Romney Quits (what a big disappointment.)

I believe Mitt is sincere in his reasons for leaving the race, but I also think it was a brilliant political move.

Mitt Romney is now the official Golden Boy of the Republican party.

McCain will have to consider him for VP, and it would be a smart move to make, but even if he doesn't, Romney is now the presumptive heir to the leadership of the party. If McCain loses in 2008, barring some extreme circumstances, you can bet the ranch that Romney will be the nominee in 2012. Even if McCain wins, if he falters and remains unpopular among conservatives, we might see him challenged by Romney in 2012.

If he remained in the race, it wasn't a matter of what damage he might be able to do to McCain, it was the fact that as a "Real Conservative" remaining in the race he gave cover to folks like Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingram to continue tearing into McCain.

This is very good news for the Republicans. The in-fighting is over and the National campaign can begin. Meanwhile, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Democratic in-fighting will not extend to the convention.

Does anyone believe Hillary will pull out, and why would Obama?

Round one to the GOP

All his talk can be summed up in two words:

Sore Loser

I hope so.

Good analysis, Finn, I tend to agree.

I'm not sure if it is really brilliant as opposed to obvious since it seems vanishingly unlikely that he'd actually win if he stayed in the race. But I agree that it was a good idea and much of your analysis of why. (I wouldn't bet the ranch on 2012 -- too much time for someone else to emerge, and Romney has shown that he has serious electability problems.)

Is it sundown for Rush?

What about Dan Quayle?

Whoa. Listening to his speech just now. Isn't he just the most arrogant and insulting prick around?

I have learned from him just now that us Europeans are in crisis because we are immoral and our faith in God is wavering.

Up yours, Romney!

sozobe wrote:

What about Dan Quayle?

Dan Quayle, despite holding the position of VP for four years was never considered the next in line among Republicans.

Perhaps if Bush had won a second term, Quayle would have climbed to the top of the leader board, but not while being a weak and laughable VP in a one term presidancy.

Green Witch wrote:

All his talk can be summed up in two words:

Sore Loser

Nonsense.

A sore loser would have attempted to diminish the winner.

A sore loser would have attempted to external causes for his loss.

He didn't do either.

His criticism of the Left wasn't the expression of a Sore Loser. He didn't lose to the Left.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

sozobe wrote:

What about Dan Quayle?

Dan Quayle, despite holding the position of VP for four years was never considered the next in line among Republicans.

Perhaps if Bush had won a second term, Quayle would have climbed to the top of the leader board, but not while being a weak and laughable VP in a one term presidancy.

Well, that's what I mean. Romney was, all things considered, a pretty weak and laughable candidate. Maybe too weak and laughable to be a shoo-in in 2012.

I'm not ruling it out, but I'm not betting the ranch on it either.

Au contraire, Mr. Alter. Mitt Romney has many strengths, but gracefully dodging mistakes isn't one of them. In fact, as we here in Massachusetts know firsthand, the governor is something of a political klutz. Consider these classic Romney blunders:

7) He likes gay people
In 1994, while running against Ted Kennedy for the US Senate, Romney assures the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans that "as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent." (Remember, that opponent is Ted Kennedy. Romney gets the endorsement.) During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney operatives distribute bright-pink fliers at Boston's gay-pride festival that read: "Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference." Two years later, during his speech at the Republican National Convention, Romney likens the threat from same-sex marriage to the menace of Islamist terrorism.

3) A foolish consistency, etc.
Debating Ted Kennedy during their 1994 Senate race, Romney offers a passionate defense of abortion rights, referencing his mother, Lenore, in the process. "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country," Romney says. "I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate." Later in the debate, Romney says a relative once died after an illegal abortion, and adds: "Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that." Romney subsequently wavers on that, telling Fox News's Chris Wallace in 2006 that he is "very firmly pro-life."

Even if you disagree with his politics, Romney's stumblebum ways are kind of endearing, and we'll remember them fondly when he leaves the corner office later this year. Of course, whether they would serve the Republican Party well in 2008 is another matter entirely. Forewarned is forearmed.

The weathervane stances, the dismal showing in head-to-head polls with Dem candidates (while McCain was much closer and sometimes ahead), the 30 million of his own money in the campaign and all for naught -- not very strong.

Whoa. Listening to his speech just now. Isn't he just the most arrogant and insulting prick around?

I have learned from him just now that us Europeans are in crisis because we are immoral and our faith in God is wavering.

Up yours, Romney!