Thursday, February 07, 2008
Mitt Romney's graceful withdrawal
Mitt Romney withdrew from the race for the Republican presidential nomination with grace, and gave the best reason imaginable (recognizing that politicians are loathe to cite "lack of popularity"):
Romney cited the war in Iraq and the larger War on Terror as the reason for his withdrawal, saying that if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama won the White House, they would “retreat” from Iraq and create a situation that would leave America open to attack. He said that the party must unite behind Senator McCain as soon as possible in order to prevent Iraq from “making Afghanistan under the Taliban look like a picnic.”
“In this time of war, I feel I now have to stand aside,” Romney said. “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
Frankly, Romney's parting message makes me feel better about my endorsement of him, and it also makes me feel better about John McCain, without whom "we're really screwed." The Republicans are way behind, but have the chance to invest deeply in their candidate, organizationally and financially, while the Democrats are spending themselves on an extended intramural contest. Will the GOP take advantage of this gift of sound judgment from Mitt Romney?
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
16 Comments:
By 
Sara (Pal2Pal), at
Thu Feb 07, 05:55:00 PM:
There are two things that Romney did today. First, he showed the country what a class act he really is. Second, by suspending his campaign, he retains control over his 294 delegates and positions himself to have a real voice at the Convention. His Spokesperson said that having that voice is important to Mitt so that his supporters and those that voted for him will have their voices heard through him.
I don't want to see him in any second banana VP slot, but could there be a more dynamic choice for head of the RNC than Mitt? He would get to run his own show and do what he does best, raise buckets of money and raise it for the Party. For once, we could have someone at the RNC who really has the skills necessary for the job. And an RNC head can get a lot of media face time, if they are good speakers. We haven't seen it so much in the last few years, but it used to be that the RNC head was on all the time. Great exposure.
So, I'm for drafting Mitt for head of RNC, anyone else?
By Jim in Virginia, at
Thu Feb 07, 08:39:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, if your endorsement of Mitt Romney had this effect, will you next endorse Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Please?
By 
, at
Thu Feb 07, 09:25:00 PM:
I acknowledge Romney's grace today, and as one of the 80 voters who cast a Romney vote in Princeton Borough on Tuesday I'm happy to see him make both the right decision and a moving speech. But McCain was equally impressive, maybe more so than I've heard him be ever before in this campaign (and, like you, I've been listening). I would particularly point you to this paragraph in his speech, which captures the momentus nature of the choice we will be offered in this election:
"Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs."
I'm for McCain, and a secure peace, prosperity and liberty.
By , at
Fri Feb 08, 07:33:00 AM:
TH, you MUST check out Jon Stewart's recent comments (comedycentral.com) about Romney's withdrawal. Very funny stuff. He also illustrates why Romney can be an absolute dolt. I am thrilled that he is out of this.
-david
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Feb 08, 01:41:00 PM:
I have to admit that I think Romney's comments were laughable. He backed out so he wouldn't have to throw away more of his millions just to have his ass completely handed to him in the coming months and become a certified losing candidate. I agree with anonymous above. I think we just dodged a bullet here with Romney. Most people can see that guy for what he is and that's why he's no longer a consideration.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Feb 08, 01:53:00 PM:
I just saw the Daily Show clip and yes John Stewart sums it up quite nicely.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Feb 08, 03:49:00 PM:
Revealing commentary by David above. Romney may be many things, but I'd venture he has the highest IQ amongst all the candidates. You may disagree with him, but your insult reflects more accurately your own intellectual deficiencies than says anything remotely accurate about Romney.
A fool you are.
Now Catchy, it hardly takes a genius to acertain that Romney made a rational economic decision to stand down. But he did so with grace, and in a fashion which fortified the Republican position ultimately in the coming election. You may disagree, but I would not advise you find it laughable. Keep in mind that those selfsame concerns elected George W. Bush in 2004, long after Iraq had happened and the Plame nonsense had been proffered as a "scandal." A majority of this country's citizens care deeply about national security and the credible use of force abroad to defend it. And since this coutry's citizens elect the President, I would suggest it would be unwise to underestimate Mr. McCain.
One distinct benefit of Romney's having dropped from the race today is that it reduces McCain's reliance on Huckabee, and therefore reduces the odds that he has to make Huck his VP candidate. And my response to this is, phew, thanks for that Mitt.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Feb 08, 09:09:00 PM:
Romney could have dropped out of the race gracefully without saying that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Al Qaeda. That's the typical fear mongering that the right has been using for a while, and what's great is that it didn't work for him. If that's going to be McCain's style then he'll lose too. But I give McCain more credit than that.
And the praise for Romney on this post made it sound as if he was stepping down for altruistic reasons which is so very far form the truth. He lost, fair and square, by a lot. That's why and only why he's dropping out. Not for his vapid excuse 'because I love America...'
I thought his speech was very revealing about the kind of politician he is and I feel very lucky that he didn't make it any farther than he did. He may be a smart guy, but he's a smart guy that does not need to be running this country.
By Sara (Pal2Pal), at
Fri Feb 08, 09:27:00 PM:
catchy - A vote for a democrat is a vote for dhimmitude, as you so aptly demonstrate. And Romney did not lose by a lot. McCain got 4.7 million votes, Romney 4 million. Fair and square, what was fair about the whisper campaign against his religion that was propagated by Huckabee's cohorts.
By , at
Sat Feb 09, 09:41:00 AM:
It may be true that Democrats voting for Obillery may not think of themselves as voting for al Qaeda directly. The big differences between the candidates different approaches to the war on Islamic jihad (Obama and the Clintons on one side of the issue, with McCain on the other) suggest to me those voters aren't thinking straight, though.
We can all agree al Qaeda declared very real war on America, killing thousands in attacks all over the world. The war of retribution against these guys is hard and long, and the left says we should stop fighting for that reason, while McCain is making the case for fighting to a finish. Isn't that really what this Obillery/McCain disagreement is all about?
McCain argues that if we don't finish this fight victoriously, the war then will be moved here and to Europe, and many more people will die. Al Qaeda says repeatedly that's the whole idea, to bring the fight here, and then to force America out of the middle east entirely. Do you disbelieve them when they say these things? Do you think their will to fight will diminish somehow, without actively fighting them? Why do you disagree with their own statements?
A vote for Obillery does in fact seem to be a vote for al Qaeda, in that it's al Qaeda's agenda that is best served by a vote for either one of the Democrats. That's not meant as "fear mongering", whatever you mean by that statement, it's meant as a rational, straightforward description of reality. Is it wrong? How would you disagree?
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Sat Feb 09, 01:49:00 PM:
I don't see how calling out Romney on his pathetic excuse for losing as demonstrating how the Democrats help Al Qaeda. But I wouldn't expect any other kind of response from the folks on this blog. What I love is that your guy lost. He's spewing the same junk you are and he lost. You can spin it all you want, but the simple fact is he is no longer a candidate for president. Why? Because he's a loser. People are done with that line of thinking you've demonstrated.
I know how you guys think. I didn't expect to sway any of you. I'm just calling Romney out on his line of horse crap that you've swallowed with glee.
The Democrats will win this election and you'll have to spin that too, how it wasn't really a loss or it's good because of blah blah blah.
And when the war on terror keeps going and we still win battles even with the Democrats in charge, you'll have to spin that as well. It'll probably go on the lines of how Bush set the foundation and the Democrats just merely have to preserve it or maybe you'll say the Democrats adopted a Bushian strategy which proves he was right all along. I really can't wait to see how you handle a loss this November. It's going to really fun to watch. You basically have already lost with McCain as your man. So go ahead hit me with your spin.
By , at
Sat Feb 09, 03:44:00 PM:
I don't see how calling out Romney on his pathetic excuse for losing as demonstrating how the Democrats help Al Qaeda. But I wouldn't expect any other kind of response from the folks on this blog. What I love is that your guy lost.
What a lame way to ignore the entire question!
Romney wasn't using al Qaeda as "an excuse for losing", but rather as a reason for supporting John McCain over Dhimmitude. And, you know that.
Instead of insulting the messengers, why don;t you answer the questions? How is a vote for Obillery NOT a vote for al Qaeda? As I said before, it looks to me as if it is since their agenda is al Qaeda's agenda.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Sat Feb 09, 08:27:00 PM:
Good lord, are you serious? How can I argue with someone who can't read and process information. Go back and re-read my post. Maybe try it slowly next time. It's okay to move your lips, no one is there to judge you.
As far as your "question", a vote for Obama or Clinton is not a vote for Al Qaeda because they will continue the fight and more than likely be much more successful than monkey-boy who inhabits the White House ever could hope to be. You and your shrill accomplices in the "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Al Qeada" lost your candidate and you will lose the election because you're wrong, everyone knows it, and their sick of your crap.
Have fun with McCain hahahaha! You guys hate him so much and now he's all you've got! That's so great! Oh wait.... there's Huckabee... oh but you hate him too... hahahahaha! Oh this election is going to be so much fun.
By , at
Sat Feb 09, 08:56:00 PM:
Now, go quietly back under your bridge and do whatever Trolls do, and you won't get hurt.
Shrill little bugger, that you are.
By Sara (Pal2Pal), at
Sat Feb 09, 09:17:00 PM:
It is always amusing to watch someone like Catchy, who cannot prevail on the issues, forced to resort to immature, okay silly, name calling.
By Noumenon, at
Sat Feb 09, 10:47:00 PM:
TigerHawk, I read your McCain vs Romney post, linked it to my family forum, and thought, "gee, I know Romney wouldn't represent my economic interests, but maybe he'd make the most competent President anyway."
Then he gave this speech and I thought, "Whew -- I was stupid to even think about voting for him!"
