Romney Walks Away

He’s abandoning pres bid. And then there were two. From ABC news…

“This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters … many of you right here in this room … have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming president. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country,” Romney planned to say, reports the AP.

Click here to sign up for Baristanet's free daily emails and news alerts.

138 COMMENTS

  1. Wow, I’d thought he’d hang in a bit longer than this, at least thru the “Potomac Primaries” next week.
    Either he realized he’d just be throwing more of his own money away, or he wants to position himself for VP with the eventual nominee.
    Will be interesting to see who he throws his support to. (I would relish witnessing the outbreak of apoplexy among all the frothy conservatives if Romney endorsed McCain!)

  2. we frothy conservatives might not be enamored with McCain but our task now is to unite in our fight against Billary

  3. A quote of what Romney “planned to say”? I’m no journalist, but somewhere along the way I got the impression that quotation marks were only to be put around something that had actually been said.

  4. “we frothy conservatives might not be enamored with McCain but our task now is to unite in our fight against Billary.”
    Agreed. He’s not my first choice but apparently, he’s all we got.

  5. “Well, you still got the Huckabee.”
    yeah, but I don’t see him taking the popular vote. Who knows though, he may end up as the VP candidate.

  6. “Well, you still got the Huckabee.”
    yeah, but I don’t see him taking the popular vote. Who knows though, he may end up as the VP candidate.

  7. I actually thought that soundbite from McCain made him see more spontaneous and less calculating–especially compared to Hillary. Plus, it was after that, from what I remember, that McCain got that all-important endorsement from Weird Al.

  8. “we frothy conservatives might not be enamored with McCain but our task now is to unite in our fight against Billary.”
    Agreed. He’s not my first choice but apparently, he’s all we got.”
    If Republicans could turn Bush into a conservative, they can turn anybody into a conservative.

  9. McCain tells the WSJ he still needs to be *educated* on economics. Rather, his acumen lies in foreign policy. So, what’s his first directive? We’re staying in Iraq for 100 years! Let’s see: $170 billion X 100 . . . ROC, crunch those numbers and back to us, will you?
    In the meantime I’m increasing my Lockheed Martin holdings in my 401K.

  10. I hear a statistic today – the average American tax bill includes $8,000 for defense spending. Yes, much is for the war. Surprisingly, much is for cold war weapons, like F15’s. Pricey, and not much of use in places like Afghanistan and Irag. Oh, and they are manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

  11. I think Romney was afraid he would get his hair mussed up. This should prove interesting because the even though Mitt steadily out-polled the Huckster, in terms of voter blocs Huckaboo is the great white hope for the evangelicals. I don’t know who they mistrust more: McCain or the Mormon. And, since Huck-a-puck is a fair to middling bass player, he could — as vice-president — back up McClain on road gigs.

  12. There’s a ton of electoral votes in Texas I wouldn’t rule Huckabee out,especially the way he’s handling the South. Romney bailing helps Huckabee with additional conservative votes totals. Many of the states that are having primaries this week, have republican voters that are more conservative and not as much moderate as we are here in the East. This will hurt McCain. There may not be a clear winner going into the convention, as similar with the Democratic race.

  13. “McCain tells the WSJ he still needs to be *educated* on economics. Rather, his acumen lies in foreign policy. So, what’s his first directive? We’re staying in Iraq for 100 years! Let’s see: $170 billion X 100 . . . ROC, crunch those numbers and back to us, will you? ”
    This is scary, like Halloween, or that first Alien movie. All things considered, I’d rather have Billary running the economic show. Maybe they can hire McCain as the head of Homeland Security and make Romney the Secretary of the Interior?

  14. McCain is giving a good speech at CPAC full of substance (remember that?). The fact that the hard left and hard right are frothy about his nomination means the race is wide open.

  15. (speech is over)
    The Democrats have their work cut out for them. My prediction: McCain president and a Democratic Congress.

  16. Romney = Secretary of Slick.
    Huckabee = a/k/a Jubilation T. Cornpone (Don’t know why but every time I hear Huck’s name I think of that, probably due to similarity to i.e. Kick-a-poo joy juice… Prize to anyone who can guess the origin)
    McCain = Chief Line-Item Veto-er. Heaven knows we need SOMEone to chop out those ridiculous pork spending sprees.
    Billary = Secretary, Dept. of Pathetic Scorned Women Who Stay With Dirtbags To Further Their Own Careers
    Obama = (hm, can’t think of anything snarky yet. Other than Mrs. Obama should wear dark colors on the bottom.)
    In Nov. I am writing in Walleroo.

  17. Miss M wins! 😀
    your prize is that I am going to write *you* in, rather Walleroo (I should have remembered all his broken promises)!!

  18. Obama = (hm, can’t think of anything snarky yet.)
    There’s a reason for this.
    But your estimations are right on.

  19. Yay MM! So the front of my t-shirts will now say “Martta 2008”, while the back will still have the all-important “Stop Spending My Money”!
    ROC, what’s the reason – I’m just being fooled? or he’s actually nice? dunno.

  20. ROC, what’s the reason – I’m just being fooled? or he’s actually nice? dunno.
    No, you’re running into the side of ROC where he maintains that Obama has nothing substantive to offer.
    The other side of ROC maintains that Obama is the most liberal candidate in a very long time, even though arriving at such an assessment would require analysis of substantive positions.

  21. Dessiok,
    The Republicans will tell you it’s because the wheels of trickle down prosperity are already in motion from the prior Republican administration. And the earth is flat.

  22. Romney is gone, and so
    Reagan’s three-legged stool just lost leg number 1, and is now inherently unstable.
    (although if you are a GOP right winger you may not believe in gravity, global warming or evolution)
    leg #1: big business (Romney)
    leg #2: Jesus (Huckabee)
    leg #3: tough guy foreign policy (McCain)
    Ronnie had all three legs under him.
    …Actually, there is a fourth G O P leg (dirty tricks), which is available to stabilize the stool if one of the other three legs falls off.
    Atwater is dead, so all they have is ???

  23. Correct me if I’m wrong but I seem to remember a recession and a lot of folks out of work during Clinton’s first term.

  24. I’ll correct you. The Reagan years dug a finacial hole it took years to refill. The administration encouraged borrowing (even credit card debt was tax deductable then), no one saved, the real estate market became a big bubble, and subsequently everything came tumbling down.

  25. Re: Mrs.Clinton, I hope I never have to endure the public embarassment of a very private family matter.
    She is accused by some of staying in her marriage for, of all things, political gain. Surely an intelligent, reasonably attractive woman of independent means could have ended her marriage and begun a political career, with or without a new husband. In fact, it might have been easier without the baggage of the past.
    Had she decided to leave her marriage, some would have found fault with that choice.
    Perhaps, unlike some current/recently departed contenders for the parties’ nominations, she chose to honor her vows, despite extraordinary circumstances and scrutiny.
    Of course, maybe she just loves the big lug. Who among us, of either gender, hasn’t endured some major crap in the name of love?

  26. The Reagan years dug a finacial hole it took years to refill.
    Can anyone here with even the dimmest knowledge/memory of the Carter years, stagflation and the infamous “malaise” please raise their hand?
    The Reagan policies, like it or not, reduced inflation and created growth — both in a very durable sense. Clinton had reasonably similar economic policies and was able to benefit for most of his administration from the tech boom.

  27. Yes. I believe the other term frequently used instead of “Reaganomics” was “Voodoo Economics”. Supply side is still controversial, I doubt we’ll resolve it here.

  28. No, Inquiring Minds, she could not have had a political career on her own. She had to remain wed to Ol’ Rednose. Yet I doubt that even the most hidebound of Roman Catholics would have criticized her for leaving a serial adulterer, one who has in fact paid off one of his accusers, who lied under oath, etc., etc.. (God knows the Kennedys wouldn’t have dared carp, staunch Papists that they are.)
    The interesting thing to me is that Hillary is never questioned directly these days on the state of her marital union. (Surely this would be an occasion for genuine tears.) She is allowed to run on, and the spouse is allowed to play race baiter and attack dog. At the very least, whatever the true current state of their affection levels for each other, this suggests a marital dynamic akin to Catherine de Medici hooking up with Henry VIII. It should, nonetheless, be fair game for questions about her character. As it should have proved a disqualifying factor in Bill Clinton’s character re his Presidential qualifications. A relationship built on evasions, lies and outright scandalous behavior and the overlooking of such behavior does not suggest a White House worthy of admiration, after all.

  29. Yes, W. Such character. Honor and dignity. Oh, if you discount the lies, abuse of power, corruption, torture…the list is endless. W is a prime example of personal character. Scandalous behavior? I think W will leave a legacy far more embarassing than that of a man who got a little oral sex from an aide. PUH – LEEZE.

  30. Bill’s, errr, member was government property?
    And I heard tales of a cigar being involved, but never a dime.

  31. Oral sex on government property, mind you. On the taxpayers’ dime.
    It’s a little known fact that 60 percent of tax dollars is taken up by the direct and indirect costs of fellatio and cunnilingus involving government officials. By comparison the war in Iraq is chicken feed.

  32. Speaking of OS, I got this in an email earlier today with the tag “is it Obama or just democrats?”. No political statement here just sharing the lengths people will go.
    Really

  33. Ok, so Bill spent a few minutes getting a hummer in the oval office. GWB spends 2 hours per day at the gym (in the middle of the day), rarely works weekends, and as of August 2007 had spent 417 days of his presidency on vacation. During this time he made 65 trips to Crawford Texas. At this point he has broken Reagan’s record for the most time out of the White House of any president. Contrast this to the 152 vacation days taken by Clinton over his two terms. GWB is a lazy. And at least Clinton left a few of our dimes in the treasury.

  34. Jerseygurl, you’re sounding foolish again, you might wish to watch that. It was not the “sex” that proved so annoying about Clinton, it was the climate of moral lassitude in which he moved, which he expected others to simply ignore or adopt themselves. That you don’t get that yet suggests you really should be spending more time reading St. Augustine. Or even a good biography of Cromwell.
    As for the rest of the “instant gratification” crowd out there (I’d list the names of the usual suspects, but you all know who you are), my suggestion is merely that you wait before you damn George Bush. 10-20 years down the line, as long as none of you are mired in utter senescence, you might even realize he’s proven one of our better Presidents of late. Particularly when compared to both the Arkansas roue and the Georgia Pharisee.
    And Spicoli, that you count those vacation days yourself or have located sources to tally them for you, either hints you’re simply too obsessed with time spent at the spinning wheel, so to speak. No President, after all, is ever truly “away” from the demands of the office.

  35. “No, you’re running into the side of ROC where he maintains that Obama has nothing substantive to offer.”
    I’ts very simple appletony. Obama does have substance if one looks carefully. You have to read articles about his voting record in Illinois and the US Senate.
    And if you do you’ll discover he’s somewhere to the left of Jimmy Carter and perhaps a tiny bit right of George McGovern.
    This is why such thinkers such as Jimmy Carter praise Obama and the likes of Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore endorse him.
    However, he offers little substance because he doesn’t talk much about much. His followers are content with empty pap about hope and young boys in the South Side of Chicago.
    Consequently lots of people feel there is a lack of substance.

  36. Consequently lots of people feel there is a lack of substance.
    Isn’t one of your main complaints about him that people are reacting emotionally to him? Yet there you go having feelings about a lack of substance.
    At this point, you know full well that he has “substance”, it’s just that you viscerally disagree with it. The fact that he talks about loftier things is just because that’s his strong point — like Giuliani talking about 9/11 or McCain talking about the military or Hillary talking about section 98 dash 5 of the public policy implementation manual for back waxing regulation and review.

  37. To say that Obama has nothing subsatantive to offer is laughable and just goes to show people buy into the political machine soundbites. Cathar, don’t even get me started about moral high ground here. The holier than though “we must be right because God is on our side” attitude doesn’t wash with some folks. Given the choice of “moral lassitude” I’ll take the smart guy who gave us the family leave act, welfare reform, a balanced budget and who could actually pronounce the names of world leaders over the guy who speaks directly to God but clearly has little regard for the truth or human life and for whom cronyism and corruption is the status quo. The list is long – New Orleans, Iraq, Blackwater, Abu Ghraib, Gonzales. You can wrap yourself in the teachings of St. Augustine and Cromwell and all the superstition and shame. I’ll take my cues from guys like Carl Sagan who seek the truth. And there is little truth to be found in much of what the current adminstration has told us about anything.

  38. Jerseygurl, I don’t mind a bit if you start talking about the “moral high ground” (the one Jimmy Carter has always assumed he safely occupies), feel free. But the moral lassitude the Clintons attempted to induce during Bill’s Presidency is not at all the same thing. What they always hope to foist upon the electorate- and so far they’ve been successful – is a kind of fug wherein everything and anything rotten is excused because, after all and by golly, they’re out there “fighting” for us and working for “change.” But the change they espouse never seems to work out; I will point to Hillary’s truly appalling efforts to serve as point woman for national healthcare of some years ago as but one example.
    You may even trot out Carl Sagan (who has already met his Maker if there is in fact one, and has been called to account for his decidedly spotty efforts to ascertain “the truth?). Even if this one amuses me since he seems to have purposely been a non-political sort. At any rate, much of what he offered his readers remains speculative. At best.
    Just try not to make too much of Abu Ghraib in the process. Nor of that rather effective security company called Blackwater, since I rather like that they protect American institutions and personnel “over there.” No, Blackwater probably cannot be said to occupy any moral high ground, but on the flat plains of amorality they seem to do a pretty good job, Particularly when compared to those marvelous moral paragons known as suicide bombers who wreak so much havoc on their own people for…well, what is their reasoning process, jerseygurl, have you divined it from your close reading of Carl Sagan’s ur-texts?

  39. Gee Cathar, you actually strengthened my argument. The suicide bombers believe they occupy the moral high ground precisely because of their religious beliefs. As far as rotten goes, the current administration stinks a heck of a lot more than that of the previous White House occupants. Again, I’ll take sexual mischief over policies that actual cost lives any day.

  40. cathar,
    You wrote, “The interesting thing to me is that Hillary is never questioned directly these days on the state of her marital union.”
    What would you want to know, and would you want all the candidates to answer a similar question?

  41. St. Augustine is for the ages, jerseygurl, Carl Sagan was merely for a few years the darling of some who watch PBS. There is a difference, really. That doesn’t occur to you?
    Inquiring Minds, I would ask the lass directly (has Hillary even been a “lass?,” I somehow think not, she probably was always more of an intense goofball) what she thinks of public adultery as an indication of private character. How she reconciles such behavior as her contumacious spouse was caught at with a genuine commitment to the commonweal, and does she feel that some degree of respect towards the marital bond of fidelity might be an indicator as well of respect for the voters and for one’s claimed political agenda, even for electoral office in general. (John Wilkes was a much worse hellion in this vein than Clinton, but his commitment to reform was also genuine; his tragedy is that the libertinism eventually took precedence and he paid the price.) Stuff in that vein. And I wouldn’t mind it being asked of any candidates of either party. As Gary Hart’s own boastful foolishness once proved (remember, he dared, dared reporters to follow him, they did and come the catching his credibility vaporized), there is a point where the quality of one’s private morals impinges on public performance. And the related issue of how much those “in the know” will tolerate also strikes me as worth pursuing; this one might have radically changed the character of the perhaps all-too-brief Kennedy Presidency, for example, and might even have prevented other members of that family from being elected or re-elected. Why, jerseygurl’s beloved Massachusetts might even have boasted a few more Republican senators and congressmen!

  42. Cathar, St. Augustine – “original sin”? He’s for the ages alright, the medieval ages. Again, I’ll take science over hocus pocus mumbo jumbo any day. Oh, do you know the world is not flat? They don’t kill heretics for believing that nowadays. As far as extramartial shenanigans, we can both point to esteemed members of both parties who have “sinned”. Personally, I really don’t care about the sex lives of our politicians, it’s just not relevant. Oh and wasn’t St. Augustine the same person who gave us the concept of a “just war”? Killing is okay, “just” happens to be which side you’re on? Keep the faith baby. I’ll take rational thought and reason.

  43. Talk shows aside, Sagan was an eloquent champion of rationality, a quality held in contempt by far too many. “A Candle In The Dark” has at least as much to offer to our age as Augustine’s Confessions.

  44. “Personally, I really don’t care about the sex lives of our politicians.”
    I don’t either. It’s between he/she and their spouses.
    But, that being said, Clinton committed the ultimate faux pas by engaging in such an act in the Oval Office of the White House, which last time I checked, is government property owned by taxpayers. It is not the Cocky Locky motel on Route 3. BIG difference.
    Plus, he also compromised our national security by allowing unauthorized person(s) into said Oval Office while in duty.
    And, then there’s the little matter of him lying about the whole damn thing to a Grand Jury.

  45. Martta, you are way too smart to think that Bill is the first and only man in the oval office to have had more than his shoes shined while sitting at the big desk.

  46. ” The fact that he talks about loftier things is just because that’s his strong point — like Giuliani talking about 9/11″
    The reason he talks about loftier things is so he has a chance to get elected. If he talked about banning the sale, manufacture and possession of all handguns, or defeat at any cost in Iraq, or raising taxes to pay for a government bigger than LBJ’s he would lose.
    So his “new” politics of “hope” (hype really) is to avoid substance as much as possible.

  47. I didn’t say that, Jersey. I think that ANY Preisdent who does something like that in the White House deserves censure, Republican or Democrat.
    I’m just pointing out that Clinton is not the golden boy everyone seems to think. And, I could never understand the reaction of diehard feminists who support the Clintons. They never really get into the whole serial infidelity thing, they just seem to accept it. I find it strange.

  48. cathar,
    I do think personal morality is an indicator of judgment, (see Rudy) but she was not the one who was unfaithful! Perhaps her decision to stay was influenced in part by a desire to provide some stability to her daughter. Maybe just getting out of bed was enough of an agenda at that sensitive time.
    For what it’s worth, I think JFK might not have been elected if the press corp had been co-ed.
    If Mrs. Clinton had been married to someone other than a man with his own political aspirations, she would have had a political career long ago.

  49. Just compare McCain’s speech before CPAC and Obama’s victory speech.
    One spoke about “we are the people we’ve been waiting for” (with messianic ferver) and the other spoke of Vetoing any bill with earmarks, wining in Iraq, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, ending the AMT and protecting unborn life.
    Can you tell which?

  50. Martta, not everyone cares about Bill’s infidelity. Publicy policy and effectiveness matter more to me. That’s it. Clearly, his infidelity matters to you so you can choose to note vote for anyone named Clinton.

  51. “Who among us, of either gender, hasn’t endured some major crap in the name of love?”
    Few; but what do you really think of a person who would put up with that kind of major crap for 30 years? Where is the self-esteem (Hillary’s; we all know Bill’s is just arrogance)? Is that the kind of person you would want as the leader of the free world? Again?

  52. So his “new” politics of “hope” (hype really) is to avoid substance as much as possible.
    Good. So I take it that you’ll now drop the canard that he has no substance, and instead complain that he doesn’t lie to us like Romney has been or like Bush has done. You are concerned about Obama expanding government? Hello, where have you been the past EIGHT YEARS? At least an Obama expansion will be something other than the revelation of a huge Republican lie — it will instead be expected.

  53. On the one hand, a politician’s sexual escapades are of no interest to me, for I don’t think many men (and it has been only men in the USA to this point) reach the White House unless they have the sort of drive and the type of personality that many women are attracted to, and that gives the men themselves the feeling that they are in some respects exempt from the restrictions under which lesser mortals must chafe. So I don’t care if Clinton had a tryst, and where it happened matters not at all. As for Ms Lewinsky not being “authorized”, well, if he let her in , then he “authorized” her.
    However, I think it does say something about a president’s judgement that he would compromise his standing and his very tenure in office for a sordid little grope like this. It also says something about how much he values those who are closest to him — his family. It says something about how he puts his friends and his advisors in positions where they have to lie or cover-up for him. It says, in effect, that he is for all of his power and his undeniable intelligence, in many respects a frat boy or a rock star, times a hundred.
    Of course he was not the first, or even the worst. But if the argument is going to be made that it is no big deal because others did it too, well, that is a very poor argument.
    Dr. Sagan may have been a fine scientist and a good writer. I haven’t seen enough of his work to say one way or the other. But I doubt that he’s an Augustine, who was unquestionably one of the greatest minds the western world (yes, I know he was born in Africa) has produced. One needn’t accept his faith, or agree with every utterance he made, to acknowledge that.

  54. Too bad Obama isn’t running against Bush or you’d have a point.
    The congress will be Democratic and if you think a far left McGovern-2 president is the recipe for small government, you’re certainly entitled. (good luck with that).
    So yes, I’ll refrain from say he lacks substance and refine my comment to the fact that he lacks character because he hides his “substance”.
    Ask one of his doe-eyed supporters why the like him and you will get 2 answers:
    1.) He will “change” politics.
    2.) He voted against the Iraq War in the US Senate. (a myth the Senator goes to some length to further)
    At least he’s not in the “Pot-Smoking” party…
    You’re improving appletony.

  55. “Small government”. That’s rich. We ceratinly have that now, don’t we? Along with a three trillion dollar reminder of just how tiny that government is.
    Obama’s suppoerters are “doe-eyed”, while steely-eyed (or maybe beady-eyed) realists like ROC are on call to save the Republic from those poor deluded souls who can’t see that with Obama, there’s no “there” there.
    I’ve read what Obama has to say. I’ve read what ROC has to say. I don’t think I’ll vote for Obama, but I’ll take his “vision” and optimism over the sour and cynical hogwash spewed from our ROC any day.

  56. It’s funny how Hillary has not gone after Obama for legit “character” issues (his church, his drugs,).
    Very good for a fairly soft Primary race.
    But does anyone think McCain (or any other right-leaning 527) is going to be so willing not “draw comparisons” (Obama will say “go negative”) with the fine Senator from Ill?

  57. Mitt was the only one that I would have run to the polls to vote for. Now, I’ll just walk at a slow speed to close my eyes & cast a vote for McCain.

  58. “However, I think it does say something about a president’s judgement that he would compromise his standing and his very tenure in office for a sordid little grope like this. It also says something about how much he values those who are closest to him — his family. It says something about how he puts his friends and his advisors in positions where they have to lie or cover-up for him. It says, in effect, that he is for all of his power and his undeniable intelligence, in many respects a frat boy or a rock star, times a hundred”
    This type of ‘impaired judgement’ is usually indicative of a disease state, i.e. addiction. The dynamics of addition are puzzling, to say the least. I don’t think that Bill valued his family or professional associates any less. He is probably an ‘alcoholic’ and much of the alcoholic’s behavior is compulsive and destructive.

  59. Mellon, I am not suggesting that Clinton did not love his family or value his advisors. There is no way anyone can know this. And you many be right that this chronic behaviour on his part is a sort of addiction. There is a good body of work pointing to the adolescent, particularly the male, propensity for risk-taking. This may be where it is with Bill — he is in a state of arrested development and his power and fame makes it possible for him to indulge in these types of behaviours with no consequence. But enough of that — I’m getting no fee for this analysis!
    It does appear to me that a big part of the reason for his efforts on behalf of his wife is the simple agony he is experiencing in being out of the limelight and away from the “action”. If she is elected, one of the biggest challenges she’ll face will be in keeping him out of that chair.

  60. “If she is elected, one of the biggest challenges she’ll face will be in keeping him out of that chair.”
    No truer words have been spoken (at least in this thread!)
    Be afriad, be very afraid.

  61. Who’s Hussein?
    Oh, wait. Right, Obama.
    Jeez, I was high on Optimistic Air and almost forgot, it’s his middle name.
    But what of that “Man of the Year” award to that other fine brotha from Chi-town?

  62. I’m not afraid of the likelyhood that Bill will be an active partner in governing our country.
    I would rather have him in the seat of power than ‘dubya’. Bush and his lamebrained misadventures haven tarnished the prestige of this country, perhaps irrevocably. His preposterous Iraq ‘victory speech’ whilst decked out in a flight suit says it all. The man is a complete d’bag!

  63. (Feeling snarky again. Sorry. I just want someone, somewhere to ask Obama some real questions about his church.)
    Moreover, I want to hear him speak on substance (particularly in how he might accomplish his goals and on foreign policy other than Iraq)– with more than vague “feelings” and “hopes.” From there, I may vote for him. But until then, he continues to be some strange vessel for folks to fill up…
    But as I’ve mentioned before, for this election I’m proudly going front runnin’!!!
    I’ve voted for too many losers of late.
    GO OBAMA!!!!

  64. Ask one of his doe-eyed supporters why the like him and you will get 2 answers:
    1.) He will “change” politics.
    2.) He voted against the Iraq War in the US Senate. (a myth the Senator goes to some length to further)
    Now you’re just making stuff up.
    Anyway, the pot smoking candidate for Governor was far better than the tripe on offer from your party or the Democrats.

  65. how about a candidate who talks about focus? when will obama focus on what he is going to do to effectuate this ‘change’ he keeps touting. what is he gonna change..his underwear…his personal habits…please focus, Daniel.

  66. Inquiring Minds, we correctly pursued and tried the German functionaries who simply winced and looked the other way during WWII. Hillary remains much closer than that to Bill.
    No, jerseygurl, St. Thomas Aquinas gave us the concept of a just war. Almost a thousand years before WWII. See why you’ve got to read more genuine philosophy, as opposed to the mostly now forgotten words of that reassuringly blow-dried apostle of scientific bland reassurance, Carl Sagan? (I never read his novel “Contact,” but I noted how the film version, oddly enough, dwelled on apparent matters of faith.) Augustine, by the way, was much bothered by the militarism of the late Roman Empire, even as “barbarian” hordes threatened the civil tranquiity of the now-gone (and safely Christian) sort of North Africa he lived in at the time.
    If Clinton’s sexual antics represent an “addiction,” then doesn’t that make Hillary the worst kind of enabler? If his role as her oratorical pit bull represents him at his very worst, too, what does that say about the woman at whose behest he speaks so nastily?
    Is this the sort of woman we want as either Senator or President? Someone so morally accomodating? Someone who so frequently, nevertheless, rushes to cite her Methodism as the basis of her values?
    And MellonBrush, President Bush did in fact earn his flight suit the hard way, via flight training. Whatever else you make of him, completing that part is no picnic. My own fear is not exactly that Bill Clinton will again be in the White House should Hillary prevail, it is that the “seat of power” will then be apparently shared by the two halves of a couple so previously dedicated to just voiding (figuratively, at the least) on its upholstery.

  67. ROC, all the choices were utterly useless, so I voted for the only candidate with at least one genuine principle. Liberty instead of being an easily-manipulated patsy voting out of fear.

  68. Dubya, the ultimate frat-boy, barely showed up for his ‘flight training’. His family connections allowed him to skate on this and to avoid serving in Vietnam.

  69. Cathar, is it possible you have your saints mixed up?
    “The doctrine of the just war was first developed using a comprehensive framework by Augustine in Civitas Dei, The City of God, in reaction to the “barbarian” invasions of the Western Roman Empire in the fourth century”. I can only hope that centuries from now we will no longer be killing each other over mythology. W got off easy — a stint in the “champagne unit” of the reserves probably taxed his feeble brain and abilities but was much less harsh than what boys without political connections faced. Spare me the sympathy for the overindulged frat boy who has made a mess of things.

  70. noble futility, why it’s absolutely heroic
    As is your shameless watercarrying for machine politicians.
    ROC I voted instead of taking a pass. You don’t respect that vote. I GET IT ALREADY. I cordially invite you to be a bit less of a dick about my personal actions — it’s not like I did something to you personally and it’s not like I betrayed any party to which I owe anything.

  71. It might have helped, jerseygurl, if you’d provided the source of that quote. In any event, while you’re clearly right that Augustine promulgated the concept Thomas Aquinas is generally seen as the “tweaker” of the idea of of the just war. I’m sure, however, that both me and thee would have hailed military action by the Roman Empire by the likes of the Vandals and Visigoths. Just or not. even.
    But, my honest apology aside (and I almost never mix up my saints, thank you very much on this feastday of Honoratus of Milan), enough already with the use of the “champagne” reserve unit reference! Have you ever served in any capacity yourself in the armed forces? Even the most normally somnolent reserve units are really no picnic, and the sheer daily dangers of flight training are quite something else indeed.
    In turn, I will spare you my own suspicions about another over-privileged “secret society boy” (since Yale has not formally had actual chartered fraternities for something like 90 years now) who has made a steady mess of his own Senatorial career, who also took the considerable liberty for quite some time of tarring those who’d served in the same SE Asia conflict as “rapists,” “murderers” and, probably worst of all in his dull patrician eyes, incipient Republicans upon discharge from the service.

  72. Cathar, making a mess of one’s career is not quite the same as making a mess that involves hundreds of thousands of lives. As far as W’s service, he may have indeed survived the rigors of training in the reserves and perhaps even wet himself the first time he flew — in comparsion to the boys who actually had to fly planes while being shot at, well there is none.

  73. “ROC, all the choices were utterly useless, so I voted for the only candidate with at least one genuine principle. Liberty instead of being an easily-manipulated patsy voting out of fear.”
    You rarely call me anything, but the implications are often clear.

  74. I meant that I was choosing not to be manipulated. Me. My choice.
    You make it too personal too fast. I’ve certainly done the same to you.

  75. apple, ROC doesn’t like to be called names. He DOES like to call others names, however. Why, just yesterday he told poor old gigi that she was lazy. And his “implications”? Well, they are many and varied.
    But please don’t paint ROC as a fool and a liar. He might get angry and go away again, and then we wouldn’t be able to benefit from his hard-boiled, tough-love approach. The doe-eyed and naive, the “far left” and the duped, need his guidance.

  76. In this thread alone you’ve painted me as a fool and a liar
    No, I pointed out your complete inconsistency when arguing the “no substance” point re Obama. And I said you were making stuff up. You asserted what answers an Obama supporter would give, even though you get a complete spectrum of answers — many of which, if you try to be objective for a minute, are real, substantive answers (but with which you disagree and seem very ready to dismiss/ignore).

  77. Try running the upper Hudson River Gorge on a genuine Class IV day. The kind of day the where the guides get uncharacteristically quiet and quadruple check all the gear before the put in.
    I’ll stack that experience up against a controlled take off and landing with an experienced flight instructor any day.

  78. I have asked appletony, nearly everyone I know is an Obama supporter and without exception those are the answers I get.

  79. this might be hard to do online with croiagusanam’s blistering hatred of me trying to pile on after each post.
    But, I am sorry I took it personally, but I did. And I am sorry I got so personal in return.

  80. “I have asked appletony, nearly everyone I know is an Obama supporter and without exception those are the answers I get”.
    Now, how can anyone argue with a professional and scientific survey like that?
    I have no “blistering hatred” for you, ROC. I’d have to know you first. Then, I probably would. I do have no patience with your smugness, your contempt for those you feel are not as intelligent as you are (which in your mind is everyone), and your generally snide and dismissive tone. You strike me as a remarkably unhappy little man who looks to prove that he’s really alive by lighting these little fires and then waiting for the reaction. Rather sad, really. But that’s just my view.
    Interesting, again, how you bemoan the fact that I “know waht others mean”, while seeing no inconsistency in stating that I “hate” you.
    You are a type, ROC. And I’ve seen that type far too often.
    But, now, you have a blessed day, OK?

  81. Thanks. I’m sorry for my overstepping as well.
    Anyway, I think cro actually respects you and would hope to engage with you substantively. cro and the prof need to make up, too. We all need sunshine and daisies and puppies and…
    … we should all get nice, relaxing HAWAII CHAIRS in order to calm down!

  82. LOL…I think that chair would make me lose my lunch. I’d rather be in the REAL Hawaii right now anyway. That’s where we should hold our next Barista shindig, dontcha think?

  83. “Anyway, I think cro actually respects you and would hope to engage with you substantively.”
    Something tells me no and its ok.

  84. apple, you are right in positing that I’d like to engage ROC, or anyone else for that matter, “substantively”. The problem is that “substance” here too often degenerates into snide little schoolyard shite aimed at making one feel better by pointing out the flaws of others. So, one can’t simply be in support of Obama, for example, unless one is doe-eyed or naive. One can’t be in support of Huckabee unless he is an empty headed Jesus freak. There is no real attempt to engage. There is no real effort made to actually listen. There is only the endless tennis match of tastes great-less filling ad infinitum.
    Have I been guilty of this as well? Damn right I have.
    Maybe the Hawaii Chairs will work their magic.

  85. Jerseygurl, very few pilots in any nation’s air force are ever “shot at” these days. That is simply not the way modern air power is invoked. (You were maybe thinking of WWI-type dogfights between Von Richthofen’s Geschwader and the Lafayette Escadrille?) The next time you post dismissively about how military service actually operates, at leasr research the basics, okay?
    You too , MellonBrush, should be serious. I realize that those who do whitewater rafting or even snowboarding naively take the experience to be the “equivalent” today of military service, or anyway tell themselves that. Yet they remain in no way comparable, for many reasons. I would assuredly NOT stack a Class IV rapids against either a carrier takeoff or an L-shaped ambush by the VC (the latter of which I have in fact borne more than once), even against a hike out and back to the rifle range with full pack and aggravated NCO’s. To make any sort of comparison as you attempted to sounds quite shameful to me, the sort of thing sleepysleek, say might try. But no one generally sane and sentient. So I’m just going to opine that you’re having a bad day. (You might wish to pump your nephew on this one for further buttressment.)

  86. Cathar,
    You were talking about W and the rigors of his training as a reserve. I was merely pointing out that compared to the boys who actually went to Vietnam, his family’s political clout got him a much better deal.

  87. Many years ago, a good friend of mine serving in the British Army’s Mountain Rescue Unit was called upon to pull out what was left of a Tornado pilot after it slammed into Skiddaw in the Lake District during a training exercise. Flying is always risky — if you don’t believe that, try to get insurance if you’re just a weekend ace in Fairfield. I’m not a fan of George W., but it takes guts to strap oneself into what is basically a tube bolted to a rocket, and sally forth. You must give credit where it is due.

  88. MM: How are you defining serial infidelity? A series of unfaithful episodes, or a sustained co-habitation w/out benefit of marriage?

  89. Cathar,
    I was equating the rush of a descent through rapids to the experience of flight training.
    Of course it’s not equal to military service but I bet it’s just as kick ass as some of the early flight training experienced by military fliers.
    I don’t think there is much out there – as far as thrills go – as hitting that first 15 foot standing wave face first and having sub 40 degree water nearly wash you out of the raft.
    I stand by my earlier comment.
    “hey red, hey blue, you look so good to me, I said hey red, hey blue…”

  90. Cathar,
    Also, I am a fan of the military but not a fan of the way it is being used.
    I am grateful that we have young men and women – like you yourself – willing to fight and brave enough to do it. I’m sure you could have avoided combat duty had you so desired and the fact that you didn’t says alot about you.
    I think that given the choice between fighting in Vietnam or living in Canada I would have chosen Canada. I had maternal relatives up there that might have helped me out. I was 1-A, having recently been II-S and a factory accident saved me that choice when my left knee was ruined at Bates Manufacturing in West Orange in 1971.

  91. Mellon– Here’s some fun — git ye inna wee curragh, an off wid ye oot to da banks! Rain does be slashin’, and da wind does caoine like to all at. Mine ye to yer man Danny — “Ah fer fook sakes, mate, that’s as cold as to be bringin’ candlesticks to yer snotter! Sure an yer a hard chaw, but ye know tis so!
    Well, look ye now! We be well and truly fooked!”
    Now, there’s adreneline for you! When you hit that wave, and tumble out, give out well for the rafting guide — oops, there ain’t one!
    Ah, good times!
    But it all works out. Synge says, ” A man who is not afraid of the sea will soon be drownded… for he will be going out on a day he shouldn’t. But we do be afraid of the sea, and we only be drownded now and again.”

  92. Cro,
    That was FUNNY! You’re a cool dude. The last time I went ‘swimming’ it was just Class II+ but I hit a rock and nearly broke my hip. You should have seen the bruise.
    The IV day I mentioned earlier was during peak conditions in early April with some work mates from Barclays Bank. We ‘bonded’ like m’fer’s on that trip. What a gas.

  93. Mellon — I tried rafting in Pa a few years back. Went out tout suite, in large part because I’d downed six Harps during the safety lecture. Swam to shore ( I am, I must say, a great swimmer) , and spent the rest of the day trying to woo ladies who found my spiel considerably less charming than you have. Anyway, any excuse to get wet, says this boy.

  94. MM: How are you defining serial infidelity? A series of unfaithful episodes, or a sustained co-habitation w/out benefit of marriage?
    Certainly not the latter. A series of unfaithful episodes, whether one is married to their SO or not.

  95. Is this the right place to mention that I was declared unfit to serve in the military during the Nam era by an old Chinese foot doctor who took one look at my feet during my draft physical in Detroit, exclaimed “Craw toe!” and wrote something on my paperwork that set me free.
    I had no idea what he meant. It wasn’t until I was on the bus back to Ann Arbor that I was able to deciper what he’d written: “Claw toe.”
    Don’t mean to perpetuate any stereotypes here; just telling it the way it happened.

  96. Three Chinese brothers — Bu, Chu, and Fu — move to America.
    They decide to change their names to be more “American”.
    Bu becomes Buck.
    Chu becomes Chuck.
    Fu gets sent back to China.

  97. MellonBrush, by your seemingly flimsy standards of equivalence I had quite a few “kick ass” experiences while serving. I would gladly have foregone all of them for a desk job.
    I assumed, first, that I’d never be drafted. Next I assumed I’d never be chosen for AIT. After that, I stubbornly refused to imagine they’d send me to Nam (which really was the only thing AIT was good for back then, silly me). All this because I had a college education and was at heart a wimp.
    And I even had while in AIT a “classmate,” a nerd from Swarthmore who gravitated to me because he thought his own college education represented equivalence to my personal mind set, such a complete ass that he talked of “us” contacting “the resistance” first thing once we hit in-country. On that, at the very least, I knew better. I wish I could have been a REMF (a rear echelon mother…), but I was not, and as a result experienced severe loss in my life for the first time since the death of my father at 5.
    None of it, not even being those REMF’s who sat in a/c offices waiting for Charlie to come across the wire as soon as it got dark or sipped iced bubble coffees or drank Bim Bom beer at outdoor cafes in Saigon and Hue while wondering whether someone would that day toss a bomb from a passing velo at them, is at all like whitewater rafting or rock climbing. Those are fine, but until you have endured, say, AIT at Fort Benning or basic at Parris Island (yes, the USMC is that much of an “upgrade” of sorts, I’m positive), you may never really know for sure what being “in shape” (however briefly, I hasten to admit) truly means.
    Instead of “supporting” the troops whatever your views on this war or that war, try to understand the emotional differentials between what they go/went through and what others do who don’t, for whatever reason, serve. And remember Dean Martin Jr., an ANG pilot who on a completely routine training flight one fine afternoon in sunny California, as his famous father rehearsed his act in Vegas, plowed into the side of a mountain.
    And jerseygurl, you just continue to be shamelessly and willfully ignorant of what it really takes to fly. Yet you keep on, a stubborn mind beating uselessly against the currents of what really goes on up there in the wild blue yonder. Not only do you keep beating the dead horse, you attempt to wrap its tail around your resistant brain. Amazing, really.

Comments are closed.