Did Mitt Romney Just Ruin Everything?

It's all the buzz right now around the office. Mitt Romney is a wimp. Mitt Romney is a quitter. I cannot believe he just threw in the towel--at the most inopportune time of the entire campaign. That effectively ensures that there are now three liberal front runners in the presidential race--Obama, Clinton, and McCain. And no conservatives.

Is John McCain the all-but-assured republican nominee for president? I hope not. But it's not looking good now that Quitt Romney just threw in the towel.
John McCain effectively sealed the Republican presidential nomination on Thursday as chief rival Mitt Romney suspended his faltering presidential campaign. "I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney prepared to tell conservatives at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
Any of the other Republican candidates would make a much better President than John McCain. Romney's giving up is all but assuring that that worst candidate to succeed.

Before now, anything could have happened between now and the Republican National Convention. Now it seems like it's pretty well sewed up.

How do you feel now if you're one of the 90% of Utahns who voted for Mitt Romney last Tuesday. Betrayed? I don't, because I voted for Ron Paul, but I think the situation still stinks. Do you Romney supporters wish you had voted for Ron Paul in the first place, because in your heart of hearts you knew he was a better candidate but dammit you wanted a Mormon in the White House?

Why didn't Mitt quit six months ago?

Utahns with a political hangover: stop putting your religion in front of your politics. Do you see where it has gotten us now?

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," Romney was set to say, according to his prepared remarks.
Horse crap!

The candidate least likely to beat either Obama or Clinton is McCain. Who wants the ugly socialist stepsister when you can have the real thing?

Huckabee has a better chance of beating either of the Democrats. So does Paul. And so did Romney. But just in the nick of time, Romney essentially handed all of his delegates to McCain, took his ball, and went home.

What a quitter.




Comments

  1. What a classy guy.

    He recognized that there was no viable way to win the nomination.

    The most important issue our country faces is the war on terror.

    He recognizes that the best way to get a candiate to best handle the war is to unify the GOP now rather than fight it out until the convention.

    Whoever wins the GOP nod will have a tough battle but Romey unselfishly realized it was best for the country to get behind the GOP nominee.

    I don't like McCain. I don't like a lot of his politics. I think a lot of us are going to have to vent and rant for awhile.

    But in the end, a choice between McCain and Obama/Clinton will be obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By "classy guy" I meant Romney.

    I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David,

    I appreciate your perspective. Being a Ron Paul supporter, though, I don't have the fear of Islamic terror that McCain does. I share, rather, with Ron Paul, the fear of American Imperialism. McCain and Bush are using fear of terror as propaganda to enhance the power of the state.

    The people will likely have none of it. This is why Clinton or Obama will likely win now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't understand the Imperialsim argument.

    Romney puts it very well in his CPAC speech

    Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. 'First,' he said, 'I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world.' The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America.

    I'm not sure McCain is the best to handle the war but he seems to me to be much better and experienced then Clinton or Obama.

    Is that who a Ron Paul supporter will vote for? Because he's not making it to November.

    Paul ran an impressive campaign but are his supporters more interested in a symbolic vote or actually helping the country making the best choice possible?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Romney is a class act, and if you think that Ron Paul had a chance to be elected if Romney had not run, you are mistaken. Paul had a lot of support from folks who do not vote, and that is it.

    Now it remains for Paul and Huckabee to decide if they will stand in the way of McCain.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Romney had to drop out to save us from the terrorists. It wasn't because he didn't think $1 million a delegate was too much to pay for the nomination!

    ReplyDelete
  7. And apparently that's why so many people think that we need to rally around John McCain, because he must be a much better "Save"ior!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's my take:

    Romney is positioning himself for a run in 2012. He knows that the GOP is going down, and that Billary will win. He thinks, then, that he can have an easy win in '12. Notice, too, that romney2012.com is snatched up. :)

    Accordingly, I believe that this fall will present us with McCain v. Billary. McCain is a huge liberal and many conservatives would rather vote Democrat than see McCain tote around the nuclear briefcase.

    Romney's speech was painful to listen to. It was saturated with fearmongering and the "we hate everything about radical islam, they hate everything about us" mentality, which only furthers our problems. Additionally, Romney stated that he was dropping out to help his party, and his country. Notice which order he said those things in, and you'll then see where his (and others') priorities lie.

    Mark my words: the GOP is taking fast, McCain is suicide vote for any staunch Republican, and the Democrats will win this fall. Romney's "suspension" is only speeding up the inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It would be interesting, Tyler, if Huckabee now bows out, to see how "David" Paul would fare against "Goliath" McCain.

    I'm game for at least that much!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Connor,

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised at Romney's "ability" to "take one for the team." He brown-nosed nearly every voter, so why wouldn't he brown-nose the establishment as well. He's damaged goods (self-damage), and I don't think he'll be worth much in 2012.

    I think I agree about what you say is "the inevitable". Are we, though, in a tailspin so tight that we won't be able to pull out of it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Are we, though, in a tailspin so tight that we won't be able to pull out of it?

    Good question. I believe that there's always time for repentance.

    However, the longer we wallow in the quicksand, the harder it becomes to extricate ourselves.

    The realist in me says that there's no chance of reversing course. Ever since WWII we've been heading down the globalist, socialist path, no matter what party has been in control. Their course is the same; the only thing that varies is the speed at which they pursue their objectives.

    The (fading) optimist in me says that we can always turn around, that despite the overwhelming odds and the powerful establishment, the message of liberty can spread like wildfire and that we as a people can take back our government before it's too late.

    But I'm 90% realist and 10% optimist. These days, I'm just waiting for Christ to hurry up and come. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Connor,

    I share your concern. I, however, for example, never doubted for a second that John Beck could bring the BYU Cougars back and beat Utah last year in SLC, so my optimism side of the ratio is probably closer to 20%.

    ;-)

    David,

    Sorry I didn't respond to your latest comment earlier. It is true that America is not imperial in the sense of taking land from other countries. But it IS true that we are "squatters" on a lot of land with our overstretched military. Japan doesn't want us there. Korea doesn't want us there. Germany doesn't want us there. Nor, I think, do the Iraqis, for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Frank,

    Did you really think after Tuesday that Romney still had a chance to win? I held out hope for him even after Tuesday but despite my hope I think the best he could manage would be to force a brokered convention in which he would still not be chosen as the nominee.

    If he really had no change left of winning there's no reason to stay in the race - although I'm not too keen on all the fear-mongering that's so popular among the Republican party these days.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually, yes I did think he could still win. I think a big point is that at the rate things are going, McCain was NOT going to have enough delegates to win outright. So at the convention anything could happen.

    Romney screwed all that up.

    What I really wish now is that Huckabee would get the crap out of the way and let's see how McCain handles it when he stares Ron Paul in the face.

    Mano a mano.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Romney did the right thing. He had no chance of beating McCain (how obvious can this be?) He's now the front runner in 2012.

    Republicans are going to get crushed in November, especially if Obama gets the Democratic nomination and McCain is dumb enough to pick Schmuckabee as running mate.

    The country is heading into a recession that will last a couple of years. Part of this is the sub-prime crap as well as the predictable workings of the business cycle.

    The first couple of years of the Obama administration will be economically stagnant. That's when the "looking good while saying nothing" schtick will wear thin. Right now, people are all caught up in his charisma, but charisma doesn't pay the bills, and the backlash will be huge.

    ReplyDelete
  16. david,
    We took this land from the native Americans. We killed more than 90 percent of them, then we took their land.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anon,

    Ron Paul may not be able to beat McCain at this late juncture, but if Mitt Romney would have gotten his butt out of the way sooner, and if the media would fawn over Paul like they do McCain, Paul could have kicked McCain's trash!! Paul will stay in it for the long haul to show real Republicans that there is still hope that we can wrench ourselves free of Ursula's grasp.

    Elizabeth,

    Good to hear from you! You raise a good point. We do have some things in our continental past to be embarrassed about. We may not have taken anyone else's land (that's surely debatable as our military is parked in about 150 countries) but we sure dictate to --or try to influence--them on how they use it.

    That new embassy in Baghdad is quite monstrous, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Frank

    Romney is just a good businessman knowing when to cut his losses. Mitt has set himself up well for 2012. Even if McCain wins he will most likely only be a 1 term President because of his age. In four years if he keeps himself in the limelight and champions conservative causes I think he can even overcome anti-Mormon bigotry. Hey even Ronald Reagan didn't win the nomination the 1st time he ran.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was surprised by this post. The only reason to stay in the race would be to feed his ego (see Mike Huckabee)

    He did the right thing.

    This man is hardly a quitter.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ken,

    It makes good business sense, but from the perspective of those of us who abhor John McCain, it was a huge mistake. If congress was doing its job of reigning in the executive I wouldn't worry (but they gave George W. Bush the latitude to do whatever he darn well pleased). McCain has more imperial ambitions that GW Bush, and his penchant for other socialist schemes exceeds Bush's.

    Salt,

    I admit my motive for this post is doubly ulterior. My first concern I stated above (McCain will make a quasi-tyrannical president), and my second concern is that Ron Paul is the only conservative in the race. I still thought (think?) that he could (can?) win in the convention as more people get to know him, but now the chances are slimmer of him getting that chance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Don't consider Romney damaged goods for 2012. Republicans like to nominate people that have been through the primary process before, or who have been VP. The GOP has done that every time since 1944 except for 1952 (Eisenhower), 1964 (Goldwater), and 2000 (Bush II). The they will do it again this year.

    After Tuesday, it was completely clear that Romney couldn't win the nomination. After dramatically outspending all of the other GOP candidates combined, he was only able to win certain demographic groups. He had almost no appeal outside of those groups. And there aren't enough people in those groups in the remaining primary states to give him more than a couple hundred additional delegates.

    Romney could only have won if McCain were to suffer a debilitating medical problem or else die. (Incidentally, that's why Romney only 'suspended' his campaign, rather than dropping out altogether. McCain's old enough that those kinds of things are possibilities.)

    Conner is quite certain that McCain will be facing Clinton in November, but the smart money is on Obama. He's surging. Clinton has a strong base, but isn't surging. McCain would perform better against Clinton. He doesn't have a prayer against Obama, and GOP strategists know it.

    Given current factors, the most likely scenario is that Obama will prevail in November and Democrats will increase their numbers in both the House and the Senate. But after two years of the most liberal Senator of 2007 running the country, it is likely that the GOP will be able to stage something akin to the 1994 revolution. A President Obama could be very vulnerable in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Scott,

    You're right. You've made good points, as well as have several others.

    We did talk around work here yesterday that the "suspension" of the campaign was a hedge against possible changes in the health of McCain.

    I just think it was very bad timing. So I'm still ticked. But it's mostly because if he'd stayed through the convention, my guy, Ron Paul had a chance.

    And yes, I still think Ron Paul is the best candidate on either side of the aisle.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Frank

    I think my disdain for McCain is very well documented. I was very saddened that Romney pulled out but I am only saying I understand why he did.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ken,

    You're right. I guess I understand, too. But I'm still ticked.

    ;-)

    But I'll get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Frank, Connor, Elizabeth, lotsa people here,

    What refreshing comments!

    Yeah, what really bothered me about Romney dropping out is

    1) he was still viable [of course, yeah, I also have to admit that mostly I kept track of that hoping for a brokered convention lol],

    2) he appeared to "step aside" out of an exaggerated party loyalty [as if leadership makes no difference, just the party name], and

    3) he closed his candidacy with the over-the-top, misplaced fearmongering that so disappointed me in the first place.

    I'm especially impressed with the number of people here that seem to have an appreciation for American neo-colonialism . . . where we don't enslave a nation per se but we establish large, permanent military bases, impossible to repay World Bank loans, and then lean on them "pretty heavily" whenever we have "interests" in their corner of the world.

    Unfortunately most Americans seem pretty out-of-touch with even the possibility of this reality (which is what I found so disingenous about Romney quoting Peres). [I know that my entries about American Empire are always my least read and and least commented on my blog (ie The Imperial Elephant in the Room)] Maybe American Imperialism is just boring.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Doug,

    Excellent insights. I hadn't even really thought about the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in this context, but it is very valuable to do so.

    The PBS series "Commanding Heights" gives a great insight into why, just for such economic imperialism, we have so many people around the world who hate what America stands for.

    Romney's fearmongering really bugged me, too. There IS a war on terror, but we are NOT fighting it. Instead, we are doing the Don-Quixote thing all over the world, almost expecting someone to take America's legs out from under us. And if it happens, great will be the fall thereof.

    Can we wait for four more years and hope someone as eminently qualified as Ron Paul comes along and runs for president? I hope so. But I still haven't given up my 20% optimism that he can still win this year. We need him desperately.

    BTW, I've added "Mormons for Peace" to my blogroll.

    ReplyDelete
  27. For me, it's hilarious to watch the Republican party tear itself to shreds...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha haaahaa ah ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ha ahhhhh. That's a good laugh. See ya in November.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You're right, unfortunately. McCain, seeing as he'll probably get the nomination, is about to get his butt kicked. Except this time there will be an all-new malfunction that will hold the country spellbound for at least two weeks--and it will happen in Kentucky.

    But Hillary will win. And the Republicans will complain that the supreme court shouldn't have gotten involved. And McCain will ask for a recount, and...wait that already happened.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

How LDS Censorship May Have Led to Less LDS Faithfulness: The Ronald E Poelman Conference Talk of 1984

Changing the Narrative of the LDS Church: 35 Years Later

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs