Eagle-Times [Claremont, NH], facebook

Thursday, January 5, 2012

"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." — The Who

If you're a Republican or Independent New Hampshire voter who thinks the country is moving in the right direction and we need more of the same, you should probably vote for Mitt Romney in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary on Jan. 10.

Romney would probably be a good president and could very well represent an upgrade over the current occupant of that office.

But our country needs and deserves much more than mere "good." Times, in fact, demand a man or woman who can bring about fundamental change to the political process.

We think Jon Huntsman could be that man and deserves consideration when voters go to the polls next Tuesday.

Some may question whether Huntsman could defeat President Obama in November.

We don't know if you¹ve seen the president's poll numbers lately, but they suggest that — barring some dramatic economic turnaround — any GOP nominee stands a good chance in November.

So the question isn't who's electable, it's  whether Republicans want their party to stand for change or the status quo.

Romney has the overwhelming support of the Republican political establishment and the big-money Goldman Sachs crowd on Wall Street. He has accepted more than $32 million in campaign contributions, much of it from organizations that will expect a return on their investment in a Romney White House.

That alone is enough to suggest that Romney is not likely to be the agent of change that times demand.

If, on the other hand, you believe the political process has been corrupted by the political establishment and special interests who have sold the country down the river, we think you should consider voting for Huntsman, who stands for change and, we think, honesty.

The rest of the field can talk about the country's debt problem, but Huntsman is a candidate who correctly sees the nation¹s sea of red ink as not just a financial problem, but a national security issue.

Huntsman is a genuine conservative, but not an ideologue. The fact that he has served under Republican and Democratic presidents suggests Huntsman is the candidate best suited to break the Washington gridlock that has enveloped both Republicans and Democrats.

"Don't confuse a moderate temperament with a moderate record," Huntsman said last week. "I have a consistently conservative record."

In fact, one of the most refreshing things we¹ve heard from any candidate came from Huntsman, who told the Eagle Times' editorial board last week that, "I'm going to do what needs to be done, even if that means I'm going to serve only one term."

And that right there speaks to one of the core problems facing this country: Our politicians have been so busy getting themselves re-elected, they've neglected to do their jobs. That, in turn, has cost many good people their livelihoods.

Huntsman also offers genuine foreign policy experience, having served as U.S. ambassador to China and Singapore. Romney's foreign policy experience? He ran the Salt Lake City Olympics.

What Huntsman doesn¹t have is Romney's bankroll, high-profile political endorsements or the backing of Wall Street.

Then again, if you're looking for someone who can take on the political establishment, reform the tax code and bring the congressional gravy train to a halt, you don't want someone who has the backing of every politician who ever sold their soul for a lobbyist's bag of gold.

You probably want Jon Huntsman.

Copyright © 2012 Eagle Publications.  All rights reserved.  Reprinted by permission (Roger Carroll, Feb. 2, 2012 email).



NOTES

General Manager Roger Carroll provided the following observations:

We consult with our publisher, Harry Hartman, and he has input, but the process is largely driven by the paper's writers and editors, since they're the people most likely to interact with and do the most research on the candidates. We also listen carefully to what our readers say after they meet the candidates.

We don't require candidates meet with us to be eligible for our support, but feel strongly that they should have at least come to the area we cover and met with voters. For that reason, Ms. Bachmann and Mr. Cain were never under consideration.

We started talking about an endorsement back in October. We went around the table and it was clear that there were some people who had virtually no support, so it started as a process of elimination.

Once the field had been narrowed, it was then a discussion of the merits and issues of each candidate.

The discussion continued almost weekly until early December, I think, when someone produced a draft editorial endorsing...another candidate. (I'm not going to tell you who it was.)

Everybody had their say in our edit board meeting and picked the draft apart. It was clear that the while people thought highly of that candidate, some compelling arguments were made against an endorsement.

After that person was eliminated, we turned our attention to others and the discussion continued. Things came into much sharper relief after we did a phone interview with Gov. Huntsman. He was very impressive.

There were at least two Huntsman drafts that circulated and the one that finally appeared in the paper bore many fingerprints.

This process took a bit longer than what I remember from the old days but I think it was much more collaborative.