Aiding a Surrender to Terror

Mitt Romney

So: Romney's withdrawal.

According to this article, he withdrew because "Frankly, I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win . . . . I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

This reminds me of OSC's recent article in which he expresses hope for a Republican victory in November because "If my party [the Democrats] wins this election, they will feel fully vindicated in that nation-wrecking policy [viz. ending the war posthaste], and America, along with the rest of the world, will pay for such a mistake in blood and terror for decades to come."

My favorite candidate still standing is Obama, but I'm concerned by his strict 16-month timetable. When he's commander-in-chief, and learns all the stuff the commander-in-chief knows, if it is then the wrong thing to do, will he still do it? I worry he might.

I think the Iraq thing was a mistake, but now we're there and we can't blow it off just because it was a bad idea. We're responsible. It's a you-break-it-you-fix-it sorta thing. The you-break-it-you-fix-it sorta thing that, if you don't fix it, could really screw things up for decades to come.

Anyway, for all the things I like about Obama, that one issue might be enough to swing my vote to McCain (whom I no longer like nearly so much as I did in 2000 when I gave him my Primary vote).

Romney was undoubtedly the best candidate for anyone concerned about the nation's economic health, but he was selfless enough--and thought the war matter was important enough--to drop out over the issue. (Yeah, yeah, he probably would have lost the nomination anyway, but who can say? No one--not till halfway through the convention, probably.)

So my question: is this an issue to base one's vote on?

I guess it depends, right? Is withdrawing speedily going to create a dangerous world? Could the Democratic candidate change his/her mind if it ends up he/she was wrong about their Lose-This-War-At-Any-Cost policy? After all, for Obama, changing his mind on that issue could well be Read My Lips: No More War.

Anyway. I don't get to chat with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I don't know what will be best.

Do you?


  1. I found that "surrender to terror" bit offensive. Does he really believe that about the Democrats?
    or was it just politician mode, just over the top rhetoric to rally his conservatives as they pick a new guy... but do that many conservative voters really think a vote for the other party is a vote for terrorism? seriously? I hate that kind of partisanship. Us good them bad!

    Yesterday I saw a blog commenter denounce Hillary Clinton not for her policies or credentials, but because "she's Satan's best friend". Grow up.

  2. .

    No, I don't think that's it at all. Sure it's heightened rhetoric, but it's hard to not notice that Democratic rhetoric is so based on the evils of the Bush monstrosity that getting out of Iraq is the priority rather than doing the right thing.

    I can't imagine being so accepting of such singlemindedness which is why I can't countenance joining any party.

    But the issue is an important one and I don't know where to stand on it.


    Also: if it was meant to rally the CPAC behind McCain, it really didn't work. I understand the majority of people in attendance would have booed him off the stage had his supporters not been right up front. Vicious crowd. Doesn't matter which brand of partisanship you buy.

  3. I got to see part of Romney's speech. I think his own supporters were booing him occasionally, judging by what was booed and what was applauded--but I wasn't actually there, just watching it on TV, so it's hard to be sure.

    I agree with cchrissyy in the sense that denouncing candidates based on your opinion of them as a person is pretty childish--all the arguments ad homonim and mudslinging that goes on during elections really is pretty sickening--and perhaps saying that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for terror (or Satan, for that matter) might be a bit over the top, but the fact of the matter is that, if the Democrats' plan to bring the boys home ASAP is going to bring "blood and terror for decades to come," then, yeah, voting one of them into office is voting us into a bloody and terrifying decade or two.

    That said, deep down inside I'm all for the isolationism America was so big on prior to WWI--I'm not sure we should have gone to Iraq in the first place; I don't understand all our reasons or even our pretenses for being there; I love the idea of blowing the whistle, bringing our boys home, and not calling them out again unless Canada or Mexico declare war, and I'm not entirely convinced that doing so could bring the demise of world civility.

    But I think it's a bad idea. I don't believe that bringing in the troops would be a matter of a few simple phone calls. And, more than anything, I worry that if we do bring them all home, we'll be sending them all back in five or ten years, and if that's the case, it's probably wiser and safer to keep a presence there than to keep going back and forth. I really have no solid evidence that we'd have to go back to the Middle East if we left there--nothing more than a superstitious glance to the prophecies about the end of the world--but my feeling is that, no matter how much I love my isolationist fantasies, the world is too small now for any such thing to be real.

    I'm really sad Romney's out of the running. Th is right: he's the only one who had any chance of helping our economy, and we could certainly use an improvement. I don't like McCain; in fact, of all the republican candidates, he's my LEAST favorite--I'd even take Huckabee over him, and I'm no Huckabee fan--but the way Clinton and Obama talk about leaving Iraq strikes me as not only a tad bit frightening but totally unrealistic.

    I don't think my vote should be entirely determined by one issue, no matter how big the issue is, but the war is a big enough deal that I frankly feel backed into a corner.

    Thus concludes the longest comment I've ever written....

  4. .

    Yeah. Isolationalism is a relic of a past age. And me--the biggest antitrust guy since Teddy Roosevelt--I'm even wondering if we need to relax some of those laws; because it's no longer American company v American company--it's American companies versus huge international corporate monopolies funded by their national governments. How fair is this fight. (Q: Could a bitty country like Japan have matched our economy if their laws matched our laws? A: No.)

    That said, I've noticed that a lot of people agree with you Cchrissyy, in that the surrendering comment was offensive. But I'm kind of with Romney on this one. It's the only reason I would vote against Obama.

    I do want to defend liking Romney a bit, but in doing so, I first want to defend Utah.

    I've noticed a lot of commentators dismissing Romney's huge win in Utah as Mormons voting for the Mormon candidate and sure, that's part of it.

    But as a Mormon who's spent some important time in Utah, let me say this:

    There's one word that says why Utah voted for Romney. And that word is not "Mormon." It's "Olympics."

    Utah was embarrassed, disgraced on the world stage, and Romney, like an angel, swooped in and saved the day. And when I think about things like, say, the federal government, I think yeah. I want that guy in charge.

    Romney's a hero and anyone who was living in Utah in 2002 is not apt to forget it.

    Anyway, anyone else got a tangent?gi