Romney to endorse McCain

Linzyhop · 02-14-2008, 02:53 PM

Romney to endorse McCain

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago

Republican campaign dropout Mitt Romney agreed Thursday to endorse Sen. John McCain for the party's presidential nomination and ask his national convention delegates to swing behind the front-runner, according to officials familiar with the decision.
Romney collected 280 delegates during his run through the early primaries and caucuses, enough to move McCain close to the total of 1,191 needed to clinch the nomination a full nine months before the November general election.
The officials who disclosed Romney's plans did so on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement later in the day. McCain was campaigning in Vermont and Rhode Island during the day, and added a flight to Boston to appear with Romney to accept the endorsement at his waterfront campaign headquarters.
McCain effectively sealed the nomination last week when Romney withdrew from the race; only former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and libertarian-leaning Texas Rep. Ron Paul remain but both lag McCain in delegates to the GOP's nominating convention this fall.
Romney's decision marked a harmonious end to an occasionally contentious struggle between the two men over the party's presidential nomination. They criticized one another in television ads in state after state, a clash that effectively ended on Feb. 5, when McCain won a string of big-state primaries from coast to coast.
Officials said the former Massachusetts governor made his decision to back McCain earlier in the day, citing a desire to help the Arizona senator wrap up the nomination before too much more time passed and while Democrats still did not have a nominee.
McCain is on a steady march toward amassing the 1,191 delegates he needs, but Huckabee has proven an unexpectedly durable challenger. With a strong appeal to evangelical conservatives, Huckabee defeated McCain in two out of three states that chose delegates last weekend, and ran a far stronger race than expected before losing the Virginia primary on Tuesday.
McCain began the day with 843 delegates, to 242 for Huckabee.
At stake in Tuesday's Wisconsin primary are 40 GOP delegates.
The former Massachusetts governor suspended his candidacy last week after it became apparent that toppling McCain would be near impossible to gain the delegates needed to defeat McCain.
In a speech before conservative activists in Washington, D.C., Romney acknowledged the difficulty in overtaking McCain. "I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," he said at the time, adding that doing otherwise would increase the chances that Democrats would reclaim the White House.
At the time, Romney did not offer an endorsement, and McCain said he did not seek one when the two spoke by telephone.
Romney was the only one of McCain's primary opponents who had resisted lining up behind the nominee in waiting; Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson both have endorsed him.

Romney to endorse McCain - Yahoo! News

interesting. I think it's funny after all the shit Romney said about McCain that he's endorsing him... maybe he's looking for a VP nod.... who knows.

thewise1 · 02-14-2008, 03:39 PM

Why wouldn't he? The only reason they argued before was to try and differentiate themselves from each other even though they aren't any different in practice.

motivez · 02-14-2008, 03:44 PM

Well, he's going to get the nomination now. It's all but guaranteed. So, it makes sense to be on decent terms with him moving forward.

RMNIXON · 02-14-2008, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

interesting. I think it's funny after all the shit Romney said about McCain that he's endorsing him... maybe he's looking for a VP nod.... who knows.

If they can play nice and pretend they like each other?

lew · 02-14-2008, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

If they can play nice and pretend they like each other?

Why wouldn't they like each other? They're both two liberal Republicans.

nbiggershaft · 02-14-2008, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Why wouldn't they like each other? They're both two liberal Republicans.

I know what you guys mean when you say liberal and conservative, but it is really deriving only from this board. I can't find a single definition of a liberal that has relates to what you call a liberal. Conservative is also more commonly used to refer to people who favor traditional values and oppose change (and that is certainly no new definition).

lew · 02-14-2008, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I know what you guys mean when you say liberal and conservative, but it is really deriving only from this board. I can't find a single definition of a liberal that has relates to what you call a liberal. Conservative is also more commonly used to refer to people who favor traditional values and oppose change (and that is certainly no new definition).

"Liberal" in today's American vernacular means basically someone that favors statism over individualism, especially in regards to economic matters. Sometimes liberals are good on personal / private issues, but overall not really.

"Conservative" in today's American vernacular means basically someone that favors individualism over statism, especially in regards to economic matters. They are usually not so good on personal / private issues.

Neither of these is 100% correct of course, because both terms can be applied to a variety of individuals. However, for generalization, they are true.

nbiggershaft · 02-14-2008, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by lew

"Liberal" in today's American vernacular means basically someone that favors statism over individualism, especially in regards to economic matters. Sometimes liberals are good on personal / private issues, but overall not really.

"Conservative" in today's American vernacular means basically someone that favors individualism over statism, especially in regards to economic matters. They are usually not so good on personal / private issues.

Neither of these is 100% correct of course, because both terms can be applied to a variety of individuals. However, for generalization, they are true.

See, I just don't buy that. And I don't think it is most people's definition.
liberalism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

You are welcome to your own definition, because when you say liberal republicans, I know you are saying big government. But I think when 'liberal' is essentially used only in negative connotation it becomes a burden to call oneself a liberal with all the different negative definitions out there, so no one really accepts the title.
To you liberal is big government.
To a social conservative liberal is some gay loving pansy.
To uber patriotic a liberal is a freedom hating traitor.

RMNIXON · 02-15-2008, 04:35 PM

Up Next:

Rouger2 · 02-15-2008, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

See, I just don't buy that. And I don't think it is most people's definition.
liberalism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

You are welcome to your own definition, because when you say liberal republicans, I know you are saying big government. But I think when 'liberal' is essentially used only in negative connotation it becomes a burden to call oneself a liberal with all the different negative definitions out there, so no one really accepts the title.
To you liberal is big government.
To a social conservative liberal is some gay loving pansy.
To uber patriotic a liberal is a freedom hating traitor.

The republicans have put a lot of effort into making liberalism into a dirty word but it is part of the game the demos do the same with conservatism. We all know what is going on and accept it, but I would sure like to see a real penny pinching conservative of old, and a liberal like Teddy Roosevelt.