Quote :

"MILFORD, N.H.(AP) The Concord Monitor broke with political tradition Sunday, telling readers in the state with the first presidential primary why they should not vote for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney instead of whom they should support. In a scathing anti-endorsement that called Romney a "disquieting figure," the New Hampshire newspaper's editorial board said he looks and acts like a presidential contender but "surely must be stopped" because he lacks the core philosophical beliefs to be a trustworthy president. In particular, the newspaper noted the former Massachusetts governor's change of heart on such issues as abortion rights, stem-cell research and access to emergency contraception, as well as on signing an anti-tax pledge. "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," the newspaper said. "Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.""

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4044994

And the original article:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/OPINION/712230301


I would vote for any candidate over this guy . . . even Dennis Kucinich. I haven't trusted him since the, "I'd build 100 Guantanimos" comment back in one of the early debates.

12/23/2007 4:22:13 PM

even Hillary?

12/23/2007 5:24:09 PM

even hillary.

12/23/2007 5:52:36 PM

Sadly, I would vote for Hillary over Romney as well.

12/23/2007 5:56:24 PM

bigots

12/23/2007 6:38:39 PM

Quote :

"I would vote for any candidate over this guy . . . even Dennis Kucinich. I haven't trusted him since the, "I'd build 100 Guantanimos" comment back in one of the early debates."

DOUBLE GUANTANIMO!!!one!

12/23/2007 8:14:55 PM

I didn't find much fault for Romney in the anti-endorsement. To depict him as Satan Incarnate versus, say, a total sleazebag like Giuliani, is incredible.

The man is family-oriented and successful. Yes, he made compromises along the way. One might argue that Romney therefore faces not a religious test but a political one -- the GOP would rather, one presumes, have a Democratic majority in the Northeast than pragmatic politicians willing to carry those states.

It would seem, then, that governing Massachusetts is a thankless and career-ending job for the best GOP politicians. If the Concord paper has its way.

The fact is that, in a federal nation, different states have different values. And politicians of a high caliber must meet the expectations of their electorate over their personal values in order to advance a broader cause. Some here would argue that amounts to base pandering and an insult to our Republican form of government. But Romney is smarter and knows better and I, likewise, hope to be the same.

As such I still support Romney. He is the most stable and certainly the most able of the GOP candidates.

[Edited on December 24, 2007 at 6:11 AM. Reason : foo]

12/24/2007 6:11:17 AM

^^ The newspaper referenced one quote, I referenced another. With his track record, it is hard to pin him down (or contradict my reference) with only one quote.

Quote :

"Yes, he made compromises along the way."

No one, myself included, will fault a politician for changing his mind about practical issues throughout his career. What many people take issue with, is that Romney seems to possess no core values that remain constant. Pragmatism is being an anti-tax candidate who later decides that the situation warrants raising taxes. A principled man may change his beliefs based upon a new revelation in his life, but when revelations come as a result of poling data . . . Romney's pandering is at best, horribly condescending, and at worst, evident of a complete lack of guiding principles. I suppose it is somewhere in between.

The United States is not a business, as such I do not want a businessman running it like a business. Ideally, we would have a man of principles who uses a pragmatic (as opposed to dogmatic) approach to domestic and international problem solving.

Quote :

"It would seem, then, that governing Massachusetts is a thankless and career-ending job for the best GOP politicians. If the Concord paper has its way."

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I missed where governing Massachusetts was supposed to lead to the presidency.

Quote :

"The fact is that, in a federal nation, different states have different values. And politicians of a high caliber must meet the expectations of their electorate over their personal values in order to advance a broader cause."

I think the Monitor's and my problem is that we're not quite sure what exactly Romney's "broader cause" is.

12/24/2007 10:54:45 AM

Quote :

"I think the Monitor's and my problem is that we're not quite sure what exactly Romney's "broader cause" is."

Other, that is, than his personal ambition...

12/24/2007 10:58:58 AM

Quote :

"I think the Monitor's and my problem is that we're not quite sure what exactly Romney's "broader cause" is."

Why? He's running on a pretty solid conservative platform. What's not clear about that?

The question in my mind is whether Romney will live up to the promises and positions he takes in the campaign. That's not a question of what positions he takes, but of his character. Does the Concord paper offer any evidence that he just outright lies to the electorate? He ran pro-choice for Massachusetts governor and he was pro-choice in office. For example. What makes us think this time will be different, except in the opposite political direction?

I think there's a marked difference between a "flip flopper" and someone who respects the core beliefs of their constituency. Also I think his core philosophy is pretty obvious -- it's his religion. But he has the maturity and statesmanship to not govern strictly according to his faith, and I respect that.

12/24/2007 1:41:39 PM

Quote :

"The question in my mind is whether Romney will live up to the promises and positions he takes in the campaign. That's not a question of what positions he takes, but of his character. Does the Concord paper offer any evidence that he just outright lies to the electorate? He ran pro-choice for Massachusetts governor and he was pro-choice in office. For example. What makes us think this time will be different, except in the opposite political direction?"

The CM seems to spell out its case pretty clearly if you actually take the time to read the editorial - their issue is the disturbing lack of any sort of fundamental connection between Romney's past positions and his present ones, except that they appear only aligned to best get him elected by the people he's pandering to.

Given that his core beliefs appear to be so malleable (as long as it gets him elected), the CM, along with many other people, is simply asking - what can we actually count on him drawing upon as a governing philosophy, aside from "whatever it takes to get elected?" It's a fair question.

12/24/2007 3:27:33 PM

^

Well if "what it takes to get elected" is being a red meat conservative, then maybe he'll be ... oh, I don't know ... a red meat conservative?

12/24/2007 3:34:05 PM

Then what is his actual philosophy? Not "what's he promising to get elected" - read again. The question is, given his inconstant beliefs, what is his core philosophy?

He's running as a "red meat conservative" in the primaries, which is what it takes there - but clearly that won't do in the general election, where he'll have to pretend to run as a moderate.

So... would the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

12/24/2007 3:36:47 PM

^

The guy is a lifelong Mormon. He's conservative.

I still want to know -- are Republicans not allowed to make compromises in order to run Northeastern states? Do we really expect that the Northeast should just be a liberal haven forever because people like you don't deal well with ambiguity?

12/24/2007 3:56:48 PM

I love it. You are incapable of keeping anything from being a personal attack instead of a discussion of the issue at hand.

The fact is, he embraces fundamentally different positions when it helps get him elected. Given this, what element of him is a constant? Changing his positions with the political winds isn't "ambiguity" - it's naked opportunism. That's great that you don't have a problem with this - but it still leaves the question open as to just what principles, other than personal ambition, Romney adheres to. Which parts of his governing philosophy will remain a constant from situation to situation?

This is not that difficult of a question, except for someone who steadfastly refuses to accept the premise of it.

12/24/2007 4:03:56 PM

^

Personal attacks are more fun with you because, hey, if I write anything more substantive you won't read it critically. Maybe I just need to use more boldfaced type.

I don't accept the premise of your question. So what? Fuck you. You don't control the conversation. He will be a red meat conservative because that's what he promised to the people who are electing him. That's enough for me. I don't need him to get a "Don't Tread on Me" tattoo on his ankle and write position papers at the Cato Institute for him to be electable.

12/24/2007 4:10:12 PM

The person who can't even read and answer a simple question claims it's everyone else who has a comprehension problem.

Here's an idea - get the hell out. You're not interested in substantially contributing, so how about going somewhere where "substantial contribution" is not part of the MO? Like, say, Chit Chat?

12/24/2007 4:18:45 PM

Quote :

"The guy is a lifelong Mormon. He's conservative."

Who has adopted positions heretical to the Mormon Church in order to get elected.

Quote :

"are Republicans not allowed to make compromises in order to run Northeastern states? Do we really expect that the Northeast should just be a liberal haven forever because people like you don't deal well with ambiguity?"

Ok, so he fits his politics to the electorate in order to get elected. They vote for him because he tells them what they want to here and executes the office the way the liberal electorate expects him to. What exactly has changed other than the letter behind the governors name?

12/24/2007 4:36:47 PM

He'd win Utah in the presidential election...

12/24/2007 10:10:12 PM

^I wouldn't bet on that one.

Mitt is a sleazebag at its finest. look at the IPO for Staples and you'll see that.

Quote :

"The guy is a lifelong Mormon. He's conservative."

that is seriously one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life. Buy a clue Smoker4

[Edited on December 25, 2007 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/25/2007 2:07:18 PM

Romney is no more than a sleezeball than the new favorite Mike 'let my people rapists go" Huckabee.

12/26/2007 6:55:17 AM

Huckabee is a sleazebag, but Mitt is the worst type. Just look at his record as a venture capitalist.

12/26/2007 9:06:07 AM

i agree with jason

12/26/2007 6:19:15 PM

Quote :

"^I wouldn't bet on that one. "

Really?

I know you have some insight into Mormonism...why do you say that?


and what's his deal with SPLS and dirty venture capitalism (other than the fact that you prob don't like many aspects of capitalism in general)?

Don't get me wrong--I think he sucks, too...just wondered about these specifics.

1/2/2008 5:09:50 AM

Everything about Romney screams douche.

1/2/2008 9:42:17 AM

You have to consider the point Smoker4 makes ...

When running for a local office, you are making promises to do certain things, because those are the things that the majority of people in your area want.

SO ... in running to be president of the US, many of those things may be different, because the people you are REPRESENTING want different things and need different things than those in a local area may have needed or wanted.

SO, rather than saying its opportunistic, you should probably go back and look at his promises made when running for governor and compare them to his record in that state. I think that is a much better and more intelligent way to evaluate the opportunism of a candidate vs his ability to make a platform and stick with it.

Quote :

"Given this, what element of him is a constant?"

- I guess you can say that his ability to be true to his platform, his integrity - That stands in line with his religous beliefs, so I think that would be his "constant" which we can hold him to.

Gotta say, Smoker is right here. At least in voting for Romney, you could assume that he wont say one thing in the race, and then just go back and do something else because it is in line with his religion. He proved that is not the case when in Mass.

[Edited on January 2, 2008 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .]

1/2/2008 9:58:08 AM

Quote :

"Really? I know you have some insight into Mormonism...why do you say that? "

Utah Mormon politics are an extremely weird animal. there is a lot of hatred in the state for Romney

1/2/2008 2:11:56 PM

Quote :

"- I guess you can say that his ability to be true to his platform, his integrity - That stands in line with his religous beliefs, so I think that would be his "constant" which we can hold him to. Gotta say, Smoker is right here. At least in voting for Romney, you could assume that he wont say one thing in the race, and then just go back and do something else because it is in line with his religion. He proved that is not the case when in Mass."

Nothing in Romney's campaign, except his new beliefs on abortion and gay marriage could ever be construed as in line with his religious beliefs. Taxes, war, and Iraq have nothing to do with Mormonism.

1/2/2008 2:13:14 PM

Quote :

"Utah Mormon politics are an extremely weird animal. there is a lot of hatred in the state for Romney"

not according to this...

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650208389,00.html

[Edited on January 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM. Reason : m]

1/2/2008 2:46:51 PM

Right now for Utah it is the Mormon factor, but push come to shove familial linkage will turn on him. Plus, that article notes that only 55% of the Mormon population would vote for Romney. That isn't a glowing endorsement.

1/2/2008 3:04:34 PM

Quote :

"and what's his deal with SPLS and dirty venture capitalism (other than the fact that you prob don't like many aspects of capitalism in general)? Don't get me wrong--I think he sucks, too...just wondered about these specifics."

last I heard it was still in the lawsuit stage. But when Staples was created, the founder's wife was the main financier. She had a majority share and was preventing it from going public unless she got a big cut (guaranteed by her initial financing), which drove away many venture interest. She was then convinced to give Romney control over her shares and to protect her interests. Instead, he gave enough of her shares to her ex-husband thus giving them enough to go public. He basically did not stand up for Maureen Stamberg's stake in the company and ended up costing her millions of dollars.

1/2/2008 3:17:56 PM

Quote :

"^I wouldn't bet on that one."

I would. Take a look at his fundraising. Back in the 2nd quarter FEC filings he had more money from Utah than either California or New York (states with a lot more people and a lot, lot more money).

Mormons vote for a guy...simply cause he's Mormon. They should be looked at as no better than a minority group that believes because a politician is from his minority, they should be getting his vote. Back in the 1992 election, in heavily Mormon southern Idaho, Bill Clinton almost took 4th in some counties to an arch-right militant leader Bo Gritz (around 10% for both of them behind Bush and Perot). The reason? Gritz was Mormon.

1/2/2008 4:28:20 PM

Quote :

"Nothing in Romney's campaign, except his new beliefs on abortion and gay marriage could ever be construed as in line with his religious beliefs. Taxes, war, and Iraq have nothing to do with Mormonism."

-- Well of course ... but thats exactly the point. If the only thing he has ever "changed" on are now totally in line with his core religion, what makes people think that he would lie about the new platform, and when in office, go back to being pro choice and pro gay marriage?

I think hes standing on a pretty solid platform which he would stick to as president.

[Edited on January 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2008 5:42:37 PM

Quote :

"I would. Take a look at his fundraising. Back in the 2nd quarter FEC filings he had more money from Utah than either California or New York (states with a lot more people and a lot, lot more money). Mormons vote for a guy...simply cause he's Mormon. They should be looked at as no better than a minority group that believes because a politician is from his minority, they should be getting his vote. Back in the 1992 election, in heavily Mormon southern Idaho, Bill Clinton almost took 4th in some counties to an arch-right militant leader Bo Gritz (around 10% for both of them behind Bush and Perot). The reason? Gritz was Mormon."

Yes, he is getting a lot of money from Utah, but at the same time, only 55% of the mormon population say they would vote for Romney. Furthermore, You cannot take the success of Bo Gritz in Southern Idaho as a signed that Mormons are lock stock. Southern Idaho is extremely conservative, makes Ron Paul look like a socialist. Religion is not the factor here.

Mormons have brains. They don't use it, much, but they have brains. You'll see a lot of familial issues come to head for Romney in Utah, with many people holding their nose and voting for him because he is a republican (if he gets the nomination) rather than voting for him because he is a Mormon. My family is extremely Mormon, but there is not a single Romney supporter in the bunch (original Utah Mormons too boot). You have to separate the old school Utah Mormons (who are still the politically dominant force) from the new school--Mormonism above all sector.

If Harry Reid were running for President as a Democrat, he wouldn't fair well in Southern Idaho, or Utah, despite the fact that he is a Mormon.

1/3/2008 12:10:12 PM

Quote :

"-- Well of course ... but thats exactly the point. If the only thing he has ever "changed" on are now totally in line with his core religion, what makes people think that he would lie about the new platform, and when in office, go back to being pro choice and pro gay marriage? I think hes standing on a pretty solid platform which he would stick to as president."

What is a better gauge for how someone will act? Prior actions or religion? Mitt Romney will do whatever it takes to be elected and his prior actions have shown that. Do not take Romney's religious beliefs as the end all in this election. If anything, the Romney family has shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of panderers. Everyone seems to think that Romney was the savior of the SLC Olympics. He wasn't. The money was already there, but people weren't willing to follow through because the LDS Church had too much control in many people's minds. I forgot the other person who was going to take control (Hunt or something like that), but he ended up with some sort of financial scandal at his firm. Romney then came in and made himself seem like the savior, but he wasn't. He also wasn't the savior of Massachusetts. There is a reason why he didn't run for re-election.

Let's also not forget that his son is a total piece of shit..


[Edited on January 3, 2008 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2008 12:27:27 PM

Quote :

"Let's also not forget that his son is a total piece of shit.. "

Definitely, especially since his sons status in the fecal world is such common knowledge

1/3/2008 3:01:31 PM

Quote :

"Yes, he is getting a lot of money from Utah, but at the same time, only 55% of the mormon population say they would vote for Romney. Furthermore, You cannot take the success of Bo Gritz in Southern Idaho as a signed that Mormons are lock stock. Southern Idaho is extremely conservative, makes Ron Paul look like a socialist. Religion is not the factor here. "

55% in the general or 55% in the primary? If it's the latter, that's +25 from the rest of the country.

I will agree with you they're not as much as lock stock as say blacks are, but it is still a huge component. There's a clearly evident positive correlation.

And for the county in question with Gritz, it was Franklin County, Idaho. I'll take about this a minute cause third-party oddities interest me. Clinton took 12.9% (his 3rd-worst county nationally) and Gritz took 12.4% (his best county nationally). His top two states were Utah, 3.8%, and Idaho, 2.1%. He got 1% in Louisiana and all other states he was running in was less than that. He received 106,000 votes nationally (0.1%). His top 5 counties:

Franklin, Idaho 12.4%
Duchesne, Utah 11.8%
Oneida, Idaho 11.3%
Washington, Utah 9.5%
Millard, Utah 8.7%

1/3/2008 3:38:15 PM

55% in the primary, at least according to a poll published by the church's own publication (Deseret News).

Now lets examine these counties you referenced, especially Millard and Washington. Millard County, is home to the old territorial capitol of Utah (Fillmore) and was once in the epicenter of Mormonism. Both Millard and Washington Counties were are are still hot beds of Traditional Mormonism. Both are large and sparsely populated counties.

But the Mormon equation is removed. In those counties you will find high numbers of individuals who label themselves as "Jack Mormons" They are nominally members of the Church and consume alcohol among other things.

I am willing to be if you look at similar candidates who ran for the Presidency in those counties you'll find almost identical numbers.

1/4/2008 2:00:05 PM

man i dont get why all the fucking conservative media wants this mormon(well i do, its cause his stance on the economy)....i bet rush wants this guy, hannity wants this guy...i bet that glen beck fag wants him too...i cant stand it...they all hate huck and want the mormon...

1/7/2008 12:37:05 AM