Romney is as gracious in defeat as I’m sure he would have been in victory. Here’s Wizbang:
Mark Halperin at The Page says Romney will drop out of the race. His announcement could come at his CPAC speech at 12:30pm. This means that McCain is definitely the Republican nominee because Huckabee doesn’t have any chance sidetracking him. McCain speaks at 3:00pm today.
Update: Halperin is on Fox now and says three GOP sources have confirmed that Romney is dropping out. It’s disappointing to say the least, but I understand why he’s doing this. He may not make the announcement at this speech today, but at the very least he could make some strong signals of his plans.
Bill Kristol predicted that he would announce that he’s pulling out of the race at today’s speech.
Update II: Karl Rove is on the phone with Fox News and says that he’s hearing as well that those inside the Romney camp understand that he’s going to drop out.
Update III: Fox has confirmed that Romney will suspend his campaign. Romney is taking the high road in order to protect the country from a Clinton or Obama administration which would really hurt the US. (Emphasis mine.)
Read the rest here.
Ann Coulter can become a shill for Hillary, but I’m hoping others recognize that, no matter that McCain is not a conservative purist, he is still better than Hillary would be or, God forbid, Obama. And as I’ve said before, for all that Obama presents himself as a “unifier,” his hard left politics preclude him from ever unifying anything. McCain, however, who is a true centrist, may be just the person to heal some of the wounds this country has been feeling following two extremely divisive presidencies. I say that being fully cognizant of his many failings, both personal and political, but I’m a pragmatist, and refuse to lose sight of the fact that McCain is not just a little better, but is far better than the alternative.
And if you have doubts, think “Supreme Court.” Even if he doesn’t appoint strict constructionist purists, as Bush was able to do with Alito and Roberts, even if he appoints softer constructionists, they will still be better than the hard left activists that Hillary or Obama would try appoint. Assuming a Democratic presidency, if Republicans are anything less than 51% of the Senate, especially since many are RINOs, even if they prevent a serious activist, they’ll still end up allowing a soft activist onto the Supreme Court. With McCain, the worst we’d get would be a soft strict constructionist.
UPDATE: Don Surber writes eloquently about Republicans’ need to get over it:
Much has been written about McCain-Feingold and illegal immigration.
At some point conservatives must stop the teeth gnashing — and that time may not arrive until August — and ask themselves what besides his Vietnam service has John McCain done for the country?
They will find that 82% of the time he has been there for the conservative movement.
He has been there 100% for the troops in Iraq. His support of the troops begins with a letter that says, “Dear son …”
UPDATE II: For reasons entirely unclear to me, I popped up in high standing on Patrick Ruffini’s Romney Wire with this post. If you think I deserve that position, please feel free to click here, an act that will perpetuate my standing.
Filed under: John McCain, Mitt Romney | Tagged: 816, 84, 98 |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
[…] Bookworm: “Romney is as gracious in defeat as I’m sure he would have been in victory.” […]
Bookworm, if you are “fully cognizant of his many failings,”, then how can you figure that McCain is a “true centrist”?
Central between what and what? Surely not within the Republican party in any traditional sense…… Maybe you mean central between the hard left and a traditional Republican? Why would the Republican party put up (or put up with) someone like THAT?
Ah well.
One question (for now): Since John McCain and the Gang of 14 preserved the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees in the Senate, why are we worried that hard left jurists will take their seat on that bench? Are you suggesting that Senator McCain would refuse to use the tool that he was instrumental in preserving? Why did he preserve it, then – so that the Democrats could stymie a Republican president, but not for use against a truly horrific Democrat nominee? Or maybe he doesn’t find hard left nominees as repugnant as you and I do.
Sorry to be so pissy, but I’m real tired of the “line up behind McCain because he’s so much better for the country than Hillary”. I’m not convinced — I think MAYBE, if McCain could do whatever he wanted, and Hillary could do whatever she wanted, you’d have a point, along with all the rest of the independent minds reflecting this meme. But think about how it might actually play out — a united Republican front against Hillary’s nonsense (unless Senator McCain really DOES think she’d make a “fine President” and refuses to oppose her) versus enthusiastic Democrat support and partial Republican support IN FAVOR OF McCain’s nonsense…..and there will be plenty of that, as I know you are aware.
Gitmo closed, and all those freaks brought here, to be given taxpayer-funded lawyers and the full panoply of American Constitutional rights. Global Warming spending and regulations out the wazoo, with the consequent damage to our business climate and economy. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Vote for McCain — but be realistic about what you may be ushering in. I see and read a LOT of “rosy scenario”ing right now – on the part of conservatives who don’t want to believe that McCain could very easily be a giant disaster for the Republican party and our nation.
I am halfway convinced that Ann Coulter is going to end up being the conservative’s Cassandra in 2008. Think about it.
Interesting points, Earl, and showing a much more nuanced understanding of power brokering than anything I’ve written. I guess the bottom line for me is that, while McCain worries me, Hillary frightens me (as does Obama). I live with a lot of worry in my life and can accommodate it; I don’t like fear, though. I guess for all my reasoned analysis, I’m going with visceral feelings here.
Think “Supreme Court.”
Not quite the disaster it could be. The more conservative Supreme Court Justices are younger (Scalia, 72 -same age as McCain; Thomas, 60; Alito, 58 and Roberts, 53) so baring an illness or accident, any new justices in the next few years would replace a liberal with a liberal and although that isn’t my preference. . . it’s not a disaster, either. The more liberal justices range in age from 69- 88.
[…] Bookworm Bob Owens by TheAnchoress @ 3:03 pm. Filed under Alternative Media, America, Election 2008, John McCain, Mitt Romney [Trackback URL] [link] [ Print This Post ] [SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Romney: Brokered or Third Party?”, url: “http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/07/romney-brokered-or-third-party/” });] Trackback URL for this post: http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/07/romney-brokered-or-third-party/trackback/ […]
I agree with Ann.
I see no upside to a McCain-sympathetic revolution in the GOP. None.
The most damaging liberals on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents…men very much like McCain.
And I wish people would think in more “nuanced” terms before painting all folks like me, who have washed our hands of Mac, with the “extremist” brush. It’s not my position that extremism is good or that moderation is bad. Moderation can be good too. But before moderation can have virtue, it must first have definition. I see no definition here at all. All I see is the same fool’s errand of pretending to be democrats, hoping they like us better, right before we get completely screwed.
I do not want to see the Clintons restored to the White House, nor do I want to see Obama ascend to the White House, and if President McCain is the alternative then I will live with that alternative. Worry about 2012 later.
Bookworm, I am sorry to hear that you “live with a lot of worry in [your] life.” You may not like Clinton or Obama, but do you really think your personal life will change much if either is elected president? I don’t think mine will if McCain is elected. I think I can make it through Bush. The really scary ones (Giuliani and Romney) have been eliminated.
So long Mitt. I hope we will see you again.
His speech was really great although I can see why he has had some trouble “connecting”. His delivery is a bit awkward; not so much as “W’s”, but noticeable. So, you have to listen to what he says and that is simply asking too much of so many American voters.
If McCain were particularly wise he would early on approach Mitt as a running mate.
If he had enough courage he would choose George Allen and stare down the “Macaca” smear together.
With either scenario there would be justifiable hope for 2012.
To counter an Obama run he could turn to Michael Steele. Blatant racial politics, but sometimes you fight fire with fire.
If he chooses Huckabee, he will simply lose.
All of the above is just my uninformed opinion, of course.
Well, I was never a huge Romney fan (or of anyone in the race, for that matter) but I will, in the end, get behind McCain.
I am a little concerned at the folks on the right who would rather see Hillary or Obama get in versus McCain, though. (And Earl and Morgan – thanks for your comments – I think I understand things a little better.)
But, just like M. Steyn (or Whittle? someone?) wrote the other day – the utter derangement we have seen against Bush over the past 7 years was so great that many, many people on the left would clearly have loved to see America harmed if it would also harm Bush. And I can’t shake the feeling that some conservatives are setting themselves up to do the exact same thing: their dislike of McCain is so great, they would rather see Hillary or Obama get in. There is no telling what sort of damage those two could do to the military and other issues that conservatives (and even McCain) clearly support.
I’m sort of torn.
Deana
Don’t you think a Hillary or Obama win would simply encourage the jihadis? I am sure they would put it on their recruitment posters as another victory against the Great Satan.
[…] [Discuss This Topic with Bookworm] Share Article Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]
>>I can’t shake the feeling that some conservatives are setting themselves up to do the exact same thing: their dislike of McCain is so great, they would rather see Hillary or Obama get in.>>
I think you’re mistaken in one sense – it’s not a matter of dislike, it’s a matter of concern that McCain would actually be more harmful because as leader of the party, either the party would have to support his legislative programs or disown him. There is the sense that if one of the Dems won, the party would be free to go into full obstruction mode if needed. There is fear that the programs supported by McCain wouldn’t be much different than that of the Dems, so the difference in passing them would be the resistance provided by Congress. Hence, there is a greater possiblilty of socialistic programs, amnesty etc getting passed with McCain in office than one of the Dems.
But then there are the Supreme Justices nominations…there’s no doubt in my mind that either of the Dems would nominate more leftist, more activist judges.
But that’s the big question Conservatives have to figure out – what action does the least damage and is most reversible. Personally, I think I’m inclined to go with McCain, but work towards changing/reforming the party for 2012, or using the time to form a third party.
There’s still time though – who knows what’s coming up between now and decision time!
Thanks, Suek, for that distinction between “dislike” and “concern” – I’m having the hardest time getting my conservative friends to understand that. It’s hard holding my temper when otherwise decent people accuse those of us who have genuine, deep-seated, and evidence-based concern over a McCain Administration of doing it for reasons of “payback” or some kind of personal aggrandizement – in the case of people in public life.
Anyhow, BW and others who believe that McCain is going to be better for the country than Hillary….other than the war in Iraq (and remember, I do NOT believe that Hillary Clinton will risk her “legacy” by a precipitate withdrawal), imagine Senator John McCain’s reaction to the actions of President Clinton that make you afraid…… Which of her passions are you truly confident that Senator McCain would oppose with equal passion? You can’t cite his CPAC speech today in support of your answer — let’s hear about his ACTIONS in the Senate before the campaign.
My own sense is that for most of what she wants to do, he would be in favor (mildly or enthusiastically), or willing to “horse-trade” for something else that he’d like to see….I’m hard-pressed to think of anything she really wants that he would lead a fight against.
Can anyone educate me on this?
Oh, by the way — Don Surber is recycling that 82% figure, and it’s bogus. For one thing, he is cherry-picking the rating services for the very highest of them all. Other conservative groups rate McCain significantly lower. But the real “cheat” in that figure is that it’s an average over a long period. If you look at that same rating service for the last four or five years, his rating is just over 60%, about the same as some of the moderate Democrats in the Senate.
Hi Suek –
Thanks for your response.
You are right that the better word in terms of the McCain issue is “concern” rather than “dislike.” I think the reason I am torn is probably because I know that it would be almost impossible for conservatives to disown him, even though he sometimes seems prone to support ideas that are antithetical to conservative principles. It certainly would be easier to oppose a president Hillary or Obama, assuming that they would push their stated agendas forward, which will not be good for business, defense, and the general good of the country.
I guess I have just been surprised at the vehemence with which some conservatives have talked about McCain recently. And the whisperings about what might have happened to him while he was imprisoned in Vietnam are beyond the pale. Really, truly awful.
November is a long way away. Much can happen though between now and then.
All of this makes me realize what a flawed system we have for electing presidents. But that is ok. It has worked for us for a long time now and I’m grateful I get to participate.
Deana
Just something to noodle. Long-shot, but entirely possible.
Romney didn’t drop out – he “suspended” his campaign. In simple English, what that means is that he holds on to his delegates,and can in fact continue to pick them up.
So the thing to do is keep voting for Huckabee. Let him pick up as many delegates as possible between now and August. (And in states that hold caucuses, it’s possible to continue to try to get delegates for Romney.)
At convention time, the McCain delegates will be obligated, in the first roll call, to vote for McCain. If the combined total of Huckabee and Romney delegates suffice to prevent a McCain win in the first roll call – then anything goes. Then there’s a return to the smoke-filled rooms, (these are Republicans, it’ll be cigar smoke), and a chance to cut a deal for someone who might actually have a clue about how to run something – like a country.
The big deal on McCain was his alleged “electability” – over Hillary. Not over Obama. And Hillary, who just had to lend her campaign $5 million of her own (well, someone’s) money is most definitely not looking so hot, with the upcoming primaries looking strong for Obama, plus Obama having just raised $30 million to her thirty cents. She’s beginning to look pretty damn rocky. Well, if it ain’t her, then what’s the “electability” argument for McCain worth?
This could get VERY interesting.
You don’t like Obama? I am not surprised. Your fear of the white, racist, alpha male losing some ground is showing. But, I am sure you are funded enough to bring back the bush/cheny fear mongering. Maybe you should make widespread McCain’s ‘Bomb, Bomb, Iran…..etc.’ popular. That would help you.
Charles W. wins the prize. He is the first to introduce the racist accusation into the thread.
It won’t be the last time we see this of course. I am sure that anyone who says anything that can be construed as negative will stand accused.
Now, sexism anyone?
It is going to be a long and dreary campaign season.
Considering Obama’s mother is white, and he was raised by middle class Middle American white grandparents in Iowa, is there a latent white racist alpha male within Obama that will eventually erupt to the surface?
A lot can happen between now and Nov. I am almost certain a “pox on both their houses” third candidate will arise after the Conventions. Maybe a moderate like Bloomberg, maybe a non-pol like Lou Dobbs or a diplomat like Bolton. Or even “suicide voter” Ann Coulter 😉 Who knows?
I prefer “fasten your seatbelt, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride” to “long and dreary.” I can hope, can’t I?
>>You don’t like Obama? I am not surprised. Your fear of the white, racist, alpha male losing some ground is showing.>>
So Charles….would _any_ black do? How about Condi? JCWatts? Michael Steele? Colin Powell?
This is somthing I have been looking for a long time. Thanks!!!