Thursday, February 7, 2008

Romney's Suspended

Now he can sit home and tell his grandkids how he gave up "for the good of the party". How noble. So many primaries to go - so many delegates to have won.
And this is supposed to unify the Republican party?
Someone offered him a deal no doubt.
Now the media can have the McCain show 24/7.

The primaries are not even over, and we are being shuffled off to the general election, and McCain had not even won the majority of delegates yet! Delegates are still in play and can be traded like livestock. But Romney's leaving is a real shame because now it really limits people's choice.

The McCain presidency is being shoved down the public's throat. The media will hardly mention the two other Republicans still in the race. It'll be an Obama/McCain race from now on. The whole scenario kind of reminds me of when Christmas stuff is displayed before Halloween is even celebrated.

I would like to point out one thing with regard to Ron Paul and Huckabee: I hope they stay in the race. I know Paul has said that as long as he has supporters that he will stay in. One article for Huckabee, which serves as a reminder of how things could turn out, said this:
In the 1860 Republican Convention, William H. Seward of NY entered the convention with a plurality of delegates, but not a majority. Abraham Lincoln entered the convention considerably behind in delegates, but it turned out on the third round of voting, the dark horse candidate, Lincoln got his party's nomination and the rest, as they say, is history. Some have suggested that Lincoln won on the strength of his support from West Virginia, which wanted a strong candidate so they could take a stand for the Union.

Could history repeat itself in 2008? If neither leading candidate in the Republican race, McCain and Romney, can lock down a clear majority before the convention, we could have a brokered convention where, like West Virginia today, the candidate who comes with the most delegates, but not a majority, may not be able to get a majority and the most acceptable candidate could be the dark horse...
Sometimes I think people just give up and give in way too easily. Whatever happened to perserverence? So far, Paul and Huckabee have shown that necessary presidential trait along with a little respect for their supporters thrown in.

Looks to me like Romney just thumbed his nose at everyone who voted for him.
No surprise here.


Dy said...

I told Zorak the same thing this morning, when he called me to tell me the news. I feel like they're trying to force me to vote for McCain, and I simply will not do it. I can't, not in good conscience, not for the "good of the party", and most particularly not for the "good of the country". No real good is going to come of McCain being spoonfed the nomination, or of us being forcefed his line.


Kim said...

I was thinking that Romney decided to bow out before he was considered a 'loser.' I wonder if he's trying to gear up for the next round and using the 'for the good of the party' line as a way of making himself seem more noble than just the guy who couldn't hack it the first time.

Speaking as someone who could never vote for the author of McCain-Feingold, I'm looking like a Hillary supporter. Normally this would make me feel awful, but considering the hurting that G.W. Bush and the Republican congress have put on the budget, and not being one to support someone because of social conservativeness, may as well vote for the Democrat.

The King said...

What happened to common sense and rational thought? The idea of just keep running is kind of stupid isn't it?

Mitt Romney was a very good candidate with a record of achievement albiet not perfect... and he certainly ran a mediocre campaign. Moreover, if you Ron Paul folks weren't so busy whining about a so-called blackout of poor Dr. Paul, you would have actually noticed an open, and well coordinated effort between McCain and Huckabee throughout this campaign. You can look to WV's caucus for proof of coordination between campaigns.

Mitt is right. His withdrawal is good for the party and the end game, which to the REST OF US is making sure Hillary doesn't get in the White House. If Mitt continued, the attacks and coordinated attacks would have continued. So why bother? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to look at the delegate count, look at the projections, and do the freaking math. Hello?

Some people just want to shout from the mountaintops and be heard. The battle is over within the GOP. Stop trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Big Mac has won the day. Now its time for Huckabee and Paul to show some class and suspend. We could use the money in the next battle to come.

Do you know what's more appauling than anything else? It's these "fall on your sword" conservatives that would actually surrender the White House to the liberals just because they (or we) didn't get our candidate elected.

Stop your whining! You know we've had eight years to come up with a legacy candidate (and I don't mean Ron Paul that for sure). I mean a charismatic person that could reach out across the aisile on basic convictions and policy positions. WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

So here we are. McCain has been working this for 12 years. And we got lazy and comfortable. And some of you tried to build up other candidates much larger than they really are.

I'm no fan of McCain. He will make for a lousy President on key issues, but Hillary or Obama will do damage that can't be reversed. Being someone of real conviction, I cannot sit this out. Ronald Reagan once said - you don't get everything you want. With Big Mac, we are lucky to get a little over half. But it sure as hell beat Hillary for 8 years, and a Bob Dole in between.

Do what you want. Rag on Mitt for giving up a fight he couldn't win. Keep jumping up and down and pray that Paul get 6%, and then tell us what its all worth?

Time to accept things as they are. Then remember who is really at fault. It's us for being lazy.

Judy Aron said...

Sorry no - King - you miss the point completely - it isn't about Paul - it's about the manipulation. McCain was going to be shoved down your throat from the beginning. If you can't see that - well there is nothing I can say or do.

You really don't see the media blackout because your candidate got mentioned. You may not like Paul - and that's fine - but you'd be singing a different tune if Romney was left off of polls and not invited to debates and so forth just so his message wasn't delivered. You can deny that those things happened - but the proof is very real.

I'm not whining.. and quite frankly from now on it really won't matter if Hillary gets in - she is no different then McCain (and you can believe he is if you wish - that's what the party wants you to believe my friend). By voting for McCain, King, you HAVE surrendered the white House to liberals. That is the stark reality.

I'd rather die on my sword thanks, then compromise for this mess of crap. Enjoy the new Republican party.

The King said...

But Judy, I think you are missing the point. The battle for the nomination is over. But the battle for the heart and soul of the Party has just begun.

When you have calmed down, I think you'll see that there are very large policy differences between Hillary and McCain. And they are not suttle. I'll be happy to provide you a large list if you'd like - but I'd urge you to start by looking at healthcare, judicial nominations, strength and use of NATO, policy on Iraq, and Iran.

As for Ron Paul, I do not dislike him (nor take cheap shots at him by putting him in a bathrobe with a bottle of win and bag of snacks on my blog) but I didn't want him for President based on a number of stances including national security positions.

I don't expect you to do anything. I would hope that if you can cool off, you'd find a way to get involved in pivotal congressional races that will play an even bigger role than the White House race. And I'm not talking about the steep challenge to DeLauro or Larson, but rather - fighting to knock off Courtney, and Murphy. These are places WE CAN WIN to offset the balance.

Do what you want. I'm just trying to get you to shake off the anger and be productive.

While you (wrongfully) accuse me of buying into the establishment's choice), I guess I'm accusing you of falling into Hillary's hope - you stay home and they sweep all. Now who's calling the kettle black??

christinemm said...

I also feel that McCain is being shoved down our throats.

Judy Aron said...

I do not need McCainisms like "calm down". You bet I'll be working to get Republicans elected from CT - that is not a new concept to me. I had all intentions of that, and I have been involved - and you of all people should know that.

Shake off the anger? - you mean for you it's ok how this has all gone down? McCain said to fall in line and you will? He tells you to shut up and just accept him? That to me is almost like someone telling the victim to just enjoy it while she's being raped. I'll shake off the anger when my party finally gets it's sh** together and acts like Republicans instead of pretending they actually represent their constituents or what they are supposed to stand for.

You are actually buying into the notion that McCain is different then Hillary? For goodness sakes man - he agrees with Al Gore that we should cripple our economy in the name of global warming! have you actually read any of the legislation McCain has written?

Look King - for me this race is far from over on any count and as far as I am concerned McCain does not now - nor has he ever - represented my idea of Conservatism. He's a fraud and no better than Hillary. You can go ahead an support him and believe you are helping to mend the Republican party. I'm not going along with it. I'm not living that lie.

Oh, I won't be staying home in November but I sure as heck won't be voting for McCain or Hillary either.

Crimson Wife said...

I've never quite understood why McCain gets bashed as being "liberal". Here's someone rated by NARAL at 96% pro-Life with a "documented record of hostility toward abortion" and has been voting pro-Life for decades. Unlike Romney who as recently as 2002 claimed that "the choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs."

He's also received a full 100% rating from the Cato Institute for his economic conservatism.

Why don't you just be honest and say that you don't like him because he's pro-free trade and supports an active foreign policy rather than an isolationist one?

Judy Aron said...

How is McCain pro-free trade? NAFTA, CAFTA and the NAU are not free trade agreements - they are contrived trade agreements.

McCain gets bashed as a liberal - as in McCain-Feingold (elimination of free speech), McCain-Kennedy (Amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Lieberman(Global warming greenhouse gas nonsense)..etc.
readmore here...

Yeah - let's be honest - I don't like him because he's a fraud.

Oh and by the way - I don't believe in isolationism (neither does Ron Paul) and there is a vast difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Our foreign policy should be one of non-interventionism.. sort of like the Star Trek Prime Directive.

The King said...

Star Trek non directive? You must be kidding.

Yes, well that's nice. But to be fair, the idea that unstable islamic terrorists threaten our nation tells me that intervention is necessary. This includes plotting terrorist acts in cells and killing innocent civilians via suicide bombing. It's not limited to long range missiles. Mr. Paul seems to not support interventionist activity.

I think most of us learned a lesson after 9-11, if you say it, you might mean it, and we don't have to wait to see Americans dead in the street before we take action to prevent it.

We need Ron Paul's "wait and see attitude" like we need a hole in head.

I know you don't like McCain. So what. You don't have to like him, but understand rallying against him is like supporting Hillary. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference.

Good to see others are beginning to come around to sensible thinking.

Judy Aron said...

yeah, King, I was kidding about Star Trek - gosh - lighten up.

You know something - if you were really so concerned about the terrorists then why aren't you busting down Chertoff's door and demanding why he isn't doing anything about the cells that exist in this country already.

Paul doesn't have a wait and see attitude - and the fact that you think that is how you have been manipulated by the MSM. Have you really listened to what he is saying? Do you even know what his Congressional votes on the military have been? How do you explain that he has the most military support of all the candidates? Yeah, must be because he is a "woosie pacifist". The plain truth King is that you really don't know anything about Paul's foreign policy. He believes in a strong military - he supports 2nd amendment rights - and he proudly served in the Air Force, and personally believes that war can be and should be justified in many cases. Further evidence of his support of war is his support of a fiercely superior national defense system. He also believes that we should follow the Constitution when it comes to declaring a war.

Maybe - just maybe Islamic terrorists wouldn't be threatening us if we weren't trying to cram our way of doing things down their throat. You know - the Vietnamese were pretty brutal too - now we are best friends and trading partners. Go figure.

You obviously want the last word - and I'll be gracious and let you have it.

The King said...

"Maybe - just maybe Islamic terrorists wouldn't be threatening us if we weren't trying to cram our way of doing things down their throat."

Right out of the liberals playbook, Judy. Now I know where you stand. 9-11 is all our fault now? Islamic terrorism is caused by us? Anything else you want to lay at Americas feet?

Cramming things like - capitalism, freedom, rights for woman and minorities, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, civil rights, sound economic priniciples, sense of morality, etc etc. Yeah, I wish we would stop exporting or cramming all these ideas down their throats, what nautious ideas. Some idiots said we should have let Hitler keep Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium, Lichtenstein, etc etc.

Our Bad. Oh Gosh, if we weren't so darn successful, and if we kissed their asses and gave them everything they wanted including our blood, and just left them all alone, we would never be at war. Sniff, sniff, boo hoo. Do you really believe that crap?

I like the way we do things.

And yes, I know all about Ron Paul's positions, I read them. Some I agree with, and some are way the hell out there in isolationist city.

I know you want us to withdraw from the world, but its not going to happen. Ron Paul is your anti-war candidate on the right. And he's done. We don't adhere to such silly principles. We are the adults in the room.

Well at least the liberals and libertarians have something in common. Too bad it aides our enemies abroad.

Anonymous said...

Mr. King you would do well to study some history. Did you know that we armed and trained the people who attacked us? What do you believe are the reasons why we were attacked anyway? Why do you believe those reasons? Why do you believe that Middle Eastern countries want our brand of Jeffersonian democracy? Is it really our business to force them to employ it? Will you be willing to send your children to die to force other countries to accept our apple pie and Britney Spears culture? Sure we liberated countries during wars perpetrated against us and our allies in WW1 and WW2 but that was completely different then what we are doing in Iraq. Can you explain why Dr. Paul has had the most military support then all the other candidates combined? Perhaps they are aiding the enemy too.

The King said...

One of my degrees is in history, thank you. I would bet I know more about history than you do.

We armed and trained what people who attacked us when? If you want me to answer you, ask a specific question please.

The Middle Eastern people just might want our brand of Jeffersonian democracy, Britney Spears and all. What would you prefer? A middle east run by terrorists, Mulahs and dictators? Yeah, I guess I would prefer they try our way of living. And besides, who cares about Britney Spears? That's all entertainment about one sad person. I happen to think there is more to our culture than Britney Spears, don't you?

Ron Paul served his country well through his military service. So did John McCain and others. But Ron Paul doesn't have the most military support, John McCain does. And I'm not going to argue with you on this point, its simply a matter of fact.

You see, like Ronald Reagan, I agree that the United States isn't some terrible place full of greedy capitalists, polluters, and warmongering folks. Nope. That's the liberal viewpoint. I guess some of the libertarians are jumping on that band wagon too. Very unfortunate.

Marty said...

Mr. King you have incorrect information. Just look at the donations:
Ron Paul has received more military donations than all his opponents combined and 3 times more than McCain.

Paul: $286,764; 1349 donors
McCain: $79,597; 413 donors
Romney: $29,250; 140 donors
Huckabee: $24,562; 94 donors

Obama: $81,037; 466 donors
Clinton: $49,523; 181 donors

I am not a liberal Mr. King. If you knew your history as well as you say you do then you would know that .
You might be interested in seeing the verifiable facts here:

We funded OBL as we funded and helped Saddam Hussein. It's a fact sir. We are doing the same thing with Mussharef.

The King said...

Yes, well beside not knowing your source (care to share?) donations do not equate to votes. I know many ex-military guys that voted for McCain. And they didn't donate a penny to anyone.

I enjoyed your site Marty... Lot's of cover ups and conspiracy theories. UFOs, 9-11, etc. Says it all. Most of it is speculation based on losely connected points of view. Hardly enough to get a hearing. But you keep at it, I"m sure you're getting your believers out there.

And on the points of Mussharef and Sadam... so what; we have been using nations against other nations - that global polices and politics - so what? It's geopolitical reality, its been going on since before Metternich formed the great Council. So what? It doesn't mean or prove anything - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What's the alternative? Trade with no one, make no alliances, stand alone? Put a big wall up?

Marty said...

The source are campaign finance reports. USA Today had the report

also you are disputing the New York Times, Newsweek and other major media sources cited on that website?

Mr. King that is understandable that you don't want to believe that our government has done less than ethical things. It is like when you find out that your father, the man you love and respect, is having an affair with his secretary and is a drug user. There is a certain amount of denial but you love him anyway. You refuse to believe that our interventionism in Middle Eastern countries and elsewhere had anything to do with 911. Mr. King you can continue to believe the nonsense Fox News et al. feed you. Those dirty rotten uneducated Arabs are just jealous of our prosperity and hate our immoral ways. That's why they flew planes into our buildings. Oh yes and they are also eager to meet their virgins. You obviously have been sufficiently brainwashed to believe that load of nonsense. Go ahead and elect your warmonger McCain. Get ready to have someone you know and love be drafted to fight the idiot wars these people will create for us while our economy crashes and burns. You will get exactly what you are wishing for.

Perhaps it is time we stop using nations against one another or do you not really believe what you hear in church: And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

The enemy of your enemy will certainly be your enemy the way things have been going.

The King said...

Again, you talk of donations, I talk of votes. These two don't equate.

I didn't say we don't intervene in the business of other countries, in fact I agreed.

Marty, please take the time to read my response thoroughly before responding. I only take offense to people who misconstrue what I say. You may take whatever position you feel is right - I don't mind disagreement, just don't accuse me of writing something I didn't write.

As for everything else you've written - don't worry, we will elect McCain. And I'll sleep soundly at night knowing that adults are at the helm.

And while your off quoting Biblical text, perhaps God/Christ might have a thought or two about non-Christian nations who treat their citizens like cattle, suppress them from freedom, take away the dignity of woman, and war on each other. Seems that if God has some rebuking to do, he'd probably start in lands that do not worship HIM.

Marty said...

Mr. King last time I heard about campaign financing usually the folks that raise the most money get the most votes. There is a correlation. Unfortunately Senator McCain will be the nominee. There is a large enough portion of the republican party that will not support his and the party is definitely in crisis. If he gets elected, which is a big if, will you really sleep better at night? You'll be carrying a national ID card, subject to indiscriminate search and seizures from your own government, there will be illegal aliens getting amnesty after breaking our laws and taking American jobs, and there will be bigger more expensive government. The question is whether you will have time to sleep better at night because you may have to work 3 jobs just to pay your taxes, that is while you are not awake and trying to convert the world to your brand of warmongering to straighten those heathens out. It would seem to me that if the folks in those countries who are being oppressed get sick and tired of being oppressed that they will create their own revolution, just as our founders came here for religious freedom. Quite frankly fighting your own battles is the first requirement of a participatory government. When do you suppose the Iraqis will take back their government and their own security functions so we can come home Mr. King?

The King said...

Better question - how can you shape the party's positions and ideals by throwing stones from the outside? Or starting third parties, or kicking up dust? At the end of the day, no one is paying attention to a few whiners that don't get their way.

Ask Pat Buchanan about this. Pat is a great conservative, and was/is a great Republican - and even he laments going third party based on his experience.

I have no crystal ball on Iraq. But I'm not about to take the rediculous position of letting thousands die in vain to make isolationists feel better about themselves. And most of us understand that we've made good progress, this is no time to bail out to let our enemies extinguish the flame of freedom and democracy that has recently been lit.

A democratic world is a safer world. Let the roots spread, and eventually our children will reap the rewards of the sacrafices made today.

Then again, its a free society. You can pout in the corner, and pretend you are changing the world by closing your eyes and pretending its not there.