Brilliant political move yesterday by Romney

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Tex

Upon reflection, yesterday's move by Romney really was quite clever.

1. Since he still had a (long) shot at the nomination, he gave the impression of leaving of his own choice, rather than being forced out.
2. He did it at CPAC, where he would have his most ardent supporters and the friendliest crowd.
3. It came unexpectedly, leaving even lukewarm supporters "wanting more."
4. Casting it as "for the good of the party, and the country" left him with some enormous good will among party faithful. Taking one for the team, as it were.
5. Gave the best political speech of his career.

Already I've heard multiple commentators talk about the feeling of buyer's remorse among CPAC goers; likewise talk show hosts. The radio hosts in particular have a tough row to hoe these next few months. Now that they're stuck with McCain, the best they can do is "hey, he's better than Hillary or Obama." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

I feel their pain.

If Romney wants to try again in a few years, he needs to get involved in the national party somehow. Either parlay his influence into a McCain gov't somewhere (cabinet position perhaps?), or get involved with the RNC or other conservative thinktank. Also, get out and campaign for senators and congressmen in vulnerable states/districts.

He does that for 4 years, and his conservative credentials will be solidified.

Maybe he could becomje McCains finance Czar welding the sword to cut D.C. down to size. McCain likes to brag about his forceful record against Pork Barrel spending, so why not unleash the Mittness and let him create an elite team that will have Washington running the way it was intended.

[DJRoss]

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")?

I am so glad I left California. My how dumb my golden siblings have become


just like a west coast liberal to make the jump that because a doesn't lead to b, c isn't going to happen.

Wake up. It doesn't matter why we are in Iraq. Reality is that we are, and the consequences of cutting and running are greater than the consequences of finishing this thing.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

I am so glad I left California. My how dumb my golden siblings have become


just like a west coast liberal to make the jump that because a doesn't lead to b, c isn't going to happen.

Wake up. It doesn't matter why we are in Iraq. Reality is that we are, and the consequences of cutting and running are greater than the consequences of finishing this thing.

How can anyone possibly know that the consequences of "cutting and running" are greater than the consequences of "finishing this thing?"

You conveniently skip over several obvious issues to reach that conclusion.

1. What does it mean to "finish this thing?"
2. Is it actually possible to "finish this thing?"
3. How long would it take to "finish this thing?"
4. How much would it cost in lives and dollars to "finish this thing?"
5. Is there a point at which we should ever give up (i.e., a point where the cost outweighs the benefit)?
6. When is that point?
7. What are the consequences of "cutting and running?"

To name a few.

And I am not "mak[ing] the jump that because a doesn't lead to b, c isn't going to happen." I don't even know what you are trying to get at there.

[Tex]

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. There's no terrorists in Iraq. What was I thinking.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

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.

What kind of logic is that? Terrorists blew up trains in Madrid. We didn't invade Madrid. Did the terrorists win? Are we obligated to remain in Iraq until nobody is alive who would one day commit an act of terrorism? If so, that means we will be there forever. Please show me a scenario that involves "winning" but not staying in Iraq forever.

Intelligence (both now and before the war) indicate that the terrorists we are after are largely in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Aren't we letting them "win" by leaving them alone where they are while being distracted in Iraq?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Of course. There's no terrorists in Iraq. What was I thinking.

Other locations of terrorists:

Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Egypt
Sudan
Lebanon
Israel
Northern Ireland
United States
Canada
Mexico

Must we have a military presence in each of those places too so we don't "lose?" You are all rhetoric and no substance. Off you go to find an article from someone else who can give an argument you can't otherwise think of.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What kind of logic is that? Terrorists blew up trains in Madrid. We didn't invade Madrid. Did the terrorists win? Are we obligated to remain in Iraq until nobody is alive who would one day commit an act of terrorism? If so, that means we will be there forever. Please show me a scenario that involves "winning" but not staying in Iraq forever.

Intelligence (both now and before the war) indicate that the terrorists we are after are largely in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Aren't we letting them "win" by leaving them alone where they are while being distracted in Iraq?

Stay on topic and quit being so dramatic. Mitt was talking about Al Qaida in Iraq, from whence Obama and Hillary say they will withdraw. Although I'm sure they know they won't; what happened to the Dem controlled Congress' threats to end funding?. We won't pull out combat forces until Iraqis can provide their own internal security. Mark my words.

We are in Afghanistan and didn't we just nail a top Al Qaida guy in Pakistan the other day? I'm sure Hillary's threat to send missles to get Osama is a LOL punch line at every Comedy Club from Peshawar to Jalalabad.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Stay on topic and quit being so dramatic. Mitt was talking about Al Qaida in Iraq, from whence Obama and Hillary say they will withdraw. Although I'm sure they know they won't; what happened to the Dem controlled Congress' threats to end funding?. We won't pull out combat forces until Iraqis can provide their own internal security. Mark my words.

We are in Afghanistan and didn't we just nail a top Al Qaida guy in Pakistan the other day? I'm sure Hillary's threat to send missles to get Osama is a LOL punch line at every Comedy Club from Peshawar to Jalalabad.

I notice you didn't bother to answer a single one of the questions asked.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I notice you didn't bother to answer a single one of the questions asked.

I thought I did in general, but here goes the specifics.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What kind of logic is that??

Very good logic.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Terrorists blew up trains in Madrid. We didn't invade Madrid. Did the terrorists win??

Define win. I suppose one could say they did. After the 2004 train bombings in Madrid, Spain elected new leaders intent on withdrawing from Iraq, which they did. Sadly, Spain's withdrawal hasn't had the desired effect. Just two weeks ago Spainish officials arrested 12 suspects in a plot to carry out suicide attacks in Barcelona. The ties go back to Pakistan.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are we obligated to remain in Iraq until nobody is alive who would one day commit an act of terrorism??

Hyperbolic question. Nonhyperbolic answer: no.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Intelligence (both now and before the war) indicate that the terrorists we are after are largely in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Aren't we letting them "win" by leaving them alone where they are while being distracted in Iraq?

Actually I think I addressed this, noting our continued presence in Aghanistan and support for NATO forces there as well as working with Pakistani authorities to get Al Qaeda forces there. I also mocked Hillary's plan to send missles after Al Qaeda and Osama. She'd be kind of the Aluminum Foil Lady to Margerat Thatcher's Iron Lady.

So the answer is no.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I notice you didn't bother to answer a single one of the questions asked.

myboynoah, don't let him draw you into the tall grass. Smoke him out.