Tammy Bruce: Breaking: Romney To Drop Out

Breaking: Romney To Drop Out

This is from unnamed sources, carried by Time and Fox News. This will in all likelihood happen in his speech to CPAC. I will carry the Romney speech on my radio program in a few minutes.

Consider this your Open Thread on the issue. I'll chime in more shortly.

The Romney campaign has confirmed that he is indeed "suspending" his campaign.

9:50am PT: Romney is now speaking at CPAC. Fox is carrying the speech as is CSPAN. I am carrying the speech on my show.

There is a big difference, btw, between dropping out of the race, and suspending your candidacy, which is what Governor Romney will be doing.

Suspending a campaign has a different meaning depending on the party.

On the Republican side, decisions on how to allocate delegates is left to the state parties.

On the Democratic side, a candidate who "suspends" is technically still a candidate, so he or she keeps both district and statewide delegates won through primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates are always free to support any candidate at any time, whether the candidate drops out, suspends or stays in.

National party rules say that a candidate who "drops out" keeps any district-level delegates he or she has won so far but loses any statewide delegates he or she has won.

Real Clear Politics has the full text of Romney's remarks to CPAC.

Romney to endorse McCain? Obviously, McCain is now the nominee, so it makes sense if you want to establish enough unity to at least not be a laughing stock as the 'alternative' to the Clinton/Obama ticket. And truly, support for the war is cited most often as the reason to support/vote for McCain. I'm still not convinced that a) he'd be any better on the war than Hillary, he hasn't after all, even defined what he would do about the larger War on Terror. Instead, he constantly reminds us he supported the surge. And?

It would be nice to hear what his plans are for the war. I'm simply not convinced, not have I seen anything from McCain that indicates he would be any more of a hawk on the war than Hillary. Besides, Hillary, as a woman, has something to prove to the military that a woman can be an effective and supportive Commander in Chief. McCain has no compulsion to prove anything.

So, right now the only argument to support McCain is to keep a man with an (R) after his name in the White House. We have that now, yet, with McCain what we'd get is a 71-year-old, angry, rage filled President Bush, who suddenly wants to shut down Gitmo and treat Islamist terrorist prisoners gently.

Yeah, sound like a great idea to me. Perhaps some of you can explain how McCain is conservative and how and why he'd be different than Hillary in the White House? I'm not one to rally around the (R) for the sake of it. Personally, I don't care about the "Republican Party" or any party. I care about the future of this nation, which needs to be in authentically conservative hands in order to survive.

Posted by Tammy · February 7, 2008 09:23 AM · Permalink
Open Thread | Politics

Comments

NO, NO, NO....!

Posted by: Steve Taff at February 7, 2008 09:36 AM

I am selfishly saddened by this news because I grew to appreciate Romney & his family during the last few debates and most of all during his now famous "Speech on Religion". He is a fine fine man.

In my opinion, this gives Romney an opportunity to regroup and finally have a normal life with his beautiful family.I hope we can all sincerely rally around him if he wishes to run again in 2012. Let's not lose the momentum.

One thing for sure. Nobody can accuse him of being a "Spoler" now. His love of Country combined with his sharp business savy spoke to his heart which made him decide to do the right thing.

Again, he has ALL my respect and gratitude for the very honest & exciting run!!

GO MITT GO!! (2012)

Posted by: DEM because I say so.. at February 7, 2008 09:43 AM

Where did we get this pack of losers? Tancredo, Thompson, Guliani, now Romney... drop outs.

Unbelievable. It's this nagging feeling I've had ever since I threw my support to Romney... It was driven by my dislike for McKennedy. But I really didn't know Romney, didn't know if he had the guts or the drive to win this beauty peagant. And now that's been answered.

Posted by: Steve in Ohio at February 7, 2008 10:11 AM

Bad timing... The largest Red state, Texas, would have put Jose McCain in 3rd place

Posted by: Peep8 at February 7, 2008 10:30 AM

I am distressed to hear Mitt Romney suspend his campaign. Here in San Diego county, Mitt was up by 7 points, yet mysteriously "lost" to John McCain by some 1500+ votes, yet HUNDREDS of Republican voters were not able to vote because they were "switched" to "NP", "IND", and even "DEM", even though many of them stated that they were lifelong Republicans!

This story is all over our local San Diego talk radio, why isn't it being covered anywhere else???!!!

Posted by: jammies at February 7, 2008 10:52 AM

Okay, no profanity, no personal attacks, like the Tammy Blog Rules say.

*Oh, bother and dirty word.* I was hoping that Romney, even though not my first choice, would at least stay in and give me a quasi-conservative to vote for, as opposed to Comrade McCain. Now that's not going to happen.

I can only wait for the mid-term elections to see if America realizes that a Socialist (Dem) President, or a Socialist (Rep) President are simply both evils that must be defeated. Does anyone else see a shake up in the congress and senate to offset this 'Mistake of '08' coming up?

A better question would be, does anyone know of a conservative political party that isn't out past the orbit of Mars that would attempt to run on the values of what we all like to think of Reaganistic thoughts? I'd like to join something like that, instead of the "I hate American values party (Lite)" that the (intentionally left lower case) gop is turning into.

Posted by: Kaeghl at February 7, 2008 10:56 AM

I commented earlier that by the time the Indiana primary came around, my vote would be meaningless because the nominee would already be decided. Tammy chided me, and I hoped I was wrong, but it looks like it will be exactly as I predicted.

I remember Ronald Reagan saying that he didn't leave the Democrat Party, it left him - and I have to wonder if the Republican Party wants conservatives like me? During the last election the party didn't even try, and now we're left with McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul.

If anyone wants to know why voter turnout is so low - this is the reason. I would like to believe that someone on the national level of the party actually cared about what I think, but I don't see it even after deeply searching.
I'll probably stay registered as a republican, and in the more local elections they're get my support, but nothing this cycle on the national level. I used to scoff at people who said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. Now I have to bite my tongue to keep from saying it myself.

I only wish there was somewhere else to go.

Posted by: John H Schneider II at February 7, 2008 10:57 AM

Yesterday I read a brilliantly succinct comment on the babalu blog that summed-up my thoughts. Here it is:

1. I'm a conservative. Whether I vote Republican or Democrat is irrelevant. My goal is always to promote conservatism and conservatives.

2. If the GOP, and other Republicans, want my vote then they can put up conservative candidates. Don't put up a conservative? You don't get my vote.

3. I am not obligated in any way, shape or form to vote Republican. My not voting for a Republican does not constitute a betrayal because, quite frankly, the GOP has betrayed conservatives like myself so often it's become commonplace.

4. You are a Republican and you don't like my response?

Get used to it.

Posted by: Memomachine at February 6, 2008 10:18 AM

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007309.html

Conservatives are to the Republican Party's leaders what African- Americans are to the Democratic Party's leaders: both groups are now seen as 'expendable'.

Also, great point today, Tammy, about GWB & McCain being virtually identical. Everything seems to stem from their both being MalNars who feel like they're in competition w/their fathers. GWB simply did a better job of fooling Conservatives that he was one of us...until his 2nd term when he didn't need our votes anymore.

Posted by: fiona at February 7, 2008 11:24 AM

Now we are faced with McCain v. the Democrat nominee. Conservatives, like you and I don't like McCain. Many will not vote for him. Many conservative commentators bash Hillary relentlessly, while saying little or nothing about Obama, some if not most, cheering for him. Now, Hillary is no longer the presumptive nominee. In Obama we have a naive, inexperienced one-term far left senator, poised to get the nomination fueled by Obama-mania in the press. With the division on the Republican side, there is a strong likelyhood that the Democrat nominee will get the Preseidency. Do we really want an inexperienced far left liberal like Obama to be President? At least the Clintons are experienced and would not want anything bad to happen on their watch. It would be bad for their legacy. An Obama Presidency would be a huge disaster for the country. I call on those on our side to think about what they are doing when they praise Obama because they hate Hillary.

Posted by: MCB at February 7, 2008 11:40 AM

Now I am not sure what to do with my primary vote. We vote by mail and it sits in front of me now. Symbolic vote for Mitt and give him delegates to deal?

Posted by: Pathman at February 7, 2008 12:24 PM

Thank you, Fiona! I can get behind that sentiment. MCB made some good points. I wonder about Obama. Would his inexperience make it easier for congress to contain any damage? At the same time that inexperience might allow Ted Kennedy a degree of control, and he already has too much pull with the WH. With Hillary, we get a package we can predict, and perhaps her being snubbed by Ted will work in our favor. Trouble is, how would we keep Bill out of the WH?

CPAC's in progress, and with the Romney news, I think it will be a day or so before the dust clears. And what will todays news mean for those states that have yet to hold primaries? I'll keep my ears open for Tammy's view on how this might play out.

Posted by: jeebie at February 7, 2008 12:39 PM

At least with Romney we would've had the comfort of knowing we voted for a decent human being-- who would still probably lose to Hillary.

But now we have to decide to either:
1) Vote for a dishonest, implacable man--and watch Hillary win.

2) Stay home, have pizza--and watch Hillary win.

3) Vote for Hillary--and watch Hillary win.

This is one of my little silver lining ideas-- I've thought for a long time that if we can just survive the Baby Boom generation, we might, just might, have another chance at restoration. (Sort of like the Exodus generation's 40 years in the desert)

II Chron 7:14 "If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves ... and seek my face ..."

Posted by: Tink at February 7, 2008 12:46 PM

Thanks for everyone's comments. I am an independent/moderate, not committed to either party. Romney was my candidate. I certainly believe that:

He still had a shot at the nomination.
He is, but now was, the best candidate.

I will NOT, NOT, NOT vote for John McCain or even Mike Huckabee if he somehow rebounded. I will listen to others suggestions now.

Posted by: WHT at February 7, 2008 12:48 PM

At some level, you simply can't know how a leader will turn out. In these days when genocidal maniacs are grasping for the weapons to murder millions, our leaders require a prescience that human beings simply don't have.

Certainly Hillary is much more of a fundamental leftist than McCain. Her natural inclination is to "take things away from you for the common good". She's driven to control people (maybe because she can't control her husband). I don't sense that sort of intrusive fanaticism from McCain. I shudder to think what sort of insane ideologues (presumably her revolutionary pals from the 60's) that Hillary would appoint to the courts. For this reason alone, I strongly don't want Hillary in office.

It's possible that the characteristics that trouble me about Hillary would work to our advantage in international affairs. Maybe she's tough enough to play hardball diplomacy with our "friends" and lob bombs when it's got to be done. (Yes, I do give McCain points for his support of the surge at the time when there seemed no political advantage to do so and the Democrats were invested in its failure. McCain was more concerned about doing the right thing than watching the polls.) The next president had better be able to do these things, or we're all dead.

Presumably Hillary has access to the technical competence to put together a functioning administration. This is an important practical question, quite aside from whether we like a candidate. Does McCain have what it takes to run a huge, dysfunctional bureaucracy? Or is he just a guy that makes speeches and submits legislation? On this point, I feel somewhat reassured by endorsements of other major players such as Giuliani (who I hope would have some influence in a McCain administration; maybe even a possible VP).

On some specific issues, I'm somewhat more sympathetic to McCain that some other "conservatives". I disapprove of deficit financing more than I approve of tax cuts. I'm not urging us to drill ANWR because there simply isn't enough oil there to make a difference. For what it's worth, McCain is telling us he's learned at least a partial lesson from the amnesty debacle: In particular, that he understands he's got to build the fence and show willingness to enforce the laws, and then we can talk about amnesty.

With so much at stake, I admit to confusion. But my natural tilt is toward McCain.

Posted by: Talkin Horse at February 7, 2008 01:36 PM

"I'm still not convinced that a) he'd be any better on the war than Hillary,"

Surely you can't actually believe that. Either Dem wins and I fear for the very existence of the country. Forget about what happens in another four years: millions of Americans could be dead by then.

"...he constantly reminds us he supported the surge. And?"

And that reminds one that this is a trained military mind that doesn't just talk about support for the war in vague terms, but articulates and advances specific strategy--McCain was for the surge YEARS before we tried it, and it worked.

Posted by: Dave J at February 7, 2008 05:26 PM

Romney was a hypocrite. He strongly supported the war, as long as someone elses son or daughter was putting their life on the line. Not one of his 5 strapping sons. It made me ill every time I saw that gorgeous, perfect family standing behind him. He was strictly a businessman, not a leader or patriot. That's why the voters rejected him.

Posted by: lnbee at February 7, 2008 07:30 PM

LNBee, Romney was NEVER the Conservative Golden Boy his all-too-recently-acquired supporters imagined him to be. Any long-suffering Massachusetts Republican (like, ahem, me) could've told you that. And yet, I'd have no problem with him as McCain's VP nod primarily for one reason: to heal what has became a gaping, bleeding wound in the party just in the past few weeks.

Posted by: Dave J at February 7, 2008 07:59 PM

Dave, as a native son of California, I've seen the kind of damage that the leftists do first hand. I helped support the recall of Gov. Davis, and the election of Gov. Schwarzenegger. Like many others, I supported him because he was "electable" and we believed that he would be strong on the fiscal issues that were the biggest concern at the time.

When the Governor held a special election so that we the people could vote on ballot initiatives to try to get some real reform passed, the leftists launched an advertising barrage that left the political landscape looking like Normandy on June 7th 1944. After that, the Governor backed away from the conservative positions that got him elected in the first place.

This was my lesson regarding moderate Republicans, and I've joined the ranks of Californian expatriates. I see Senator McCain as Governor Schwarzenegger writ large on the national stage. It is our responsibility to extract concessions from the good Senator in exchange for our votes. The one I want most of all is some contrition. It's not enough for him to simply mouth the words that we care about, I actually want to hear him utter the words, "I was wrong," and "I am sorry".

Frankly, I expect Senator McCain to remain bullheaded on his previous positions, and if that holds true, I will simply abstain from casting a vote for President this November.

Posted by: N_Campbell at February 7, 2008 09:07 PM

Dear Tammy,

I am listening to you on-line because we don't have you in Omaha YET.

Here is what is bothering me about this election: not all the states are on an even footing. That is to say that some states are "winner take all" and some proportionately distribute delegates. It is concievable that a candidate could have more votes from the people and be behind in the delegate count. I do not like that.

Because of that, my May primary vote in Nebraska is irrelevant. I called the RNC today who told me they have nothing to do with primaries. I wondered then, how could it be that the RNC stripped Wyoming of delegates?

Then I talked to a constitutional lawyer who said that primaries don't have anything to do with the constitution. They are simply a couple of private entities narrowing the funnel so they have a candidate to put up for the general.

Cool, huh? At least if you are an entrenched power broker.

So, here's how it works, boys and girls: Powerful unelected persons running a private entity set the rules and determine who will be annointed as worthy of the powerful people's power to select the most important political figure on the planet. If you don't like that, start a a third party.

God bless you and good luck.

Sarah, the TuxLady

Posted by: TuxLady at February 8, 2008 10:03 AM

By Category

By Month

Breaking: Romney To Drop Out

Comments

Post a comment