Thursday, February 07, 2008

Mitt: gracious and patriotic in defeat provides our unifying theme.

Mitt through in the towel today, an event that certainly no longer qualifies as breaking news. However, the manner in which that towel was tossed was most gracious and patriotic.

Moreover, Mitt gave the most unifying language of the campaign. Indeed, Mitt provided the simple and most significant argument for supporting our nominee, and it certainly looks like that is John McCain.


I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. 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.

How very well said. Every single thinking American knows that both Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will essentially surrender to the Islamofacsists and the psychopath terrorists they support. By the way, libs, before you screech about Mitt and I challenging your patriotism you should take a moment to read the military definition of defeat. In fact, you might find a little Clauswitz enlightening.

Mitt has done nothing more than give voice the message that America might not want to hear, but most assuredly must hear. In doing so he has served himself, his party and his country well.

20 comments:

Spotlight (on phonies) said...

If he's so set on "doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq", he probably told his sons that they are now free to go enlist. He just forgot to mention that part.

He's a phony, thru and thru. He is just setting himself up to run in 2012. I'll bet he comes back to CPAC in 2011 to announce his next campaign.

Get ready to spend 100 years occupying Iraq, you McCainnites.

Anonymous said...

What good is it going to do to pursue terrorism in Iraq when our borders are wide open?

After South Carolina McQuisling said that he had not changed ANY of his position. That means he is STILL pro-shamnesty, still opposed to tax cuts, would kill the economy to fight "global warming," coddle terrorists, close Gitmo, collaborate with the enemy and continue to use the Constitution as toilet paper.

It may be better to have Hillary in there with a Republican congress.

Jeff Fuller said...

TRS,

I must admit that it was Mitt's best speech (well, that Faith in America was an awesome one as well) and that he is a class act.

I think the conservative movement FINALLY realized that he truly IS ONE OF THEM (US), but it was too late in the game to stop McCain's resurgence (especially with Huck dividing up the conservative base with Romney when McCain was "unopposed" for the liberal/moderate wing of the GOP . . . of course, this was coordinated strategy between Huck and McCain, but that's just politics, so I won't whine too much).

Anyways, thanks for the kind praise for Romney TRS!

Anonymous said...

So spotlight. Do you take the troops from Iraq home before the troops in Kosovo that BIll and Hill left there? When does Bill and Hill's army get to come home?

How about those troops in Saudi Arabia? How about those troops in Europe? Korea?

Is the the position of the democrats that the army is to never ever be deployed for any reason at all other than to cover up a blow job done on the President by an intern?

Why are you picking on Iraq?

Anonymous said...

Jeff - it appears that Romney was dividing the conservative base, not Huck.

As some national pundits have said, Romney is a good guy who listened to too many consultants telling him what he needed to be to run rather than to run as himself.

I wonder who those consultants were that did such a disservice to an otherwise decent guy.

Reagan who?

proofer said...

TRS - that should be he "threw" the towel in :P

Spotlight said...

"How about those troops in Europe?"

Good question. Why DO we have troops in Europe? It's not to defend Europe from Russia.

They are just another base in the worldwide military empire we now run, even tho we can't afford to do it and don't benefit from it.

It's what that great Republican warned us about: "undue influence of the military industrial complex."

See also Chalmers Jonhson, who warns that only three times in world history have democracies tried to be military empires.

1. Rome. They lost their democracy to their emporer. Bush is trying to re-enact Roman history right now.

2. British. They lost their empire but retained their democracy.

3. USA. Which will we chose?

MARK KLEIN, M.D. said...

(In today's NY Times)

I urge Ron Paul to make an independent run for the White House to send the message to the Republican Party real conservatives are fed up with needless financially ruinous wars and today’s insane borrow and spend economics.

— Posted by MARK KLEIN, M.D.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/mccains-security-panel/#comments

Anonymous said...

Spotlight is one of those Dems who needs to get a real job and not spend so much time spewing crap on blogs.

Anonymous said...

i thought it was the most presidental speech i've seen from any R candidate this whole cycle.

what a tough thing to do, but he did it respectfully and with grace.

Anonymous said...

Spotlight exemplifies the problems with the Union run educational system we currently have in America. It's actually the democrats who most embody the same forces that brought down Rome.

Multiculturalism is what brought down Rome..not their military. When you have no loyalty to the state, no common culture, no common language, you lose your state.

The Dems wish to Balkanize America in the name of diversity or some other such ambigous goal that will only serve to destroy America.

I don't fear our military. I fear our lack of understanding of what brought down Rome.

Anonymous said...

Spotlight - just what constitutes a military empire? I suppose you think we are "occupying" Iraq too, don't you?

Anonymous said...

I'd much rather "occupy" Iraq than free up Al Qaeda resources to set off a dirty bomb in Washington.

Romney's speech was OK (presidential? I don't think so) up until the end when he sniffled and left the stage without fully endorsing the nominee by not asking his supporters to turn their efforts towards making the phonecalls and pursuing the turnout efforts that it will take to win in November.

Anonymous said...

I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.

Spotlight said...

Someone wrote:
"Multiculturalism is what brought down Rome..not their military. When you have no loyalty to the state, no common culture, no common language, you lose your state."

Rome didn't lose its state. It lost its democracy, becoming a military empire instead, then lasting for a few more centuries.

Yes, it was multi-cultural if you mean that the military was largely foreign mercenaries. We're getting into mercenaries ourselves with Blackwater's South Africans, etc.

Which brings me back to my question: Did Mitt's sons enlist yet?

Spotlight (on military empires) said...

Someone else asked:
"Spotlight - just what constitutes a military empire? "

How about this for a definition: That nation that spends more on its military than all the rest of the world combined; has over 700 military installations in other countries; and spends vast amounts of its budget in secret for military and intelligence ends.

Anonymous said...

OH, so that's how they get the black helicopters.

Art A Layman said...

Geez! And I thought Mitt favored withdrawal time tables, just secret ones.

Hell, that must have been another election he was running in.

This guy is full of more hog waste than exists in the entire state of Iowa.

Little Buddy said...

I think Mitt is a class act and his exit speech showed as much.

Art A Layman said...

little buddy:

It's easy to be gracious and classy in defeat.

Mitt should review history though and he would find that those who go quietly into that good night often don't fair as well in the future, politically, as those who whine and cry, see Richard Milhous Nixon.

Of course Reagan's experience might be what Mitt is looking at since Reagan appears his, come lately, hero du jour.

Labels

Amazon Bookstore