The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[sunnyhibiscus]

I have a question, do you think that if Obama loses Texas and win the majority of the remaining states. do you think that he'll get the nomination?

I doubt that Obama will win Texas, because he's having trouble with the Latino votes. And of course, Texas has a lot of Latino voters.

[33girl]

Romney just quit.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

I'm sorry, but what a dweeb.

[Tom Earp]

Well, the field is really narrowing down on both sides.

The field still sucks!

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Romney just quit.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

I'm sorry, but what a dweeb.

I thought very much the same as I heard his speech.
I do not believe that anyone, at this time, would not and does not support the war on terrorism.

All he did was pick up on one of Bush's favorite comments.

Seems as if the party's gloves are now off. This is just the start of the mud slinging I fear.

On another note; the WSJ suggested a non-partisan web site to follow matters; including delegate counts.
It is:
http://realclearpolitics.com/

[UGAalum94]

Really, guys? You think Obama and Clinton are as committed to the war on terror, including the war in Iraq, as McCain is?

I don't think they're pro-terror or at least see themselves in that sense, but I think there's a huge difference in their attitudes about military action and policy and that of McCain.

I'm not trying to get into which is actually the correct attitude to hold, but if you believe that McCain is correct about Iraq as I think Romney does, there is a big reason to think his victory in the general, over two candidates who basically said they'd pull out of Iraq quickly, is important.

[33girl]

I was simply stating that Romney is a dweeb to say that's why he's quitting when the real reason he's quitting is because he got his ass handed to him on a plate.

[aopirose]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I was simply stating that Romney is a dweeb to say that's why he's quitting when the real reason he's quitting is because he got his ass handed to him on a plate.

My thought too.

Originally Posted by 33girl

I was simply stating that Romney is a dweeb to say that's why he's quitting when the real reason he's quitting is because he got his ass handed to him on a plate.

You know and I know he intends to run for office again. Better to quit now and make the GOP happy so they'll support him in a few years.

[SWTXBelle]

Am I the only one thinking Romney may have been offered a v-p place for withdrawing now?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by OTW

You know and I know he intends to run for office again. Better to quit now and make the GOP happy so they'll support him in a few years.

A link on realclearpolitics ended up with this:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8386.html
Romney ends bid, eyeing 2012

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I was simply stating that Romney is a dweeb to say that's why he's quitting when the real reason he's quitting is because he got his ass handed to him on a plate.

. . . and one thing about being that far behind is that continuing to push while having your "ass handed to [you]" is that it detracts from your party's chances of winning, which indirectly does all of the things he mentioned (in his mind).

So he's not really being all that disingenuous here - they're both the "reason" he's quitting. One is the general cause, the other is why he's specifically choosing this moment instead of 2 weeks from now.

[UGAalum94]

But isn't the "why now" part all any of them really have to address when they get out at this point? We all know one of them will emerge as the delegate winner, and we also know how he did on Super Tuesday.

And Romney is the one candidate who could probably financially afford to stay in the race if he really wanted too. With Fred and Rudy, part of the problem beyond the early primaries was running out of cash.

I guess his speech didn't strike me as dweebish. I think from a GOP perspective it's a good answer. He doesn't think he's going to win it this time, and he wants the GOP to win the general. Getting out now does help McCain.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Really, guys? You think Obama and Clinton are as committed to the war on terror, including the war in Iraq, as McCain is?

I don't think they're pro-terror or at least see themselves in that sense, but I think there's a huge difference in their attitudes about military action and policy and that of McCain.

I'm not trying to get into which is actually the correct attitude to hold, but if you believe that McCain is correct about Iraq as I think Romney does, there is a big reason to think his victory in the general, over two candidates who basically said they'd pull out of Iraq quickly, is important.

And just who was it who said that we will be in Iraq for 100 years???

War on terror was NOT, as most people understand now, in Iraq.
Now it is.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by jon1856

And just who was it who said that we will be in Iraq for 100 years???

War on terror was NOT, as most people understand now, in Iraq.
Now it is.

Right, McCain supports staying in Iraq. C and B do not, as near as I can tell based on what they seem to be saying right now.

And the war on terror including Iraq now isn't some Republican rhetorical trope; it's reality.

Do you imagine that the insurgents are legitimate combatants in a recognized civil war? Who wins if we leave Iraq today? I don't think it's the Iraqi people.

No doubt, we'd all decide not to go into Iraq if we knew then what we know now. But just pulling our forces out doesn't leave Iraq in the same situation it was in before we went in. I think we can all agree on that.

The GOP candidates all seem to hold that we've got an obligation to stay and more to lose if the terror networks presently in Iraq are allowed to win and continue to undermine the democratically elected government.

As near as I can tell the US Democratic position seems to be something like let's cut our losses; it was a mistake; let's quit spending good money after bad.

It's hard for me to not also see that the Democratic position either includes a little element of "It was W's bad, so it's not our problem, so f the Iraqis if it comes to that" or a denial that the newly elected pres. will in fact have to leave more forces in Iraq than the candidates want to admit.

ETA: the Democratic position also, of course, holds that war is bad. And it is, unless you're fighting something worse which is a much harder call to make e.g. most people's attitudes about Darfur where people seem to want military intervention, so they'll just go with war is bad and hope that Iraq isn't so destabilized that there's genocide if we pull out.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Right, McCain supports staying in Iraq. C and B do not, as near as I can tell based on what they seem to be saying right now.

And the war on terror including Iraq now isn't some Republican rhetorical trope; it's reality.

Do you imagine that the insurgents are legitimate combatants in a recognized civil war? Who wins if we leave Iraq today? I don't think it's the Iraqi people.

No doubt, we'd all decide not to go into Iraq if we knew then what we know now. But just pulling our forces out doesn't leave Iraq in the same situation it was in before we went in. I think we can all agree on that.

The GOP candidates all seem to hold that we've got an obligation to stay and more to lose if the terror networks presently in Iraq are allowed to win and continue to undermine the democratically elected government.

As near as I can tell the US Democratic position seems to be something like let's cut our losses; it was a mistake; let's quit spending good money after bad.

It's hard for me to not also see that the Democratic position either includes a little element of "It was W's bad, so it's not our problem, so f the Iraqis if it comes to that" or a denial that the newly elected pres. will in fact have to leave more forces in Iraq than the candidates want to admit.

ETA: the Democratic position also, of course, holds that war is bad. And it is, unless you're fighting something worse which is a much harder call to make e.g. most people's attitudes about Darfur where people seem to want military intervention, so they'll just go with war is bad and hope that Iraq isn't so destabilized that there's genocide if we pull out.

100 more years in Iraq?????
Us being there is just one of the causes that the terrorist use in recruiting.
Perhaps it is NOW time for the people and Government of Iraq to step up to the plate and take over the running on their own country.
Name any other country that we have bases in that we are running the country.
Us being there just delays them from facing and doing something about the very hard chooses and decisions that they have to make.
They just put it off on us.
And as I pointed out, us being there just helps the criminals.
And as I pointed out, the war on terror was not in Iraq. They had very little if anything to do with it.
The political decisions made by our politicians caused the war to expand into Iraq. Thus, as you pointed out, it is now a reality.

Should we just pack out bags and leave in February? NO.
And IMVHO no one really believes or thinks that can or will happen.