Rumor Breaking: Romney Suspending Campaign (Live-Blogging Mitt’s CPAC Speech and Rush’s Reax)
Mark Halperin at Time is saying so.
We’ll see.
_____________________________________________
2:25 p.m. – Romney CPAC snip is here (HT Hot Air).
_____________________________________________
Live-blogging:
12:50 p.m. – Romney speaking at CPAC. Mentions number of states voting for him and total votes.
12:55 p.m. – “Unless America changes course, we could become the France of the 21st Century.”
12:57 p.m. – Rush cut away from the speech (and never went back — Ed.), and is saying that NBC and Fox are confirming Romney campaign’s suspension.
12:58 p.m. – Rush is ad-libbing a commercial, I believe so he doesn’t have to cut away to canned commercials ….. Nope, he cut away.
1:00 p.m. – AP on Yahoo! –
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.
“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 will say at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
That is a valid, important, and well-made point.
1:02 p.m. – Fox News Radio is reporting that Romney, by suspending, will hang on to his delegates and perhaps have the ability to have influence at the convention.
1:05 p.m. – Further from AP —
….. But he was dogged by charges of flip-flopping, a criticism that undermined the candidacy of another Massachusetts hopeful — John Kerry in 2004. In seeking to unseat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in 1994, Romney said he would be a better advocate for gay rights than his rival and he favored abortion rights.
Someday, people who fled to Romney in the name of “conservatism” are going to have to accept the fact that these were credibility bridges that Romney failed to cross convincingly.
1:08 p.m. – In an e-mail — “Kudos to the amazing activists from Massachusetts who stood for principle
and helped bring this about!” I am honored and humbled to have been involved with outstanding, principled, dedicated people such as these.
1:10 p.m. – The Romney campaign has apparently informed Rush that it’s officially true. Rush is in a “Where was this during the campaign?” mode.
1:12 p.m. – Romney apparently is saying that he’s suspending “for the good of the party and the good of country” — Rush doesn’t like that part.
1:15 p.m. – Paraphrasing Rush — “It is up to John McCain to demonstrate leadership and not merely rely on fear and loathing of Hillary or Obama (though fear and loathing of Obama won’t work). Leadership is being more than the anti-Hillary, and it’s up to the candidate to demonstrate leadership.”
I couldn’t agree more, but unlike Rush, Laura Ingraham (who apparently referred to Romney as “the conservatives’ conservative” in her introduction of him at CPAC), and others, those who really understood Mitt Romney’s record knew that he could and would NEVER be that leader.
The question is whether John McCain is. I pray that is the case. Rush and others who were all wrong on Romney remain entirely correct on this point: If he wants active, effective support, the burden is on McCain to reconcile himself with Reagan conservatives and to explain how his principles are consistent with our principles. It’s not the other way around.
Come home, John.
That’s it. Maybe more later.
So what will anti-McCain conservatives do now? Will they sit down and shut up and get behind McCain… Or will they continue to fight and back up Ron Paul?
Hmmm… Inquiring minds want to know!
Comment by Libertarian Jason — February 7, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
#1, see my suggestion to McCain.
Comment by TBlumer — February 7, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Congratulations, TBlumer. Hopefully you will be as active in undermining Clinton/Obama as you have been about Romney.
Comment by GoHskrs — February 7, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/2008/02/07/sock-puppet-for-president/ This is your answer #1
Comment by dscott — February 7, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
#4, your point is well-taken. McCain will be a high-maintenance president, but at least he’ll be reachable.
Comment by TBlumer — February 7, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
#3, as much as Tom may want to take credit for Romney bowing out. That credit goes strickly to Romney himself. Romney as the number 2 candidate could have fought all the way to the convention like the gadflies Huckabee and Paul intend to do.
Quite frankly I am astounded that as a Repub you would take that stance anyway since the point of having various candidates run for the nomination is to put themselves up for inspection as to whether the Party followers will accept their leadership. IF any Repub can not stand up to inspection then they have no business being nominated. The same goes for McCain or anyone else. Just because your ox has been gored doesn’t entitle you to sour grapes at those who did the inspecting. Tom did us all a service by examining Romney in detail, we as Party members, and I am a party member, are entitled to know all the details of who asks us to submit to their leadership. Warner Huston on his blog did the same for McCain. We are entitled to know them warts and all! That’s one of the few times you will ever hear me say I am entitled to something.
Comment by dscott — February 7, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
#6 dscott —
as much as Tom may want to take credit for Romney bowing out
There is no indication that I’m taking credit for anything like that in this post, and no conceivable way to interpret anything in this post in that way.
I AM proud to have been associated with the people in Massachusetts who have been trying to tell the rest of the nation about Mitt Romney’s objective unfitness. I can only hope to have had some influence on some people, but I know (and you know) that one can’t PROVE anything.
I think you’re giving props to Romney for dropping out when he did, and for the reason that he stated. If so, I agree.
I don’t mind Huck staying in, and to be consistent, I’m sure not going to be like too many have been over the past two months, telling candidates to give it up just because they hit a bump in the road. Though I believe he’s a flawed candidate (not at the level of Romney, though), if Huck either thinks he has a chance of winning, or even to move the dialog in a meaningful way, who the heck am I to tell him to give it up? And even though he has no chance of winning and I believe he’s unacceptable, the same goes for Ron Paul.
Comment by TBlumer — February 7, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
#7, no, I not saying you took or wanted to take credit, hence the word “may”, my point is it was Romney’s decision alone, no one else can claim the credit. So #3 implying you are somehow responsible for Romney dropping out by saying “Congratulations” is lame.
But I will say, #3, we all will be very busy these next months examining in every detail the record of Clinton and Obama. The American people have every right to know who they are, what they said and what they stand for in desiring to the president.
Comment by dscott — February 7, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
#8, The “kudos” was in the e-mail I quoted, and is NOT something I was, or am, saying.
The congrats from #3 are from someone who must have thought that what I did had influence. I’ll accept his congrats, while not asserting that I have the evidence to be able to agree with him.
The Mass Resistance and other folks may have a basis for concluding that they DID have an influence. I do know they sent out 1-1/2 million e-mails to the Super Tuesday states in the 48 hours before the elections. I do know that Romney pretty consistently underperformed vs. “the polls” in Super Tuesday states. Either the polls were wrong, or “something” caused the underperformance.
That underperformance, wherever it came from, triggered a reassessment at Team Romney. Of course you’re right that it was Romney’s decision alone. But it could very well be that part of the decision equation was along the lines of “We’re going to have to deal with these Mass Resistance people every week. We can’t try to deflect what they’re saying, because we’re too far down the road in pretending they don’t exist and calling them delusional whenever we run into one. So we’re at their mercy indefinitely, and we can’t get around or past them.”
If that’s so, and they have knowledge of it, Mass Resistance has a right to crow. I don’t know whether they do, and I don’t know if they plan on crowing. I know I don’t.
Comment by TBlumer — February 7, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
I’m not sure how Romney became the “conservative alternative” to McCain.
Honestly, whether you agree or not with McCain, I think the fact he has the principles to stand by his guns is more impressive and demonstrates better leadership than
Comment by Eric Kephas — February 7, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
#10, sorry, I think I posted your incomplete comment, thinking it was the same as the one that follwed it. My bad if so.
Comment by TBlumer — February 7, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
#10, hmmmmmm, I will wait and see what principles McCain has as I am not convinced what set of principles he does have. LOL
In any event, McCain has lots of explaining to do, simply claiming he is the Repub nominee will not cut it to win in November. Here is an undeniable fact, there are more Dems than Repubs, and there are almost as many independents. So what precisely is McCain’s appeal to Dems and Independents? What will McCain claim as his difference from Obama or Clinton? Or, how will McCain claim he can do what a Dem does but better to draw their votes? How will McCain overcome Obama’s charisma when McCain doesn’t have any himself? To put a sharp point on this since when does an angry person engender leadership when he is NOT known as one who gives people hope in the future? It was very telling that Bob Dole got into the fray by sending a note to Rush to defend McCain. Dole lost to Carter and Clinton because he himself does not engender hope, while the two hucksters did.
Comment by dscott — February 7, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
#10 and #12,
I think we’ll all agree that he does stick to his beliefs, the ones we like and the ones we really, really don’t.
However, I believe that he is a survivor, and that if he sees something that threatens his survival that he can’t beat, he’ll accommodate it (e.g., “secure the bleeping borders first”). Not ideal, but at least not a “bleep you.”
I believe he hasn’t had to worry about re-election, or even about E-lection, to the senate for a long, long time.
If I were McCain, I would have picked someone other than Dole and the others to back me up. But that’s probably all that was available.
He’s in the fight of his life again HRC or BOOHOO, and I hope he figures out that the way through is to find the conservative that’s always been inside him (crossing fingers, hoping).
Comment by TBlumer — February 7, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
dscott (#6 and #8), you’re reading more into my comment than I intended.
I agree that candidates should be examined as part of the primary process. I’ve seen all I need to see of McCain. He’s still angry, cynical, and temperamental. All he needs to do is blow his stack in one debate vs. either Hillary or Obama, and the media narrative will be set. Look what happened to Rick Lazio in the NY Senate race when he “violated Hillary’s space”. At that point the issues will not matter any more, McCain will lose — and we’ll have at least four years of full (House + Senate + White House) Democrat rule.
Tom, I frankly disagreed with you (silently) when reading the various “Objectively Unfit Mitt” posts. I felt that you didn’t want him as the nominee, and today he withdrew. The “congratulations” were offered because you got what you wanted.
(Full disclosure — I was hoping that Romney would remain viable at least until the Ohio Primary on March 4th. I’ve never actually voted in a meaningful primary in my life, and this would have been the first time … 8^)
Comment by GoHskrs — February 7, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Yeap, a conservative on the order of George Allen or Fred Thompson, McCain just might have the right political instinct. we will see.
Comment by dscott — February 7, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
#14, you’re right that I didn’t want Romney. I wouldn’t want anyone who is objectively unfit, and I frankly don’t know whether a person can apologize his way out of what he did to become objectively unfit. If the guy thinks he’s going to run for president again, he’d better figure out how.
I would like a more conservative nominee.
Hopefully, developing….
If McCain doesn’t show much progress in a month, an organized protest vote for Fred might be the ticket.
Comment by TBlumer — February 7, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
COngrats Tom. I know your disdain for Romney. I hope you are right about McCain.
Comment by Ben Keeler — February 8, 2008 @ 2:11 am