Courant Endorses Romney
The Hartford Courant Editorial page has endorsed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as their pick in the February 5th GOP Primary in Connecticut. Released this morning in the Sunday Courant, the editors of the newspaper highlight Romney’s record as a CEO and technocratic Governor while overlooking some of the criticisms lodged against him.
They cite several instances from the ”innovative” Governorship of Mr. Romney:
The Republican governor led the fight to control sprawl and bring more affordable housing to the Bay State with groundbreaking laws and a dramatic reorganization of state agencies. In 2003, he combined transportation, housing, environmental and energy agencies into a super-agency, charged it with stopping runaway suburban growth, then appointed a Democrat environmentalist to run it. By comparison, Connecticut is still nibbling around the edges of smart growth.
Addressing the primary criticism that many of his GOP adversaries make, that Romney is a flip-flopper, the Courant points to cases where, they say, Senator McCain has pandered to factions within the Republican coalition:
And presidential candidates often pay tribute to the traditional wings of their parties at primary time. Mr. Romney’s chief rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, has pandered as well in, for example, changing his position on the Bush tax cuts, which he once voted against and now wants extended.
The endorsement is interesting in that the Courant Editorial Board seems to have done some considerable digging into the Romney record, rather than just focusing on the lengthy campaign process. In fact, they seem to dismiss the campaign that Mr. Romney has run:
Mark Twain said about Wagner that his music “is better than it sounds.” Mr. Romney is a better leader than his perplexing campaign performance makes him out to be.
Coming off a strong win in the CTGOP Presidential Straw Poll in Middletown on Friday night, its been a very good weekend in Connecticut for Mitt Romney.
4 Comments
Leave a Response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Never understood what is so wrong with “runaway suburban growth”.
What is wrong with people working hard and moving to a better place for them and and their kids?
A place where they live in a smaller community that they can connect to and influence their quality of life and local government.
Isn’t really my choice?
Isn’t this the American dream isn’t this just Americans being Americans?
Oh, I get it now, never mind.
I swear these smart growth guys won’t be happy till we are all living in Soviet style gray apartment buildings with weekly mandatory tenant meetings.
“Runaway suburban growth” is not about where you and your kids choose to live and play soccer, BobC. It’s about a taxation model that encourages turning the beautiful green spaces that lured you to the burbs and turning them into megaplexes, big box stores, and sprawling corporate campuses. All while the nearby urban core literally rots away into crime-infested wasteland.
Yes, it is about a taxation model. Absolutely.
So I get to choose whether to live in a rotting crime-infested wasteland, or a sprawling corporate campuses with big boxes on the main drag.
Let me think,……. I’ll take the corporate campus.
And if I want, I’ll move further out. I have always lived on the fringes. as you might have guessed.
I do get your point, the taxation model moves income from the city to the burbs. And results in decreasing funds for the cities. I get it. Maybe a city as a working model for living in is not workable any more?
Tough questions.
By tough questions I meant the issues of our cities are tough questions. I did not mean to imply I ask tough questions (I am not that self absorbed.)
Clearly our cities are not working in many ways. I know the residents of cities and every where else want the same things for their kids as I do, that is universal. To live better than us.
I just don’t believe more money is the answer. It’s been tried.