First we had the Michelle Bachmann fade and now we may be seeing Rick Perry fade. The one constant has been Mitt Romney. And that’s scaring me. A lot.
I’m really starting to wonder if Mitt is actually going to win this thing.
And here’s something a bit disconcerting. We all know about Mitt Romney’s conversion on abortion. I hope it’s a real conversion and not a strategy.
But the Politico reports today Romney’s take on end of life issues are also pretty scary.
But Romney does have a history on the issue, and a controversial one at that. In 2005, aides to then-Massachusetts Gov. Romney pressed vigorously in court for a pull-the-plug order on a severely-beaten 11-year-old girl who appeared to be brain dead, only to rescind the request when the child unexpectedly emerged from a vegetative coma.
In late 2005, with the GOP fight over Terri Schiavo still fresh in the mind of party conservatives, Romney’s social service department, presented with a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t scenario, petitioned the state’s Supreme Court to remove life support for young Haleigh Poutre, who was sadistically, horrifically abused by her adoptive mother and stepfather for months.
When doctors examined the girl’s brain stem, they were shocked to find it had sheared – an injury most often associated with high-speed car crashes.
In Sept. 2008, officials with Romney’s Department of Social Services – admitting they ignored numerous signs the girl was being battered over a period of months — obtained custody of Haleigh, determined that the had “no possibility of regaining a meaningful existence” due to the extent of her brain damage, and began to consider judicial end-of-life options including removal of life support and feeding.
Haleigh’s jailed stepfather, possibly trying to dodge murder charges if he was able to keep the child alive, objected; The girl’s birth mother and another close relative supported the state’s request to obtain a “do not resuscitate” order.
On Jan. 16, 2008, the state’s highest court sided with Romney’s DSS and gave permission for the removal of a respirator and feeding tube.
But a day after the decision, Haleigh regained consciousness and began responding to simple commands, to the astonishment of doctors at Baystate hospital in Springfield.
A few days later, Romney, who had remained mum on the case up until that point, was pressed by reporters to articulate a broader position on end-of-life, but demurred, telling them:
“My concern is with this young girl and her current status,” he told the Boston Globe. “In light of reported improvements in her medical condition, it should be clear to everyone that no action should be taken to end this girl’s life.”
Look, you can’t blame Romney for what happened to the little girl in the first place. It’s not his fault she was beaten within an inch of her life. But to pull the feeding tube from a little girl? Seriously? And he may be the standard bearer for the GOP? I know Terry Schiavo’s brother was pretty ticked at Romney for this and rightly so.
I’ll admit that last time I was probably taken in by Romney a bit but much of that was because McCain scared me to no end. But I’ve done my research now on Romney and I’m just not seeing what GOP voters are seeing in the guy. He’s questionable on abortion, terrible on end of life issues, and he’s an economic Big Government type. He can argue all he wants about states rights as opposed to federal rights but the crux of the matter for me is that the guy sees government as the solution, not the problem.
So why are so many OK with this guy winning? I’m really asking. What is it that people see in Romney that I’m missing.
September 23, 2011 at 7:33 pm
If he ends up with the nomination, just cover your nose and take a shower after voting for him. Here's where the lesser evil justification comes in.
September 23, 2011 at 7:37 pm
@ Matthew:
"What is it that people see in Romney that I'm missing."
Ans: His hair.
I am starting to become a Cain guy. I like him with Newt. Basically, I forgive Newt his previous transgressions, and I don't think that he would repeat them in office.
The only hesitation on Cain is the 9% consumption tax. Don't like it. I'd rather see a 7% income tax, a 12% corporate tax and no consumption tax.
But I like him.
It's too bad Santorum comes off as such a jerk. His life positions are correct and his foreign policy is coming around. But man, he talks long every time and acts like a child in these debates.
As for Mitt – he is polished and smooth. THat's pretty much it. Enough to get him to replace Obama, and right now anyone would be better.
September 23, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Maybe what you are missing is that the Republicans who support Romney are not as conservative as you assume. He is their kind of guy and they are afraid of Bachmann and Perry. I also wonder if there is a let down that Perry wasn't who people thought he was. He has baggage that he has not answered well. Remember, Perry shot to the top, I believe, because the field looked so disappointing in the first place. Too many of them have not demonstrated that they have the skills and experience to take on the job. Obama is an example of of someone with a strong ideological stance, but no ability to lead. We have a field with strong beliefs and no demonstrated leadership skills.
September 23, 2011 at 8:32 pm
The lesser of two evils is still evil. How can we complain about the evil embraced by our politicians if we continue to vote for politicians who embrace evil?
September 23, 2011 at 8:57 pm
@Wine. Agreed. So, what's your option – not vote at all and let Obama win again?
September 23, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Answer is a bit complex: Establishment Ruling Class likes Romney b/c he's one of them–and won't rock their boat.
The real people have seen Bachmann implode, Gingrich go all professorial, Perry trying to shed his Statist cloak, and Cain read up on the Constitution during the debates,..,
Not to worry. Someone will emerge, and it won't be Romney.
September 23, 2011 at 9:15 pm
I have watched all 3 debates. My personal favorite is Rick Santorum on the issues, but I can tell you after watching the debates why people like Mitt. First, he is polished looking. But second, and maybe more important, He answers quickly, without fumbling and without "um's". He seems like he is very quick, smart, and on the ball. He answers also in specifics. That is why he is ahead. The only other one's who do that are Newt Gingrich, who I actually like a lot better than Mitt, but has a lot of baggage he brings to the table & Hermain Cain, who lacks experience. All the others when they speak, seem less confident, shaky, or frustrated, which in turn, makes them look as though they are not as smart, or not polished enough. Santorum gets frustrated to easily (rightfully so) but it makes him look as if he can't handle pressure. Ron Paul looks shaky and is sometimes not able to articulate well what are very very valid points. Michelle Bachman also (especially on Jay Leno) needs to up her game & get off some of the same repeated talking points. But in the end, for me, it is Rick Santorum who seems to have integrity. He seems to get the issue that LIFE must be valued, FAMILY, must be valued. And when these things are valued everything flows outwardly from there. When the proirities of a society are in the right place, then the people are kind to one another, respectful, business gets run properly, jobs floush, the economy grows, etc, etc. I am sad that he does not present better in the debates. Finally, most people do not delve too deeply into a politician or his or her background (I know my friends do not) so they get the debate, which is their only impression. Mitt is polished & sharp & says the right things. Too bad you can't believe him. I will have to crawl over shards of glass to vote for him, but alas, I am with Rick, if he wins the nomination, it is the lesser of two evils. And with Obama's track record on life, Mitt is definitely the lesser of the two evils. We cannot not vote or pick a third losing candidate who would ensure that Obama wins again.
September 23, 2011 at 9:17 pm
that was supposed to be flourish, not floush. Sorry.
September 23, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Rick,
I will vote, I will vote in a way that, at a minimum, does not require me to compromise my Catholic conscience. It is clear the Democrats won't be offering that, it remains to be seen whether the Republicans will.
If I vote outside the two-party system, it won't be the first time. And it won't be a wasted vote. I have no illusions of getting some other candidate into office. But when enough people vote outside the parties, it moves the parties in the right direction and it decreases the mandate that the winner can claim for his platform.
The only wasted vote is one cast for either of our two horrible parties. Voters who are so willing to compromise and settle for the lesser of two evils are the reason that we have ended up with a political system that so tolerates evil.
I think this is the best use of my vote, especially since I don't view politics as my Messiah and don't think the government is the only or even best way to battle evil in the world.
September 23, 2011 at 9:28 pm
And wine in the water that is a very respectful thing to do. I admire it. Maybe if we all did do that, you would be right, but too many people don't do that and According to Fr. Torraco who wrote the Catholic voters guide, we would both be okay in who we chose to vote for. He said this about that issue of a possible 3 way election;
What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?
In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope John Paul II
Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.
September 23, 2011 at 9:38 pm
@Wine: Your response is quite remarkable, thought provoking and caused me to reflect on my Christian commitment vis-a-vis a pragmatic approach to do good and stop evil. Voting for a perfect, godly candidate who is unelectable vs. an imperfect one who would definitely do less harm than the status quo. But your act of faith makes the difference for you – "don't view politics as my Messiah and don't think the government is the only or even best way to battle evil in the world." Interesting and challenging.
September 23, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Yes, Wine & Rick, I get what you are saying. We should strive to be HOLY, not Political or …. It is so hard to not be downtrodden by the state of the world. Complete Trust in Him that is where we should be… & Wine I try to fight evil everyday with Prayer & Sacraments… thanks for getting us thinking…
September 23, 2011 at 9:53 pm
@Sue: You have a point too. And it is from the Holy Father himself, the Lord's Vicar on earth. I guess we can have both Wine's position on faith – by living a holy life and your's on practicality – by voting for the imperfect yet electable alternative to pure evil.
September 23, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Buck up you'all! We have some good candidates still!
Agreed that Santorum looks like he can't handle pressure. He gets whinny and petulant. This is not a trait you want in a President. So, while he may have integrity, he looks as though he wouldn't actually function well as an executive.
Cain may lack experience, but so far he is correct on the issues, and the experience he does have is in economics where we so badly need a change. I would vote for him.
Bachman has fallen apart for me since she has said some things that just seem a bit, well, spun. Not entirely truthful. Perry the same. (Although I think that Perry would be a good President and would stay on the correct side of issues like life, health care, etc.)
I just still don't trust Romney. But I would vote for him and pray.
Paul is on the complete wrong side of 50% of the most important issues. His answer last night about abortion being a state issue? Whew! Forget it man.
So – it is down to Newt or Cain. I would support both their campaigns right now if I could. Look at it this way: If Obama could win with less experience than Cain, and faaar less than Gingrich, then he can be beaten by either one of them.
September 23, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Sue,
I think part of the problem is that so many Catholics actually discourage their brothers and sisters from taking the route I propose and make accepting the lesser of two evils some requirement for "really real Catholicism."
When it comes to voting, Catholic teaching is actually pretty thin on who you *can't* vote for and silent on who you *must* vote for. Even when it comes to those less desirable candidates, Catholic teaching focuses far more on why than who. (Perhaps you can vote even for a pro-abortion candidate if the conditions are right, but you certainly can't vote for them because they are pro-abortion, etc.)
Most of voting and political engagement lies in the realm of prudential judgment. But so many Catholics try to make voting a certain way a requirement of Catholic orthodoxy. I think the "lesser of two evils" approach is imprudent, but not necessarily un-Catholic and Catholic teaching certainly doesn't preclude it. I can understand someone finding my approach imprudent, but they really can't say it isn't a Catholic approach. I wish more Catholics would be authentic about their Catholicism and limit the argument for their position to prudence and avoid false teachings about Catholic orthodoxy.
September 23, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Rick,
I think another element here is that I'm not talking about perfection. I'm using a pretty low standard here: the candidate can't espouse evil. I think that the fact that asking that a candidate not espouse evil can be mistaken for expecting perfection is a resounding indictment of the state of our political system.
I'm not talking about a perfect candidate. I'm not even talking about a candidate that I agree with 100%. I'm not even talking a candidate whose platform embraces the fullness of Catholic teaching. I'm not even talking about a candidate whose platform is compatible with a minimalist view of Catholic teaching. I'm only talking about a candidate who does not espouse evil. I'll go as high on that list as I can, but I won't drop any lower.
September 23, 2011 at 11:56 pm
@Wine: It boils down to this – imho. A vote for a 3rd party candidate "who does not espouse evil" and is foreseeably un-electable is effectively a vote for Obama in a roundabout way. While you did not vote for him, you still will make him win. Is that what you want?
September 24, 2011 at 12:26 am
Rick,
I do understand that perspective. But for me, it boils down to this: the willingness of voters to accept the lesser of two evils is how our system got to the point where someone as wedded to evil as Obama is could get elected in the first place. The lesser of two evils keeps getting worse and worse. If we continue down this path, we will eventually come to a place where the lesser of two evils is even more evil than Obama. Is that what you want?
I will gladly suffer a lifetime of Obamas if my children can be spared worse.
You can't compromise with evil, the devil always gets the better end of the deal.
September 24, 2011 at 12:46 am
@Used to Post, I agree with you about Ron Paul, but the Paulbots are scary too. My other fear is that if Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination, he will pull a Ross Perot and hand the election to Obama. I also feel besides being wrong about rape & states being able to murder babies if they want, he is also wrong on foreign affairs.
September 24, 2011 at 2:00 am
Romney is the best candidate. He's a man of solid character and accomplishment, and he's far superior to Obama. We're electing a President, not a saint. If you want to re-elect Obama, just keep on bickering over your favorite unelectable candidates.