Brilliant political move yesterday by Romney

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The real GOP leaders are getting behind McCain, not a Romney run in '12. If Laura Ingraham is one of the "conservative leaders," God help us.

The conservative chattering class was already in Romney's camp btw.

I didn't say Ingraham is one of the leaders! I said she and 30 leaders met with Romney.

This was not the "chattering class."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The real GOP leaders are getting behind McCain, not a Romney run in '12. If Laura Ingraham is one of the "conservative leaders," God help us.

The conservative chattering class was already in Romney's camp btw.

Don't be silly, Mike. Of course they're getting behind McCain for this election. But if you think they're not keeping their options open for a Romney run in '12, you don't understand politics.

Originally Posted by Coach McGuirk

Sounds an awful lot like "Anyone but Bush!". And we all know how that went for two elections. "he is better than" doesn't inspire people that they are getting someone that can make a difference in their lives and will most likely not vote.

I agree. Believe me, I'm not happy about it.

[MikeWaters]

would you all have felt better about a Romney that gets the nomination and loses in a landslide (in large part due to losing the hispanic vote)?

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

would you all have felt better about a Romney that gets the nomination and loses in a landslide (in large part due to losing the hispanic vote)?

No, because your above scenario would put him in a worse position to win in 2012, than he is in now. Not that I believe your above scenario is what would have happened.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps. He certainly could have still fought, and it was apparent that many of his supporters, both ardent and lukewarm, expected he would do so. At least for a few more caucuses.



It was a magnificient gesture in uniting the party. Which (he hopes) has the effect of defeating terrorism, by defeating the two Democrat defeatists.

Your little tantrum about that makes as much sense as the people who say buying gasoline supports terrorism.

I love the fact that you (and Romney) actually try to tie election of Democrats to victory for terrorists. It is emblematic of the arrogance of your party and the depths to which you will stoop to win an election.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I love the fact that you (and Romney) actually try to tie election of Democrats to victory for terrorists. It is emblematic of the arrogance of your party and the depths to which you will stoop to win an election.

The election of Democrats itself is not. The policies they have promised to follow once in office, are.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't know that I would call it brilliant. It was really the only move he had left.

The day before Mitt withdrew the NY Times printed a memo from Charles Black (working for McCain) that said Romney was mathematically eliminated. Black wrote that Romney would have to win every state, and by a landslide since some were not winner take all. He was mathematically eliminated. Only cranks stay in in those cirumstances. Mitt is too proud to be reduced to crank status, if nothing else. It wasn't brilliant to quit when he did. It would have been stupid to stay in. It would have been smarter to keep his mouth two days before rather than say he would slog on and be ground to dust, as Adam has noted.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The election of Democrats itself is not. The policies they have promised to follow once in office, are.

Right. Still holding onto your theory that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (and then taking another large leap to assume that leaving Iraq has something to do with terrorists "winning")?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I love the fact that you (and Romney) actually try to tie election of Democrats to victory for terrorists. It is emblematic of the arrogance of your party and the depths to which you will stoop to win an election.

Who are we fighting right now in Iraq that Obama and Hillary are itching so badly to pull back from? Last week they sent two young ladies with Downs Syndrome strapped with explosives into a public market and then detonated the girls remotely. We pull back and those terrorists win.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Right. Still holding onto your theory that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (and then taking another large leap to assume that leaving Iraq has something to do with terrorists "winning")?

Of course he is. It makes the Iraq war very easy to justify if you can convince yourself that it is somehow helping the war on terror. Those of us in the "reality based community" have to deal with the tiny possibility that sending hundreds of thousands of our soldiers to play policeman for an irrelevant country while deliberately and explicitly ignoring the terrorists might not be a great strategy. It may, in fact, be inhibiting our ability to fight against actual terrorists. Imagine that.

Tex, feel free to ignore that paragraph and go on accusing Hillary and Obama of surrender, retreat, defeatism, etc. I expect nothing less.