Union-Leader anti-endorsement: Mitt’s a phony; Update: Romney camp responds
posted at 11:56 am on December 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
That’s twice in a week that a major New Hampshire paper has torpedoed him on the op-ed page. Does he come off this badly in person or, as a sort of flip side to David Shuster’s puffing for Huckabee, is the media trying to sink him because they think he’d be tough to beat in the general? If the latter then the U-L’s logic is nuanced indeed: Their preferred candidate is Maverick, who does better than Mitt against the Democrats across the board.
Romney has all the advantages: money, organization, geographic proximity, statesman-like hair, etc.
But he lacks something John McCain has in spades: conviction.
Granite Staters want a candidate who will look them in the eye and tell them the truth. John McCain has done that day in and day out, never wavering, never faltering, never pandering.
Mitt Romney has not. He has spoken his lines well, but the people can sense that the words are memorized, not heartfelt…
In this primary, the more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes. That is why Granite Staters who have listened attentively are now returning to John McCain. They might not agree with McCain on everything, as we don’t, but like us, they judge him to be a man of integrity and conviction, a man who won’t sell them out, who won’t break his promises, and who won’t lie to get elected.
You could say the same of Fred, who has the advantage of not including amnesty among his core convictions, and he’s polling somewhere slightly north of zero in NH. In any case, I’ve soured on Mitt a bit lately too, not because he sounds less believable the more I hear him speak (the MLK-march fiasco notwithstanding) but because I suddenly find myself obliged to root for him as the white knight who can slay the Huckadragon even though I’m not particularly enthused about him otherwise. It reminds me of Kerry and Dean in 2004 — a mainstream pol with a history of squishiness whom no one’s excited about but who stands a chance of winning derails the exciting upstart who’d be eaten alive in the general, and then spends the rest of the campaign underwhelming both sides on his way to a narrow defeat by the hated figurehead from the other party. I’m not looking forward to nine months of “well, he beats the alternative” posts next year, but then we’re pretty much guaranteed that no matter who wins the nomination.
Exit question for the U-L: Well, he beats the alternative, doesn’t he?
Update: Barnett makes a similar point using Buchanan and Dole instead of Dean and Kerry and ventures a fearless prediction about Huckabee in Iowa.
Update: Team Mitt answers the Union-Leader:
“Governor Romney is running for President as the ‘full-spectrum conservative’ in this race, as described by the editors of National Review, a widely respected conservative publication, in their published endorsement of him.
“Governor Romney has built a coalition of grassroots conservative support in. New Hampshire and across the country as a result of his advocacy for economic, social and national security policies that champion conservative Republican ideals.
“We, of course, respect the Union-Leader’s right to voice their opinion, but the differences between Governor Romney and Senator McCain are clear. We disagree with Senator McCain’s joining Democrats to vote against Republican plans for tax relief, his pro-amnesty immigration proposal with Senator Kennedy and his McCain-Feingold legislation which hurt conservative advocacy efforts.”
-Kevin Madden, Romney for President campaign spokesman
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: « 1 [2]
Not man enough to admit you were completely wrong I see.
TheBigOldDog on December 27, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Still ugly around here, I see. I’m suddenly missing the old atheists versus Christian brawls. They were more fun.
Sigh.
If there is anything that concerns me most about Romney - other than the flip-flopping dishonesty that now seems to be his calling card - its his ability to stir up dissension in the ranks. Ugliness seems to follow in his wake.
I hope the eventual nominee is the one best able to avoid that particular problem.
Then again … they all seem to have that talent these days, don’t they? It wasn’t that long ago that people were bickering over Giuliani’s gay rights and abortions stances or McCain’s immigration ideas.
Could the Fred-heads have been right all along? That unlikely candidate seems most able to unify the party, at least among those actually in the race and actually polling above single digits.
Those that would please all of us don’t get traction. How strange. So now we bicker over the ones we really don’t want anyway. We’re arguing over our second and third choices. Is there anybody here who, if they could pick any candidate, would pick Romney or McCain or Huckabee - if they could have Tancredo or Hunter or Gingrich or Petreaus?
We’re fighting over third-stringers. That kinda sucks. I’ll say one thing for the Fred-heads: at least they sincerely like their guy.
For whatever its worth, I’m firmly in the other camp. I may sit out the primaries - unless Newt hops in or Hunter or Tancredo start doing well. Besides, in my home state, Fred’s probably got a lock without my help.
But in the general, I’ll be voting happily for whoever has an ‘R’ by their name. Even McCain or Romney. Even Huckabee. Anybody but Paul.
There might be some benefit to a Hillary presidency. It might just end liberalism.
But I’d rather not take the chance.
I personally don’t think any of our nominees (except Paul, of course) are all that bad. I think any of them would be fine Presidents. Some perhaps average, some perhaps great. Maybe they don’t agree with me on some issues, but they’re decent men. Good leaders. A couple have real potential.
I’m still looking forward to voting. No matter how bitter it gets around here.
Professor Blather on December 27, 2007 at 11:01 AM
And yes I realize Tanc has already tanked. Allow me to dream.
Professor Blather on December 27, 2007 at 11:13 AM
It was in that Glenn Beck immigration clip a few weeks ago. Romney made 100 promises as Governor and he made a list of them then went through each one in the middle to see how he was doing. He accomplished all of them.
BKennedy on December 27, 2007 at 11:21 AM
If Fred could convince me that he has learned from the error of his past associations, I’d completely agree with you. His rhetoric is, for the most part, right on. BUT his behavior is very problematic.
For me, it’s Rudy, Mitt, and McCain. I THINK I’d prefer Hunter, but I just don’t know enough about him to make an informed decision.
csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I’ll tell you what, Romney sure as heck stepped up like a leader to the news folks with his statements.
I haven’t followed him much but was impressed this a.m.
I guess Hillary is waiting on everyone else to weigh in, or she’s in hiding.
johnnyU on December 27, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Got a link to that? I’d like to see that. In print hopefully rather than video, so I can see what the 100 things were.
Professor Blather on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 PM
This is correct. He was accused at the time by the Boston media of usurping authority that wasn’t his just so he could take credit for fixing it!!! Now posters that are anti-Romney are going to blame him for the failure that occurred before he took it over himself? Hello, this is the internet and some of us happen to be from MA and know you are full of
Resolute on December 27, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Are you saying that he promised to raise taxes? Support abortion?
Or are you saying that he picked and chose 100 promises that would with such a low standard that any liberal would have met them?
Like I said, explain.
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 8:27 PM
After your hero left office, they pursued the charges…unfortunately this was the outcome…and Bechtel never received even a $1,000 fine.
Do you really want to pursue this? You are proud of a $1,000 fine against a sub-contractor, but the main contractor was never held responsible or even admonished by Mitt? Man, you have low standards for your leader….$1,000 fine agains $15 billion project lets see that comes out to be….–.0000067%, yeah that will do it Mitt.
And you are saying that Mitt did not have the authority to push around the “transit authority”, so he just let them run up a $15 billion? And you call that leadership? Any governor who cannot influence an agency in his state isn’t much of a leader, wouldn’t you say?
And after the death, he assumed control…within 72 hours. Looks like he could have, but didn’t. Too bad he didn’t step up before the death. But then, better to sit back and let a bad idea get worse before stepping in.
Leaders can either be pro-active or re-active. Re-active is the safest, you just apply Monday morning quarterbacking, find a few scapegoats, and let you favored supporters off the hook.
Pro-active is a lot tougher, takes a mature leader, a confident leader…and Mitt showed neither in Mass.
Take your own advice.
Now, look up and see who had the final say (as I stated before) on the use of the epoxy anchor and materials that resulted in the death of the woman…I will save you the time, it was Bechtel, a long time friend and supporter of Mitt.
I did my homework, apparently you didn’t…
And thank God Mitt is out of office so they can pursue everyone involved without his “conflict of interests” getting in the way.
The more I read about this, the more despicable of a man he becomes…but then his supporters will support him no matter what facts are presented.
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Dude, not only don’t you know what you are talking about, you don’t even know how the Government of the State of Massachusetts is set up and works.
TheBigOldDog on December 27, 2007 at 9:12 PM
And, you don’t know a GD thing about the Big Dig and Mitt’s role (which was non existent BY LAW).
TheBigOldDog on December 27, 2007 at 9:18 PM
So you don’t think Mitt is in bed with Bechtel…how much more proof do you guys need? Take you fingers out of your ears, quit yelling lalalalalalala, and you will be able to hear the truth.
So what part of my expose was wrong. Instead of saying “dude”, do a little homework and tell me where I am wrong. Like I said, take some of your own advice.
Now, the criminal charges are ongoing (by a Dem. AG no less), and more convictions may come…but not on Mitts watch.
So now explain to us how the “Government of the State of Massachusetts is set up and works”.
Are you sure, being a Mitt supporter, you want to pursue this?
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 9:20 PM
If you did your homework, you would have read all of the messy details…Mitt lied, a woman died.
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Oh look what a little homework found, Mitt didn’t have responsiblity…because he dodged it, he was afforded the opportunity, but never pursued it. That would have taken leadership.
Just a little civic help to you Big Old Dog on how Mass gov. works.
Now how about an apology from you, looks like Mitt could have had control, but was afraid to take it.
Like I said, if you are a Mitt supporter, best leave this part of his life alone…it gets worse.
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 9:35 PM
In bed with Bechtel? Are you kidding me or what? The Big Dig was started in 1987! It spanned 3 administrations and was placed beyond the control of the Governor. When Romney came into office the Bid Dig was finished! FINISHED! Hello? Anybody home? Anybody listening? It was DONE! It was placed under the control of the MTA - a INDEPENDENT AGENCY beyond the control of the Governor. The AG is an INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED OFFICIAL in the State of Massachusetts and they have all been DEMOCRATS for like the last 30 years.
TheBigOldDog on December 27, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Do your homework on Bechtel. You are saying the Big Dig was finished when Mitt came into office? Look at my links. You are providing no links to support your claims.
Look at the subject concerning his authority and his refusal to accept that authority.
Bechtel greased the palms of Swift, Weld, O’Neil, Romney, Reilly, all of them for years.
Let me just say this, if you don’t think Mitt has been supported by Bechtel for years, if you think Mitt had nothing to do with the Big Dig, if you think the MTA was an independent agency with no responsibility to anyone but themselves, if you think the Big Dig was finished prior to 2003 (when Mitt took office), then you have not done your homework. (why do I waste my time?)
Looks like you weren’t home when this bit of information was delivered.
Here is a few more statement for you (to help you understand about Bechtel). I think that makes about 6 to your 0.
Part one
Part three
Part threeBechtel contributions
Now some homework for you… after reading these, look at contributions to Romney for Senate, Governor, President, and oh yeah, look at the major donors for the Olympics. Do you see a name starting with “B” and ending with “tel” in all of those lists? You do? Then you are now convinced that Mitt is in bed with Bechtel.
See how easy that was…all you had to do is do a little homework.
But, you don’t care, you love Mitt, and he can do no wrong…you will find an excuse…why do I wast my time?
Please, don’t ask me to do your homework again.
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 10:21 PM
My favorite line written by you was the above.
Ummmm, didn’t Mitt take office in 2003? OOOOPS, who doesn’t know a GD thing?
Just to make sure you see what a fool you made of yourself. That’s what you get when you don’t do homework.
Nite Nite…
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 10:28 PM
That was the end of the Big Dig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig_%28Boston%2C_Massachusetts%29
TheBigOldDog on December 27, 2007 at 10:38 PM
You obviously don’t live in MA and seem to have no grasp of what the project actually entailed. It was huge and was announced as “finished” many times as different pieces of the project opened to the public. Some pieces had further contruction and upgrades after they were “finished”. The piece in question was totally finished and open to the public - hence how an average citizen was killed inside.
News stories exist about Romney both not taking control of the situation soon enough and that he overstepped his authority in taking control at all. Yes these are contradictory. Boston news sources complained about both at the same time! for the 9000th time the Boston media was against Romney his entire administration. He was an evil Republican who was ruining the liberal utopia! What is so hard to understand about this? For conservatives to buy thier editorializing is flabergasting.
Resolute on December 27, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Wiki, I don’t quote, if I used them then you would have yelped at using such an unreliable and bias newsource. If you think it was done, that Bechtel packed up and left town, fine…most other (Boston Globe) thinks differently, as the Mass. accountants.
Wiki was wrong.
right2bright on December 28, 2007 at 7:38 AM
Great, so if you don’t live in the state you can’t comment. We were talking about Mitt’s lack of control, his relationship with Bechtel.
Answer this, if it was finished, why did Mitt ask for an emergency session and take control of the project 72 hours after the death…if it was finished why take control of a finished project. Was he stupid, or did you guys make a mistake?
Obviously living in MA doesn’t give you any real analytical ability.
Sheeesh, that was just too easy.
Now answer this: Do you think Mitt had a long term financial and political relationship with Bechtel? Let’s see how your analytical skill have sharpened.
right2bright on December 28, 2007 at 7:44 AM
Because the head of the MTA, the person who “owned” the tunnel, the person Mitt tried to have removed for years, had a press conference less than 24 hours after the collpase and declared the tunnels “safe” before he even knew what happened or why. The public saw how completely incompetent (and dangerous) Matt Amorello really was. That gave Mitt the clout to declare a State of Emergency and take control over the investigation and repairs while he was in court trying to fire Matt.
In short, the MTA is an independent State Agency that “owns” the Mass Turnpike (the major East/West highway and a toll road). They were supposed to go away once the Pike was paid for. Instead the Dems looked for ways to keep it alive because it became a great place to employee friends and relatives. So, as a way to make sure the MTA never dies, they gave it ownership of the Big Dig.
Mitt had nothing to do with awarding the Big Dig (which dates back to the mid 80s). He had nothing to do with the construction of the Big Dig (which, for all intents and purposes was done before he came into office) and he had no oversight of the Big Dig (It was “owned” by an Independent State Agency. The Democrats who controlled 99% of the State would never allow it.
TheBigOldDog on December 28, 2007 at 8:24 AM
Okay, we have one thing out of the way, the Big Dig was not complete when Mitt took office, it was not properly built, and still needed to be completed.
So admit you were wrong on this one issue.
Now on to Mitt and Bechtel, Bechtel had almost every politician in their pocket, Dem and Republican. I never said anything about awarding, that is you trying to cloud the issue. What I said was Mitts relationship, that goes into his senate bid, gov. bid, pres. bid and the Olympic.
You state he was not in bed with Bechtel. Are you telling me he has not had a multi-decade relationship with Bechtel? Stick to your accusations, don’t add new ones.
Did you read my links to Bechtels long arm of political pay-offs?
So you were wrong on the Mitt taking office with the Big Dig finished.
You were wrong trying to cover up Bechtels relationship with Mitt (just look at Mitt’s campaign donors in every election he has run in)
Mitt could have, by gov. mandate, taken control of the project (like Swift before him could have but did not), so you were wrong on that.
So what are you left with?
He relinquished oversight, because he was not a leader.
Man you guys are stubborn, even when presented with facts from an agency you defend:
Project Schedule
Notice the official website still had the Big Dig into 2007. That is official. Live with it, that is why your statement of “do your homework” came back and bit you in the butt.
right2bright on December 28, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Answer me this
Was McCain telling the truth when he said Americans would never pick lettuce not even for $50 an hour?
If McCain believed it to be true, then I accept that he is not a liar, that he is a man of his words and thinks Americans are lazy dumb-axes.
Guess the Granite Heads like a candidate with the courage to tell them they are replaceable
entagor on December 28, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Stubborn? You’re the stubborn one. We live here. We’ve dealt with this mess for over 15 years. We are telling you the way it is and you aren’t listening. This was the largest engineering project in the HISTORY of the United States and it was DONE by the time the guy took office. When he took office he had NO OVERSIGHT or CONTROL role because there was NO WAY the 99% Democratic Government was going to let him have any legal role.
Some obscure inspection right that was ceded over to the MTA when the ownership was transfered to them under the prior Admin is totally meaningless. The only reason it was dug up was because there were court battles going on where Mitt was trying to gain any control over the FINISHED road after a woman was killed. Then, all of a sudden, after 15 years of ownership of the Big Dig, the RATS were trying to pawn off responsibility by feeding the media with anything they could make up to shift blame for the historic boondoggle…
Your Official project end date is GARBAGE because the project had many components and phases. The phase in question was COMPLETE and had been open to the public for years and transfered to and INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY when the collapse occurred.
Again, you have NO IDEA what you’re talking about. Zero. Talk to anybody who lives here, Republican or Democrat, and they’ll tell you the same thing. The project was finished and open to the Public by the time Mitt took office. Mitt had no legal control over the Bid Dig. Mitt had to go to court to even fire the head of the MTA.
TheBigOldDog on December 28, 2007 at 3:03 PM
I’m not saying that. I’m pointing out you are piecing together what happened and forming talking points based on media reports but seem to have no actual grasp of what goes on in this state. Everything TheBigOldDog has said on the subject seems correct.
Your assertions that the tunnel in question was not finished and Romney was somehow incharge of the construction project is laughable. Ask yourself how a citizen was killed commuting through the closed tunnel you say was not finished? This was not a construction accident. She was killed literally just driving her car down the public roadway!!!!
Resolute on December 28, 2007 at 6:36 PM
You know, I quote official sources, I show you where there was an official court supported decision for the Gov (both, and both refused) to take over the project, and you say I have zero knowledge. Then the official websites, the Gov. office, the Accounting office, the court systems, the MTA, all have zero knowledge, …because those are my sources. And you say you know better, what position do you hold in MA? You probably work in some office, and you like Mitt’s hair so he can do no wrong…well he was wrong on wrapping this up. And you are proud of the $1,000 fine…great.
Relolute, how can someone take over “finished”, and then claim victory over finishing it. Once again, look at the official MTA website I listed and look at the timetable. And to say an unfinished project, not constructed properly, was not the cause?
Phases were done, but the project was still being built, what don’t you guys get? I gave you the official site, you gave me….
You have your Mitt blinders on, look at the official (not your heart).
You guys never answered: Does Mitt have a long and close personal and business relationship with Bechtel?
That is the crux, don’t cloud the issue, I said at the beginning that Bechtel was never held responsible by Mitt because of his close relationship. That is obscene.
*
One other thing, you keep stating 99% Dem., wouldn’t a great leader sway the public? Reagan did, took over a Dem congress and when he left it was Repub. Great leaders have followers, you are saying after Mitt’s tenure, he had only 1% followers? Doesn’t that speak to what the MA people really thought of Mitt? I’m glad you and others love Mitt, but 99% of his congregation did not.
*
So now two things, concentrate don’t confuse…Bechtel relationship, and Mitt’s lack of leadership. Both confirmed Bechtel by omission, and leadership by commission.
right2bright on December 29, 2007 at 9:39 AM
I’m sorry but I think your post is just obfuscation at this point. The crux of the matter is that above you claimed it was a Romney failure in overseeing the project that led to a womans death. Yet the woman was killed in a tunnel that was complete, open to the public, not undergoing construction, and not directly under Romney’s authority. He had to go to court to get authority to takeover fixing the tunnel. He was hammered at the time for overstepping his authority and using this as a political move to make himself look like the guy who fixed it - and now people are going to blame him for not doing more? totally unbelievable
It was the same thing in another thread with Hollowpoint about gay marriage. You guys are faulting Romney for not becoming a vigilante and taking over MA as dictor in order to override the 99% liberal state burecracy. It is absurd. I’m not to familiar with the Tavares case but it seems like probably the same thing. Why can’t Mitt’s detractors find any actual things he did that he was in control of that went wrong? I don’t see how failures by career burecrats when he was govenor are a knock on Mitt. It does help to actually be from MA because then you would know all those burecrats at the turnpike authority are relatives of the Democratic legislature (yes really)
Resolute on December 29, 2007 at 12:28 PM
I see your point (although saying “obfuscation” is rather odd).
You jumped in and you apparently have not read or followed any links. I had two points, one is that Mitt had an opportunity to pro-act rather than react, he reacted, not a good sign for a leader.
The second is that he gave favors to his long time friend and supporter Bechtel.
Neither one you or anyone else had addressed, yet they were my two main points.
He did have control…if he wanted it, I stated the law that was passed that gave him the authority, if he had wanted it, he did not show leadership. These are the things you have to look at to find a great leader. Not the easy things, but the difficult decisions. This was a difficult problem, not brought on by him, but not helped. He allowed the status quo to continue, and eventually a death was caused…not by action, but by in-action.
And you brought up the 99% again, why can’t a leader bring people along. A good leader (let alone a great leader) doesn’t just rely on himself, but others. He did not show leadership in changing the course of the state. The people obviously were not that impressed with his abilities (you can’t run around saying all liberals are stupid). Reagan faced the same challenges in congress, and he lead the congress to a more conservative view and stance…Mitt is no leader…he leads where it is easy, and folds up his tent when it gets tough…he is born, taught, bred and lives to be a bureaucrat, not a leader.
But hey, he has Bechtel and his other buddies to bail him out.
right2bright on December 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Here you have a govenor who used every concievable method to fight the inertia of liberal burecracy and you complain he didn’t do enough. Vetos, court fights, referundums, apealling directly to the public himself on TV or radio. To me it is totally maddening to have non-MA concervatives try to tell me Romney
Your research of details about Romney should have done X or Y doesnt matter. You are missing the larger point. He was a roadblock or speedbumb to the liberal inertia and nothing more. What some out of state concervatives don’t get is that, with all due respect, you out of your mind if you expected anything more. How hard he fought should be a postive mark on his credentials. Instead he gets blasted for what liberal career burecrats and politicians did that he fought against.
It is almost nonsensical to apply this to Romney. Here I am telling you he fought tooth and nail and your conclusion is that well obviouly he gives up easily? You just arent getting it.
Resolute on December 31, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]