Which is no big surprise
According to news reports he has released his delegates who are now free to either support McCain, either of his two remaining opponents or, one can assume, remain uncommitted.
The most important issue is whether Romney's endorsement will translate into support from a vocal segment of conservatives who have vowed not to support the Arizona senator.
My hunch is no. I don't really see Romney as the mechanic who wants to get dirt under his fingernails trying to bondo over the dents and scratches in the Straight Talk Express.
If Romney is too vocal you can bet on a few of his erstwhile supporters and conservative pundits to suddenly remember the man's flaws and general eagerness to say whatever it is you want to hear so long as it advances his political career. But you can read Michelle Malkin's upcoming columns later...
Today's announcement was an interesting study in human behavior. Romney said all the right things about McCain. He served and suffered for his country and understands what's at stake with war. McCain gave the standard atta boys for running a hard campaign and serving so capably as governor of Massachusetts.
By reading their body language it was obvious the two men could barely stand to be next to each other on stage. When you run a negative campaign like Romney it's probably hard to play kissy face afterwards.
Let's just see how vigorously Romney shakes those pom-poms.
No surprise either is Mike Huckabee's refusal to withdraw from the race. He just got through giving an interview on FOXNews reiterating his intention to continue running.
When I spoke to McCain last week he was not particularly concerned or critical of the former Arkansas governor. Face facts. The two men like each other. Even with the clumsy handling all around of the Washington State caucus it doesn't appear as if it's corroded their mutual bonhomie.
It seems that most of the flak aimed against Huckabee is not coming from the McCain camp but rather ex-Romney supporters who are trying to slime the guy because they buy into the conventional wisdom that Huckabee is simply padding his resume for the Vice-President slot on the ticket.
Huckabee has been saying for weeks that the only way he can win is to get the race into the convention and that he'll enthusiastically endorse McCain when he gets 1191 delegates.
Gee. A candidate that lives up to his word and doesn't flip-flop. What a concept.
While being interviewed by Neil Cavuto this afternoon Huckabee dropped the most telling line saying he won't need acting lessons when the time comes for him to step on the stage next to McCain.
The son of a former auto mechanic is probably just the sort of person who'll relish grabbing a wrench to help tune up McCain's image with the party base.
Posted by DonWard at February 14, 2008 01:18 PM | Email This...well, that's Okay, looks like she's getting Ohio and Penn...and of course the super dels Hehe
Posted by: Duffman on February 14, 2008 01:40 PM
Come on you didn't really think Romney was
ever going to endorse Huckaphony did you.
Of course I genuinely suspect that McCain will choose someone like Gingrinch or another well-known conservative out there. As a Romney supporter, I really don't see him being VP.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 14, 2008 04:12 PMSo it will be another couple weeks before McCain "officially" wraps this up. Big whoop.
Are we in that big a hurry to start the coronation? Or is it more important that McCain actually campaigns in the upcoming primaries to reassure Republicans that he has the chops to run for president?
Finally, if Huckabee weren't "running" do you think McCain would get equal press coverage what with the feud between Clinton and Obama.
It would be nice if some folks understood basic politics and had a little savvy about the strategy going on here.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 14, 2008 04:19 PMRight, his lips are moving.
Basic politics, fella. The sooner you realize it, the better you will be.
McCain needs to start making the case for president. Iran has been going bonkers for the last couple of months and the only thing the press covers is the election, not the deteriorating state of world affairs. McCain needs to emphasize the real reason he was selected/coronaed.
He can't do that looking over his shoulder at the Huckster. Hey, how come you didn't get the interview with Huckabee outside the country?
Posted by: swatter on February 14, 2008 05:02 PMTsk, tsk.
Posted by: Hinton on February 14, 2008 05:04 PMI never really supported any candidate officially. I was warming up to Romney as someone I liked more than Huckabee or McCain. There really were not any good candidates at all, on either side. There was no one that was reasonably principled, well funded, not a socialist, experienced, and at the same time charismatic enough to lead.
The frustration that people have with Huckabee has nothing to do with Romney or McCain, and everything to do with his political record, his own statements and the way he has conducted himself.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 14, 2008 05:09 PMWhen Huckabee came here and spoke at one of the King County GOP auction fundraisers last year I sat in on the press conference and asked some questions too.
During the press conference with McCain last week I specifically asked him about Iran and he gave an extended answer which you can read and hear below.
So what's your point? Other than making yourself out to sound miserable.
Cato: Interesting theory which I haven't heard before. Props.
Jeff B: So you don't like a fiscally conservative candidate who improved the infrastructure in the state, improved education scores, is pro-Second Amendment, supports the death penalty, anti-IRS and who cut taxes 94 times? Doesn't matter cause the point is moot.
Me personally, don't much care for some of Huckabee's social conservative views and some of his supporters wig me out but I still liked him more than McCain or Romney. Political math.
McCain > Hillary/Obama?
Posted by: Don Ward on February 14, 2008 05:14 PMYou can peddle them elsewhere but they won't be attached to anything that I write. It's the same standard I have applied to any letter to the editor when it comes to libel.
What I expect out of my readers is thoughtful and articulate debate that is unique to each writer's personality.
Thanks again.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 14, 2008 06:55 PMI think a McCain/Gingrich ticket would lose steam faster than Joel Connelly on a stairmaster, personally.
While I like Gingrich on many levels, (intelligence, politically astute, and most of all pragmatic), I think the American electorate will tune out to the name 'Gingrich' as it represents a "politics as usual Washington D.C. insider".
Newt would also be a lightning rod for criticism 24-7 by the lame stream media DNC lap dogs masqueurading as "journalists" on Television and in print.
Romney, on the other hand, is a relatively fresh face on the political scene and has been a success both in the private and public sectors. He's in some ways the anti-McCain.
Romney would then be a natural fit going from VP to President in 2012 or 2016 depending on McCain's (who ain't gettin' any younger) health. B.O. is a dangerous socialist who has many more shots at this ring he's grabbing for in the next 20 plus years....the GOP needs to step up their game in order to counter this empty suit in the years to come. Judging by the "puppy love" adulation he's received thus far from the ignorant masses with no record, imagine how formidable he'll be in the next 10-15 years.
Rush has less credibility than before - he is being disingenuous about McCain and I have lost respect for him. McCain is really a fiscal conservative and unlike many Republicans he supports a balanced budget (his real reason for voting against the Bush tax cuts the first time around is because there were no spending cuts). If John McCain does lose in Nov., it will be mostly GW Bush's fault for having previously destroyed the Republican party.
David Boze (a former Huckabee/Romney supporter) reeled off McCain's past record as a fiscal conservative- for instance he voted against the Tax increase in 1990 by Bush 41 (he was only one of 31 Senators who did)- that helped him lose in '92.
Posted by: KS on February 14, 2008 08:05 PMRush has less credibility than before - he is being disingenuous about McCain and I have lost respect for him. McCain is really a fiscal conservative and unlike many Republicans he supports a balanced budget (his real reason for voting against the Bush tax cuts the first time around is because there were no spending cuts). If John McCain does lose in Nov., it will be mostly GW Bush's fault for having previously destroyed the Republican party.
David Boze (a former Huckabee/Romney supporter) reeled off McCain's past record as a fiscal conservative- for instance he voted against the Tax increase in 1990 by Bush 41 (he was only one of 31 Senators who did)- that helped him lose in '92.
Posted by: KS on February 14, 2008 08:05 PMGotta respect that, even as I disagree with many of those values.
Allow me to paraphrase great Chicago architect Daniel H. Burnham:
"Endorse no compromising, or little candidates; they have no magic to stir mens' blood."
What he really said was "Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood."
Same thing.
McCain is a little man in the sense that his ambition is greater than his principles. He sure does nothing to stir my blood.
At least Romney looked good in a suit. Even Ron Paul looks better in a suit than McCain does. Not that that is an important criterion in this case...
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 14, 2008 08:44 PMMy response:
1) No, I didn't, and I honestly don't want Romney (the true phony) to endorse Huckabee either; and 2)lay off.
John @ 7:
I was going to respond to this, but Don already responded quite well. Der.
Roy Clark @ 16:
Should I call you....publicbulldog??
Bruce @ 24:
I think we can all agree that when it comes down to it, Obama looks the best in a suit. I know people who are voting for him because of this. ;)
Personally, I reject either environmental religion or theocratic religion as a basis for making massive economic policy changes. And if God created the Earth, then he also created the Sun and the other planets. For all we know, God might be protecting his own creation by causing the Sun to shine a little brighter. But anyone who makes such a statement, instead of a quick and decisive answer that we won't act based on emotion or hyperbole, isn't fit to lead this country.
Save for Thompson, there was essentially no sanity regarding Global Warming. That's a "hot" button issue for me. And it's a real danger with electing McCain.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 14, 2008 10:36 PMFunny how on this blog if I posted something like that that said something about unions or Democrats it gets allowed,but if it is against the Republicans it doesn't.
Besides that only the special can post on the sound politics public blog where that stuff really belongs.
Sound Politics leans to the right and censors comments and posts the right doesn't like.
I think I will stick to Postman where none of my posts have been deleted..ever..
That way Stephan can post the stuff he likes from postman's blog over here.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on February 14, 2008 10:57 PMDo you allow your audience to be deceived so you can stay "positive." That is stupidity. How much of a hypocrite is Huckabee to rail against "negative ads" when he showed the one as an example of what he would not do, thereby giving it free airtime. Or, when he would bring up Romney's "wierd" beliefs as something he would not talk about.
My daughter and I had discussed voting the Democrat against McCain because of the bills carrying his name, but it comes down to the judges. If we are true conservatives we have to vote. We have to vote for the judges. To do otherwise is to become stuck on stupid.
Posted by: Seabisquit on February 14, 2008 11:13 PMY'all need to get a life and talk to some people face to face. Or don't you know anyone worth talking to?
Losers!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Rightey-o on February 15, 2008 04:35 AMSomeone please provide a top ten list of his most fundamental and immutable issues as of this date.
Let's call the list "The Essential McC".
We can save and monitor that list to see how Senator Solid stays his course as November draws nigh.
Note that I have no problem with a candidate changing his mind due to enlightenment or vote groveling purposes. But this nation seems to find flip-flopping to be the Numero Uno Offenso.
I don't know why that should be. I sure hope he flip-flops on global warming and NAGPRA.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 15, 2008 05:19 AMYou obviously didn't get the subtle comment regarding Huckabee and flip-flopping. You seem to be focused on Romney. During this campaign, all the politicians have 'flip-flopped'; the press got Romney to have the tag and it stuck; but, in reality (where I live), all the politicians have flip-flopped. Especially your Huckster and the back-up McCain.
Ergo, the old as the hill joke. DW, they all change their tunes.
There is the other fact of politicking that the day after you get elected you start running for re-election.
Posted by: swatter on February 15, 2008 06:44 AMGezzzz
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 15, 2008 06:51 AMAnd Swatter @ 34, I can name one candidate in the race who has not flip-flopped: Ron Paul.
By the way, Ron Paul still has by far the most contributions from active members of the military than all other Republican candidates combined. He gets more contriutions and more money than any other presidential candidate of either party.
When you contribute to a campaign, you have to report your employer. Ron Paul's top three contributors' employers are three branches of the military. Check out opensecrets.org for proof.
Ron Paul: the choice of the troops.
McCain is not the only choice in this race, thank goodness.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 15, 2008 09:14 AMRealClearPolitics reports Ron Paul with 14 delegates.
They cite delegate counts as coming From AP, CBS News, ABC News & RealClearPolitics.
As readers of this blog know, counting delegates at this stage is more art than science...
While I am not a Paul supporter, and feel that he and Gov. Huckabee should not pretend they are in actual contention, I do respect their efforts to shape the message the GOP will be carrying into the 2008 general election.
Personally, I think Gov. Huckabee is coming very close to being harmful to the party with regard to winning the White House. Without Huckabee, Sen. McCain could actually start running for president, while Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama continue to jab at one another through the end of August. I've not been a strong McCain supporter, but I feel it is important to rally around the presumptive candidate at this time.
Nevertheless, Huckabee and (to a lesser extent) Paul represent constituencies within the party that want their voices and viewpoints represented in the debate over what the GOP stands for. The primaries/caucuses are the right and logical places for them to make themselves heard.
Posted by: Brian White on February 15, 2008 02:21 PMMy intent was to suggest that Paul supporters represent a smaller constituency within the GOP, not that Paul supporters are less eager to have their voices heard.
Posted by: Brian White on February 15, 2008 02:29 PMHuckabee and Paul supporters do realize that the odds are low of successfully gaining the GOP nomination, but that does not prevent us from supporting the candidate who best defends our values.
Interesting to note that McCain seems neither to gain much support from social/religious conservatives (Huckabee) nor from limited government/fiscal conservatives (Paul.) Hence the continuing campaigns of these two candidates.
Is McCain really a conservative? Debatable.
Huckabee and Paul supporters see this as a fight for influence within the GOP. It can also be viewed as a fight for the soul of the GOP. Will the GOP remain a party for conservatives, or is it all about power and winning and running to the center to gain power? If they take the marketing/poll watching approach, will they inspire enouogh support to win?
Reagan's genius was in seeing that a coalition between three parts:
1) religious/social conservatives
2) limited government/fiscal conservatives
3) national defense conservatives
could win the white house while maintaining a principled conservative position that inspired.
McCain has no principles to inspire us, and no ability to unite the Reagan coalition. He is on the wrong side vis-a-vis the people regarding the Iraq war, he has no clue about economics. He will therefore lose to Obama (let's hope) or in the worst case Hillary (yucko!)
Might as well vote your conscience.
The neocons have made the GOP big spenders who want to be the world's policeman. Reagn wanted small government and a strong defense of his "city on a hill," not policing the world. He brought the troops home after their barracks was bombed in Lebanon.
But as long as McCain will be winning the GOP nomination, I'll be voting Libertarian. Happily.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 15, 2008 05:22 PMwhether Paul will win or not is not that important at this point. The more important thing to me is that I vote for someone I beleive in and support. I do not support McCain and do not want him to get any additional support.
What do I gain from voting for McCain? Nothing.
What do I gain from voting for Paul? Satisfaction for starters, but also I contribute to a growing message that Republicans are sick of nanny state and warfare state politicians running the party.
Dr Pauls campaign has often been called a revolution or a movement. That is what I am supporting at this point, not Dr Pauls campaign. There are many other people starting to run for congress as Ron Paul republicans. Supporting Paul helps them gain attention and support.
And again... Voting for McCain gets me NOTHING (that i want anyway!)
Posted by: Lysander on February 15, 2008 06:04 PM1) Lysander and my individual votes have almost NO chance of causing Hillary or Obama to be elected. Washington will be a blue state, and the WA electoral college votes will almost certainly be going to Obama or Clinton.
2) What will be causing Hillary or Obama to become President will be the GOP nominating someone like McCain, who can not unify the fiscal and social conservatives on the right, and can not inspire the center with a positive vision for America. The GOP can not win just with the Neocon vote. Big government foreign policy interventionists are a tiny minority, and can not beat the lefties in November.
So I will vote my conscience.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 16, 2008 09:16 AMCan we agree on the color of sh*t ?
Can we agree on the definition of "conservative" ?
Can we agree on the definition of "true republican" ?
If you're blood pressure goes up and you start attacking me (in your mind) for fielding these rhetorical questions you likely consider yourself the true holder of the definition of these words with little inclination to sincerely try to see things from anyone elses prospective unless of course they are in full agreement with you.
You will attack a strawman caracatures of the "other thinkers" "of the other conservative" - using hyperbole while you quote out-of-context sentence fragments making adversaries of people who you agree with 95% of the time.
Perhaps you should get a job as a TV comentator giving your passionate criticisms and acrimony of the plot lines and characters on the cartoon netwok.
after all Scubidoo isn't as smart as he thinks
And Betty Rubble isn't given the opportunity to show the world just how good she really is...
John McCain is a conservative (look at his record)
John McCain is a Republican (most republicans think so - look at the candidate count)
John McCain is a strong leader and free thinker who is willing to stand on principles .
He doest ask the GOP bosses (or you) (or Rush) how to vote or what position to take on issues.
- which clearly angers you, and Rush, and GOP bosses
I will vote for him any day
- over the GOP party robot - which doest exist - but seems to be conjured up in so many of you who dis McCain on this blog.
You want that (non-esxistant) robot. "Robot -GOP-mans" he's the real Republican. He's the real conservative.. (maybe Robot-GOP-Man will pick me as his VP running mate... oh boy)
What is the color of sh*t ?
How does it feel to have a strawman characature made of you ?
You do bring up a good point in that Washington electoral votes will be cast for a Democrat, and with that in mind, a "conscience" vote for Paul is no less meaningless than a pragmatic vote for McCain - at least from a Washington State standpoint.
However, there is something to this national "momentum" thing. On the Democrat side, Sen. Obama has shown that winning lots of little contests - while not terribly important with regard to delegate count - are played by the media in a way that leads to greater fund raising numbers, and swaying some voters who are trying to get a bead on which way the winds are blowing.
I listed Sen. McCain as my preference at the caucus, and will mark my primary ballot for him. I have many concerns about stands he has taken on some issues, agree with him on others, and just don't have strong opinions on a few. However, I do have a great deal of concern about what Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama would bring to the White House, and I'm in large part voting against that agenda. Getting McCain to the magic number in delegate count as early as possible will allow him and the party to run a presidential campaign for six months, while the Democrats continue to duke it out for the nomination. In my book, that is a good thing.
I'm taking a pragmatic approach this year. You and others are taking a different, but respectable approach. I think mine is better, but I appreciate what supporters of other candidates have brought to the table.
Posted by: Brian White on February 16, 2008 10:05 AM1) the weaknesses of his opponent
2) McCain's ability to mobilize the Repbublican base
3) McCain's ability to mobilize a new base that is truly enthusiastic about him; the primary and caucus participation numbers are not all that reassuring on this prospect
So far, I only see reason for hope from #1 (since the farther left B. Hosein Obama swings in the primary season the more Obama's general election prospects will diminish). Otoh, if a McCain presidency promises more of the same from him (note McCain's 2006 ACU rating of 63%) then would a McCain victory really be a victory?
Certain pundits will shout about judges, but I look at it as a choice between someone who would nominate the likes of Maxine Waters to the bench over someone who would nominate another David Souter.
Not very inspiring. It's tempting to sit this one out. Unfortunately, the jihadis the world over will be dancing in the streets at the prospect of an Obama victory.
Hillary is more conservative than Obama but you are not suggesting we send her money are you? Why not? Is it because it is not a comparison between the two candidats that matter but rather what matters is a comparison between your beleifs and each candidates beleifs?
I will not support McCain because his views differ drastically from mine and other conservatives just as I will not vote for Obama or Hillary because their views differ drastically from mine.
I will vote and support Paul because his views are close to mine. He may not be viable, but the movement is alive and well even with his campaign not being 'viable'.
Posted by: Lysander on February 16, 2008 02:23 PM