Romney Quit

[Sir_Galahad]

I'm just wondering, Sir G, what are your sources for the homework you've done?

There are many. I watch various TV sources, read various websites (such as politico.com) read various magazines (I even read Time) and listen to various talk radio programs and research the congressional records. But, I always try to verify what I hear, read or see from one source with another source. There is a lot of very one-sided information and spin out there that you have to try to balance that with information from the other side.

[wbtravis007]

Just to clarify my previous post - it's not about supporting Obama or McCain or whoever, but I just would hope we could have a political converstation - and disagree even - without denigrating the motives and/or intellegence of the "other side."

REC!!!

I especially like what you said about the intelligence of the other side. My mom is a Clinton supporter. She is also brilliant. She has the patience and compassion of freaking Mother Theresa. My brother is an Obama supporter. He is also incredibly smart.

My father in law is a rabid conservative like me. But there is one difference between us. He thinks all liberals are idiots and shouldn't be allowed near the voting booth. I couldn't disagree with him more.

My husband is the smartest guy around. He says that if you can't debate your ideas in a civilized way without calling the other guy stupid then it just isn't worth debating your ideas.

I would never call any of the idiots who think that McCain would make a good president stupid. I'm way too polite to do that. And I'm too humble to give myself credit for being smarter than most people when it comes to evaluating candidates.

[Sir_Galahad]

My father in law is a rabid conservative like me. But there is one difference between us. He thinks all liberals are idiots and shouldn't be allowed near the voting booth. I couldn't disagree with him more.

I don't think that either. But, I do feel that voting for someone in an election such as this is a very big deal. And I feel that if you are going to vote for someone, at least know why you're voting for him or her. Not just because "she's a woman and will advance the cause of women" or likewise "because he could be the first black president" (not counting Bill Clinton, of course). Know what these people stand for and why you are voting for them. That's all I ask.

[earendel]

My father in law is a rabid conservative like me. But there is one difference between us. He thinks all liberals are idiots and shouldn't be allowed near the voting booth. I couldn't disagree with him more.

I don't think that either. But, I do feel that voting for someone in an election such as this is a very big deal. And I feel that if you are going to vote for someone, at least know why you're voting for him or her. Not just because "she's a woman and will advance the cause of women" or likewise "because he could be the first black president" (not counting Bill Clinton, of course). Know what these people stand for and why you are voting for them. That's all I ask.

Funny you should say this, Sir_G. I just got back from lunch, which I ate in one of the snack rooms in the building. At another table were five African-American women who were talking politics and three of them were trying to convince one of the other two that she should vote for Obama because he's black. No other reason was given other than that. And they were all talking about how the media were trying to make Clinton the Democratic nominee by slanting stories in her favor.

[Appa23]

My father in law is a rabid conservative like me. But there is one difference between us. He thinks all liberals are idiots and shouldn't be allowed near the voting booth. I couldn't disagree with him more.

I don't think that either. But, I do feel that voting for someone in an election such as this is a very big deal. And I feel that if you are going to vote for someone, at least know why you're voting for him or her. Not just because "she's a woman and will advance the cause of women" or likewise "because he could be the first black president" (not counting Bill Clinton, of course). Know what these people stand for and why you are voting for them. That's all I ask.

Funny you should say this, Sir_G. I just got back from lunch, which I ate in one of the snack rooms in the building. At another table were five African-American women who were talking politics and three of them were trying to convince one of the other two that she should vote for Obama because he's black. No other reason was given other than that. And they were all talking about how the media were trying to make Clinton the Democratic nominee by slanting stories in her favor.

With the recent federal holiday and this being Black History month. I have been thinking about what forces really are keeping us, as a society, from reaching Reverend King's goal that a person be judged by the content of his/her character and not skin color. For only one example: who has made race (and gender) an issue in this election?

One of the most interesting aspects of the Supreme Court's decision on the enrollment plans for the Seattle (King County?) and Jefferson County (Louisville) school districts was that simple quote: "If you want to eliminate racial discrimination, then stop discriminating (classifying) against students based on their race." (taking liberties with paraphrasing, I am sure).

Stephen Colbert has made it a running gag on his show that "he does not see race." It is interesting to watch my older children with their friends and classmates, because it seems clear to me that neither of them really see "race". Maybe it is because they themselves "look different". Additionally, unless things are being said and actions taken when I am not around, it seems fairly obvious that kids that age really do not care about race. It seems like kids are doing a better job with listening to Rev. King than we are.

[silverscreenselect]

My goodness, now Hillary's folks are blaming "the mainstream media?" I thought that was what republicans did. You listen to Rush (he calls them "the driveby media" - same thing) or Hannity, it's all about the unfairness of the mainstream media. It's sad to see democrats sink to that level.

Surveys taken over the last few months have shown a consistently hgiher percentage of positive coverage for Obama than Clinton. And there haven't been any stories such as about Hillary's cleavage and her cackle. Just last night, MSNBC ran a story about Chelsea Clinton campaigning and one of the commentators claimed that Hillary was pimping her out.

This isn't Fox News or Rush Limbaugh doing this.

The Republicans and Fox News have been able to twist the mainstream media around in the last few years by loudly proclaiming how liberal they are. Now, if by liberal, they mean more liberal than Fox News, they and most of the country fit that definition. But Rush and his bunch go on a tirade about the mainstream media, which eventually forces the media to give some coverage to Fox's invented issues such as the Swift Boats.

[Sir_Galahad]

I think even SSS will agree with the observation that this year's president is going to be selected by the media. You just think that you're voting for who you want but you're voting for who they want. They built up Hilary, Obama and McCain and tore down all the other candidates until we were left with these three.

[ne1410s]

Stolen:



Mitt Romney dropped out of the presidential race today. Analysts say that, given his record, he will jump back in.

[Sir_Galahad]

Stolen:



Mitt Romney dropped out of the presidential race today. Analysts say that, given his record, he will jump back in.

What was funny (that is, odd-funny) is that he used the term "suspended" when referring to his campaign. He did not say "I quit." Does this mean he may jump back in down the road? To me the word "suspended" means to be resumed at a later date. Ah, just wishful thinking I suppose.

[SportsFan68]

Tis a sad day.

That is all.

I am sorry that you are upset. I know how I have felt in the past when my candidate doesn't make it past the primaries. (Which may very well happen again.)

It's not only that my candidate quit, it's that I have no one right now that I feel I can support. And I cannot rally behind McClain just to show solidarity. You either stand by your beliefs and principles or you don't.

I can only hope that some independent rises from the ashes whom I can support.

[ sigh ]

Do you maybe mean third party, or do you mean unaffiliated? Third party would make more sense to me, but I'm probably missing something.

[SportsFan68]

IMO, he main reason the Dems took over Congress was because of the RINOs. McCain is one of the chief RINOs in all Congress. He does not represent or share the conservative values of a majority of Republicans. But he is the mass media's favorite Republican. I don't know if that is the reason he has done so well in the primaries, but there was a very light turnout on the Republican side of the vote, and I suspect that might be there there was really no candidate that appealed to the more conservative end. I think those are the ones that stayed home.

I voted for Romney as the lesser of 3 evils, just to avoid McCain, though I would have been more comfortable with Huckabee, of those that were still in the race. It is sad that the party is self destructing.

It's great that Flock talks about RINOs, because there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Colorado about DINOs, and every election Dems seek out primary opponents, and sometimes they succeed in unseating them. And many Dems are happier with McCain than with Obama and say No Way to Clinton. That's one of the reasons Obama won so big in CO -- we think everybody thinks like us (it's all that thin air), and many Colorado Dems just didn't see how anybody would vote for Clinton, so to have a better chance in November, the obvious choice was Obama.

I love it that Flock thinks that the party is self-destructing. Dream on, buddy. It ain't happening. People like my friend Sid are figuring out a way to resurrent the ideals they signed up for 30 years ago. Borrow and borrow and borrow and spend and spend and spend politicians like Bush will soon be out on their ears.

[SportsFan68]

You've got a point - several Romney staffers were interviewed by <gasp> NPR and they made the point that the media had stuck Romney with the tag. He was a "Mormon-American" in the same way that they talk abot Obama being "African-American". The secrecy that surrounds Mormonism, however (much like the Masonic organization) I think made people suspicious. I seem to recall a flap about Bush (and Kerry) being members of "Skull and Bones" and the secrecy that surrounded that group.

Speaking as someone who lives within a long day's drive from the infamous Colorado City, I assure you that in general, Mormonism is not surrounded by secrecy. Warren Jeffs and his ilk are very secretive, probably because a lot of what they're doing is illegal, or because the benefits from their capitalistic enterprises redound to a very select inner circle.

[Rexer25]

Stolen:



Mitt Romney dropped out of the presidential race today. Analysts say that, given his record, he will jump back in.

What was funny (that is, odd-funny) is that he used the term "suspended" when referring to his campaign. He did not say "I quit." Does this mean he may jump back in down the road? To me the word "suspended" means to be resumed at a later date. Ah, just wishful thinking I suppose.

Suspended is a financial term. He ain't campaigning, but he's still raising money to cover debts, staff payroll, etc.

[Appa23]

You've got a point - several Romney staffers were interviewed by <gasp> NPR and they made the point that the media had stuck Romney with the tag. He was a "Mormon-American" in the same way that they talk abot Obama being "African-American". The secrecy that surrounds Mormonism, however (much like the Masonic organization) I think made people suspicious. I seem to recall a flap about Bush (and Kerry) being members of "Skull and Bones" and the secrecy that surrounded that group.

Speaking as someone who lives within a long day's drive from the infamous Colorado City, I assure you than in general, Mormonism is not surrounded by secrecy.

Assure away. Ask your friendly, neighborhood Mormon to let you take a look around the temple. See if you can attend your best friend's wedding (or even son's or daughter's wedding)

My wife worked several years for two Mormon ladies in the scrapbooking industry. Incredibly nice families, and one has to respect their devotion and tithing. However, the idea of "you can't see the inner workings of things" leads to that nagging little voice of doubt.

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

Although the temples are private, Mormons are incredibly generous when it comes to genealogy. I have gone to many LDS centers and they are really nice about sharing their time and genealogy resources.

[Bob Juch]

Although the temples are private, Mormons are incredibly generous when it comes to genealogy. I have gone to many LDS centers and they are really nice about sharing their time and genealogy resources.

I agree totally, but all of my ancestors are Mormons.

Spoiler

They've all been baptized by proxy.

[Bob78164]

Peggy Noonan is my favorite Republican writer.

Even when I disagree with her, I appreciate how well-thought-out and literate and just how gosh-darn well-written her comments are.

You will never hear viptertuitive screed from Peggy Noonan.

I can think of at least one counterexample. --Bob

[silvercamaro]

I can think of at least one counterexample. --Bob

If you think that column is vituperative, you must live in an exceptionally gentle world.

[TheCalvinator24]

Peggy Noonan is my favorite Republican writer.

Even when I disagree with her, I appreciate how well-thought-out and literate and just how gosh-darn well-written her comments are.

You will never hear viptertuitive screed from Peggy Noonan.

I can think of at least one counterexample. --Bob

Wow! You think that's vituperative screed? It is quite reasoned. And right.

[flockofseagulls104]

Peggy Noonan is my favorite Republican writer.

Even when I disagree with her, I appreciate how well-thought-out and literate and just how gosh-darn well-written her comments are.

You will never hear viptertuitive screed from Peggy Noonan.

I can think of at least one counterexample. --Bob

Wow! You think that's vituperative screed? It is quite reasoned. And right.

Now I know that I can sometimes be vituperative, but there are many people who take ANY statement that may be counter to their beliefs, no matter how well reasoned, as criticism, and react with accusation rather than counter argument. And I think that is the essence of what is wrong with political correctness. It stifles debate and reinforces closed mindedness. I think Peggy Noonan was right on with that analysis of the situation. No one did the exact right thing in the case she was talking about, but I think she was correct in her assignment of motives.

[flockofseagulls104]

IMO, he main reason the Dems took over Congress was because of the RINOs. McCain is one of the chief RINOs in all Congress. He does not represent or share the conservative values of a majority of Republicans. But he is the mass media's favorite Republican. I don't know if that is the reason he has done so well in the primaries, but there was a very light turnout on the Republican side of the vote, and I suspect that might be there there was really no candidate that appealed to the more conservative end. I think those are the ones that stayed home.

I voted for Romney as the lesser of 3 evils, just to avoid McCain, though I would have been more comfortable with Huckabee, of those that were still in the race. It is sad that the party is self destructing.

It's great that Flock talks about RINOs, because there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Colorado about DINOs, and every election Dems seek out primary opponents, and sometimes they succeed in unseating them. And many Dems are happier with McCain than with Obama and say No Way to Clinton. That's one of the reasons Obama won so big in CO -- we think everybody thinks like us (it's all that thin air), and many Colorado Dems just didn't see how anybody would vote for Clinton, so to have a better chance in November, the obvious choice was Obama.

I love it that Flock thinks that the party is self-destructing. Dream on, buddy. It ain't happening. People like my friend Sid are figuring out a way to resurrent the ideals they signed up for 30 years ago. Borrow and borrow and borrow and spend and spend and spend politicians like Bush will soon be out on their ears.

I hope so. The Republican party in recent years has not represented conservative values very well. That is why they lost Congress and why they have a good chance of losing the Presidency. And if you think we've borrowed and spent in recent years, just wait til the Dems have control of the Executive, Legislative AND Judicial branches of government. They don't even give lip service to being fiscally restrained.

[ne1410s]

The Republican party in recent years has not represented conservative values very well. That is why they lost Congress and why they have a good chance of losing the Presidency.

I disagree (shocker!!).
I think in November 2006 it was the fiasco in Iraq. Now I believe that the economy is taking over--the massive debts (of course, fiscal responsiblity used to be a conservative value) being left to our grandchildren, etc.

[MarleysGh0st]

Although the temples are private, Mormons are incredibly generous when it comes to genealogy. I have gone to many LDS centers and they are really nice about sharing their time and genealogy resources.

I agree totally, but all of my ancestors are Mormons.

Spoiler

They've all been baptized by proxy.

Is there a reason to keep that in spoilers, once it's been read as the punchline to your post?

Anyway, we still don't know if all your ancestors are Mormon, now, since Mormons will tell you that the subjects of these proxy baptisms have the choice whether to accept them or not. Presumably, if they're in a place where they're aware of the choice they've been given, they're also in possession of information we don't have as to whether that's a good deal to accept.

[Bob78164]

I can think of at least one counterexample. --Bob

If you think that column is vituperative, you must live in an exceptionally gentle world.

"Vituperative" may be the wrong word. But my problem with the article is the manner in which Noonan referred to the men as "young Muslim males" (I haven't counted, but she must have used the phrase at least a dozen times), without once acknowledging that all three of them are American citizens, two of whom (if memory serves) are native born. The effect of her rhetoric was to give the false impression that these were foreign-born jackasses who abused our hospitality to stir up trouble, rather than home-grown jackasses that every society has to deal with. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Stolen:



Mitt Romney dropped out of the presidential race today. Analysts say that, given his record, he will jump back in.

What was funny (that is, odd-funny) is that he used the term "suspended" when referring to his campaign. He did not say "I quit." Does this mean he may jump back in down the road? To me the word "suspended" means to be resumed at a later date. Ah, just wishful thinking I suppose.

By suspending his campaign instead of compeletely quitting, he does not have to refund any unused campaign contributions, and I think it allows him to keep his delegates committed to him.