« A People's History of the United States | Main | Should Mormons Hate Huckabee? » Romney Drops Out07 Feb 2008 01:41 pm Too bad. I actually agreed with Hugh Hewitt - it might have been good for the GOP, and conservatism, to have the McCain-Huckabee-Romney debate continue (on friendly terms, ideally) for another month or so, even if the outcome was more or less preordained. But at least this way Mitt can save some of his kids' inheritance for the 2012 campaign ... You can watch the withdrawal speech over at the Corner; Ambinder comments on the crowd reaction here. TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Comments (21)
I hope someone at NRO has removed all the sharp objects from the vicinity of K-Lo's desk. She's about to go Britney on them - probably will start speaking with a British accent first. 
And I was hoping for a "Leave Romney Alone" video from K-Lo in the meantime. Ah, well. At least Romney went down in a flame of liberal bating and dolchtoss.
Anyone else pissed off that the media is trying to end this race prematurely and call it for McCain? Huckabee is still in the race and if conservatives gravitate toward him, he has a good chance of making it interesting. I'm going to be doing everything I can to help him.
Go for it, Mike. Hickabee has no money and he's a bigtime Jesoid wackaloon who makes Dumbya look secular. His idea of foreign policy probably involves a search for the Antichrist. I'd love to see the GOP nominate him. Landslide city, baby. Landslide city.
"Senator McCain", but "Barack" and "Hillary". What is it with the right-wing and silly name games like "the Democrat Party", anyway?
What, Mike, you want they should run on substance? That would never do.
They should follow the example set by Chelsea Clinton when she so bravely served in Haiti, Kosovo and Rwanda. > "Senator McCain", but "Barack" and "Hillary" The Democrat[ic] surnames are ambiguous. "Clinton" is ambiguous. "Obama" can trip people up with Osama or, I suppose, with Randall Balmer, but then "Bara[c]k", like "Liebermann", is also an Israeli politician, so that's confusing. OTOH, the GOP first names are also ambiguous. "Vote John for President" might be mistaken for a Democrat poster from 2004 - or even from 1960, seeing as Caroline Kennedy has anointed the Senator from Illinois as a reincarnation of her father, by which I suppose she meant that, as President, Barack Obama wouldn't use or threaten to use US military force in dangerous and high-risk attempts to stare down America's enemies.
Rod Bush replies: "They should follow the example set by Chelsea Clinton when she so bravely served in Haiti, Kosovo and Rwanda." What sort of perfect asshole seriously compares the war in Iraq to those events? The number of Americans killed in combat in Kosovo was ZERO. Romney and his litter are hawks and none of them have served - Romney was stupid enough to equate his kids working for his campaign with service in a war which is ultimately going to maim or kill tens of thousands of Americans. And Rod Blaine, he of the hairdresser name, compares this to Haiti or Kosovo? What a bag of shit. But sure, as an equivalent, it would have been nice if she joined the Peace Corps. Cretins like Rod Blaine who see rescue and peace missions as the equivalent of wars of aggression (complete with torture and phosphorus bombing!) with what we did in Rwanda probably wish they could sit on Dick Cheney's lap and guess how happy he is to meet them.
> "What sort of perfect asshole seriously compares the war in Iraq to those events? The number of Americans killed in combat in Kosovo was ZERO." You, uh, done any research on the number of Americans killed in... oh, let's spin the globe and pick a country at random..., say, Somalia under Chelsea's dad's watch? And of the ramifications of that? And does your moral compass include non-Americans killed (apparently the Christianists believe they have "souls", too)... other than when in the course of scoring a point against Bush/ Cheney? Bush ordered US troops into action. Clinton ordered US troops into action. Bush did not order his own daughters to serve. Clinton did not order his daughter to serve. Sauce. Goose. gander. Or does it depend on numbers? Are you arguing that a President is only required to conscript, say, one daughter for every 1,000 US soldiers (or part thereof) killed on his watch? Jimmy Carter didn't need to send off Amy because he only lost a few dozen in the Iranian desert? Come on, MoeLJ. You'll have to do better than personal abuse if you want to convert these knuckle-dragging conservative Douthat readers to your Enlightenment values of reasoned debate, impartial analysis and evidence-based decisions.
What's your take on the connection that Huck has mentioned, between Mitt Romney/Bain Capital, and Clear Channel/talk radio? Rush is dismissing it as a conspiracy theory and just another attempt to exploit class envy, but so far no one has proposed a more plausible explanation for why the GOP finds Mitt to be more credibly right-leaning than McCain...
Rod Bush writes: "You, uh, done any research on the number of Americans killed in... oh, let's spin the globe and pick a country at random..., say, Somalia under Chelsea's dad's watch? And of the ramifications of that?" It was Daddy Bush who got us into Somalia, chuckles. Clinton got us out. And it wasn't a war of aggression for oil. And no, we wouldn't be in Iraq if their principle national resources were livestock and bananas, as is the case with Somalia. But then again, you're a Bush-slurping goober who still buys that "bringing democracy to Iraq" line, and as I recall you think Iraq is a sovereign country. I'm arguing with a madman. "And does your moral compass include non-Americans killed (apparently the Christianists believe they have "souls", too)... other than when in the course of scoring a point against Bush/ Cheney?" Is it your position that Chelsea should have joined up to kill? Seriously? And by the way, she was born in 1980, so she would have missed Somalia, anyway. "Bush ordered US troops into action. Clinton ordered US troops into action. Bush did not order his own daughters to serve. Clinton did not order his daughter to serve. Sauce. Goose. gander." Bush lied in order to start a pointless war of aggression, and our military is strained to the bursting point as a result. None of this applied to the actions under Clinton, and yeah, scale does matter, and so does the number of casualties - though we both know you don't care either way. Nor has Chelsea Clinton expressed any wish to go to war, which isn't true of Bush, Mitt, or Mitt's sons, all of whom are active hawks who flound various ways to play chickenhawk. But you're a conservative, and the concept of hypocrisy means nothing to you. If you don't see a disconnect between outspoken warmongers failing to serve when given the chance you must be a Repiglican.
MD wonders: "What's your take on the connection that Huck has mentioned, between Mitt Romney/Bain Capital, and Clear Channel/talk radio? Rush is dismissing it as a conspiracy theory and just another attempt to exploit class envy, but so far no one has proposed a more plausible explanation for why the GOP finds Mitt to be more credibly right-leaning than McCain..." Seems entirely plausible. And Clear Channel is run by far-right sorts who have been accused quite often of monopolistic practices. Antitrust enforcement has been a joke under the Bushpigs - Clear Channel would certainly love to have a bosom buddy relationship with the next president.
Wait, so Moe, tell me, does your chickenhawk meme only apply to wars of aggression? This argument by liberals has always fascinated me. So let's say Mitt Romney was elected president (bear with me), and decided we were going to send a large force to Darfur (for example). Would you still be calling for his sons to serve? Or does the "chickenhawk" meme only apply to wars that don't meet your criterion of justice?
Fair question, Derrick. I'd say it applies to wars of defense most certainly, but then in those wars most of those people would probably be serving anyway. Darfur's one of those cases where it would all be over very quickly and it wouldn't be very bloody anyway - so joining to serve at the onset would be futile, given training time and so forth. And if we went to Darfur it wouldn't be a war of aggression in the Iraq sense, it would be a limited police mission where we wouldn't be using massive bombing strikes and torture. I see a clear moral distinction here and I'm not quite sure how to explain it to someone who doesn't. I suppose it comes down to being willing to accept the characterization of the Iraq war as a war of aggression, and you're probably not there. It will also be lost on all the cons that I never said Mitt's sons SHOULD serve. I said it was GREAT that they were now FREE to serve, since we all know they're not chickenhawks and they would just love to do their part. Yeah, sure they would.
"Clinton" is ambiguous. "Senator Clinton" isn't. "Obama" can trip people up with Osama. "Senator Obama" can't. And the only people who pretend to confuses "Obama"and "Osama" are morons, bigots, and Republicans. But I repeat myself.
Mike writes: ""Senator Obama" can't. And the only people who pretend to confuses "Obama"and "Osama" are morons, bigots, and Republicans. But I repeat myself." Yeah, but you left out "shitheads." And is there more than one Mike posting here? I think there's one who's a Repiglican-Hickabee fan, too.
> "It was Daddy Bush who got us into Somalia, chuckles. Clinton got us out." Notice, Moe, I didn't say "got the US into" wars, a criterion by which GOP "warmongering" in the past century (Iraq, and... uh... Grenada) pales by comparison with the Democrats' (WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam). I said "ordered troops into action". Perhaps I should explain more clearly that this includes continuing as well as beginning military action. Maybe a President Kucinich would bring all troops home on January 21, but if a President elects to continue his predecessor's engagements, then this becomes as much "his war" as Vietnam became Nixon's. Clearer? > "And it wasn't a war of aggression for oil." But you said Bush I started it. Therefore, ipso facto and by definition, it *must* have been for oil. Or is this another MoeLJ Syngman Rhee argument ("Fighting in Korea was worth it but fighting in Vietnam wasn't")? "Yes, X was a right-wing bastard but AT LEAST HE'S NOT DUBYA"? > "Is it your position that Chelsea should have joined up to kill? Seriously?" No, any more than you seriously believe the world would be a better place if Romney's boys grabbed rifles and headed for Iraq. > And by the way, she was born in 1980, so she would have missed Somalia, anyway. But she was nearly 21 by the time her father's term ended. She would, for example, have been 19 when US planes were dropping bombs on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Granted, that didn't kill any Americans, so maybe Kosovo doesn't register in the MoeLJ Scale of Froth-on-the-Lips Fury. > "Darfur's one of those cases where it would all be over very quickly and it wouldn't be very bloody anyway" "But few of any sort, and none of name." So it's okay to kill, oh, I don't know, one or two hundred Janjaweed in Sudan, but not a few thousand Baathists and al-Qaedists in Iraq? What's the going exchange rate for American versus non-American lives? And can you absolutely, 100%, guarantee me that no civilians or non-combatants will be killed or mutilated by collateral damage or friendly fire in your Darfur War? By the way, I believe oil is one reason Darfur hasn't already been stopped.
> 'And the only people who pretend to confuses "Obama"and "Osama" are morons, bigots, and Republicans'
Rod Bush replies: "So it's okay to kill, oh, I don't know, one or two hundred Janjaweed in Sudan, but not a few thousand Baathists and al-Qaedists in Iraq?" You really think we've just killed "a few thousand" in Iraq? Are you truly that stupid? And again, I didn't say Mitt's sons SHOULD serve, idiot. I said they were now FREE to serve. I know you cons mostly lack the intelligence to discern actual meaning because you're too wrapped up in your delusions, but next time try responding to what I say, not what the bloodthirsty Cheney-spores in your brain tell you I'm saying.
Are political reporters really to dumb to click "Add to Dictionary"? OK, silly question.
|
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Ross Douthat
Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
E Pluribus NixonThe Atlantic, May 2008 The Return of the Paranoid StyleThe Atlantic, April 2008 
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Great! This frees up Tagg and Spott and Frigg and Chazz to quit working for dad's campaign and head over to Iraq!
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 7, 2008 2:47 PM