Concord Monitor Endorses "Anybody but Mitt"
Probably the most rip-roaring anti-endorsement in American History. Kids, we'll be talking about this one for years to come.... (h/t Qwerty)
If you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You'd add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You'd pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.
Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped. Read more...
Glenn Greenwald has more on Romney: "Mitt Romney's pursuit of tyrannical power, literally"
Mitt's a rich man. The kind that can afford to lose money to make money. He loves the smell of a bubble bursting in the morning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/23house.html?_r=2&oref=slogin...
This man must be stopped??? HELL....the whole republican machine must be stopped....they've already sabotaged the Constitution and Bill Of Rights...............just think if we get another repug in office what it will be like...........beyond scary.
It's all about "IMAGE" in this country.
Not substance
Even the Concord Monitor knows this man is the devil at the crossroads. Mitt has what Bush has lacked - the ambition, the hard-hitting, driven ambition to be president. I think he would literally tear his mother's throat out with his bare teeth, live, onstage, if it would give him publicity.
I think it's funny that these assholes are described as having "successful business" careers when they started on 3rd base. I mean, come on, a successful business career is one that is started from the ground up, with the sweat of your own brow, not the interest off the family trust fund or your old man's connections.
I wonder how far these douchebags would get if they didn't start on 3rd? They would probably strikeout with the bat on their shoulders.
mudshark @ 2:
And Habeus Corpus.
You are so right, mudshark..........beyond scary.
It really makes you wonder why and who Romney is running for. I sincerely believe this man is evil and has some sort of evil agenda. I wouldn't have a problem if he changed his stance on one or two issues but name an issue and he has changed from moderate/liberal to far right. If someone could dig deep enough I'm sure they'd find pockets lined with money from others. This opinion piece is dead on. Anyone who would vote for Romney is a complete fool, tool, or the ones lining his pockets. A person just does not changed his views as quick and as much as Romney has. If he was a Democrat all we'd be hearing for the next year is FLIP FLOP. I hate that effing phrase.
I don’t think Mit gets the nomination; I agree with what Rachel Maddow that he’s finished for the stupid MLK blunder and the lame follow up excuse. Even without that gaffe he still had a very slim shot. I’m never surprised by the rightwing greedy Christian coalition. I think they defiantly would like to co-opt that Mormon vision of getting a whole planet to yourself after you die.
Mitt has all the ingredients for the GOP success story but one great big obstacle: republicans are basically bigots and he is a mormon. He needed to change faiths like he changed all his ideas and the GOP would have eaten that shit up with a spoon. Christian bigots love the stories about the redeemed.
Exactly, it seems that Mit is the last person you have to worry about, with enough pressure he would change is tune in a second!
All one needs to consider when thinking about the sensibilities of this man is how indifferent he was (and still IS) to the plight of his family dog as she shat herself on the roof of his station wagon going 70 mph. If common decency doesn't prevail under these circumstances, then why, pray tell, should we think he cares about his fellow Americans to whom he has no affection whatsoever?
He's an empty suit.
But the suit is very dangerous.
As if this news weren't depressing enough for Mitt right on the brink of Christmas, his family doctor personally called him this evening, Christmas eve, to inform him that all his wives had tested positive for gonorrhea.
...aahhh, he's a cheeseface !
The more he's seen, the less electable he is...No chance at a brokered RNC Convention...wait & see...ya' heard it here first...McCain as a "brokered" candidate.
Think Progress has an interesting thread on Romney and his family...... http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/24/romney-family-immigration/#comments seems his family kinda crossed the border....ummmmm.....illegally....
With the exception of Ron Paul, the Republican candidates are all packaged products. The pitch is the same for each of them. They promise to serve Jesus instead of the constitution, lower taxes on capital, screw the poor, wage holy war and pay for it all on faith and credit.
This guy lies like a rug. I watched an edition of Hardball, with a Romney spokeswhore as the guest. He was peddling like mad to try and spin Mitt's lies into simple misunderstandings, but no one with a brain is buying it.
You know, I was raised Mormon (I am not a practicing one anymore) and I can tell you that they like LIARS only slightly more than they like murderers.
The latest MLK lie is consistent with Mormon culture. It doesn’t matter what the facts are, as long as you sincerely believe something is true. Mitt Romney is taking a page right from one of the 3 “Witnesses” to the Book of Mormon.
For details check out
romneyforpresident.townhall.com
Romney would like you to separate Mitt from Mormonism, but you can't remove the Mormonism from Mitt.
(Funny photos too!)
This editorial could backfire.
If the New Hampshire Mormon community gets pissed, and turns out en masse in support of Romney, he'll pick up a solid three votes.
the non endorsement couldn't have happened to a nicer Michael Vickist dog care expert
The main reason that Mitt Romney is running for president is to bring mainstream respectability to the LDS church. I lived as a gentile behind the "Zion Curtain" for nearly eight years, and I had many friends who were Mormons, all the way from fairly devout folks to jack mormons who drank beer, smoked cigarettes, and swore like sailors on Saturday night. In sum, no better or worse than any other American demographic.
However, the church as an institution is nothing more than a huge business that exists--in my opinion--to aggrandize itself through politics and finance. It demands tithing from its members under the threat of suspending their temple recommend cards and reducing their status in communities that are 80 to 90 percent LDS, it owns huge ranches in just about every western state, and what I saw living in Utah made me hate crass consumerism and the attitude that "you are what you drive and the house you live in" more than any other place I've been in America.
The same contrasts can be made about BARACK OBAMA - also the idiot Huckabee and gal pal Hillary come to mind.
Mitt's as credible as Joseph Smith.
... I don't disagree with the editorial; I just think their priorities are
not quite right.
By the standard they describe in their own editorial, Giulliani is even
worse. He's caused more harm, backtracked on more stands, displays more
ethical and moral shortcomings. Then there's Huckabee who lets a rapist
out of jail because his victim was a Clinton relative, and pulls strings
for family members who kill dogs for fun.
All in all, I'd say the Concord Editor-in-Chief showed himself to be a
bigger hypocrite than the man he denounced -- and that's saying something.
--
It strikes me as odd, that the GOP has not annointed a political successor
this campaign year. As the party of carl rove, Club for Growth, the
Heritage Foundation, Fox News, ideology-driven policy initiatives,
establishment secret agendas and political dynasties, this sad crop of GOP
hopefuls just doesn't make sense. Their silly plays to the Christian base
don't even make sense to the Fundies among them. They are ignoring their
Libertarian flank; a huge political mistake.
.. and this year; none of the three leading GOP figures has any foreign
policy experience, which is beyond fishey to me. How in the world could a
tightly-wrapped political party like the GOP possibly NOT run a foreign
policy expert as a major candidate for President?
If any of these men won; what would the Republicans do as a party?
---
Not that I like the Democrats much better. As a group, their candidates
are certainly more experienced, more accomplished, and have spoken on
issues we care about more than the GOP clowns in the center ring have.
Still; none of them represent the energized activist voter base. None of
their "solutions" come close to addressing the center interests of their
most likely voters -- especially on Health Care and Iraq; the two most
important issues so far. Nobody asked any of them to run.
One leader is a woman; another is a black, and out of politeness, we
aren't supposed to talk about the political handicaps either would bring
to a campaign. NEITHER person has taken a strong leadership-driven stand
on an important issue in the last six years.
It's almost as if the Democratic Leadership Council had met two years ago
and proposed that they put on a political show for the masses, the way the
GOP usually does -- and then misunderstood the kind of political
entertainment that would amuse their 'masses.'
Up here in the stands looking down on this sad political circus, I notice
that we have two pretty dumb acts going on. But there's a third ring. It's
empty today, but I hear an act warming up offstage -- fresh from Nebraska
or New York City? Maybe the show isn't over yet.
scribbler
My question: How did this slick, imperious huckster ever get elected in supposedly liberal Massachusetts?
Never understood that one.
All the lying (oh, I mean "flip-flopping") that bothers the Monitor is consistent with Mormon culture. It doesn’t matter what the facts are, as long as you sincerely believe something is true. For example, when Mitt Romney said he saw his dad march with MLK, he is taking a page right from one of the 3 “Witnesses” to the Book of Mormon. This is how the Mormon church can so easily flip-flop on its "everlasting" positions too.
For details check out
romneyforpresident.townhall.com
Romney would like you to remove Mitt from Mormonism. But you can't remove the Mormonism from Mitt.
(Funny photos too!)
Wouldn't surprise me if he'd toss the Mormons under the bus if he somehow makes a strong showing in early primaries.
No glove, no love.
No Mitt? No s*^t...
The question is why is such an editorial directed at someone as
lame-brained as Romney and not Bush?
Romney's only mistake is that he hasn't learned to operate under the same cloak of darkness
that Bush and Cheney operate under.
The editorial boards across the country should be shouting the same thing about Bush.
And why haven't they?
Romney and Bush are much alike. Both are products of the same constricted generation cloister of wealth and privilege. Aside from occasional flashes of anger, the only genuine unscripted emotional reaction I have ever seen from Bush was his reference to his base being the "haves and the have mores" at his first inauguration ball. Romney is a totally scripted empty suit. When addressing issues of war and peace important to ordinary people, neither of them can even fake empathy.
D.G. Bowman @ 24:
That's an interesting story. First of all, he was the last in a fairly long line of Republican governors, going back to Bill Weld, who was elected in 1990 against the absolutely horrible Democratic candidate John Silber, the former president of Boston University. Weld was a nasty union buster, but he was also quite a laissez-faire civil libertarian. Silber was both an ass and a bigot, and I'm sure he dispirited a lot of Democratic voters. I wrote in "None of the above" in that election -- not that such votes count, of course.
Weld was reelected in 1994, but resigned because he thought that President Clinton was going to make him ambassador to Mexico. Jesse Helms blocked the appointment and Weld moved to New York to write mystery novels. Weld's lieutenant governor, Paul Celucci took over, and he was reelected in 1998, but resigned in 2001 to become Bush's ambassador to Canada, and was replaced by Jane Swift. Swift was pretty bad at the job, but will be remembered as the Bay State's first female governor, and the nation's first governor to give birth while in office.
Her record was on of general inactivity, and apart from the female/motherhood thing, her place in history will include a whole lot of helicopter trips to her home in the northwest corner of the state, a class she was paid to teach and didn't show up for, and... Mitt Romney.
Romney, after saving the SLC winter olympics, was being wooed by everyone to the right of center, and all it took was for him to say he'd run. The state GOP actually told Swift not to run for reelection and she tearfully threw her support to Mitt.
Once he had the nomination, he went into his pander to the liberals mode, just as he had when he ran against Ted Kennedy, and won by about 100,000 votes.
The tale of the Curse of the Romney's
Aug. 31, 1967 George Romney's statement that ended his run for President:
"When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get".
Dec. 20, 2007 Mitt Romney's statement that ended his run for President:
" During the Civil Rights Movement I watched my Father march with Martin Luther King Jr."
AND THE CURSE CONTINUES TO PASS ON TO THE NEXT ROMNEY GENERATION
qwerty @ 28:
Excellent summation, qwerty! I lived in Massachusetts from 1979 to 2006. Though I'm as progressive as they get, I voted for Weld over Silber, that's how bad Silber was. Romney ran for gov in Massachusetts because he was not far-right enough in Utah. It was nothing but a career move. Although Mass. has an ultraliberal reputation, it's helpful to remember that, like any other state, that's less the case when you get more than ten miles from any university town. But Mass. is a small state with a lot of university towns, while very red states tend to be the opposite. (And why are colleges such lefty hotbeds? Because people go there to learn, and learning liberalizes most people. The truth has a very liberal bias, as they say.)
After a string of Republican boobs in the Governor's office, screwing up a well-run state with their corruption and 'running things like a business,' the Bay State's Repub voters got disgusted enough to stay home on election day, leaving the liberal voters free to choose Deval Patrick. Now he and perhaps a few more liberal successors will repair the damage so that some future Repub rogues' gallery can repeat the vandalism. And so it goes.
Romney's an utter twat, but I fear his chances of winning the presidency are good for these reasons:
1.) Romney is the choice of the big business republicans and also the Bush family itself.
2.) He's got more money than God and will wage a very nasty campaign against any opponent.
3.) If the nomination on the Dem side comes down to Hillary or Obama, neither will win because America is just bigotted and chauvinistic enough not to elect a black man or a woman. (Also, something about Hillary just enrages the redneck states and they'll even dig up dead relatives to vote against her if they have to.)
4.) The average American is just too damned stupid not to see through this phoney prick! If you don't think so, then ask yourselves how the current moron we've got in the White House actually won a second term.
HELLS BELLS with Pat Robertson right wing christians
I WANNA CONVERT THEM MUSLIMS TO
MORMINIZM............
Hats off to the editor of that fine publication.
Mitt Romney is in good company. The Concord Monitor attacked Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the same way in editorials dated 2/21/80, the Monitor wrote, "Ronald Reagan - The former California governor is simply too old (69), too doctrinaire, too inexperienced in the intricacies of the federal government. We gravely question his capability to withstand the daily physical and emotional battering that the nation's chief executive must endure." Also, "Though personable, [Reagan] is on the side-lines of contemporary American thought, and he could not win a national election if he won the GOP nomination." Read more here: http://www.mittreport.com/romneys_in_good.html.
Comments are closed on this entry