« BREAKING: Sources Tell CNN Romney Is Suspending Campaign | Home | Here It Is: Mitt's Dropping-Out Speech »

Romney: Staying In Race Would Have Abetted Hillary Or Obama Victory -- And "Surrender To Terror"

Romney is speaking before CPAC right now, explaining why he's suspending his campaign, and according to advance excerpts given to the Associated Press, Romney will say:

"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."

Guess Mitt's determined to exit this thing with his now-cosmic levels of ignominy completely undiminished....


40 Comments

| Leave a comment

Wow, I can barely type through the tears. I hope the crown of thorns doesn't mess up Mitt's hair.

LOL. Well said. :-)

So, now it is a 2 man race?
What's Huck to do now?

user-pic

A comment like this is sick, and I hope Americans recognize it for the fear-mongering that the Republican Party has just about trademarked. In an ideal world, McCain would decry these comments as fear-mongering and distortion, but I suspect he'll be using the same line in stump speeches before long.

And Obama and Clinton: don't take the bait. Stay focused on the real issues.

I notice that Dr Krugman occasionally mentions posts on this blog, which leads me to conclude that certain persons of sway and influence in the press must read it. With that in mind, and given that Romney's argument here alludes to the electability argument, I would just like to say now would be a very useful time for some major media outlet (WaPo, NYT, ABC, CNN, etc) to commission a poll of head-to-head match-up in swing states. That is to say, not a national head-to-head match-up, but state by state comparisons of how folks in MO, MI, OH, PA, etc feel about McCain vs Clinton and McCain vs Obama. I think that voters in the upcoming races could find such data to be very valuable in making their choices.

user-pic

Hear Hear!! I second that...

I guess the slate of new polls will be coming out on Monday. Shall we assume most pollsters are headed out to PA, OH, TX, and (maybe) WI?

I'll bet this is already occurring. And, now I know I can disregard Zogby polls, 100%. Cheers!

user-pic

Surrender to terror? Sorry, we did that long ago when the warmongers got their way on Iraq, when we torture detainees, and when we began spying on our own citizens. Where's bin Laden? Why haven't we tried and convicted all the so-called terrorists at Gitmo - wouldn't you all like to see a little justice?

Hahahahahaha!

The terror comment aside, I actually think he was pretty impressive (although I disagree with him on virtually everything). He seemed to speak with a level of conviction and energy (particularly on fiscal issues) that I haven't seem from him since this thing started. If he had demonstrated more of this from the beginning, I think there is a good chance we would be seeing a different Republican nominee emerging.

user-pic

So now the only republicans in the race who can win are pretty much despised by one or both of the core bases of their party. Fiscal conservatives don't like Huck and just about nobody likes McCain. Remember a few weeks back when folks were saying Huck would be the end of the modern republican party. Well, they are saying the same thing about McCain. Ann Coulter says she is voting for Hillary because Hillary is more conservative than McCain. That's hardly true (but hey this is Ann we are talking about). Its certainly interesting, though. Dobson said he won't vote at all. Rush has suggested he also would vote for Hillary so she can take the blame for the liberal policies that would ensue (notice Rush and Ann have different takes on this—they just both hate McCain). A lot of commentators think the base is just gonna stay home like they did for Papa Bush. In that case, McCain's matchup numbers might be meaningless. They are all based on the assumption that the base will actually vote. But we know what big babies the base of the repugs is.

Mitt rhymes with Shit, and he is full of it.

He got his Arse kicked, and that is why he quit.

And don't forget Ron Paul. He's still in it to win it.

user-pic

"I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

That makes Huckabee one of those cheese-eating surrender monkey abetters.

But, seriously, the guy's a Mittwad.

user-pic

Nice haiku Liam, you hit the nail on the head.

Romney is a fool. Moronic statements like this ("surrender to terror") are par for the course from this dumbass. The statement says a LOT more about him than it does about Clinton or Obama.

What a relief that this imbecile won't be the president.

user-pic

Yep, it is "for the country", not because you didn't have a chance in hell right?

That settles that, McCain is our enemy, and Obama is the only one who can defeat McCain, so we need to get over this Clinton crap right now. Seriously people, the writing is on the wall, we need to make sure Obama is our nominee or we might as well hand the country over to the Republicans.

user-pic

Don't laugh too hard at Mitt's "war on terror" rationale. It's merely a preview of the general election.

McCain is weak on most domestic issues. Pretty much the only decent card he has in his hand is national security -- i.e., the "Democrats are terrorist-abetting surrender monkeys" card. The only way the GOP can win in November (whether it's Hillary or Obama) is to get everybody scared that a vote for the Democrat is a vote for terrorists killing their family. So expect for all the conservative blowhards to trumpet that narrative as loudly as possible. I can just hear the refrain now: "A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama."

Romney's excuse isn't merely a joke; it's the GOP platform.

user-pic

Under this rationale, shouldn't he have suspended his campaign about a year ago?

It sounds suspiciously like Giuliani wanting to suspend NYC elections after 9/11.

The Republican strategy is pretty obvious now. Get a 6-month jump on the Democrats in ramping up a national campaign and do everything they can to bolster McCain's position as a superior commander in chief. Who knows what kinds of shenanigans Bush will be up to between now and then to precipitate events that play into this scenario.

The Republican strategy is pretty obvious now. Get a 6-month jump on the Democrats in ramping up a national campaign and do everything they can to bolster McCain's position as a superior commander in chief.

Of course, the problem with that is that they don't know who to attack yet. Conversely, both Obama and Clinton can take aim at McCain by name. They can define him before the Democratic nominee is even decided, and thus help set up a favorable narrative for our side.

The question is, will they do that, or will they let yet another good opportunity pass them by?

user-pic

These kinds of comments coming out of Mitt's mouth make me want to puke. The war in Iraq is HURTING our "war on terror"...

Mr. Purple
www.mrpurple2008.com

How long until the announcement that his son's, who no longer will be serving their country by campainging for Daddy, are enlisting in the military to fight the GWOT that Mitt is so Gung Ho about?
The surge need you boys! Time to Ship out!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070808/romney-iowa/

I see Josh Marshall just said that caucuses don't count as much as "real" primaries. You guys better get under your desks fast. When the Obamamen do the math on that one, you are in for a storm!

user-pic

Billy Glad, what are you talking about? This is a thread about Romney and his sick comments, not primaries.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but GA, CT, SC, AL, MO, DE, IL and UT were all primaries, not caucuses, and Obama won them. Clinton won the caucuses in NV and American Samoa. As such, it is rather less than obvious to me why we Obama supporters would be somehow irked by a disparagement of caucuses or an endorsement of primaries. Both candidates do fine in primaries and both do fine in caucuses. Meanwhile, this Obama supporter thinks that caucuses are for the birds and primaries are the way to go all around (with internet voting, like they did in MI in 2004).

user-pic

He gone...good riddance. It will be McCain and Mac will lose in the general election..........if the Democrat plays it right.

user-pic

Billie, you don't have to post the same drivel on each thread. Go play at hillaryis44.org or one of the fox entertainment sites. How about billo, you might like it there as well.

What I most enjoy about your posts, Michael, is their high tone and reasonableness. I'm still waiting for you to share with us all you did to stop the invasion of Iraq. How far did you march? How many times were you beaten up? How long were you in jail? I've listened to your "outrage" about the invasion over and over. What did you do to stop it? Make a speech like Obama? Type fast?

user-pic

Not to put too fine a point on it, but GA, CT, SC, AL, MO, DE, IL and UT were all primaries, not caucuses, and Obama won them. Clinton won the caucuses in NV and American Samoa. As such, it is rather less than obvious to me why we Obama supporters would be somehow irked by a disparagement of caucuses or an endorsement of primaries. Both candidates do fine in primaries and both do fine in caucuses. Meanwhile, this Obama supporter thinks that caucuses are for the birds and primaries are the way to go all around (with internet voting, like they did in MI in 2004).

user-pic

Of course, the problem with that is that they don't know who to attack yet. Conversely, both Obama and Clinton can take aim at McCain by name. They can define him before the Democratic nominee is even decided, and thus help set up a favorable narrative for our side.

Of course, the problem with that is that the real policy differences between Hillary and Barack are minimal to the point of being almost indistinguishable, and so it wouldn't be too hard for McCain to bash these policies with fill-in-the-blank for the candidate of your choice. And, McCain could potentially receive a bonus in the form of a real split on the Democratic side if Hillary and Barack start really going after each other again.

Not to argue, but have you looked at the implications of being dismissive about Kansas and Minnesota are with Washington coming up? As for what the Obamamen will take offense to, who knows? We probably should ask Michael.

user-pic

So I guess voting for a democrat is equal to surrendering to terrorist. Seriously does anybody buy this type of logic? I would support no one in my party which held this opinion/logic. It is false logic and harmful towards meaningful discussion. Fuc* Mitt, but even though he said these things I really don't believe a word he said as his positions have changed when they were politically expediant to change.

user-pic

The fact that this guy won elections in Massachusetts kind of puts a new spin on Obama's loss there.

If you read the comments to the articles in the Louisiana newspapers - this is not playing well at all. The poor down south were very turned off by the money Obama has raised - and they were very impressed with Clinton using her own money. Its created some positive momentum for Hillary. The reasoning is that Obama's donations show he is candidate of the rich. Hillary isn't attracting as much money because her sympathizers are poor. Ergo - she is a candidate of the underdog.

Give me a break do. If you read this article from the NO Times-Picayune, for instance, you see a concern troll named "caringnurse" (who is from OH, not LA) advancing that argument and bunch of other readers countering it. It is scarcely obvious (as you would have us believe) that this really indicates that ordinary Louisiannans view him as the candidate of the rich and Clinton as the candidate of the poor, much as you might wish to spin it thusly.

Keep it coming...

This sort of rhetoric plays directly into Obama's argument of a need for change.

If Obama wins the nomination and McCain keeps this fear-mongering BS up, Obama will crush him. He would basically be making his argument for him. All Obama will have to do is point and say, "See?"

Sad when all Republicans have to cling to is the hope that they can keep the American people in a state of fear.

user-pic

Saint Mitt died for our sins. Woe unto us who scorned the anointed one. So what's next ? Come crawling back to Massachusetts to challenge Kerry ? If that's the case, I had better begin developing my programming skills ASAP so I can hobble together a Mitt-blocking chip for my TV & radio.

That sounds a lot like Mittens' audition for the VP slot. It's going to get ugly.

Of course, the irony is that the Republicans are generally the ones who have surrendered to terror and wet themselves pretty much continuously since 9/11.

user-pic

Maybe the best thing Mittens did for us was to demonstrate that even in the ultra corrupt Rethugican Party money can not buy the nomination.
And of course it doesn't hurt that his loss is such a slap in the face to the Savanarolas of the Right. Schadenfreude is such a Rush!
Can we now shed a communal croc tear for Hugh Hewitt and his fellow RedStaters?

As to his farewell I saw no new found honesty of conviction nor of anything else.
I think the Bot was just delighted to be going home, saying goodbye to the hated hoi polloi, and, inter alia, kiss my big fat white Magic Underwear clothed ass.
Bonus: now he can get his undocumented labor back to trimming his shrubs.

But Tagg, we hardly knew ya!

this Obama supporter thinks that caucuses are for the birds and primaries are the way to go all around (with internet voting, like they did in MI in 2004).

I think forcing you to get out into the real world can be good sometimes. Ya know, meet your neighbors and weird shit like that.

May be online caucusing instead. (for geeks and weirdos of course)

It seems to me that the further we get from interacting in so called meat space the more mob like it makes us. Or something.

I do not really disagree, but I would submit to you that I cannot really think of any neighbors I have actually met on election day. Even when I lived in MI and went to caucus I did not "meet" anyone I did not already know. Meanwhile, a once-every-four-year meeting is not much of a socialization. Going to church on Sunday does a lot more to introduce one to one's neighbors than going to a caucus site each leap-year. The convenience of internet voting and vote-by-mail trumps any putative but small advantages associated with the meet-and-greet nature of a caucus.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address