Source: McCain camp claims Romney promised he wouldn’t preempt Mac’s concession speech — and then did; Update: Video added — Huck to Mac to Mitt
posted at 10:17 pm on January 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Totally bush league if true, Mark Steyn’s half-hearted attempt at spin notwithstanding.
Is Barnett sure that the Mitt Romney he knows isn’t just the Mitt Romney he thinks he knows?
Update: It’s even more bush league, needless to say, if McCain’s camp is making this up to douse the flames of Romney’s victory buzz. But how would they arrange that? The concessions go first; they couldn’t preempt Mitt, only vice versa.
Update: I guess if they’re lying wholesale about there having been any agreement, that’d do it.
Update (Bryan): Here’s the moment in question.
Since the latter two pre-empted the first, this looks more to me like fouled up timing than a plot. Though there is a good case to be made for the latter.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Yeah, that’s what I said. But Mitt isn’t personally responsible. It’s seems you’d like to make him responsible to fit an agenda. I’d bet, if you are a Fredhead, that you’d have no problem separating Fred from Abraham. And the case can be made that Fred should take flak for Abraham.
If this was done on purpose, it was a staffer that is disconnected from Mitt personally. If it was done accidentally, it’s a tempest in a teapot.
Either way, Mitt will apologize and that will be that. Sorry that disappoints you, but that’s life.
csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Good point, but Fred has been a class act throughout, regardless of any problems with his campaign.
FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 12:59 AM
As has Mitt, so I think we would be inclined to give either of them the benefit of the doubt. Huck? Eh, not so much.
Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Fred’s crankiness is far from being a class act.
csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 1:04 AM
I don’t care either way, actually. I thought the preemption war was great and I’m glad Mitt came out on top. My point here isn’t to portray my personal feelings but rather to express my opinion of how the rest of America might feel about it.
FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Ok, it’s final….Mitt 39% McShamnesty 30%.
That’s a huge win for Mitt. Especially since he did it with the people who have to be part of the nomination process. Republicans.
csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Exactly. Some of this crowd have given new meaning to “going off half-cocked”. Might be a good idea to wait for morning before crying about McCain’s hurt feelings.
Jaibones on January 16, 2008 at 1:06 AM
I think you’re looking at it from your view and not America’s. Mitt will apologize if this gets any traction and it’ll be done with.
csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 1:07 AM
OK, guys. That’s it for me. See you in the AM.
csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 1:10 AM
C’ya.
Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 1:14 AM
“Thompson headquarters?”
“Yes”
“csdeven here, offering my warmhearted services to make Fred a sunnier candidate”.
“Well, thank you, Sir. That is mighty appreciated. Come on over”.
Entelechy on January 16, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Still witt Mitt. Ask yourselves how long McCain was going to hog the camera. How long does it take to congratulate the winner?
Doug on January 16, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Fred’s crankiness is far from being a class act.
csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Uh, don’t you mean Fred’s Directness and telling you what he thinks… not what you MIGHT want to hear like many other candidates. Come on, everyone inside the beltway KNOWS McCain is a nasty and mean human being…aka cranky!
colep on January 16, 2008 at 1:24 AM
You must be new here or else you would realize that CSDeven calling Fred cranky is a compliment, relatively speaking. :)
FloatingRock on January 16, 2008 at 1:48 AM
The party didn’t last very long here. The time difference is a detriment to celebrations.
Entelechy on January 16, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Who cares.
twiggman on January 16, 2008 at 7:38 AM
They are all just immature, petulant children. Seeing them pick and mock and laugh at each other during debates and speeches rather than debate principles and issues just sickens me.
Why can’t we have an adult candidate who sees this nomination as an opportunity to benefit the country instead of an opportunity to grab power?
fossten on January 16, 2008 at 7:42 AM
I must’ve missed the part where losing means you get to dictate the timing of speeches.
James on January 16, 2008 at 8:00 AM
The lack of respect McCain was shown is similar to the respect he shows his base. Hope he likes how it feels.
sheesh on January 16, 2008 at 8:06 AM
We do, his name is Fred Thompson…
doriangrey on January 16, 2008 at 8:10 AM
How does Juan McCain look his fellow vets in the eye and tell them that a foreign criminal deserves the same social security check they do?
burnitup on January 16, 2008 at 8:23 AM
No one else missed it. Always you let the loser speak first, then you brush him off the “podium”, and the winner has the rest of the night to relish the victory. It is not so much “being gracious” as “your done, say your piece, now get out of town, loser”.
right2bright on January 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM
This was like Federer playing a high school kid. The Romney machine, his father had been the Gov. (once again paving the way for his son), Romney’s money, McCain taking body blows from Romney, Fred, Huck…if he hadn’t won this, he would have dropped out just from embarrassment.
If Mitt continues, he will be the nominee, and we will have a Democrat for a president…a shame that egos can’t be put aside, money could be put to better use.
right2bright on January 16, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Practice.
Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Burnitup is so correct. McBackstabber spits in the eye of the conservative base every chance he gets. He must go.
davecatbone on January 16, 2008 at 9:05 AM
And how, exactly, does letting, permitting, allowing, tolerating, (etc.) the loser to speak first translate into the loser dictating the timing?
You have outlined what normally happens, not who gets to decide whether to conform to that or not.
James on January 16, 2008 at 9:08 AM
I agree with the NRO guy that said “it’s just a primary, not THE election, so hardball is hardball.”
If McCain was about to concede the whole enchilada, then Mitt’s preemption would’ve been bad. But in this case, bravo Mitt for showing some testicular fortitude for a change. It’s just a primary.
Cuffy Meigs on January 16, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Who cares what McCain wants/thinks. Mitt owes him nothing.
McCain can take his whiny act back to Arizona any time he wishes, for all I care.
Dave R. on January 16, 2008 at 10:37 AM
McCain said he was ready for a fight, well this is what a fight looks like. I think what Mitt did here was brilliant politics. If I was McCain, I’d be mad. . . but if I was Huckabee I’d be mad at McCain. All speeches are still available and Mitt won so his was most important and he didn’t owe McCain anything.
I was waiting for the big big winner and future nominee to step on Mitt’s speech (ruDy and his big 6th place finish). ruDy spent more time there than Fred and just barely beat ‘uncommitted’. If he finishes in 4th or 5th in Fl, can we say he’s probably not going to be the nominee?
ThackerAgency on January 16, 2008 at 10:45 AM
You are looking for a referee, there are no “referee’. It is not a question of who decides to conform, it is who wants to be the idiot who doesn’t conform.
It’s like when you meet at a door at the same time, some people barge in, others hold the door for the women and children. There is no “law”, it is whether you conform to civilized practices or not.
If you don’t hold the door open, then no law is broken, you are just an *sshole. Not being gracious in this victory is being just that.
However, in this case, the timing was screwed up. As distasteful as Mitt is to me (no reference to his buddy Craig), it was just a misstep in organization between the men behind the scenes. Mitt would never do something like this purposely. It serves no purpose…
right2bright on January 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Get some perspective, quit building mountains out of molehills.
MarkB on January 16, 2008 at 11:17 AM
True dat.
csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Are you serious people? We are bitching about this?
Come on!
We have so many problems we need to solve. We need to beat the liberals! Stop fighting among ourselves with this bull%*^t!
msipes on January 16, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Tradition – but I give up/in. Everything these days is overrated. Après moi, le déluge. If you’re young, you will never know the difference anyway.
p.s. I’m elated that McCain lost, for all the reasons listed here, and in myriad other threads.
Entelechy on January 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM
maybe someone said this before (i didnt read all 200 comments)///
call me crazy, but i think last night was great for Thompson. it gave him more time to really start performing, kicking ass, and taking names. romney pushing mccain back prevents a clear front runner from emerging, and this gives thompson more time to perform well at debates, and get his message out.
im not saying it will get him a nomination, just saying i think he benefitted most out of everyone. he can kickstart his campaign with this, if he only would bother to try.
blatantblue on January 16, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Finish the point. The lack of respect McCain was shown by Romney is similar to the lack of respect Romney will show his constituents once elected. And Romney’s lack of protocol will not bode well on Capitol Hill should we be inflicted with him there.
Why watch Mitt’s mirror act of managerial leadership shatter later than sooner? Romney is like the inflation balloon; the bigger the worse for wear.
maverick muse on January 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
WAAAH FREAKIN’ WAAAAAH FREAKIN’ WAAAAAH
And a hearty: WAAAAA-AAAAAAH!!!
PULLL-EASE!!! Get OVER your CHEAP SELF!!!
grtflmark on January 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Off Topic….
Michelle Malkin wants a man. A man that can say “NO!”.
csdeven on January 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Mitt Won, Authenticity Lost
WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney’s victory in Michigan was a defeat for authenticity in politics.
The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents’ record and continued to show why he’s the most malleable — and least credible — major presidential candidate.
And it worked.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/on_deadline_michigan
bnelson44 on January 16, 2008 at 12:19 PM
McCain seemed to think he was ‘entitled’ to something, or else he wouldn’t have complained. He’s the one who wants a referee. I merely said that there was no referee, he’s the one who lost, so he shouldn’t expect to set the time for the victory speech…
…or to be heard at all until the next state, for that matter. Oh, wait…he was already there. Nothing about his rudeness for dissing Michigan by denying them a concession speech in person, huh?
James on January 16, 2008 at 12:20 PM
lol
Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 12:23 PM
David Brooks quotes the Mitt Romney line that may have put him over the top in Michigan:
“If I’m president of this country, I will roll up my sleeves in the first 100 days I’m in office, and I will personally bring together industry, labor, Congressional and state leaders and together we will develop a plan to rebuild America’s automotive leadership.”
This is what people like to call “industrial policy,” and what Jonah Goldberg likes to call liberal fascism – big business and big government working hand-in-glove for the purposes of economic nationalism.
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/wheres_the_outrage_1.php
bnelson44 on January 16, 2008 at 12:23 PM
During the presidential campaign of 1928, a circular published by the Republican Party claimed that if Herbert Hoover won there would be “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” We seem to be back to this. By the way, Hoover’s big government plan was derailed by the market depression in 1929.
bnelson44 on January 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Entelechy on January 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Your existence matters now as much as ever, if not more.
Young adults raised in “childcare” facilities have yet to learn their nursery tale lessons and Aasop’s fable morals. Even limiting Bible stories to the literal at church misses the larger contemporary application of the occurence.
James, better to know history and see the whole picture sooner than later. The demagogues’ socialized venue of banal promises will prove destructive, only benefitting the untouchables who are strengthened by populism, socialism, and liberalism becoming fascism.
The only barrier between the citizen and that destruction is conservatism’s placement of government responsibility at the local level for the local citizen. As it is, the federal government renigs on their constitutional duties, all the while destroying the citizen’s voice.
maverick muse on January 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM
That author is very biased – discussed on HA last night.
Entelechy on January 16, 2008 at 12:29 PM
bnelson44 on January 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Differentiate between Hoover and FDR, revisionist.
It wasn’t Hoover’s big government. It wasn’t Hoover’s fault that speculators did then what they do today to cause economic disaster and hardship. Hoover did not support the speculators’ demand for government bail-out. FDR promised big government programs and big spending of tax dollars. For all of FDR’s promises, though, his programs did NOT relieve the Great Depression. FDR did not save the day. WWII did that at the cost of American blood and sacrifice.
Thanks to FDR’s big government, for starters, we all pay social security that will not be there for us. Federal bureaucracies took hold, never to be relinquished, never to perform well, either, UNLESS conservatism is upheld.
Two inevitabilities: taxes and death.
maverick muse on January 16, 2008 at 12:38 PM
and sex, supposedly, if you’re a Fredhead
blatantblue on January 16, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 12:23 PM
LOL
maverick muse on January 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM
blatantblue on January 16, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Thank God.
maverick muse on January 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I’m quite aware of the ‘tradition’ of which people are writing. Tradition, however, is just that and nothing more. We celebrate when Thompson strikes back at the media for treating him shabbily, yet Romney inadvertently steps on McCain’s speech and we all go into fits about how inappropriate it was, as if the loser of a primary campaign deserves anything more than any delegates he won there and a fresh start in the next state.
As for the rest, I made no qualitative statement in this thread regarding the political positions of any candidate. It’s pretty arrogant to ascribe ’socialized banal promises’ to anything that I wrote in this thread. (Plus, I haven’t been a ‘young’ anything for quite a while, and I’ve never even seen the inside of a daycare facility.)
But it sure sounded pretty.
James on January 16, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Frankly, I believe that McCain and Romney were set up by Huckabee. I suspect he started late intentionally to throw things off schedule. I don’t trust him further than I can see him. Since the ad with the floating cross that was not a cross but a bookcase?, I find the real Mike Huckabee to be hiding a lot of deception and sarcasm behind his so-called humor.
Concession speeches should be short, not long, free air-time campaign speeches. Because Huckabee kept his supporters waiting, why should McCain and Romney have to do the same.
kaye on January 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Timing is everything …….
gstrickler on January 16, 2008 at 2:03 PM
gumballs? I prefer Malkins. :)
Gianni on January 16, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I will finish the point. How could Romney be any more disrespectful than the issues McCain pushes: amnesty for illegals and all the perqs that come with it, global warming, McCain Feingold, waterboarding as torture, increased cigarette taxes to fund ads against cigarettes, voting against Bush tax cuts….twice. I think I’ve missed a few, but you get the point. I concede that it is possible for Romney to be more liberal, but with McCain, it’s already a given, so why even go down that path?
(I do give McCain credit for his issue with “pork barrel” spending, however.)
sheesh on January 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
At least we know Romney understands the policy of preemption.
Joey1974 on January 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
GIGA LOL
my the Fredheads are testy…I like Fred but is he above 4th place anywhere?? stooping to defending McVain’s honor to poke holes in Mitt’s victory is rather DUmplike.
I am losing respect for many previously esteemed commenters here.
Fred! is pretty much dead, unless he pulls off an upset soon he is a goner. I like the guy, he’d make a great Prez or VP, but reality bites.
windansea on January 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM
PS: All this is based on a “source” sympathetic to the McCain camp
what was AP saying about NH recount whackjob conspiracies?
I smell the dreaded double standard.
windansea on January 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3