Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Mitt switched gears | Main | Western Standard event notices »

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Romney Drops Out at CPAC With Amazing Speech

I'm watching Romney speak at CPAC where, the reports are that he'll drop out.

He's giving an amazing speech.  A really, really good speech - unlike any that I've seen him give during the course of this campaign.  It's not just the rhetoric, which is different than what he's been emphasizing during this campaign, it's the tone.

One of the things which creeped me out about Romney was how, if you watch those YouTube clips of him from 1994 and 2002, he spoke with the same drone-like conviction as he spat out well-manufactured talking points, much like the CEO that he was.

This is different.  He's speaking with passion and conviction.  Now that it's over.  For some reason, it seems like Romney seemed free only to be himself once it was over.

"Finding and executing Osama Bin Laden" - !  This is great stuff.

If this Mitt shows up, make him the Vice President.

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on February 7, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Romney Drops Out at CPAC With Amazing Speech:

» Mitt Romney drops out -- John Bolton for President from Right Truth
Mitt Romney gives the speech of his life, saying all the things he should have said during these past months. It's not just the rhetoric, which is different than what he's been emphasizing during this campaign, it's the tone. "I [Read More]

Tracked on 2008-02-07 11:45:53 AM


He said that if America doesn't remain strong, they will be the "France of the 21st Century"

Low blow! :)

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-02-07 11:13:38 AM

According to the CNN article, when a candidate suspends rather than drops out, as Romney did:
"On the Republican side, decisions on how to allocate delegates is left to the state parties."

Romney won mostly caucus states like MT, AK, ND, MN, CO, ME, NV, WY and only won in primary states he had lived in (UT, MA, MI). Since most of these caucus states haven't yet had district or state conventions, does this mean that more delegates will go to the 2nd and 3rd places in those states?
Rules, I'm sure will vary from state to state, and we'll slowly figure out what will happen to his delegates.

From a Ron Paul-centric perspective this is an interesting possibility since Ron Paul also did well in caucus states and came second in NV and MT and had relatively strong showings in ME, AK, MN, CO, and ND.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-02-07 11:31:25 AM

I don't understand how conservatives could choose McCain over Romney. He's great on the economy and really understands the role of the family in a free society.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-02-07 11:35:10 AM

Mitt did the right thing. What's more, I wonder if Mitt really saw the nasty johnny-come-lately support he was getting from people who had earlier scutilized him but who were on a witch hunt for the frontrunner. He put the interests of his country first. And with McCain's nomination, we see that there's time for all hands to try again . .

Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-02-07 12:03:17 PM

Romney is extremely classy, unlike most of the field. In politics, class and real-world success rarely converts to political success. Politics is for back-stabbers, and that is who is left.

Romney was just too slow taking off from the starting blocks. McCain is clearly a moron, but if enough Americans decide the "R" moron is better than the "D" moron, McCain may squeak through.

Posted by: Al Fin | 2008-02-07 12:11:52 PM

There were 11. Now there a 3.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-02-07 12:23:15 PM

Face it Republican faithful, 2008 is going to be the Democrat's year. As they say, sometimes it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.

The Republican Party has been "slouching towards Gomorrah" ever since we elected a moderate populist in Bush to be our standard-bearer. We have lost out way and forgot what it is to be Conservative with a backbone.

The Democrat Base isn't just hungry, they are famished. In Primary after Primary, their turnout was double ours. 2008 is setting up to be a massacre and better to have John McCain as the sacrificial lamb.

1. He appears quite statesmanlike.
2. He appears to be taking one for the good of the party.
3. He gets all kinds of party goodwill.
4. He establishes himself as THE front-runner for 2012.
5. He steps aside so McCain can take the Democrat Electoral Landskide right in the chops.
6. If he is smart, he will run for head of the RNC so he can be highly visible over the next 4 years and become the Hero of the Party.

I'm bummed and I will NEVER vote for John McCain, but in the long run this is better.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell | 2008-02-07 12:25:05 PM

Bashing France is so 2003. Multiple Choice Mitt is a jizzbucket.

Posted by: Paul B | 2008-02-07 3:59:58 PM

Exactly, Bill. Nobody really knew Romney, just like no one knew Bill Clinton in 88 and nobody knew Ronald Reagan the politician in 76. It takes time to get the exposure to strut your stuff.

As far as bashing France, that is a staple, not a fad. It never goes out of fashion, since France seems never to learn. Or should it be called North Andalusia now?

Posted by: Al Fin | 2008-02-07 4:48:09 PM

Folks who were interested in "who is Romney" didn't have too far to look -- he was gov'ner of MASS. He ran and was elected and took many, many positions.
Liberal positions.
That he's now changed, now that he's decided to run for Pres.
And his CEO style speeches in the debates created 0 zip nada enthusiasm for him.

I like his policies best, but I didn't like his campaign persona, I didn't like him. Nor really respect him.

I don't like a lot of Huckabee's policies, but I like him. (Voted absentee for him weeks ago).
I don't like a couple of McCain's policies, but I like him when he's in a good mood.

Posted by: Tom Grey | 2008-02-07 7:06:23 PM

Romney was not a liberal, he was a center-right conservative Governor of a very liberal state. You can try to demonize him and his positions but the truth is obviously just too nuanced for many simple-minded people. It is indeed possible to be "pro-life" but still support the ideal of personal "choice" by choosing to reduce the possible applications of Roe v. Wade rather than overturning it outright. I have felt caught in the middle of the pro-life/pro-choice debate myself, having strong feelings which support both sides of the argument. Also, you can be against assault weapons, and still defend the 2nd amendment as the individual's right to bear arms; if "assault weapons" are okay, then why can't I own a fully automatic weapon without a special class-III permit as well? And more, it's not "flip-flopping" until you try to go back to your original positions. The classic flip-flopper was John Kerry and demonstrates the trying to "have your cake, and eat it too" mentality of some politicians; Romney never did retract his "changed" positions, to opt for a more politically palitable position (even though it would have put him in the position he should have started with).

Posted by: REN | 2008-02-08 4:38:53 PM

Funny that Mitt should bring up France as a poor example of a country. Remember, he should know, for he worked there as a missionary for 2 1/2 years, and if anybody gets a real feel for what a country is like, it's a missionary, who works with the people day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out...

Posted by: Rockyspoon | 2008-02-11 3:44:17 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.