editorial:

Romney’s twisted world

Tue, Feb 12, 2008 (2:08 a.m.)

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, in announcing last week that he would no longer seek the Republican presidential nomination, said something so ridiculous and dangerously irresponsible that we couldn’t let it pass without comment.

Although Sen. John McCain has yet to mathematically wrap up the Republican presidential nomination, Romney claimed it was time for the race to end, lest the terrorists win.

“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 Sen. Clinton or Obama would win,” Romney said. “And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

Come again?

Does that mean Mike Huckabee, who has decided to stay in the race, is somehow furthering the cause of terrorism? For that matter, are the good people of Kansas and Louisiana who voted in their presidential nominating contests and provided Huckabee with wins in both states aiding and abetting terrorism because John McCain’s coronation as the Republican nominee has been postponed for a few weeks?

In Romney’s world, the Kansans who voted for Huckabee, 60 percent of the state’s Republican caucusgoers, are nothing better than fellow travelers of al-Qaida. And, if Romney had his way, all the Republicans in the other states who have not yet had a chance to vote would be denied a choice.

Romney’s lack of grace in withdrawing from the presidential race he just couldn’t simply say McCain beat him fair and square shows why he failed as a candidate. And it is beyond the pale that he would smear the Democrats vying to be their party’s presidential nominee, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by saying that electing either of them president would be a “surrender to terror.”

An overwhelming majority of Americans wants us to get out of Iraq in a reasonable and timely manner, and they also understand that President Bush diverted his attention from the real war on terrorism, which was located in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, a region where Osama bin Laden is still believed to be hiding more than six years after 9/11.

Still, we expect that Republicans will try to tar whoever is the Democratic nominee with language similar to what Romney used in his parting shot. That may have worked in 2004, but the 2006 congressional elections showed that such naked fear-mongering wasn’t successful, as Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress. And it won’t work in 2008 either.

Discussion: 10 comments so far…

By mwh710

2/12/08 at 10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

One only has to look at his "religion" to know how twisted he is - please....
By sodo_mojo

2/12/08 at 3:14 p.m.

(Removed by the site staff)
By teammoondance

2/12/08 at 4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Re: Romneys Twisted World
I wish more people would not react like this. This sort of commentry is silly and naive. Romney certainly did not mean that Huckabee is a friend of our foes. I am confident what Mr. Romney meant was that, it was time for the people concerned about the strength of the US, both financially and militarily to unite and let the democrats bicker and banter back and forth about who can lead change versus who has made change versus is race or gender an issue. Seriously, you do a dis-service to most americans who dont care for this sort of incindiary dialog.
I urge you, as I suspect you are a Huckabee fan, to reconsider how you engage in dialog. Extremism with regards to bringing Jesus to the White House is not what this country is founded on and you know and I know and anyone who takes a minute to slow down and let the hot air out of the system knows that is not what this country needs. Religious extremism does not work and does not mix in any way shape or form with the basis of this country. We are indeed a country founded on the idea of freedom from religous persecution.
I invite you to catch your breathe and have a healthy rational non extreme conversation with the rest of us. - A fan of most civic minded people
By MJ

2/12/08 at 7:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Articles such as this tend to make the press look silly as you interpret Romney's comments based on your own liberal views and talk more about what you think he is saying instead of what he actually did say. If you were to know your history and listen to the entire Romney speech you would know that he was getting out based on the results of a similar Republican primary in 1976. There, Reagan took Ford to convention in a bitter race and the result was a loss to Jimmy Carter. Romney could have kept on with his campaign and most likely taken it all the way to the convention, even though he probably wouldn't come close to getting the requisite amount of delegates nor the amount McCain had. Instead he decided to get out instead of going until September with all the animosity and division the primaries have already produced. Romney would have fought hard and picked up support along the way...but at the cost of the Republican party going into the general bruised and battered. It may just take a while for Republicans to get their act together and possibly try to rally around McCain. We already see how tough it is for segments of the Republican party to even vote for him...thus Romney did the smart thing for his party if they are even going to have a chance, but also for his political future. It is your opinion that it was irresponsible, but when you have both Dem candidates campaigning on automatic withdrawl within 60 days if elected, that is what is irresponsible and dangerous.
By donawesome

2/12/08 at 8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

My comments will be short but to the point. If McCain "beat him fair and square showing he failed as a candidate" as the writer suggests-(Romney still has more delegates than Huckabee after 6 additional states have voted)- What does that say about Huckabee's failed candidacy. If Huckabee had any class he would have bowed out to allow the Republican's to rally around their candidate and begin the inevitable trouncing of a narrow minded democrat philosophy - "Defeat and Surrender"
By bigtomcat

2/12/08 at 11:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

One man's meat is anothers poison! The authors thinking on this subject clearly displays his angst for Romney and his lust for Huckster. It is all academic now, as Mitt has suspended his campaign, but there are still a few Mormon haters out there that want to stick a knife in him, and give it a few twists. I am going to hold my nose at the polls and vote for McCain, but I would actually rather that a dem win, as this would be the best scenario to elect Romney in 2012. That's how Reagan got in, by electing that fool Carter, and for this nation to get what it deserves, four years of socialist/communist/democratic(political party) rule. I just hope we survive it all.
By jbyeates

2/13/08 at 9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Romney was not beat fair and square by McCain alone. He was beat by McCain with the help of Huckabee. Huckabee preaches religion every time he opens his mouth, and preaches miracles, but only so long as they serve the great and honorable Huckabee himself.
Romney knew that he had no chance if Huckabee stayed in the race with the conservative vote being split between the two. Romney didn't want to drop out of the race, he simply knew that if Huckabee insisted on staying in the race (which, obviously he did and had made clearly known) his defeat was inevitable. Huckabee has proven just how self-centered he is by staying in the race and forcing the guy out that had the better chance of winning among conservatives. As proof that the Huckaboom caused the doom is the fact that since the time that Romney suspended his campaign, Huckabee has been at a head to head race with McCain. In other words, Romney voters didn’t sign on with McCain, they went with Huckabee, and the logical conclusion is that Huckabee voters would have turned to Romney.
With little to no chance of winning other than a huge miracle favoring dear Huckabee, he has insisted in edging out the better candidate who had been preferred by a majority of conservatives, leaving the conservatives as the real loser. In my opinion, a truly religious man would not have taken such a road. He would have taken the higher road by leaving the race timely so that the conservative base could unite and allow Romney to compete with McCain. Now that there is no realistic chance for anyone other than McCain to win, I see nothing wrong with the way Romney left the race and the more part of people feel the same, as many articles I have read opined that his timely exit was noble.
By WhoIsJohnGalt

2/13/08 at 11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Honestly, where did this writer conjure up this dream of what Romney meant? Or is his liberal bent a little bit exposed? And where was the paper's editor? How can any legitimate news editor read that and make the decision to print it???

Loon.
By jayjay

2/13/08 at 12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

This ridiculous editorial was picked up nationally:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd...

If it weren't for the RJ, this so-called newspaper wouldn't even exist.
By juncord

2/13/08 at 12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Can we shorten the election process maybe
within 45 days... from start to finish..
-with emails/internet (free) candidates can lessen the
contribution of lobbyists and special interest.

How's benefiting the billion outlay?