Romney won’t be done until he loses NH and then, for the good of the conservative movement, he should quit and let another conservative have a shot at keeping the Huckster and McVain out of the WH.
Bill C on January 3, 2008 at 11:27 PM

That’s a pretty good point. Sure, Romney bet the farm on Iowa (well, ok, maybe just a summer house, but still a big chunk of money by anybody’s standards.) Still, second place is nothing to sneeze at, and one state is only one state…

But Romney’s supposed to be big in the notheast. If he doesn’t win NH, it’d be downright crazy to keep throwing more good money after bad.

The Opinionator on January 4, 2008 at 8:33 AM

Agree with everything you say except that I’m a bit worried about how hawkish McCain is. He’s too influenced by the Kumbaya crowd (wanting to close Gitmo, coming out against water boarding) to make me completely confident of those creds.

By the way, I lived in NYC and suffered through everyone from Lindsey to Dinkins and I can attest to what a miraculous Mayor Rudy was.

Romney is doing just fine in NH. So it is way too early to say that he should drop out and stop diluting votes.

I am not a “Rombot”. In fact, I am a native Arkansan whose family still lives there so I get the dope on Hickabee regularly. I have not made up my mind. And since I am in NC, this thing will likely be nearly decided before it gets to me. My point is that it is a long campaign and we are allowing the media and pundits to convince us this is a deatkblow to Romney when it is not. Letting a few thousand Iowans determine what choices we have is ridiculous.

I initially became aware of Romney when he ran against Ted Kennedy in 94. I was living in Boston and came away impressed. I also worked in NYC and saw what a difference he made there and that was before his outstanding leadership on 9/11. Thompson is someone I could vote for as well. And Mc Cain and I disagree on a lot of things but I have no problem having a foreign policy hawk in the White House.

In summary, you do not know what you are talking about!

F15Mech on January 4, 2008 at 12:42 AM

off topic:
Teaching a boy chess at an early age is very fulfilling. Aside from instilling patience in a perpetual motion machine, it teaches respect for reality…potentially harsh realities. Like, “you’re gonna lose that rook in two moves.”

Watching my son accept and understand his back-rank-mate loss made me very proud of him.

on topic:
Mitt you’re down in piece count, but your strong opening has given you good piece development and board position.

***
Somebody give Fred Thompson a Red Bull or something…please. I don’t think you have to be a great campaigner to become a great President. But you can’t put people to sleep.

Of course F15Mech, but they’d all have loved to win Iowa…I don’t blame him for saying it.

Update: Look at that smile.

Yes exactly! And the conversation was something like “Our plan is coming along nicely.”

Then he stuck his pinky in his mouth.
This was so obvious the other day.

If winning is going to be with 34%, even respectable 2nd and 3rd place finishes will give enough delegates to losing candidates to influence the convention. If 66% of the delegates belong to the losers than the nomination is going to be decided by the jury.

These early states could split 5 ways and there won’t be momentum for anyone going into Feb 5. You’ll have whack-a-mole on the leader with the anti-whoever is at the top vote.

I think I also expect Rush to really pile it on Hucakbee, McCain, and Rudy between now and then. If Rush is anywhere as influential as he thinks he is then the nomination will go to Romney or Thompson. And right now Romney has the advantage in the polls and money.

“We’re playing chess. Everybody else is playing checkers.”

In politics, it’s either you win or you lose, it’s not what you play.

Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM

Checkers = winning Iowa

Chess = maybe not win Iowa put position yourself so you can win the election.

Chess is a game of strategy where you’re thinking 2, 3 or more moves ahead in order to win the game. Checkers is more a game of chance – one move at a time – no real thought to the end game. In Chess you sacrifice less important pieces in order to execute your strategy, etc., etc.

TheBigOldDog on January 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Great comparison..I managed to checkmate my 4 year old nephew with a pawn last week (first and only time that will happen).

After many attempts suggesting moves and sacrificing my pieces to help him win, they board just worked itself into the right configuration so I took it, and then called a mulligan.

The next night my nephew (with my help later on in the game) beat dad (who also gave up his pieces early on in a effort to teach a 4 year old the game).

My nephew only thinks one move at a time and does not understand that some players are more important then others.

To him each piece on the board is a piece of candy, the more he captures = he will have more and therefore win, aka checkers.

He does know how to move the “horse” correctly (along with most of the other pieces) so progress is being made.

From now on Romney has the potential of staying in and diluting the fiscal/national security conservative vote.

The msm dislike him for a reason. Romney drops out say hello to the Socialist State of the Americas. The clintons will bring out all the dirt on huckster and a third party candidate will get more votes then he will. McCain will say something stupid or lose his temper. Guiliani is no different then hilary and the idiot/undecideds will think it will be nice to have a woman president. Paul is a nutjob. Fred would rather be a retired movie star and his pathetic Reagan imperonation will come off smarmy and arrogant.

Please enlighten me why that is stupid? Is it stupid that he said it? Is it stupid that he believes it? Do you know what he meant by it?

TheBigOldDog on January 3, 2008 at 10:23 PM

Metaphors go right over their head, like figurative speech. I can’t tell me how much I relate to your frustration.

One can only hope, but this double digit loss in Iowa could lead to a decisive loss in NH, then he could easily lose the next couple and he would be D-O-N-E. If he can’t get the nom at the very least I’d like to see him negative ad the hell out of Huckabee and Mccain and take them down with him. But that of course would be assuming issues and substance actually matter in this campaign, so…

Patriot33 on January 3, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Romney won’t be done until he loses NH and then, for the good of the conservative movement, he should quit and let another conservative have a shot at keeping the Huckster and McVain out of the WH. Romney’s money has not bought him enough credibility. From now on Romney has the potential of staying in and diluting the fiscal/national security conservative vote.

Finishing second in Iowa is not a bad thing. Especially given the high evangelical turnout. If Romney had dropped to a distant third or fourth, that would be cause for concern.

It is a long road with many turns still to come for all the candidates.

The Opinionator on January 3, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Spin, little Rombot, spin.

Look at that smile.

From that link:

Senator McCain in New Hampshire on the phone with Governor Huckabee in Iowa.

What did we tell you? They’re up to something.

For Christ’s sake (uh… sorry Mr. Huckabee)
Mitt was an afterthought less than a year ago. He’s far and away the most accomplished person in the field. He doesn’t fail at many things he puts his mind to. He has the assets to fight as long as is necessary. Huckabee is a fluke that got the support of enough (and mind you, not many in actual numbers) bible thumpers to get to this perverted Knights of Columbus meeting that they call a caucus.
Mitt is still the guy. Rudy is still #2.

Sugar Land on January 3, 2008 at 10:08 PM

One can only hope, but this double digit loss in Iowa could lead to a decisive loss in NH, then he could easily lose the next couple and he would be D-O-N-E. If he can’t get the nom at the very least I’d like to see him negative ad the hell out of Huckabee and Mccain and take them down with him. But that of course would be assuming issues and substance actually matter in this campaign, so…

Zerg rush!

What the hell is that suppose to mean?

bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Short version, he’s playing the long game strategy over the zerg strategy, in the hopes that the long game strategy wins. He’s assuming that everyone else is playing the zerg strategy in the hope of taking out their opponents early, resulting in a cruise to win.

He’s also assuming that this is just a 2 person race, which may result in them finding out later that everyone else is playing starcraft (or other multiplayer game) while he’s still playing chess.

bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Chess is a game of strategy where you’re thinking 2, 3 or more moves ahead in order to win the game. Checkers is more a game of chance – one move at a time – no real thought to the end game. In Chess you sacrifice less important pieces in order to execute your strategy, etc., etc.

MadisonConservative on January 3, 2008 at 10:21 PM

His point is that chess requires a much longer strategy than checkers. It’s a 50 state race and Mitt has greater support than Huck does.

And perhaps a veiled dig at Iowans for being toothless hicks that sit around playing checkers down at the corner store?

Update: Stupid: “We’re playing chess. Everybody else is playing checkers.”

Please enlighten me why that is stupid? Is it stupid that he said it? Is it stupid that he believes it? Do you know what he meant by it?