For the record.. Mike, km, AZWW and I were in the chatroom late last night and Mike asked who we thought would drop out next and both km and I said Romney almost at the same time. *High fives km

Whether he uses the words "drop out" or "suspend," it means the same thing. Romney used the words "stand aside" at about 1 min. 10 sec of the linked video. He played the terror card in his exit. Shame on Mitt! If you can’t win by lying to people, then scare them out of their gourds in defeat. He would have been an extension of Bush. Good riddance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23051902#23051773

BTW: I always thought Mitt's father, George Romney, was a man of integrity. In this case the nut seems to have fallen far from the tree.

The "terror card"? Is that like the race card or the gender card that your side keeps playing? Fact is Romney was pretty clear about why he was withdrawing from the contest. He didn't want a surrender monkey from the other side to end up in the White House.

Aquilla

I felt as if he was playing up to McCain to drum up support without fully coming out in his favor.

Well, that's the real gist of it all, isn't it? Romney is just devious enough to recognize that it too will be his turn one day, so he's withdrawing to lick his wounds and spin his webs for another bid at a later time... And or begin grooming for the VP debate.

The last time you used this little gem of vitriol – “surrender monkey” – Edwards was still in the race. With him out, I wondering if you mean Obama and Clinton or just one of them.

I would have thought you would have learned your lesson after nighttimer dressed you down about how offensive it is to use the word “monkey” in describing an African-American. See below.


Since it appears you didn’t learn from what nighttimer wrote, I guess your next stop will be mandatory enrollment in the course entitled “Diversity Training and Cultural Sensitivity.”

If you bothered to do a search on the term "surrender monkey" in this forum with my name attached to it you would discover that is a term I first used here in this post back in May. At that time my exact quote was.......




Now, unless you're accusing me of claiming Obama is a cross-dresser, it's pretty clear.



The day that nighttimer doesn't play the race card is the day I call 911 because there's something very wrong. Apparently I should add you to my "emergency call" list as well.




Hell, I don't need to enroll in that one, I could teach it!

Nice, try, BoF. Now, you can go back and ruminate about the fact that those dumb ole rednecks' vote counts the same as the surrender monkey liberals' do.

Really ticks you off doesn't it.


Aquilla

Thanks Aquilla I wasn't really sure who Romney was talking to. I thought his comments were pretty far out there. But after reading your posts I get it. He was talking to your peers.

I knew that there had to be someone that agreed with Romney that tonight the country is safer because he couldn;t stomach investing more of his $$ in a losing race.

I don't recall him saying that, Eeyore. Got a link to back that up? Or is that just more liberal surrender monkey crap that your side figures you can just spout off enough times to make it "true"? Oh no!!! I used the Surrender monkey term again! What to do......

Five Hail Marys, a double bourbon and call me in the morning....

Works for me.


Aquilla

Willard Romney gave an exit speech. It was the last dying gasp of a wealthy man's wet dream that by abandoning any semblance of principle he might fool enough idiot Republicans into believing he was the unwrinkled reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, only with better hair.

''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 (Barack) Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,'' Romney planned to say in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference.

''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.''

Apparently, some of the right-wing knuckle-draggers got moist around the eyes stricken with grief with the prospect of a life without a man named Mitt in the presidential fray. Of course being The Mittster, he couldn't pass up a last chance to pander to the rectal right-wing so he made it seem as if he were bowing out to save the Republic from Defeatist Democrats that would hand the nuclear launch codes over to Al Qaeda. Nice to see the lunatic fringe is still trying to sell the American people their tired old package of "Vote Republican or the terrorists will kill you."

Which means forgetting it was a Republican in the White House when the first plane slammed into the World Trade Center, but what's a little selective memory between friends? Then again, when you're a totally unprincipled rich little punk like Willard, why worry about being right when you're so much better at sucking up?

Then again, this is the same Mittster who when asked why none of his five sons had served in the military to defend America he replied, "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Oh, that Willard boy. A true class act, all the way. Hate to lose, Willard? You lost over $30 million out of your own pocket. Get used to losing---loser.

There seems to be two Aquilla's hanging around here. There's the one who debates with an open mind and is typically well-informed and prepared to back up his arguments with facts and evidence. Then there's the other one who seems to be regurgitating right-wing drivel one would expect from the moronic likes of Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity.

Guess it must be the frustration settling in when your choices for President of the United States are whittled down to a 81-year-old heretic, a bass-playing Baptist preacher and a Libertarian obstetrician in Republican drag.

There may be two Aquillas hanging around here, but there's apparently only one nighttimer.

And, speaking of being "well-informed" if we can crawl out of the gutter for a moment.... John McCain was born in 1936. Do the math.

Oh yeah, I won't need to call 911 tonight.

Aquilla

The one. The only. The original. Kicking butt and taking names on since 2003. Accept no substitutes.



Sorry--I guess McCain's ideas seem older than he is. As far as wallowing in the gutter goes, that started with the exceedingly classless Willard Romney as he demonstrated yet again he's a divider, not a uniter and even as he surrenders to defeat goes out as gracelessly as he entered. At least he's consistent.

Kind of the way some folks casually throw around right-wing talking points like "surrender monkey" then want to act as if someone dragged THEM into the sewage and muck.

Well, there are a lot of Republicans and some Independents with whom the message is resonating, obviously. Every now and again, it pays off to have a candidate promising old-timey values and offering wisdom from a long political past. I think people sense honesty when they listen to John McCain and a lot of people may not remember the primary from 2,000 in South Carolina where he was so wrongly blind-sighted by the Bush Campaign. So there's a sense of "this is his turn" running through the Republican Party in addition to the kindly image he cultivates as both a grandfather figure and a "straight-talker."

When you first used the term is irrelevant – you are still using it.

It’s my guess that’s it’s been part of right-wing code for some time.

Below I’m linking a Youtube video based on the cover of the right-wing New York Post ujsing the phrase “surrender monkeys” in connection with the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH4rkbbEEy0


Surely the "other" Aquilla can come up with more original, creative and timely invective.

Oh, I'm sure he can and will at some point.

But for now, why bother? The old stuff is working so well.


Aquilla

Well, I have seen a couple news accounts of dems outvoting repubs at primaries by a 2 or 3 to one margin, anyone have a source for this? All the sites I have seen it on have been very biased- but I did see it on Yahoo as a blurb.

If you are seeing that large of a voting base in the primaries, which traditionally have poor turnout, then I believe if that trend continues, we could end up having a huge landslide victory for the dems.

I am okay with Obama, that won't disappoint me too much, but it will really scare me if Billary or McCain win it. More of the same crap there!

That being said- Hillary having to come up with money of her own for her campaign, while Obama got 7 million in donations on the "wednesday after"- well, that says volumes.

Well, she loaned money to herself, but supposedly there was a bum-rush to donate to her campaign and she reimbursed herself about a day after her private donation. She could always hit up Mitt Romney.

In any event, I've heard similar reports about Dems out-voting Republicans. That doesn't surprise me. It's more likely than not that this country will put an anti-war candidate in office for the next 4-8 years than not.

I don't have the exact number but I believe it's 3-1 in favor of the Democrats; however, there was a similar trend among Republicans during the 2000 election so I'm not sure it means much. Al Gore still got the most votes that November. The party that's been out of power is generally is more excited during the primary.

At one time I had doubts Obama could beat Clinton in Texas. With his wins in Wisconsin and Washington yesterday and his fundraising prowess, I think he might have enough momentum to prevail in Texas. Clinton needs a big win here and I just don't see it at this point.

You could be right (for one of the few times ). The RCP polls show Clinton with mostly single digit leads, but those polls were taken prior to the Wisconsin and Washington primaries. Hillary's support is definitely headed south and I'm not sure even the Clinton machine can stop it.

Aquilla