Just watched Mitt Romney's speech to CPAC where he announced that he will drop out of the race. Click here for the transcript.
They're reporting on Fox News that Romney initially decided to continue the race, but as he worked on his CPAC speech, it occurred to him that to fight on would hurt the conservative and Republican cause and more importantly, it would hurt America.
As our father said, "what else would you expect from Romney. He's the man we thought he was."
And so he is.
You can question whether or not his current positions are genuine--we don't, not anymore--but you can't doubt his love of country.
Mark Halperin at time.com has a list of 10 suggestions of things Romney could have done differently to perhaps win the nomination.
We've laid out very plainly our problems with McCain--primarily here and here. We hope he seizes the opportunity to appeal to conservatives and assure them he will fight for the things that are important to them.
If he continues to appear dismissive or disdainful of the Reagan coalition, in favor of his independent, liberal, and media friends, he will not have a snowballs' chance of beating Hillary or Barack. His contemptuous and condescending attitude towards conservatives won't win him many votes.
We will vote for the Republican candidate for President, because as Mitt Romney said in his speech, "we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism."
*UPDATE 12:18pm MST: Romney to try again in 2012.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
31 comments:
The nation is calling for change in a big way. Can McCain be more convincing than Huckabee that he will bring this change about?
Personally, I think that Romney's pseudo-endorsement of McCain is a hatchet job, expecting McCain to lose in the general. He doesn't want Huckabee to win (not the primary and certainly not the general) - that would delay, possibly forever, any chance he would have of ever winning the Republican nomination.
Romney did not win not because of McCain and Huckabee ganging up on him, or because of "attacks ads", or because he did not have a recognizable name, or because he was Mormon, or because of jealousy or whatever other argument will be postulated on this blog or within the Mitt supporters.
Romney lacked substance, conviction, and passion. His views were organic and evolved and changed with each new focus group and new poll. He had an identity crisis which is not surprising given his previous liberal-leaning stances on abortion, gay-rights, gun control, and his openly bashing of the Reagan-Revolution in the 90's. All of which are fine to flip-flop on if you have a true blue Reagan conservative baptism and conversion at a defining point in your life. Romney did not have such a conversion.
Americans saw through the textbook style speeches, presidential looks, clean image, and barrage of ads to find another empty suit politician. Romney in essence built his political house on sand and the intelligent conservative voters rained down their votes on McCain and Huckabee.
As far as "the man we thought he was," yes he proved a politician. He was a swiss army knife being everything to everyone and having then rusted out, bowed out with the effect of "oh this is what I meant to say all along but didnt because I was pandering....sorry."
matt B, you and I are going to have to figure out some way to distinguish ourselves...
Why is it that more moderates identify with McCain and conservatives with Romney? Because that's who these men are...Maybe intelligent left wing moderates voted for McCain, certainly not conservatives. He was an empty suited politician and a full suited master planner, successful businessman, economist, loving father, and faithful churchgoer and I would have my future president no other way. I applaud his ability to change his views as he increases his understanding. The alternative is scarier. His move to step aside was nothing less than magnanimous.
I agree whole heartedly with vv and lybert. My biggest draw to Romney besides his shrewd business background was his character. His decision yesterday was a humble and unselfish one. Are we so schewed in our competitive society that we can't see humility for what it is instead of a supposed weakness?
I don't think I can vote for McCain for President. I believe (as I swallow the golf ball sized lump in my throat) Hilary would actually be tougher in the Middle East than McCain. I could see him "negotiating" and "compromising" which simply means the great American backdown.
Well, I guess I'll have to read up more on McCain's policies because from what I've heard, I'm not interested in him becoming my next President. That said, I wonder what's going to happen b/c Clinton and Obama. Is it bad to possibly vote for the "other side"? The way I see it, you should vote for the candidate that best appeals to you (hopefully, (s)he is a member of your stated political party).
Mitt abandoned his true convictions to appeal to the conservative base. Most of America does not share the far right social values. By shifting from moderate and liberal social positions, Mitt alienated the majority.
The Republican party must advance and adapt to the times. Abortion and gay rights are not the most important issues facing our country. People are more concerned with ensuring they have a job and health care than whether their neighbors Dan and George are married.
what spikers said is probably true. most people probably dont care "whether their neighbors Dan and George are married." but then, it's hard to find something about which most americans are consistently concerned. i guess enough care about socially conservative issues and enough care about fiscally conservative issues that mitt thought he could do as republican presidents before him had done.... get elected by some combination of the two.
Doesn't anybody think that Romney's Mormon faith had something to do with things in the South where Huckabee won? Those of you who have served missions know that evangelicals think the Mormon church is a cult. Much of their opinions are based on misinformation, but much of it is also based on truth and obscure elements of history of which most Mormons aren't even aware. Am I wrong to think that this widespread anti-mormon education probably sunk Romney when he went up against a preacher in the South?
Romney's Mormonism is not why he lost the nomination. Polls suggest that anti-mormon bias is relatively small. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/103150/Percentage-Unwilling-Vote-Mormon-Holds-Steady.aspx
In fact, polls suggest that there is greater bias against those who are married for a third time, those who are 72 years old, gays, and atheists.
It is natural for people to support those who share their beliefs. Evangelicals split their vote relatively evenly between three candidates. Meanwhile, Romney received nearly 90% of the votes in Utah. If anything, numbers suggest Mormons are far more biased than evangelicals.
It is unfortunate Mitt failed to emphasize his accomplishments in health care as governor of Massachusetts. He was the only candidate to implement a plan to ensure that all people have health insurance (unlike Obama and Clinton who are both running on a platform that includes health care proposals). He could have emphasized that he had done what others proposed, and could have used that experience and the lessons learned therefrom to implement a nation wide plan.
"Numbers suggest..."
Spikers, great use of that verb to imply causation (biased Mormons) while absolving yourself of intellectual dishonesty. Of course the numbers themselves don't actually assert anything, they simply "suggest", allowing you to interject your own bias, duping the lay reader into believing you.
I suppose you also have numbers (or at very least an anecdote or two) which "suggest" that most of America doesn't share what you call "far right social values"?
I have mixed feelings about judging a candidate by his/her religion. I might agree with an Evangelical who thought that any person who actually believed the LDS church was literally the only true church showed such poor judgment that he/she should not be considered for the highest office. Then again, I could apply the same criticism to the Evangelical and rule out any Evangelicals for the office . But then I have to admit that both Evangelicals and Mormons have produced individuals I would trust with leadership, and therefore religion shouldn't rule a candidate out. I just look forward to the day when a candidate can say that he/she is a member of a religion for social reasons only and not because he/she actually believes in the ridiculous mystical claims of those religions. I look forward to the time when an atheist candidate could be a viable candidate and not automatically ruled out because he/she doesn't participate in the world of fantasies and faith. When will we have a viable candidate that values reason, logic, evidence and judgment over wishful thinking and fairytales? Not as long as our masses our still as human as the humans that created religion in the first place.
Hear me out. Gay rights and abortion are not among the most pressing or consequential issues affecting our nation. There are much more significant things: things that affect people in their everyday lives such as the economy, health care, and taxes; and things that affect well-being of our nation such as national security, war, immigration, and foreign policy. However, just because the "moral issues" do not directly affect most Americans (especially social conservatives)-- beyond the warm-fuzzy feeling that their view of universal morality is being upheld by the government-- it doesn't mean the issues aren't important to many people or that these people won't vote based on a candidate's views on them. I think McCain, Giuliani, and other moderates and independents are thinking "whats the big deal?" when they take moderate views on some issues, and although their thinking is reasonable, it maddens the social/religious conservative base of the party. Romney, I believe, was wise enough to realize that the social issues of gay marriage and abortion are not pressing or significant. But I believe he was also wise enough to make it clear that his politics will coincide with his personal views when such issues arise, so that he didn't alienate social conservative idealogues, who vote based on a presidents views on those issues, and actually think that such things should be on the top of the list of what a president is worrying. Does anyone know how many times President Dubya (an avowed social conservative) has had an abortion bill or gay marriage bill actually cross his desk or has proposed legislation to take action in one of those areas in the last 8 years? I can't recall a single one, especially in this term, although I'm sure there has been something. This hot point in presidential politics has been a moot point in the reality of the executive branch.
Bush vetoed a stem-cell research bill in 2006, largely because of his views on the sanctity of life.
In other regards, social issues really are beyond the scope of the Presidency. They are generally Judicial and/or Legislative issues. This is precisely why it drives me crazy that so much emphasis is given to the Candidates positions on these issues. The Republican and Democratic Parties choose candidates largely based on the candidates' views on issues over which the President will have little or no influence.
Oh and to Matt, what bias did I reveal? I am Mormon. Are you suggesting that I am biased against myself? against other members of my own church?
Spikers, you may technically be Mormon but that doesn't make you a good Mormon, and by the things you have said I would assume you are not a good Mormon. You question things too much and need to submit more to proper authority. It's good to think for yourself, but only as long as it doesn't ever get in the way of the teachings of the church, otherwise you risk turning into one of those intellectuals that thinks he knows more than God but actually has been deceived by the craftiness of the Devil. We need strong members in the church and there just isn't time or room for wishy-washy members leading up to the return of the Savior. My opinion only, and I hope you realize that I write these things out of love and concern.
Pointing out that anti-mormon bias likely didn't cost Mitt the election makes a poor Mormon? Pointing out that polling shows that America doesn't share far right social values makes me a poor Mormon? Pointing out that there are more pressing issues facing our Country than a handful of social issues makes me a poor Mormon? Recognizing bias amongst our own members makes me a poor Mormon? But thank your for loving me enough to tell me there is time or room for people like me in my own church because I may disagree with your political views.
Perhaps you should read the Church's position on politics. "The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established. The Church does not:
* Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
* Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
* Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
* Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.
The Church does:
* Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
* Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
* Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
* Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
In the United States, where nearly half of the world’s Latter-day Saints live, it is customary for the Church at each national election to issue a letter to be read to all congregations encouraging its members to vote, but emphasizing the Church’s neutrality in partisan political matters. "
Typo. Should have said "thank you loving me enough to tell me that there is no time or room for people like me in my own church because I may disagree with your political views."
Spiker, you need an attitude adjustment mister. You're probably one of those Mormons who takes the sacrament on Sundays but lies to the bishop about masturbating. I've heard that is a big problem nowadays.
Are you always this insulting and condescending? Self-righteous rhetoric only makes you appear hateful and ignorant.
Spikers- I'm sorry for dragging my personal baggage into this forum. I was venting and owe you a huge apology. I'm gonna take a Midol and chill out.
spikers, don't let BS (coincidence?) push your buttons. she (i suspect he) is just trolling.
Spikers- I've enjoyed your comments and appreciate your insight. Keep 'em coming.
A (mostly) intersting disucssion that I enjoyed reading. It's been interesting to watch media coverage of the race here in the UK!
Nice blog too Lybbert, keep up the good work!
My thoughts on the comments....
"Romney in essence built his political house on sand and the intelligent conservative voters rained down their votes on McCain and Huckabee." - Matt
MJ says: Brilliant writing, with an honesty I don't even know we can fully understand yet.
"As far as "the man we thought he was," yes he proved a politician. He was a swiss army knife being everything to everyone and having then rusted out, bowed out with the effect of "oh this is what I meant to say all along but didnt because I was pandering....sorry." - Matt
MJ says: Not brilliant. I think it very difficult to appreciate the tumultuous nature of running for the highest office in our land.
"Mitt alienated the majority." - Spikers
MJ asks: Did he alienate the majority, or did the majority alienate him?
Back in Purple, for us to think that running against a preacher in the South had nothing to do with a Mormon losing would be naive ( I find that gallup poll biased, though I like GPs and the exit polls are good). While I believe our country is progressing on these issues, we have a long way to go (see: Barrack performs better in a Caucus than a Primary) in America. Also, Im wearing purple right now (go Dawgs).
Spikers, great point on health care. Bravo! That was a major winning point for Mitt in my book.
Who in the heck is bethany Shepherd to question whether another is a good Mormon? Doesn't doing that in fact make HER a bad Mormon?
"You question things too much and need to submit more to proper authority." -BS People like Bethany are the reason we have yet to have a female president.
On the lighter side....
...Ummmm Fernando, you are supposed to "read up" on the policies BEFORE you become interested (or hopefully, disinterested) in your next President.
Is vv the lead singer of the popular group, "The Kills?" Because I love them!
Now that I have everyone upset with me.....My Post:
First of all, you must know that I love, love, love Mitt Romney (and not just because he would have been easy to kick in the general). The man is a real business leader and I believe a great CEO often makes for a great candidate of change. I agree with Matt, Mr. Romney's "views were organic and evolved," but gosh, I liked that. Sure I was upset with his changing stance on Choice/Life, but people have to be able to change their mind. Maybe his past experience with Gay Rights would have been a benefit to the country. I was also excited to see his candidacy shine a light on the LDS church. It is time for America to understand more about Mormons, their practices, and their true beliefs. While it may have been difficult at first, it would have benefited America in the long run (see: JFK and Catholicism), I believe.
(Tell Mom to quit reading right here)
While I agree with your father that Mr. Romney is a great man, Mitt DID NOT BOW OUT TO STRENGTHEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. He left because he was blowing way too much of his own money on a party that neither respected him, nor organized for him. I remember a time when the Republican party organized better than Trapper-Keeper. Today, they are in shambles and in need of a face-lift. I was hoping Mitt would be that man, unfortunately for you true conservatives, that man is 71 YEARS OLD AND CRAZY. You needed a little Nip/Tuck and you're getting The Swan.
I shouldn't be so hard on 'ol Johnny. He did stand up to the Swiftboaters (those PATHETIC WEAK IDIOTS that ruined the last election) and he served our country, no one can take that away from him. BUT!!!!! You guys over at lybberty need to get it through your heads: John McCain doesn't give a damn about your platform or your talking points. I truly feel bad for my republican friends, YOU ARE ON THE STRAIGHT-TALK EXPRESS TO HELL BABY! CHOO - CHOO!!!
Timetables Lybberts, timetables. Thats what killed him.
Great post MJ
MJ-
Why yes I am, and I also used to be the lead vocalist of Nu Shooz back in the eighties.
"He left because he was blowing way too much of his own money on a party that neither respected him, nor organized for him." --an unfounded assumption. I'll take what he actually says as why he actually did it.
"I was hoping Mitt would be that man, unfortunately for you true conservatives, that man is 71 YEARS OLD AND CRAZY. You needed a little Nip/Tuck and you're getting The Swan."--You're absolutely right...yet still a little left.
Post a Comment