New Hampshire Paper Anti-Endorses Romney
The Concord Monitor has yet to endorse a candidate for either the Republican or Democratic primaries, but their editors have reached an agreement on one thing: Mitt Romney must be stopped.
In a new editorial, the liberal paper attacks Romney's candidacy and his shifting views, and even goes so far as to say the state's reputation is at stake in defeating him:
When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.
Comments (19)
Dan wrote on December 22, 2007 10:27 PM:Considering that the latest NH poll has McCain surging into a tie with Romney, Mitt will have trouble holding on.
terry hallinan wrote on December 22, 2007 11:10 PM:I do not know how any of these races will turn out but Romney is such an obvious fraud it is hard for me to believe he will win the nomination even among the scrungy crew that is seeking the nomination.
It is interesting that the two candidates surging for the Republican nomination are refreshingly candid no matter how much one might despise and even laugh at some of their ideas.
Could signs of Hillary's downdraft have much the same origins as Romney's and Giuliani's rapid descent?
Hope so.
Best, Terry
Nick wrote on December 23, 2007 12:04 AM:Ridiculous. If this is a 'liberal' paper, they should beg people to vote for Romney in the primary. I just don't get this ... the guy is a CERTAIN LOSER, even to Hillary. So yeah, by all means, let's trash him and make sure McCain is the nominee, so we can lose in November. It's madness. And I'm serious.
Orwell's Intuition wrote on December 23, 2007 12:14 AM:"It is interesting that the two candidates surging for the Republican nomination are refreshingly candid no matter how much one might despise and even laugh at some of their ideas."
Candid? Huckster is one of the biggest snake oil salesmen to come down the pike in a long, long time. As for McCain, out of respect for his age, I'll refrain from insulting his inability to remember what he says from one day to the next.
Bill Bradley wrote on December 23, 2007 1:12 AM:Interesting, Al Gore was a pro-life Congressman and Senator when he represented Tennessee. He had a proud pro-life record in which he stated he would always defend the unborn.
But, when a young and ambitous Senator Gore ran for president in 1988 he declared that he was "pro-choice." The Concord Monitor never held that against him.
Current candidates Biden and Dodd were once pro-life senators, too.
Bill Bradley wrote on December 23, 2007 1:13 AM:Interesting, Al Gore was a pro-life Congressman and Senator when he represented Tennessee. He had a proud pro-life record in which he stated he would always defend the unborn.
But, when a young and ambitous Senator Gore ran for president in 1988 he declared that he was "pro-choice." The Concord Monitor never held that against him.
Current candidates Biden and Dodd were once pro-life senators, too.
hisgirlfriday wrote on December 23, 2007 3:37 AM:Ouch!
I see what you guys are saying on pro-life people making the switch to pro-choice, but Concord Monitor had it on the money when they said people are left to wonder what is at Romney's core.
But I think I know what is at his core - ambition and nothing else.
za wrote on December 23, 2007 10:22 AM:Mitt Romney HAS no core. He is a balloon filled with the stink of ambition. He will do ANYTHING to be president.
Terry Ott wrote on December 23, 2007 10:23 AM:I don't buy the assessment that Romney is all about ambition.
What he, and others like him, is about is getting things accomplished ... resolving problems in the most constructive and pragmatic ways. Getting the ship of state off the rocks and moving ahead again.
I am not cut out to be a CEO or executive level "honcho" in the public sector, although any number of friends and associates say I'd be an excellent one, because I have "run" quite a few things including a profit center in a business. I know my limitations in terms of comfort with delegation, approach to conflict resolution, insistence on great performance, using consistent processes, etc. When I see someone who is good at these things and empathetic, principled, and "responsive" at the same time --- I admire them greatly.
Romney obviously IS fully capable of being in charge, of virtually anything that needs "running" which our federal government MOST CERTAINLY does. What he thinks about gays getting married or abortion, or references to God in public settings, or any number of other issues that have little to do with presidential responsibilities --- I really put very very far down the list. Fact is, I don't know how I feel about much of this stuff either, except to say that I'm open-minded and like the notion that government should not overextend itself into trying to control too much, no matter how worthy the intentions.
We've gotten so used to the executive branch being run like amateur hour with cronies galore in areas of critical importance that I fear we've forgotten what an actual results-oriented leader really is and can do.
I don't know who I'll vote for yet, but to rule out Romney would be foolish in my opinion --- ESPECIALLY if it's because a bunch of newspaper people think he is overly power-hungry and inconsistent on some issues over time, when in fact those changes may be based on practical considerations and the desire to allow the ebb and flow of democracy to run its course.
blackstar wrote on December 23, 2007 11:27 AM:
"I am not cut out to be a CEO or executive level "honcho" in the public sector, although any number of friends and associates say I'd be an excellent one, because I have "run" quite a few things including a profit center in a business."
-------
except that running the United States government should not be anything like running a business, especially a profit center in a business.
mike wrote on December 23, 2007 12:09 PM: Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 12:14 PM:Sorry, my post was incomplete it should have read....
Terry Ott you wrote
I am not cut out to be a CEO or executive level "honcho" in the public sector, although any number of friends and associates say I'd be an excellent one, because I have "run" quite a few things including a profit center in a business...
Yes this is what Mitt flip flopper Romney has been, and by the looks of his home and holdings, quite a succecful one at that.
That being said, being a CEO or Exec. does not mean you will be a succesful leader. Remember the incompetent crooks we are stuck with right now sold us on the "Me and my cabinet will be the first "CEO" administration".
Hows that working out for us now? Not too well unless you are FROM the CEO exec class. I'm not. I swing a hammer for a living and have seen me and just about everyone in my class getting screwed royally. Thats why I will be voting for ANYONE even a trained monkey (like our current occupant) or an untrained one before I vote for another republican.
Terry Ott says: >
Where on earth do you get that as being applicable to Romney? Any objective review of his statements and actions makes it clear that there is no principle he'd uphold, including core constitutional ones (see: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum/). Unchecked ambition as his guiding light is the most benevolent way of viewing his motivation. If only the rest of the media were as plain spoken as the NH Concord paper is, we'd have more honest candidates, and the genuine kooks would be laughed out of politics.
I know it's an article of faith that being good at business is necessary for being a president. In looking over the current Bush's presidency, that may be the case as he was terrible at everything he touched, really an anti-midas touch. If the businessman were one that had strong, objective core principles based on reality, then yes, that'd be a good thing. If they're common criminals like what so many CEOs of big corporations have turned out to be, then one should be able to draw the obvious conclusion.
Ron Robertson wrote on December 23, 2007 12:19 PM:Sorry, if you tried to get that link to work (from the Boston Globe), you'll need to remove the ). from the end.
KYJurisDoctor wrote on December 23, 2007 4:14 PM:The Concord gets it right. Romney is nothing but a rich Snake Oil salesman!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-hampshire-newspaper-concord-monitor.html#links
KYJurisDoctor wrote on December 23, 2007 4:16 PM:The Concord gets it right. Romney is nothing but a rich Snake Oil salesman!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-hampshire-newspaper-concord-monitor.html#links
dennisS wrote on December 23, 2007 9:28 PM:The problem isn't Romney, it's the Republican party. He has an excellent resume, but as a candidate he has turned into a monster (not in the good sense.) Guess why?
What the Concord Monitor editors don't seem to get (or want to wish away) is that that no matter who gets the GOP nomination, he will become a creature of that party's dysfunctional world view. Whether or not the Monitor is really "liberal" they're still stuck in the discredited notion there is rough equivalence between the two parties. That makes their opinion on the election pretty worthless.
Get lost Monitor. Until you figure this out you're useless.
Ashley wrote on December 24, 2007 12:31 AM:Liberal opinion from a liberal newspaper.....big surprise. The last person the left wants against Hill or Obama is a moral ethical guy like Romney.
Spotty Dog wrote on December 24, 2007 7:45 PM:Okay, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my experience with candidate and Gov Mitt Romney is this: The guy has NO moral or ideological center, he will say anything and do anything to get what he wants, and he smiles while he does it. (He is Eddie Haskell, "Gee Mr & Mrs American Voter, you look very nice today.") This may be an excellent trait for a CEO of a for-profit company but it's a terrible trait for the "Leader of the Free World". And frankly, it appears that business training or experience DOES NOT translate into effective governance, Little Bushie has a Ha'va'd MBA, after all.
Little Mitty is toast. That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it. Pass the jam.
