Another NH Paper — The State's Largest — Bashes Romney
The New Hampshire media, right and left alike, are really piling on Mitt Romney. The latest development comes from the state's largest paper, the Union Leader, which has a new editorial out trashing him. While it doesn't rise to quite the same level as the liberal Concord Monitor's anti-endorsement, it nevertheless amounts to some very strong stuff from the conservative paper, which has already endorsed John McCain.
"In this primary, the more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes," the paper says. "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."
Comments (11)
CalD wrote on December 26, 2007 10:45 AM:Sounds to me like they haven't been listening very carefully to McCain lately -- like for the last four years or so, during which he seems to have become determined really get out there and prove once and for all that there very much is such a thing as wanting too much to be president. This is probably a much bigger deal in terms of the Republican primary than the Concord Monitor's dis'ing though.
Louise wrote on December 26, 2007 10:47 AM:"At least McCain isn't made of plastic."
Sullynyc wrote on December 26, 2007 11:42 AM:CalD: Agree on McCain call. There is not a lot he won't do or say to get elected and that's the problem everyone has with Romney. McCain's POW cred and complete availability to the press gets him a free pass here.
This is mostly about NH media's self-importance. They have to defend the "First in the Nation" franchise" at all costs, or they'll be where they belong, in the small-state nobody bin with RI, DE and the Dakotas, all due respect to those states.
At least, the Monitor's Anti-Endorsement editorial was completely transparent regarding that.
lou wrote on December 26, 2007 12:30 PM:I am geniunely surprised these papers just don't come out and endorse Ron Paul. He is the embodiment of "pure" , "pure" being " what they are looking for". I reckon they are still blind.
sabatia wrote on December 26, 2007 2:46 PM:Unfortunately, the R establishment is getting behind Romney. He's got unlimited money and the ambition to spend it on himself. His advertizing and organization, both more costly than that of all the other R candidates combined, will swamp the other candidates. Romney will be the nominee. R's don't care if he is a liar, teller of tall tales, and spineless panderer. All they care about is that he says: No new taxes. We are a Christian nation. Burn the immigrants. Double the size of Gitmo. And the other mindless selfish paranoid drivel of the right. They are fricken idiots, but they know how to win elections. Sad for our nation that a crass phony like Mitt will be their candidate.
The Other Ed wrote on December 26, 2007 2:59 PM:After his one lackluster term as Massachusetts Governor, all polls showed that he would not win re-election and voter dislike of Romney condemned his Lt. Governor Kerry Healey to a humiliating and crushing defeat in 2006. His poor performance ended 16 consecutive years of GOP control of the Governors office.
The voters in NH are just following the same learning curve as Mass voters regarding Romney - Familiarity breeds contempt.
Missed It By THAT Much wrote on December 26, 2007 3:05 PM:IF Mitt had not flip-flopped, would they be trashing him? Are they doing it because of what his views are now, or is it just the fact that 'he changed' that they are attacking? Is it the case now that ANY politician who dares change his/her mind on any important issue is to labeled 'disingenuous'? (Tim Russert certainly seems to think so.)
Would Ronald Reagan, one-time pro-choice Democrat turned pro-life Republican, have a chance of being elected today? No one candidate is, or ever was, perfect or even near-perfect. None of those running now -- including Dr. "the Civil War was unnecessary, everybody else in the world will behave themselves if we just leave them alone" Libertad (or is that "Libertard"?) -- is close to perfect.
We consider factors such as integrity, experience, track record, positions on the issues, and, the ability to get things done. Having a consistant position on the issues means absolutely nothing if those positions are wrong.
Icy Truth wrote on December 26, 2007 3:19 PM:The Other Ed seems to have trouble reading the graph directly to the right of the "Post a comment" box (12-26-2007). Mitt is still leading in New Hampshire among likely Republican voters; it's the newspapers that are against him -- not voters.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 26, 2007 4:36 PM:Ian,
No one endorses Paul becuase . . . While folk may hate the government . . . They recognize the need for government.
Therefore McCain, while wackadoo, is a better choice than Paul who is flat-out fucking insane.
hamletta wrote on December 26, 2007 7:37 PM:Missed, Mitt hasn't just evolved in his views, he tried to contradict his earlier statements and pass that off as what he always believed. And he does it on everything.
It's transparently opportunistic.
sabatia wrote on December 26, 2007 8:11 PM:YOU FOLKS DEFENDING ROMNEY: What the fricken A are you doing here? Are you on Mitt's payroll or Mormon? or maybe you think he's so handsome and what a handsome family. I'm afraid that we think Mitt is a dishonest, lyin' piece of sh*t, a crass chameleon, and slimy weasel! If you want to hang around here, we are happy to provide more. Thank you. Now take your religion and stuff it up your....Thank You!
