacturer of the Morning After Pill for crying out loud. If you trust his claims about suddenly becoming prolife just when it was politically advantageous to do so (ie., when he is no longer running for Gov of Mass. but Pres. of US), you are a complete and total sucker. The man is a total fraud when he claims to care about the unborn.

      • phil

        He actually changed his view while he was still gov of MA and acted on it by vetoing several pro-abortion laws. He could have potentially run for re-election after that.

      • kenneth

        This is why politics is such a sweet game (for the politicians) in this country. Once you train people in the “us vs them” Pavlov response, there is literally no limit to how many times they will fall for the same scam. It’s like watching a dog go back for a skunk or Wile E. Coyote. The politicians are learning that you really don’t even need to pay lip service to sincerity anymore. They just flip that little fear switch in the limbic system of the brain, the primitive “flight or fight” machinery, and it all falls into place.

        • Ted Seeber

          The problem, of course, being that eventually, they’ll pick somebody whose response is actually on the FIGHT rather than the FLIGHT- and that’s when the assassinations and drones burning down churches starts.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “those 2 are our only choices as no one else is going to be on the ballot”. Maybe in your state, but there are definitely going to be more than just Romney and Obama on my state’s presidential ballot ;)

      • Ted Seeber

        In Oregon, though we don’t have much better:
        Democrats- pro abortion and drone war
        Republicans- pro abortion and drone war
        Greens- pro any species other than human
        Constitution Party- Just nominated anti-Catholic immigration activist Virgil Goode
        Libertarians- Right or Left, they can be rightly called the anti-morality party
        Americans Elect- Made it on to the ballot but failed to have *ANYBODY* in their primary reach the minimum threshold of votes for nomination to the convention- and so won’t have any names actually on the ballot.
        Working Families Party of Oregon- I like their premise, but they aren’t a national party, and pretty much are a puppet of the Democrats, and in turn, the Democrats are a puppet of Wall Street.

        Right now, I’m writing in Mickey Mouse- as a much better candidate than all the others.

    • Kristen inDallas

      He still (present tense not past) has substantial investments in companies that manufacture birth control. Do people change? Absolutely. Let him sell that stock and invest it in a worthwhile industry and he can have my vote. Til then, I’m quite thankful that we DO, in fact, have more than 2 choices.

  • John

    Oh, and this happens every 4 years… the time for making this stand in during the Primaries. But I seem to recall you pooh poohing pretty much everyone else during the Primaries as being unacceptible for various reasons. So now we’re to just not vote and let the vociferously evil party win by default? Not sure that’s a smart move.

    • ds

      I dont think mark ever wrote dont vote.

    • Ted Seeber

      ” let the vociferously evil party win by default”

      And which one of the six vociferously evil parties would that be?

  • Jacob Yoder

    I agree that Romney, at best, has no strong convictions about abortion. Why say that he worships Mammon, any more than most politicians?

    • Mark Shea

      I don’t say he worships Mammon more than most pols. That’s not a compliment. However, the gall of selling himself as a prolifer after making money off the baby incineration biz–and telling prolifers they *MUST* support him on pain of conscience is a particularly appalling piece of Mammon worship coupled with fake pseudo-Christian piety.

    • kenneth

      All politicians worship Mammon, but Romney is currently pope of that cult. The other guys have aspirations too, of course, but they’re more like auxiliary bishops or pastors sniffing around for promotion….

      • ds

        Maybe we can get mammon on the ballot, and then people can just not vote for mammon. That’d be pretty clear.

  • chris-WRIT

    “But you HAVE to vote for Romney – It’s the MOSTEST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVAH!!!!”

    So said Charlie Brown as he valiantly charged for the football being held reassuringly by Lucy….

  • http://vespersontherocks.blogspot.com/ Kevin J. Bartell

    Apart from writing in Ron Paul, are you aware of any Dq3 candidates out there? I’m not asking for an endorsement, but I’ve simply not heard much about who else is running.

    • Mark Shea

      Nope. I don’t follow this stuff all that closely. I will examine the ballot here in Washington when the election comes. If I can’t find anybody I can support without feeling like I need a shower, I will right somebody in.

      • ds

        …I will right somebody in.

        I knew it! Shea is a right-winger. His true colors are exposed!!!

        As for me I am going to perform a ritual ceremony to rite in cthulhu. We need more ancient evil in our evil political process.

        • Seamus

          A friend of mine used to have a bumper sticker on her car saying, “Cthulhu in 2008. Why vote for the lesser evil?”

      • ds

        (And, no offense Mark, but you should probably take a bath or something regardless of who you vote for.)

        • http://vespersontherocks.blogspot.com/ Kevin J. Bartell

          Unless it’s a sort of statement, a la “I’ll clean up my act when these politicians clean up theirs!” In that event, though, I would highly recommend investing in clothespins for the noses of those close to you.

  • Andy

    I think that Romney best demonstrates so much of what passes for anti-abortion in the republican party. Say the words, but take the money. His conversion if you will happened only when he faced real competition in the primaries. As much as I dislike Obama, at least he more honest – you know where he stands on abortion.

  • Susanne

    Any vote we cast for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama unless EVERYBODY votes for the same person. Did the GOP get the message when McCain lost?

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Nope…the GOP didn’t get the message; they nominated another phony conservative!

    • Kristen inDallas

      Not really. We use the electoral college. Winners are not determined by popluar vote anyway. Romney will carry Texas no matter who I vote for… so I’d like to vote for someone decent, if you don’t mind too much. Plus in any given election , the number of people who don’t vote FAR outnumber the number who do, if every single one of them voted 3rd party or independent (even if it were for all different candidates that wind up not being able to carry the majority)… the ratio of obama (entrenched) votes to romney (entrenched) votes is exacly the same. (Changing an outcome from 6:5 to 6:5:3:3:2:2:1:1:1:1:1 does not change who wins, but it does send quite a message, if that message is not heard by the GOP it’ll be heard by someone eventually, and maybe a day when it’ll be 6:5:everyone else.)

  • http://mcbabyadventures.wordpress.com silicasandra

    I have no idea what I am going to do in November. Half of the time I think I should just pinch my nose and vote for Romney, since I’m in PA so my vote has more of an opportunity to “count” (how sad is that?) The other half I think I’ll write in, and then I wonder if I should write in Ron Paul or some other politician that somewhat actually fits my views (they are few and far between, it seems, when it comes to national politics.) I know I used up my 100% already, but there is also roughly 2% of my time I spend thinking that I should write in a fictional character on the ballot.

    What I really want is a viable third party (or barring another party at least a viable third option). The two party system kills. We practically worship George Washington but we seem to shove aside his thoughts on parties as some kind of idealistic immature hogwash. Well, what was the rest of the nation’s founding, then?

    • Kristen inDallas

      Jimmy Carter 2012! :)
      He’s only had one term, right? And oh for the day when the worst thing you could say about a politician was that he was (sort of innefective.) ;)

      Otherwise my Grandpa would be awesome. I would never write in a fictional person as I know way to many real life people that I would absolutely let lead me and country. They would all hate it if they won, but I think that’s a good sign.

    • ds

      I have no idea what I am going to do in November.

      I’m a big fan of Thanksgiving.

      • http://mcbabyadventures.wordpress.com Silica

        Ha!

        Yes, no matter what happens, I bet I will still be making apple pie and confusing the heck out of my in-laws, who just don’t understand how important pie is at Thanksgiving.

  • Thomas D

    If I was to throw my vote away it wouldn’t be on Ron Paul. Libertarianism is as bad as Socialism.

    • Mark Shea

      I hold no special brief for RP. Seems honest. Doesn’t ask me to support grave intrinsic evil. Good enought for me. If you find somebody else with similar qualities, knock yourself out.

      • http://mcbabyadventures.wordpress.com silicasandra

        I agree – if I were to vote for RP, it would not be because he’s a libertarian; rather, it would be because he is (at least much more convincingly than almost any other politician I can think of) truly committed to his views and those views aren’t evil. It should be a given that candidates for public office don’t openly support grave evil…but that’s definitely not the reality.

      • Ted Seeber

        I find atheism to be a grave intrinsic evil.

      • ds

        I don’t get how you can say “seems honest” in light of the newsletter thing. Years of “I wrote it but it’s taken out of context” (works for a Texas audience, as ya’ll know what he meant anyway) switched up to “I didn’t write it (dubious at best), and I don’t know who did (obviously a lie), and I only lied about that in the Texas election (admitted lie) because I listened to some advisors but I was so guilt wracked about it!

  • http://lamentablysane.blogspot.com Beefy Levinson

    Bernard Nathanson and Abby Johnson made sacrifices when they changed their minds. Moreover, they’ve explained their reasoning at length. They’ve taken us through their conversion process so to speak. Romney, on the other hand, has one position on Monday and the opposite position on Friday. Instead of explaining himself, he hopes no one remembers what he was like on Monday. That would have worked better before the invention of the intertubes, but it would still be as breathtakingly cynical.

    But vote for Romney because this is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!

  • Evan

    But if you don’t vote for Romney, Obama WILL win, and that would be the worst thing EVER to happen in the history of the WHOLE WORLD!!! Or so I am informed whenever I mention that I’m planning to vote third party or write someone in. I am extremely grateful that my vote is so influential, and will certainly use it to support someone I actually like. Or just write in Rufus T. Firefly; he would be an improvement over Obama and Romney.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Fast and Furious? Obama declaring war, without notifying Congress? Obama declaring gay marriage the law of the land? Obama working diligently to install the Moslem Brotherhood in the Middle East? Obama also working diligently to end religious freedom in America? Obama acting like a dictator, who rules by whim?

    Romney might not be the answer, but let’s not kid ourselves—a second Obama term would be horrific—putting it mildly.

    All the other possible candidates were rejected as being kooks, not ready for office, not sufficiently pure, not good enough, in one way or another. So, now we’ve got Romney. Maybe conservatives should actually have gotten behind some of the others also-rans?

    Too late now.

    P.S. Ron Paul blames America for 9/11. He’s also anti-semetic. No way is that guy getting my vote!

    • Kristen inDallas

      Clarify: All the other possible (establishment party) candidates were rejected (by the establishment parties) as being kooks, not ready for office, not sufficiently pure, not good enough, in one way or another.

    • Ted Seeber

      If Obama wins, I predict we will soon be seeing Catholic Churches attacked by what the media will claim is “lightning”. If Romney wins, I predict that earning under $325,000/year will become illegal and reason to be sold into indentured servitude.

      Which is why I’m putting all of the money I would have given to candidates into canned goods and ammo.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    You can write in whatever name you like—but, in the end, it will come down to Obama/Romney. Unfortunately, they’re our only real choices, this time around.

    It’s unfortunate—-but we’ve had since 2008 to come up with a good, conservative candidate, and a real plan of action. We blew it.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    “Any vote we cast for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama unless EVERYBODY votes for the same person.”

    I love this “logic,” and I get it on both sides. Last election, my GOP family members railed at my Third Party vote, telling me that any vote for anyone other than McCain was a vote for Obama. My liberal coworkers assured me that a vote for anyone other than Obama was in fact a vote for McCain.

    So apparently by voting my conscience and going third party, I actually voted for everyone! Yay, me!

    • chris-WRIT

      Wow, I didn’t realize we could vote more than once by just voting once! Nice!

      • DTMcCameron

        Quizzically, voting 3rd party is an effective vote for either, both, and all parties excepting the aforementioned 3rd.

        • http://disputations.blogspot.com Tom K.

          A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.

          I’ll say this for olde tyme monarchy: It left the majority mercifully free of delusions of political power.

          • ivan_the_mad

            Some might say that’s extremely cynical. I like it :)

          • Mark S (not for Shea)

            You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

            • ds

              What about a Flowery Tw*t?

  • Rachel K

    “Hey! He’s a complete cynic but at least he will not embark on a missionary quest to crush the prolife movement and smash Catholic conscience since he just doesn’t care. I’ll take a completely unprincipled fake whose only interest is money over an apostate puritan with a religious zeal for imposing abortion on the world.”

    This is pretty much me. If the Democrat were anyone but Obama–even Hillary Clinton!–I’d do a write-in for Huckabee, but as is, I just want to see Obama gone.

  • Scott

    Sorry, but I will take my chances on Romney. Obama, for his part, wouldn’t even allow a baby who survived a botched abortion a chance to be cared for. Let them die alone in a room then be thrown out like yesterday’s garbage. I will take the lesser of two evils anyday thank you.

    • Ted Seeber

      And Romney would make money taking the trash out of that room, even if the baby is still alive in the garbage sack.

    • ds

      Which, of course is untrue. Obama voted against a low that would require all doctors to care for such persons, it would still be allowed.

      • http://disputations.blogspot.com Tom K.

        Such wicked sophistry! And for what?

    • Observer

      First, whatever O supports or has any part in approval for terming expectant human life, isn’t a direct action which he is responsible. To make O out to be someone who directly puts forth absolute power and authority to endanger expected human life in their mother’s womb, isn’t a realistic perspecitve. He does not actually commit any aborshun. However, he advocates direct power and authority upon people’s basic rights and liberties. So, rather than the opposition winning by holding back abuse of power through legislation and Rom’s full intention to put exec order’s and so forth within limitation, the opposition to O have decided to play the necessary pro-liife bit because it’s easy pickens for votes. Even worse, both sides treat exec orders as hands-off as untouchable holy ground. Therefore, to put O as some sort of monster who performs some direct action upon expectant life ignores the grave and already ill-effect danger O is already commiting not necessarily for reasons totally contrary to pro-liife (abuse of power.) One added point, I don’t see his opposition gaining any leverage nor support against O’s immediate and direct threat towards religious libertee (which, again, leaves no question on limiting use of an exec order.) Blaim, as well, so-called conserv’atives who gave O room and flexibility through widening powers to enroach on libertee and has made for such hellish requirements of law now undoing relig. liberty. In thed end, they made him out to be what he is in all of his worse effects (not his own colleagues.)

  • Noah D

    Hrm. It’s a little late to start up a Secessionist Party for this cycle, I guess.

    I’m pretty much there, at this point.

  • Jonathan

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgrcotUpbww

    Basically Mitt Romney’s stance on abortion right here.

  • Nicholas Frankovich

    Mark, does the NCR article of yours that you link to fit your point here? There you wrote that you would consider “for high office candidates who don’t advocate grave evil.” Assuming that the report in Mother Jones is neither misleading nor flat-out inaccurate, don’t you think there’s a difference between “advocate” and “practice”?

    You’re a good essayist, but elections aren’t essay questions. They’re multiple-choice. You know who you think the lesser of the two evils is. Withhold your vote from him and you serve the cause of the candidate you think is the greater evil. Sophie’s choice, as you might see it, but such is the nature of living in the world. Calling Reinhold Niebuhr.

  • Robert

    Absolutely ironic that you call others “cynical” in their political reasoning. Your viewpoint is the most cynical out there. Romney is a “liar”…those who support him are “suckers.” Meanwhile, you are going to do what? Vote third party? Not vote? As Catholics, we are all able to choose to do that, or we can choose to vote the best candidate that actually has a chance to be elected. It isn’t cynicism…it’s simple math. Either Romney or Obama will be president in January. You can choose to ignore those facts or cast a useless, in my opinion, protest vote, but please don’t call us suckers for making an informed choice for Romney after reviewing his and Obama’s records.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X