CPAC blogging: Romney exits
Posted 23 weeks 2 days ago byIt was a terrific speech to go out with. Mitt Romney addressed a packed ballroom at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C., making official the news that had been circulating this morning. He's leaving the race, he says, so that his campaign does not undermine the war effort. Fighting on until the convention, Romney said, would prevent the Republican frontrunner from fighting effectively against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Both of those candidates, he said, have announced their desire to retreat and embrace defeat in Iraq. "Sen. McCain and I disagree about a lot," Romney said, "but we both agree that we need to do whatever it takes to achieve victory in Iraq."
That said, there were audible gasps when Romney made his announcement. Most of the conference attendees, and many of his campaign's volunteers, had no idea what was coming. CPAC is Romney's house. John McCain, who will be speaking this afternoon, is not well-liked here. After Romney left the stage and Al Regnery, one of the conference emcees tried to restore order, he said he wanted to keep the meeting on track so "we can give Gov. Romney's opponent as much time at 3:00." He was met with boos. It's going to be a rough crowd for McCain. He has a huge hurdle to overcome with the activists here.
Thoughts
Re: A series of Tubes
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Jim LakelyGood one, Ted. Remember to take your meds before beddy bye tonight. And keep an eye on your computer for any "internets" your staff might have sent you.
Jim, A Series of Tubes
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Ted StevensThe problem with having people who aren't involved with the industry making decisions about the industry, is that they become controlled by the lobbyists on topics for which they have no common sense.
Point and case would be Ted Stevens and his series of tubes on the Internet. Obviously a master setting policy based on experts.
Sounding dandy
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Jim LakelyYou've got a point. And I put those examples in there because I figured someone would make just the point you did -- yet excoriate me for leaving them out.
Yeah, I'd guess that people who've run a business would probably set better tax policy than, say, most of the politicians in Washington who've never had to meet a payroll. And I'd also prefer that doctors work on prescriptions for health care reform instead of "Nurse" Hillary.
Yet in the political realm, even sainted doctors and teachers are "special interests." If it's appropriate for teachers alone to set education policy, why not oil companies setting energy policy? (In fact, teachers have largely been setting education policy in this country for decades through the effective lobbying of the NEA -- to hardly universally good results since I think the union (a special interest) is more concerned with teachers than students.)
Broad policy decisions in a free society are made by the people's representatives in our government -- who ideally lean on expertise to help form sound policy but don't impose a strict "rule by experts."
Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly, but the point of my post was to argue against the notion that only people with personal experience in a particular issue have any standing to advocate for that particular issue. That remains a ridiculous standard. Education, abortion, war, taxes -- the policy decisions in those realms affect everyone in society, not just those who are involved in the issue.
Jim, that sounds dandy.
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by AnonymousWhile reading your argument and expecting to agree, the opposite happened.
Actually, I'd like teachers to set education policy and doctors health policy. What's so wrong with that?
re: yes indeed
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Jim LakelyIt doesn't hurt, Geezer. It's an empty argument. By this logic ...
If you've never had an abortion (and that includes million of women) you should stay out of abortion policy.
If you've never run a business, you should not be setting corporate tax rates.
If you've never been a teacher, you have nothing to add to the debate on education in America.
If you are not a doctor, you should not be planning what the nation's health care system should be like.
If you've never played professional football, you should not be setting the bylaws of the National Football League (and probably not profess your know-nothing opinions).
We can play this game all day, if you'd like. But I must laugh that the anti-war crowd -- especially those who have never served in the military, and, in fact, have contempt for the military -- are never held to the same standard. They are "chicken-chickens," so why should they have any influence on our war policy?
yes indeed
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Cycle_GeezerIt may be old but it works well when the folks calling loudest for the war have no skin in the game. It seems to be quite all right to clamor for policies that cause other peoples children to fight and die, but somehow prevent your own children from taking the same risks. If it hurts to hear that, so be it.
re: walking the talk
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Jim LakelyAh, yes. The old "chicken hawk" line -- one that disqualifies anyone from supporting (let alone directing) military operations except those who served in war.
Let's first note that the constitution explicitly puts the direction of the military explicitly into civilian hands. But by your litmus test, FDR, Lincoln, Carter and Clinton also come out pretty poorly.
Will you demand that Chelsea Clinton enlist if President Hillary ever uses military force?
walking the talk
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Cycle_Geezer"Sen. McCain and I disagree about a lot," Romney said, "but we both agree that we need to do whatever it takes to achieve victory in Iraq."
I'm going to assume that whatever it takes will still not include any of the Romney scions actually enlisting.
How exciting to be in the middle of history.
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by AnonymousThis is certainly the most human story I've read on the subject yet today, and really frames his announcement.
Looking forward to more reports back from CPAC.