Romney Quits (what a big disappointment.)

Quote:

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.

With statements like this, Romney is trying to make sure Americans don't elect a Republican.

Its about time that the ridiculous scare mongering is pointed out for what it is. It's not like Bush or any republican has made the US safe from terrorism or captured Bin Laden.

parados wrote:

Quote:

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.

With statements like this, Romney is trying to make sure Americans don't elect a Republican.

Its about time that the ridiculous scare mongering is pointed out for what it is. It's not like Bush or any republican has made the US safe from terrorism or captured Bin Laden.

Who was the audience?

Also, his statement is not incorrect. Both Clinton and Obama will sell out US National Security in a heartbeat to the UN. Both have said so.

woiyo wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:

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.

With statements like this, Romney is trying to make sure Americans don't elect a Republican.

Its about time that the ridiculous scare mongering is pointed out for what it is. It's not like Bush or any republican has made the US safe from terrorism or captured Bin Laden.

Who was the audience?

Also, his statement is not incorrect. Both Clinton and Obama will sell out US National Security in a heartbeat to the UN. Both have said so.

The UN is a terror organization?

Even you can't be that stupid woiyou.

parados wrote:

woiyo wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:

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.

With statements like this, Romney is trying to make sure Americans don't elect a Republican.

Its about time that the ridiculous scare mongering is pointed out for what it is. It's not like Bush or any republican has made the US safe from terrorism or captured Bin Laden.

Who was the audience?

Also, his statement is not incorrect. Both Clinton and Obama will sell out US National Security in a heartbeat to the UN. Both have said so.

The UN is a terror organization?

Even you can't be that stupid woiyou.

Where in the above did I say the UN is a terror organization? Idiots like you can only twist a straight forward statement.

woiyo wrote:

parados wrote:

woiyo wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:

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.

With statements like this, Romney is trying to make sure Americans don't elect a Republican.

Its about time that the ridiculous scare mongering is pointed out for what it is. It's not like Bush or any republican has made the US safe from terrorism or captured Bin Laden.

Who was the audience?

Also, his statement is not incorrect. Both Clinton and Obama will sell out US National Security in a heartbeat to the UN. Both have said so.

The UN is a terror organization?

Even you can't be that stupid woiyou.

Where in the above did I say the UN is a terror organization? Idiots like you can only twist a straight forward statement.

Is his statement correct or not? You said it was not incorrect which means it must be correct.

woiyo,

You offered your statement about the UN as support that his statement was "not incorrect." Since he claimed a "surrender to terror." you statement about surrendering our national security to the UN would seem to be about surrendering to terror which would make the UN a terror organization.

Now you want to compound your error by claiming that pulling out too soon will somehow be a "surrender to terror."

By the time the vote roles around, he will have released his delegates for a unanimous vote for McCain at the convention. This isn't about being selfless. It is about positioning Romney for a future run.

Interesting thread. Thank you all for your comments, and to Finn especially for giving a level-headed analysis 'from within', so to say.

Pity though - that Romney dropped out. It was fun seeing the bitter infighting on the Republican side.

You still have the bitter infighting on the Democratic side to enjoy, and it looks like its going to be with us all the way to Denver in September

I agree with the predictions here that those will die out pretty quickly now. Republicans are traditionally very eager to quickly rally round an anointed frontrunner, and have that whole risky phase of intra-party competition in the primary season over and done with -- it's a miracle it lasted as long as it did.

Ideological and personal rancour against McCain may run deep in some quarters, but power is a potent mediator. Now that it's clear that McCain will be the nominee, talk radio hosts may still continue railing, but anyone in the party whose business is politics or lobbying in one way or another will find an excuse to back the winner sooner than you can say "interests".

The elected conservative are lining up behind McCain, and I'm sure that one or two them will taked the radio conservatives aside and talk some sense into them.

McCain has little to fear of Huckabee. Huck has mostly been behaving like a McCain ally anyway, and is likely just out to a) put the evangelical grassroots on the map to avoid them being used as just footsoldiers again and b), to himself become the evangelicals' representative in an important government post. Meanwhile he has no chance winning over those railing against McCain on the Rush/Coulter end of the spectrum: those people were always more wedded to business conservatism than religious conservatism, and Huckabee's broadsides against the "Wall Street/Washington DC axis" makes him even more of a boogeyman than McCain is.

My bet is that he has a two pronged strategy.

Become the de facto leader of the evangelicals and secure a cabinet post.
Health & Human Services or Education.

He may try for VP, but he'll never get it and he has no qualifications for one of the Big Four: State, Defense, Treasury and Attorney General

I wonder whether Romney will agree to be on McC's ticket. The two would make a pretty good ticket, I guess.

Romney suffered quite a loss. He had $35 M of his own dough invested in the campaign.

Advocate wrote:

I wonder whether Romney will agree to be on McC's ticket. The two would make a pretty good ticket, I guess.

Romney suffered quite a loss. He had $35 M of his own dough invested in the campaign.

McCain will wait for the Democratic race to sort out before he chooses. If Hillary wins, McCain will pick a more moderate running mate. If Obama wins, he will go more conservative.

I don't think Romney is a good choice for him either way.

My bet is that he [Huckabee] has a two pronged strategy.

Become the de facto leader of the evangelicals and secure a cabinet post.
Health & Human Services or Education.

He may try for VP, but he'll never get it and he has no qualifications for one of the Big Four: State, Defense, Treasury and Attorney General