The Concord Monitor , in a rambling, scathing editorial written by "monitor staff", suggests that Mitt Romney is basically a "fake" and should not be President. The ranting critique of Romney seemed odd to me coming as it does from a liberal paper that one would think would be at least mildly supportive of Romney's history of mild Republicanism rather than the more right wing forms it claims (correctly) he's catering to as the campaign heats up. Almost bizarre is the Monitor's description of what they see as a litany of Romney defeciencies:
... 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 ...
So let me get this straight Monitor staff: Republicans need a scrawny bald guy with bad posture in an ill-fitting light colored suit. He should speak poorly, have an ugly wife, and ugly children. He should have failed in business and have huge amounts of government experience, and favor more spending and higher taxes.
Huh?
Frankly, I think the editorial is more conspicuous than Romney's newfound conservatism, it reads more like a paper trying to derail the person who is arguably most likely to win the general election than as a real statement of the paper's sensibilities. Failing to disclose their likely preference for the Democratic nominee smells wrong to me given how critical they seem to be of Romney's "past liberalism"
C'mon Concord Monitor - Romney's conservative focus is like Hilary's hawkish sensibilities or Edwards populist ones. These are simply good campaign strategy - play your weaknesses as strengths and draw in people near the middle. Most of these candidates (Obama as possible exception), have legislative records we can examine and there is little reason they will diverge significantly from past voting.
Romney may or may not be suited for the job of president, but the Monitor's weak and self-serving editorial is hardly a guide to his qualifications or lack of them.
