Romney bows to reality, will drop out

The Stormin' Mormon storms no more: Mitt Romney will quit the race, according to Mark Halperin's sources. "Withdrawal could come at CPAC speech at 12:15 pm ET," Halperin writes.

I thought he'd withdraw this week. He doesn't seem like the type to keep fighting a clearly hopeless battle, especially with his own fortune. (The delegate math makes it pretty well impossible for Romney to beat McCain.) Better to save that money for a possible second shot in 2012 -- or, you know, other stuff he might want to spend it on.

Anyway, as Mike Huckabee said: "It's a two-man race -- and we're in it!" Not for long, though...

Comments

[B. Minich]

Wow. This is what I would like to call the "Limbaugh Heartburn" nomination race.

[4-7]

McCain is not "reality", yet. Not by a long shot. The sun may be rising on Obama, but it is setting on this inane and idiotic idea of McCain as the conservative vote. For lord's sake, the man almost ran with John Kerry 4 years ago. The only way McCain gets the nomination is if the party proves itself staffed by the stupid. I, 4-7, announce that McCain is the litmus test for intellectual sophistication in the GOP. If he is our man, we is stupid people.

[Brian Foster]

I, 4-7, announce that McCain is the litmus test for intellectual sophistication in the GOP. If he is our man, we is stupid people.

And given that your announcement can possibly apply only to yourself, I think it's spot-on, inasmuch as your rejection of McCain as insufficiently conservative to lead the GOP reveals you as "stupid people."

The Republican Party has always (at least in my lifetime) been the big tent with respect to ideas and philosophies. Contra the Dems, a big tent with regard to identities, but an unwavering inflexible lockstep mindset that severely punishes any wavering from the party line. (Again, compare the number of pro-life keynote speakers at a Dem convention with the number of pro-choice keynote speakers at a GOP convention.)

To reject McCain as the GOP's standard bearer in 2008 is to adopt that closed-minded, intolerant, self-defeating, childish insistence on absolute purity that has confounded the Democrats' success since the 1960s and poisoned their intellectual viability since at least the 1930s.

Yes, we would indeed be "stupid people" to impose a "litmus test" on the Republican nominee, demanding ideological purity at the expense of both intellectual superiority (as compared to the Democrats' alternative ideas) and electoral viability.

Moreover, the results of this year's nomination race so far demonstrates the growing disconnect between the party's "staff" and the party's "members." In caucus states where party leaders and activists maintain a tight grip on the proceedings and can intimidate people's public declarations of support, Romney has done fine while McCain has yet to win. But in primaries -- whether closed or open -- in which voters can privately express their actual preferences, McCain holds a commanding lead and Romney has yet to win a single one, states where he has been a resident excepted.

The most committed party activists may find distaste for McCain, but the rank-and-file recognize that after 8 years of the establishment's anointed candidate in Bush, and two prior elections featuring the crushing defeat of establishment favorites Dole and Bush Sr., it's time for disestablishment -- or reestablishment -- in the Republican Party.

As I argued on the Super Tuesday open thread, McCain's nomination is the beginning of a new era in the GOP. He may not be actively courting it; he may not even realize it himself. But it's coming. The influence of hardline intransigent conservatives, always more ethereal than real, is now in its last vestiges, and before long, the party will have shaken off the shackles of entrenchment and recommitted itself to those basic ideals of personal freedom, restricted government, and world strength that form the essential core of the Republicn Party.

Ideals championed by, and at the core of, John McCain.

[Brian Foster]

Also, see here.

[yea]

the amount of anti-choice keynote speakers at a convention is an absurd metric to evaluate "intellectual superiority". anti-war ron paul and pro-choice rudy guiliani widestream acceptance by the republican party during this primary season really showed that there are no "litmus-tests" to gaining support in the republican party.

the democrats actually ran moderate to possibly even conservative joe liebernman for vice-president. so your allegations of "poisoned intellectual viability" are a joke. i expect better of you brian. ill hope you are in a bad mood today and thats your excuse.

[JT]

Brian, I'm enjoying your frustration with the insanity of some of the people in your party. We had to deal with Nader supporters and now you have to deal with people like 4-7.

[GoldenBear]

Brian,

I love your enthusiasm, but I think you are vastly underestimating the influence that Rush, Hannity, etc. have on the voting public. Their shows have been almost non-stop McCain bashing since he won Florida and the callers have been eating it up / falling in line. MOst of them will continue their fight to the election and that, combined with the massive excitement on the Democratic side, could spell doom for McCain. If McCain losses, for whatever reason, the "new era" will be snuffed out and establishment will have 4 years to rally the troops by 1) bashing the new Democrat president 2) blaming McCain and us for putting him or her in the White House in the first place. So, I guess the question is, do you feel McCain is the guy to pin the hopes of a new era on? While he is a hero, I feel we need someone who has the traits that the Dems love about Obama and why Reagan was so successful - someone who can use his/her charisma to get people to buy into his/her vision even if the vision is not totally in line with their beliefs. McCain has a temper and a tendency to be mean - two things that definitely do not unite people. Personally, I think Giuliani had a chance to usher in the new era you speak of.

[Aaron]

Amen, JT. But I prefer to always refer to him as "fucking Ralph Nader."

GB, "a tendency to be mean" might be a good choice for Giuliani's eulogy.

[Aaron]

Huh. "Giuliani's eulogy". You shouldn't do that to the English language

[yea]

nader is saying he might run again. fantastic stuff. another reason to hope obama wins the primary because i think nader will have a hard time taking voters from obama but hed probably get some from hillary.

[Joe Mama]

the amount of anti-choice keynote speakers at a convention is an absurd metric to evaluate "intellectual superiority".

Perhaps, but it's a pretty good metric for evaluating whether a party in fact has a "big tent", which is the proposition it was actually offered for (not "intellectual superiority").

[Brian Foster]

I think you are vastly underestimating the influence that Rush, Hannity, etc. have on the voting public.

Well, their anti-McCain campaign certainly stopped him cold on Super Tuesday. Oh, wait.

But yes, I agree that if McCain loses the general, it will be a different "new era" than if McCain wins. But either way, there will be one.

The point, as the Donatelli-Kemp letter argues, is that the current state of the GOP is adrift, having forgotten its core principles and been seduced by the bloat and corruption of Washington that it came to power to fight against. To a certain extent, the talk radio crowd represents the mentality that is okay with rank corruption and a federal government that exceeds its lawfully limited powers to spend billions in taxpayers' money, so long as it is their preferred programs that benefit and their friends who get the perks.

These people may be as ideologically-purely conservative as they come. But they're not Republicans.

McCain's nomination is a push back against the notion of a GOP as "corrupt tool for hardline conservatives to use however they wish." It's a reminder that the party's strength is based not on paying homage to conservative personalities or power brokers, but on adherence to conservative principles like shrinking government and fiscal discipline. To paraphrase the campaign line, it is a message aimed at those who were elected to change Washington but ended up being changed by it, that their betrayal has not gone unnoticed, and it is time to get back on track.

If McCain wins, this effort moves forward, not terribly perceptibly or obviously, but detectably nonetheless. If McCain loses, the internal debate will continue, aided by events as they develop under Clinton/Obama, resulting -- one hopes -- in a new-era candidate in 2012/16 that will reshape the party more consciously and overtly.

The danger, of course -- and a very real one, I fear -- is a retreat back to the corner currently occupied by the anti-McCain naysayers, in a mistaken belief that "they were right all along," and a relinquishing of the party to such forces, which all but guarantees permanent minority status for generations to come, as long-term demographic trends simply do not favor the hardline conservative version of the modern GOP.

[john]

interesting info of unknown usefulness:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/020308enthusiasmgraph1.gif
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/020308enthusiasmgraph2.gif

[Brian Foster]

Pretty fascinating numbers, john.

So, if Obama gets the nomination, 75% of Dems would vote for him, while 20% would vote for the Republican or not at all. If Hillary gets it, 77% would vote for her, while 19% would vote for the Republican or not at all.

On the other side, if (as now seems pretty likely) McCain is the nominee, 82% of Republicans would vote for him while only 14% would vote for the Dem or not at all. As compared to 77% who would have voted for Romney, and 16% who would have voted for the Dem or not at all.

Bottom line: the "suicide voter" / "disgruntled conservative staying at home" is a myth. At least based on these numbers right now.

And given that we're in the thick of primary season when intraparty warfare should be at its highest, the lack of hardened opposition to McCain is astonishing, given the rhetoric.

So, no, I don't think I am underestimating the power of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, et al. I think if they do stay home or vote Hillary/Obama, they will be very very lonely.

[Sandy Underpants]

Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, et al. whipped the Republican base up to mobilize for Bush in '04 invoking a fear driven by Suicide Bombers and terrorism on America, now they ask the same base to become suicide voters and support a democrat for the sake of the Republican Party. It only goes to show what a tool the joke known as "the War on Terror" was all along.

[Brian Foster]

Also, the spread in these numbers is surprising.

Obama +55 (75 support minus 20 no support)

Clinton +58 (77 support minus 19 no support)

Romney +61 (77 support minus 16 no support)

McCain +68 (82 support minus 14 no support)

Who would have guessed that of the four candidates, the one who would have the hardest time holding onto his own party's voters and independent leaners is Obama?

"Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, et al. whipped the Republican base up to mobilize for Bush in '04 invoking a fear driven by Suicide Bombers and terrorism on America, now they ask the same base to become suicide voters and support a democrat for the sake of the Republican Party. It only goes to show what a tool the joke known as "the War on Terror" was all along."

That analysis is not nearly superficial or misguided enough. Please try again.

[Brendan Loy]

Hmm. Interesting.

Maybe meaningful, maybe not, but certainly interesting. :)

That desciption also applies to these numbers:

Washington state:
Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 46%
Obama (D) 55%, McCain (R) 38%

Kentucky:
McCain (R) 53%, Clinton (D) 43%
McCain (R) 61%, Obama (D) 32%

Neither of those are exactly "swing states," so I'm not sure what this proves, but maybe it means Obama's race hurts him in the South/border red states, but Hillary's Hillaryness hurts her on the coastal blue states? In which case, the question remains, WHAT ABOUT THE SWING STATES??? :)

Alternatively, it might mean that it's early February, and voters' general-election opinions at this point are governed by the most utterly superficial impressions (McCain = maverick/white, Obama = inspiring/black, Hillary = Hillary), rather than what they'll actually decide their vote on in November (namely, a mixture of those same superficial impressions with a bunch of additional superficial impressions, a bunch of bullshit, and MAYBE one or two legitimate criteria that have something to do with what makes a good president). :)

[yea]

Joe,

its no more of a metric than being pro-war for republicans. unless ron paul makes a miraculous comeback i dont see any anti-war people getting a keynote speech at the republican convention.

[Joe Mama]

yea's mention of Ron Paul is interesting. He is a Republican anti-war candidate. Where is the Democrat pro-war candidate?

[Sandy Underpants]

Clinton is the Democratic pro-war candidate. She's voted with Bush on EVERY opportunity including the votes in 2007 to continue the war.

[Andrew]

So the Democratic pro-war candidate wants to abandon Iraq almost as fast as the anti-war candidate? With pro-war allies like these, who needs anti-war foes?