Romney Concedes
Dave Price
McCain is now the GOP nominee.
Romney spent a lot of money, but never really made serious inroads with anyone outside the conservative movement and Mormons. It will be interesting to see if his supporters rally to McCain now, or cut off the GOP's nose to spite its face.
UPDATE: Romney's remarks:
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!Too true, and too often forgotten. Whatever the perception of America in the world, that is the reality.
UPDATE: McCain's remarks:
I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."Yes.
I began by assuring you that we share a conception of liberty that is the bedrock of our beliefs as conservatives. As you know, I was deprived of liberty for a time in my life, and while my love of liberty is no greater than yours, you can be confident that mine is the equal of any American's. It is a deep and unwavering love.I'm glad to see him emphasizing this point.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Romney Concedes
- Romney Drops Out
Not that I'm even considering voting R this year, of course, so maybe this will work against McCain from a Republican perspective, but I would be much more comfortable having McCain/Romney in office than McCain/Huckabee.
I predict a mass exodus from the GOP by the base. If that happens I don't see how the party will recover. The leaders of the party want to pull it to the left while the base that keeps it going wants it to go right. A split is inevitable. As the Republicans came out of the Whigs I'm interested in seeing what will emerge from the GOP.
I'll post this again (from Kevin's thread)
Kevin
I guess all this talk about Iraq and the GWOT being the #1 issue for Republicans was just talk then?
I guess you'd rather see Iraq and the war on terror lost, and liberal judges appointed all because McCain doesn't kiss the Religious Right's butt?
As John S. commented at Classical Values:
If you go Third Party and the Dems win, your side won't get anything - and America will get screwed. If you stick with McCain and he wins, your side will at least get a seat at the table.
What a difference a day makes.
Yes, maybe.... but right now, today, I am with Maggie.
I prefer to be a party to neither. I'm also a very libertarianish sort who in three Pres elections only voted Republican once (and never Dem in the Presidential elections).
i'm going to concentrate more on the congressional races this time around. not really sure yet about the potus since too much can happen between now and the general
it is also possible that voting Democrat will see a continuation (perhaps even a smarter continuation) of the GWOT. Aziz has made the case that no Democratic nominee will withdraw from Iraq on anything close to the near term, and certainly in Afghanistan the Democratic candidate, if elected, is not going to simply "stop" prosecuting the GWOT.
Now, you can make a very strong case that if GWOT is the one and only issue for you, then McCain is your man if you like his style or his plans for the war. But framing the debate as a vote for a Democrat is, ipso facto, a vote for losing Iraq or the GWOT seems to me to be a stretch. I don't think it's any secret that I, personally, think that Clinton (even Obama, though that's a tougher call) will prosecute the war better than McCain, but let's not doubt that she, or Obama, /will/ prosecute it.
"One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land."
If we're talking strictly WWII, Canada laid down 40,000 lives and took no land. Great Britain, I think, ended up giving up land, although don't quote me on that.
In WW I, both Canada and the US laid down a bunch of lives and took no land.
I'll bet there are others. England in the Napoleonic Wars?
Fact 1: In the House, 29 GOP members are retiring. The GOP is gonna lose 20-25 seats in 08', regardless of what happens in the Presidential election.
Fact 2: GOP is gonna lose 4-5 seats in the Senate, because of retirements and because many more GOP seats are contested.
Fact 3: The county, generally, is sick of George Bush.
Fact 4: Obama has raised oodles of millions of dollars, because Dems are motivated.
Conclusion: It's a Dem year.
As such, it seems to me Conservatives should pipe down a bit, move a bit centrist and coalesce around McCain, the only guy who has a shot.
I could be wrong about all this.
HankB
I hope you are right - in case McCain loses in Nov. However I have not seen any indication that Obama will fight a better GWOT fight. I'd prefer not to leave my fate - and that fate of our Iraqi and Afghan allies - in the hands of faith. I'm an atheist and a realist. I don't have "faith" in anything except s**t getting worse.
That's why I would vote for any Republican nominee as long as Iraq/GWOT was number 1. It's been number 1 for me since 9-11 and it's going to stay number 1.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. If you think McCain will do a better job, then you should definitely vote for him. I just don't think it's fair to say that Obama is definitely going to lose us the War, or simply stop it altogether.
He's working really hard to convey the message that that's exactly what he's going to do. Every ad of his I see starts with "End this war." Aziz can be as hopeful as he wants; but if "End this war" is the centerpiece of the campaign, it's hard for me to interpret that as "Continue this war, continue doing what's working, and find creative ways to fix what's not." That's what I find his more rational supporters saying, but that's not what he is saying.
We spend way too much time in political discussions these days looking for spin that lets us interpret what people say to mean what we want them to say. That gets all too meta. I've decided to take people at their word, assume they mean what they say, and judge them accordingly. If I misinterpret them and judge them too harshly as a result, that's their own fault for trying to have it both ways.
i agree entirely with taking ppl as they portray their stands, yet obama still doesn't faze me.
reason why is that i can see iraq scaling back significantly by the time of the next pres being sworn in. if so, what obama is promising becomes easier to fulfill, with far less damage than we imagine currently.
he also has pledged afaik to continue afghanistan and to fight the gwot 'smarter', so thats not at issue.
Check your math on that. 40,000 is less than hundreds of thousands. Also, the Irish might argue the "no land" point.
Re: the Irish. I think that perhaps you should sit down in the history classroom beside Peres and Romney.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.