Union-Leader anti-endorsement: Mitt’s a phony; Update: Romney camp responds
posted at 11:56 am on December 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | 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 Next »
We’re boned.
/Bender
amish on December 26, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Either it’s Fred or I’m sitting this one out.
And I’m not the only who feels that way.
wccawa on December 26, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Totally untrue. After eight months next year of watching Hillary attack the GOP, you’d be willing to back Huck if it came to that. Watch and see.
Allahpundit on December 26, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Leave that little chore to Rush.
Is he on today? If so I gotta get to a radio.
conservnut on December 26, 2007 at 12:06 PM
He also basically told the entire state to go (bleep) itself back when he was kicking off his campaign.
Big S on December 26, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Unpromising Times By Thomas Sowell
Fred Thompson seems to have the best policy positions and the best political track record among the Republican candidates — and the least effective presentation of himself.
If Senator Thompson can beat the odds and become president, he would probably be better than most of those who have been in the White House in recent times — though that is not extravagant praise.
The only candidate of either party who truly looks presidential is Mitt Romney. It was unfortunate that Mike Huckabee and others have tried to make his religion an issue.
John F. Kennedy was supposed to have taken that issue out of politics — and Huckabee’s bringing it back in ought to disqualify him for a shot at the White House, even aside from Governor Huckabee’s wholesale pardons of criminals and his raising taxes.
John McCain seems to be having a little resurgence but it is hard to believe that Republicans are so desperate as to support a man who joined with far left Democrat Russ Feingold to restrict free speech in the name of “campaign finance reform” and with Ted Kennedy to sponsor a bill giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.
MB4 on December 26, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Totally untrue. After eight months next year of watching Hillary attack the GOP, you’d be willing to back Huck if it came to that. Watch and see.
Everybody has their limit. A lot of people sat out the 06 elections. That will be nothing compared to what will happen if Huck gets the nomination.
Do you think that the people who are supportuing Huck are going to go over to Rudy or Mitts camp?
Either the Republicans get behind McCain or Thompson or i think we lose.
I dont think i would even bother voting for McCain. And i definitely wouldnt send any money to his campaign.
amish on December 26, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Dude. I said what I said and I don’t believe it was ambiguous.
If my party abandons me, I will abandon it. It’s not exactly a sudden break up. They’ve been slowly abandoning me for years.
You may quote me eight months from now.
wccawa on December 26, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Yup, the conviction that Americans are such a sorry lot that they need illegal aliens to do their work for them and that they are to immature to have free speech.
MB4 on December 26, 2007 at 12:15 PM
McCain is a loser too, I don’t care what the polls say. The conservative rank and file won’t be able to find a clothes pin strong enough to keep the stench out if they have to pull the lever for him. So a bunch of them will stay home.
conservnut on December 26, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Not this Fredhead!
After GW the GOP needs to repair it’s position/image with a true Conservative. The last thing the conservative movement needs is another religious zealot / tax & spend RINO that is soft on immigration.
The tax thing may not apply to GW but that Huckster is a loser..
TheSitRep on December 26, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I’m afraid the presidential candidate for the GOP in 2008 hasn’t been born yet.
moonsbreath on December 26, 2007 at 12:26 PM
My sentiments exactly! The list is so long but each one makes me think, “Where’s the true heart-and-soul conservative that will make the people say, ‘Wow!’” Each candidate has glaring omissions in their conservative cred, but the alternative truly is frightening!
Troy Rasmussen on December 26, 2007 at 12:28 PM
You don’t need Mitt or any other knight in particular to slay the Huckdragon. Huck has slain himself already. The polls just haven’t caught up. He could win Iowa, and he’d still crash into a low ceiling that he’s constructed and reinforced. I sincerely doubt that deep down even Huck himself really believes he could handle a national campaign, much less the actual presidency.
If you think you’re going to be disappointed anyway, and you will be, you might as well support the one who best represents you until he’s out – at that point, most people who are interested in politics and believe that voting is a right and responsibility of an informed citizen, you’ll likely have to make another set of compromises for the final election. You can complain all the way along that they’re all flawed, but, as Huck might say, there was only one perfect man, and he was killed 2,000 years ago. No matter who’s elected, it’s unlikely in a gigantic democracy like ours that any major issue will be solved perfectly to anyone’s satisfaction.
Grown-ups and conservatives know that there are rarely perfect solutions, least of all in government.
CK MacLeod on December 26, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Don’t tred on Fred.
AZCON on December 26, 2007 at 12:32 PM
What is confusing has to do with Mitt really not being an offensive governor and making enemies. He often mentioned that he was ineffective since he was dealing with a near seventy percent Democratic State house, but I don’t remember him ever getting down and dirty.
There seems to be a unified game plan in NE to push for RINO Man. I wonder if this means we would get Susan Collins for VP? Olympia Snow??
Hening on December 26, 2007 at 12:33 PM
The craziness here is while Huckabee is providing a smoke screen, John McAmnesty himself is moving up, quickly.
If we’re being forced to play whackamo its John the liberals’ turn to get pounded back down and it won’t be none too soon.
Speakup on December 26, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Flashback to McCain v. Romney in 2006
That story is a good reminder of why McCain is near the bottom of my list while Romney remains in the top tier.
Buy Danish on December 26, 2007 at 12:35 PM
As a grown up conservative active in politics for over 30 years, I’m telling you right now I am not in the mood to make any more BS compromises, and will not. We have fallen far enough already.
Consider it a blood oath: If Fred isn’t the nominee, then I will not support the Republican nominee. Period. It is that that simple, and it is that important to me.
If we get the Hildebeast, we deserve the Hildebeast.
wccawa on December 26, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Another Union Leader endorsement, in 2004. Maybe they have more influence with Republicans.
No we don’t deserve her, but I will give you credit for helping her win if it comes to that.
Buy Danish on December 26, 2007 at 12:43 PM
You’re probably right. It will be one of those “Only Im allowed to attack him, how dare you” types of things with me.
broker1 on December 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM
In my opinion, wccawa, making a “blood oath” isn’t, to say the least, a conservative approach to living in a representative democracy. But suit yourself!
CK MacLeod on December 26, 2007 at 12:48 PM
The ultimate Union Leader endorsement recap.
Oh, and the Union Leader endorsed McCain on December 2nd.
Buy Danish on December 26, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Those two endorsements for Reagan certainly give me pause.
Keep hope alive, Mittheads!
Allahpundit on December 26, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Call me intransigent, but enough is enough.
I do respect your opinions, however.
wccawa on December 26, 2007 at 12:57 PM
The more that newspapers hate on Mitt Romney, the more I like Mitt. Is that weird?
SoulGlo on December 26, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Fred is the obvious choice. Too many will stay home for Mitt, Rudy, Huck or McCain. If it’s not Fred, it’s probab ly Hillary. Seems like we’re getting close the last chance to get behind Fred with some cash, which I will do today, and the rest of you ought to consider it. And for my New Year’s resolution, I refuse to believe any polls or mainstream election coverage.
NellE on December 26, 2007 at 1:05 PM
If Mitt wins the nomination but loses the general, it won’t be because some Internet Fredheads decided to sit out the election- it would be because Mitt’s supporters failed to recognise what a flawed candidate he is before voting for him in the primaries.
The Kerry / Mitt comparison is valid in more ways than one.
Hollowpoint on December 26, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Huckabee is going to be our nominee isn’t he.
And no Allah, I am not going to vote for Huckabee in the general.
Zetterson on December 26, 2007 at 1:07 PM
To answer your question Allah, Mitt definitely beats the alternative.
davenp35 on December 26, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I feel the same way. Better a Fredhead than a sell-out.
When all the folks who gave us the GWBush presidency are shovin’ anybody BUT Fred down our throats ya know it’s because he’s the only one NOT RINO!
Ex-tex on December 26, 2007 at 1:24 PM
God Bless Ya, son!
p.s. Rick Moran is calling for a BlogBurst for Fred! 12/27
http://redstate.com/blogs/rick_moran/2007/dec/25/blogburst_for_fred_thompson_12_27
Ex-tex on December 26, 2007 at 1:31 PM
100% incorrect
Gregor on December 26, 2007 at 1:37 PM
I’d be much more likely to “go to the matresess”.
P. James Moriarty on December 26, 2007 at 1:39 PM
The Union Leader is staunchly behind John McCain and just like the Monitor, which is extremely left wing, the Leader is just “pushing” their candidate. They must have read the this or that web site and seen the word phony keep appearing and decided to capitalize on it. Rest assured that this is just a political move and few people vote as either paper recommends. I’ve seen heard Mitt twice now and he does not come across as phony in person. In fact, it’s his sincerity that made me switch my primary vote from Rudy to Mitt. In fact, the very fact that the Leader is making so much of it shows that they are running scared for McCain.
jeanie on December 26, 2007 at 2:20 PM
The key word there is “representative”. Nobody should vote for a candidate that doesn’t represent them. While I don’t agree with all of Fred’s positions, some of them important issues for me, I’m confident that President Thompson will adequately represent my interests. It’s really as simple as that. All of the other candidates are liberal open-borders and/or nanny-stater types which are in fundamental opposition to my interests. Why would I vote for them? I shouldn’t.
The fact that Fred is the only candidate in the race that I could vote for in the general election is NOT intended as a threat, “vote for Fred or else”, it’s a simple statement of principle. I can’t vote for the other candidates because it’s impossible for them to represent me, and in fact the best I could possibly hope for is that they’d misrepresent me. No thanks.
Sure, maybe between now and the general election I’ll decide to vote for a liberal Republican, but a lot of other people will probably stay home or vote 3rd party.
FloatingRock on December 26, 2007 at 2:27 PM
The problem with the “only Fred”, is that once in power, it is very hard to shake the dems out of the tree. So you have relinquished conservative influence for at least 8 years.
Better Fred, then McCain, but better McCain then any other Dem.
But better Mitt then any other Dem? I don’t know, I don’t like Obama, but I trust what he says more than Mitt. At least you know where Obama stands, with Mitt his platform is built on quicksand. Mitt needs to grow up and be a man.
Mitt has shown he will do and say anything to grab power…and quite frankly his supporters will post anything for him to grab the power.
right2bright on December 26, 2007 at 2:33 PM
I could support almost any republican nominee over Hillary or Obama perhaps holding my nose slightly.
Huckabee however does not fall into criteria, in particular the amnesty he plans on offering illegal immigrants.
I would prefer Hunter, Tancredo, Rommney in that order.
May God Bless America.
MarkB on December 26, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Mitt has shown he will do and say anything to grab power…and quite frankly his supporters will post anything for him to grab the power.
right2bright on December 26, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Not true.
MarkB on December 26, 2007 at 2:37 PM
I understand your perspective, it’s been conventional wisdom for a long time now, but I think it’s wrong. During the Shamnesty debacle the reason why so many of us felt so alienated from our government is because, frankly, they no longer represent us. The reason they no longer represent us is very simple: because we keep voting for candidates that don’t represent us.
Politicians, like political parties, are like spoiled rotten children. The only possible way to correct the problem is through discipline. By voting for the lesser of two evils in every election we are only ensuring the continuation of evil.
But when it comes right down to it, it doesn’t matter that some of us here at HotAir will or won’t vote for a liberal Republican; what matters is how many people in the general population will. I don’t think there will be enough and so therefore nominating a liberal Republican will be fruitless.
FloatingRock on December 26, 2007 at 2:51 PM
The question is, after nine months of either Huckabee or McCain, will there even be a GOP? I can’t think of two more divisive candidates than Mr. Amnesty and the Huckster. The media will slice, dice and spit either one out, and the only question is when and where either one self-destructs.
Comes a time when even “broken glass” Republicans forego the torture of crawling over same to vote “against” rather than “for.”
If either of these is the candidate, this is the time.
Nichevo on December 26, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Don’t mess with the Rom.
Vizzini on December 26, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Ah, right2bright is here. Last time I saw right2bright, he or she was engaged in some form of soft porn diatribe against Mitt Romney supporters, accusing them of wanting to tie right2bright up and spank him or something like that.
Now comes the “Mitt will say and do anything to get power” line. Let’s look at that, shall we?
In this view, Mitt is nothing more than Hillary with good hair and a less annoying Cackle. So what would such a man do? Would he shut down his business to go search for an employee’s daughter? On his own dime? Oh, I know–he knew that several years later, he might be able to run a campaign spot about it! Whew, saved from the implication that Mitt might actually be a good man–almost had to conclude he DID have some core values.
Would such a calculating person fight very hard against a popular social issue, such as legalizing gay marriage, even going to great extremes to prevent it from being legitimized elsewhere in the country? Perhaps…. but why hasn’t Mitt been running ads about how he saved the other 49 states from judicial gay marriage? After all, of all the candidates, he is the one who was at the forefront of this battlefield.
Something doesn’t compute! Mitt not taking advantage! Right2bright’s brain overloading! It’s an article of faith that Mitt cannot possibly have anything good!
I won’t even get into how he’s an Evil Mormon, out to drink the blood of every human soul (except Hillary, of course, who has no blood at all).
Vanceone on December 26, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Yes, but Reagan still lost in New Hampshire the first time around, despite the U.L.’s endorsement.
Buy Danish on December 26, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Not weird, maybe it’s just a learned response to do what’s best for people who get up and go to work. Whatever the MSM is for, I am usually against. The MSM wants Huckabee to win the GOP nomination because he would almost surely lose in the general. And Romney is being viciously attacked because he can win. There is no perfect candidate and Romney’s positions are closest to the true conservative.
JustTruth101 on December 26, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Actually it’s the other way around. r2b has a bizarre soft port fantasy about spanking me, and has expressed it on more than one occasion.
I don’t know that Romney is being attacked because he can win, but I’ll take the once “liberal”, but now solidly conservative, Romney over the still liberal McCain any day.
McCain has been right about the Iraq War, I’ll give him that, but if McCain had been our Commander in Chief we might still be ‘interviewing’ Khalid Sheik Mohammed with zero results.
Buy Danish on December 26, 2007 at 3:26 PM
What you say is true, but Duncan Hunter has the right credentials and look at his standing. The Republican base has been offered a choice, including a genuine conservative, and they apparantly don’t want him. Isn’t it a bit weak to complain about what we have to choose from? It is in front of us and the majority have looked elsewhere. The fault doesn’t lay in the process, the voter majority are the ones calling the shots.
a capella on December 26, 2007 at 3:41 PM
are s/b is
a capella on December 26, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Besides expressing some reservations on environmental policy, I’m going to extremely upbeat in defending a Thompson or Rudy nomination. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
thuja on December 26, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Peter LaBarbera doesn’t like Mitts “pro-homosexual” views.
bnelson44 on December 26, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Is that really what Vermonters are like? Is there really a chance they would believe what they hear from a politician? Do Missourians really have to be shown stuff? Are these people not as cynical as Golden Staters?
Nosferightu on December 26, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Sorry, I meant New Hampshirers. Typical Californian.
Nosferightu on December 26, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I to will sit out if Rudy, Mitt, huck is the candidate.
I would prefer to battle a girlie dem in office than to fight with someone who claims to be my friend.
Like billy boy, rudy, mitt, and huck will lie when the truth
would do better.
Liars, liars pants on fire. OH our misery.
Dersu on December 26, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Wow. The spin from the Mittards is just amazing in it’s absurdity. He “saved” the other 49 states by losing a court case? And considering that he hardly waited for the ink to be dry on the judges ruling before he ordered state clerks to issue gay marriage licenses under penalty of being fired hardly demonstrates an act of political courage.
It’s easy for him now to to opposed to gay marriage; the vast majority of voters are. But when he ran against Kennedy? He ran to the left of the swimmer on the issue.
Hollowpoint on December 26, 2007 at 4:23 PM
One thing to keep in mind about the Union-Leader is not static. William Loeb was the publisher for almost 40 years until his death in 1981. His widow, Nackey, was publisher until she died in 2000. Joseph McQuaid took over after that. McQuaid was on the editorial page, I don’t remember his title, but I do remember thinking he was a nice guy, but without enough steel to him, IMO. We lived in NH for almost ten years and we were trying to remember the editorial page of the late 90’s and I seem to recall the main editor, whom we liked at the time, left to return to Arizona in 1999, to help with McCain’s presidential campaign. I could be wrong and I welcome correction.
INC on December 26, 2007 at 4:37 PM
My apologies for the grammar above-I had a conversation with my husband in the middle of the comment and forgot to hit preview!
INC on December 26, 2007 at 4:38 PM
There are many reasons why the conservative candidates aren’t getting much consideration this election cycle: Bush, Rove, MSM, WOT, Republican spending, etc…
Conservatism isn’t dead; it’s just on life support in large part because people keep voting for candidates that don’t represent them.
Your average man on the street, I think, wrongly believes that George Bush is a “conservative”, and they don’t want any more of it and would like to try something different.
I think that history may show that while Reagan created the modern conservative movement, Bush is the one responsible for it’s destruction; not as a consequence of conservative principles, which Bush mostly lacks, but through pure incompetence.
Nominating another RINO, especially if he manages to win the general, will probably do still further damage to the conservative movement even if not at the frenetic pace as under Bush.
FloatingRock on December 26, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Aww, the personal attacks and then some soft porn about how Mitt saved Bechtel from any major fines (even after their sloppy work killed a woman). He even arranged to have a little bonus paid to Bechtel. Such is the way he “helps so many”. Nice that he “shut down” his business for his friends and partner teenage daughter, who went to a rock concert and ended up at a friends house. That is the way he reacts to an “emergency”, some leader, running around, shutting down a business for a teenage rocker hanging out at a friends house. Here is a hint…next time just call her daughters friends.
And his stand on abortion? What is it this week?
Save the “shock” of my spanking buydanish, she needed to be shut up and shocked for her (and your) constant whining (she woke up posting about me, and she went to bed posting about me,and she is still stalking me…she digs me). Plus you needed some new material, you were running out of “he’s a bigot”, “he hates Mormon’s” lines (oops I see your returned with those statements plus the new “soft porn”.
Hey, Mitt-wits, Mitt has great looks, great hair, and he will believe in whatever you want him to believe in. He is “solidly conservative”, who likes to raise taxes, raise fees, multiple choice on abortion, gives favors (read $$$$’s) to supporters, pro gun control (or is he now,or then), a “life long hunter who has hunted twice (without a license),saw or at least seemed to have sawn or seen or been with or something with King and his dad marching in the dangerous enclave of Grosse Pointe (97% white, and upper middle class) protesting rent control (Mitt, might want to try Scottsdale Ariz next, God forbid you march in Watts).
Maybe Mitt will invent the new internet, or a love story will be written about his life, or maybe he will tell us about all of the black church’s he saw burn down when he was growing up, and all of the hunting trips he had taken.
*
But first, tell us what you really believe in Mitt, not what you want your fans to hear, but what does Mitt really believe…not just today, but what he really believes. The only candidate that passes out his promises with a bottle of “white out”.
(and PS Mitt, you have great hair=…you have that going for you)
right2bright on December 26, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I think I’m getting under right2bright’s skin: the incoherency of right2bright’s posts keeps getting worse.
Dude, listen: I said nothing about Bechtel. You are in some fantasy land. I guess I can believe that you think caring about someone else’s daughter is reprehensible and a reason to attack Romney.
Hollowpoint: Um, explain to me something–you think our elected officials should defy the courts? What I was referring to was Mitt digging up the 1917 law that prevented other states from having to recognize Mass. gay marriages. Are you saying he didn’t do that? Your anti_mitt spin is just as bad if not more than anything I say. The guy could walk on water, distributing his fortune for free and you’d complain.
I will give you some credit, though, hollowpoint: you’ve not yet attacked him because he’s LDS yet–that puts you several cuts above some here. :)
Vanceone on December 26, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Wow, you’re even more rambling and incoherent than usual. The Big Dig is like soft porn because…………?????
Crazy stuff.
Buy Danish on December 26, 2007 at 4:59 PM
I’m not suggesting the courts should’ve been blatantly defied… but Mitt pretty eager to play along for someone we’re now supposed to believe is adamantly against gay marriage.
I’m unfamiliar with the 1917 law you reference or Mitt’s role in citing it, so I can’t comment on that- I thought you were suggesting that because the gay marriage suit brought national attention it somehow saved the country. I apologize for the error and the resulting “mittard” crack.
I’ve not yet attacked him for being Mormon because I won’t- I see no reason that a Mormon couldn’t be a good President. Personally I think Mormonism is a bit goofy (especially in regards to it’s founding), but we’re electing a President and not a preacher. My objections to Mitt are purely political; he’s probably a perfectly decent guy, but politically I don’t think he’s the right man to nominate.
Hollowpoint on December 26, 2007 at 5:01 PM
I have lived here in NH for 37 yrs and could care less what the MUL or CM endorsements Both are left of center where Nh was a few years ago but sliding left all the time due to the influx of Mass, NY,CT, VT border jumpers trying to evade taxes and get a good living wage but NOW they want all the Lib programs and electing more and more left wingers who haven’t lived in this state for more than a few years. Out of thier mind if they think NH will vote for McCain. It is Hillary they want and have always wanted from the govenor to the elected Dem Majority. I find it sad the Rhino McCain/Huck/ Mitt will not even come close to getting my vote. I just wished Thompson would have stepped up his self instead of faltering this summer.
bones47 on December 26, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Hollowpoint: my mistake, it was a 1913 law. The law stated, basically, that you couldn’t marry in Mass. if your marriage was illegal in your home state.
Here’s a link to a gay site (It came up on Altavista) that mentions how Mitt stopped Gay marriage for everyone in 2004.
Here you go.
And here is a link to the NYT, discussing the same thing, and various quotes from gay rights advocates attacking Romney over stopping the march of gay marriage, etc.
Vanceone on December 26, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Typical woman. It’s always the husbands fault!
MB4 on December 26, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Hey Bones: I’ve lived in NH for 26 years myself and I am disgusted and worried about the influx of libs from other states. I look down my street now and most are from MA. But, all is not lost—the State can be reclaimed in the future if not now. I wish Fred had tried harder here too, It’s as if he just gave up on us because we are a northeastern state. Honestly, I hold that against him, I really do. That’s why I have to support Mitt because I have to turn somwhere and I REALLY like Mitt’s fiscal platform. McCain’s OK but there’s something aobut him that just turns me off–no words for what that is.
jeanie on December 26, 2007 at 5:37 PM
MB4, now, now. I didn’t say that & you know it. ;-) I went to ask him what he remembered about the editorial page of the Union Leader. I had liked the guy who left (we did not vote for McCain, BTW) and I didn’t like McQuaid that much.
INC on December 26, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Frank Luntz is on Fox saying:
Wouldn’t one infer from that statement that the candidates the Union Leader endorse go on to win the NH primary, and then go on to win the nomination?
Buy Danish on December 26, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Oops, left out the rest of what Luntz said.
Buy Danish on December 26, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Maybe 10 years ago that would have been true about the UL. Not any more. Luntz must have taken that statement from his archives or the paper paid him off. In many ways the Nashua Telegraph is more representative these days–at least of the more populated areas of the State. Don’t alway like it either. And, don’t forget the Globe whose unwelcome interference can always be depended upon. A pox on them all!
jeanie on December 26, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Love Is In The Air [Byron York]
…
From the Romney campaign:
…
Sen. McCain Still Won’t Admit He Supported Amnesty
Sen. McCain Hasn’t Renounced McCain-Kennedy
Sen. McCain “Still Dogged By Immigration Issue”
…
From the McCain campaign:
…
“I know something about tailspins, and it’s pretty clear Mitt Romney is in one. It’s disappointing that he would launch desperate, flailing and false attacks in an attempt to maintain relevance. As the Union Leader said today, New Hampshire voters just aren’t buying his act, and these latest attacks won’t help him.”
bnelson44 on December 26, 2007 at 6:11 PM
When’s Mitt going to admit that he also supported amnesty? After all, he supported the McCain-Kennedy bill (before he was against it, or course). He even used the same weaselly dodge as McCain in arguing that it wasn’t really amnesty.
The shameless is strong with this one.
Hollowpoint on December 26, 2007 at 6:22 PM
I said this 6 months ago before this race really took shape based on what the Boston globe did while Mitt was govenor. The leftist MSM are the ones handing out all the anti-Mitt talking points and this doesnt even faze some on the right or prompt them to ask why. Michelle clearly recognized this when she made fun of the Boston Globe on Fox news, but many are not getting it.
Romney critics like to claim Mitt is a flip flopper. Somehow it doesn’t occur to these same people to question the flip-flopping of the MSM! First he was an evil ultra concervative who brought draconian concervative policies to Mass. Now they are trying to affect a Reuplican primary and suddenly they conducts months long investigations to ‘prove’ he is more liberal then Guilliani. It isn’t Mitt that flipped it is the MSM narrative that is a big flop.
Resolute on December 26, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Some Naw. Let’s stay in the real world here people. Here are some polls:
…
Romney (R) vs Clinton (D)
…
McCain (R) vs Clinton (D)
…
Thompson (R) vs. Clinton (D)
…
bnelson44 on December 26, 2007 at 6:28 PM
This NH voter isn’t buying the UL’s act—and, apparently, others feel the same way here. UL would seem to be on the down side of the hill?
jeanie on December 26, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Romney full-spectrum plea:
“I’ll be whatever you want me to be”
Adding insult to conservative injury,
caught in their tangled web of deceit.
maverick muse on December 26, 2007 at 6:49 PM
New Hampshire polls
bnelson44 on December 26, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Mitt’s huff & puff lame claim vs. any legislator is groundless mush.
At the time of McCain’s work with Democrats, NOTHING was being accomplished. In hindsight, McCain admits his errors. We recognize that his campaign finance reform legislation unconstitutionally inhibits free speech. The amnesty legislation would only have compounded every problem without fixing a damn thing.
Mitt, the facilitate anything for a vote candidate, would have voted FOR McCain’s legislation had he been afforded the opportunity. Just recall where Mitt was at the time.
At least Mitt has not YET claimed to have been in Congress voting against McCain’s legislative compromises with liberals. So easy to work through those spiritual eyes: now you see it, now you don’t; now you’re there, now you’re not.
maverick muse on December 26, 2007 at 7:06 PM
I know you didn’t say anything about Bechtel, I was taking you down memory lane…sheeesh. Here you missed this:
You prove my point, over and over again…you just “happen” to leave out pertinent information when talking about “I once thought Reagan was too conservative, and now I adore him” Romney.
Vanceone, go tell Mitt to win one for the “FLIPPER”.
right2bright on December 26, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I repeatedly predicted Rudy’s demise in this forum (all it took was for primary voters to learn about his positions, scandals, & lifestyle), & I predict that Huck’s days are numbered. His record will become known, thanks to Mitt’s advertising budget.
jgapinoy on December 26, 2007 at 8:56 PM
I think the death of a woman, and then covering it up by firing a bureaucrat, instead of holding his long time supporter and friend responsible, qualifies for at least soft porn. To bad you hold the discussion of the death of a person as being crazy. Like I said:
It is obscene to not hold a company responsible for the death of a woman. Yeah, I know they used a outside vendor for the rivets, blah, blah,blah, but Bechtel certified the testing, and certified the use of those rivets to save a few bucks, after squandering millions. They were the responsible party, that were never held responsible.
So you think the death of a woman is no big deal, I think it is obscene (as in soft porn, maybe hard porn it is so obscene)…and could have been prevented if party, petty, cronie style politics were not involved. Was it too much to ask to hold the parties responsible, instead of sacrificing a bureaucrat? Oh, and don’t forget the bonus Bechtel got…blood money is what some call it.
Now go ahead and defend his tax raises, fees, hunting record, abortion…you will defend anything if the life of a woman means nothing to you (oh yeah, I guess the life of an unborn baby is just a political football to you also, so you can scratch abortion). Callous ****!
Frankly his supporters will support anything for him to grab power…there that is better and more proven.
right2bright on December 26, 2007 at 9:04 PM
If it comes down to Mitt vs Huck I will sit out the primary
But I wont sit out the general
William Amos on December 26, 2007 at 9:31 PM
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
Stop burbling!
Buy Danish on December 26, 2007 at 10:41 PM
I hear you Jeanie. The GOP is being undermined from all sides including from within. I mean c’mon Huckabee?!From Arkansas?! Yeah sure there is no Clinton connection. then you have the Paulbots. They include a bunch of left wing hackers and that includes the online votes and money. Now McCain? At least Mitt has a kept 100% of his former campaign promised, which are documented. The MSM has devolved into a full blown propaganda machine. we must remain diligent and do the work. If the Dems gain the White House it won’t be long before we are answering to the United Nations and international law.
#1 To seek out the facts on our candidates
#2To unite behind our guy.
sonnyspats1 on December 26, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Dude, you have NO IDEA at all what you’re talking about. None. Zip. Nada. Do your homework. The Governor had zero control over the Big Dig. It was controlled by an idependent State Agency called the Mass Turnpike Authority. He couldn’t even fire Matt Matt Amorello without going to court over it. He had to declare a State of Emergency to take direct control over the investigation and repairs. So, like I said, do your homework.
TheBigOldDog on December 26, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Oh and Dude, tell the company up on manslaughter charges that were recently upheld that they aren’t being held responsible…
TheBigOldDog on December 26, 2007 at 11:17 PM
I refuse to let any lefty union people decide for me who is a conservative. It is documented for all to see that Mitt kept 100% of his campaign promises when he governed Mass. C’mon smarten up and do your homework! The facts speak for themselves.
sonnyspats1 on December 26, 2007 at 11:39 PM
heh heh Oh that Union Leader! lol nevermind
sonnyspats1 on December 26, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Who’s your Daddy?
I got:
1) Romney.
2) Guliani.
3) Hunter.
I have no idea how the capo came in number 2.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Oh my, maybe there is a god and s/he’s after you, especially given what you said in the “quote of the day” thread :)
Entelechy on December 27, 2007 at 3:00 AM
Vote Conservative Republican
–Thomas Sowell, National Review Online “Unpromising Times”
12/26/07
Look Forward to a Happy and Prosperous New Year.
Win One For The Gipper!
FRED ‘08
maverick muse on December 27, 2007 at 7:32 AM
For those who “sit this one out’ because you candidate doesn’t win in the primary I don’t want to hear you bitch when your taxes go up or any of the stuff the dems have planned get passed
KBird on December 27, 2007 at 8:01 AM
Ha! Mine is worse….
1) Mitt
2) Huck?????
3) Hunter
My only consolation is that they are only going off what Huck says, and not what his record is.
csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 8:18 AM
And lose one for the Flipper!!
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 9:07 AM
The Mitt supporters will post anything to win one for the Flipper.
Why don’t you try to post issues rather than insults.
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Could you explain this? I don’t understand. Do you mean former as in the past, or do you mean the ones in the past year?
right2bright on December 27, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Indeed Allah, Gregor here just finished telling us if Fred didn’t get the nod he’d vote for Hillary.
He wants his binky and if he can’t have it then no one else is going to have any fun!
BKennedy on December 27, 2007 at 9:44 AM
I got:
1. Romney
2. Huck
3. McCain
You can also weight the issues guys:
Ignoring the experience section:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Thompson
Weihting heavily towards Immigration and Iraq Wae:
1. Romney
2. Thompson
3. Huckabee
Of course we all know Huck is squishy, so the next highest is a tie between McCain and Guiliani.
After reweighting experience to slight but not negligible effect: (governor or mayor matters some, but not compared to other issues.)
1. Thompson
2. Romney
3. McCain
I think it’s pretty clear that Romney and Thompson are the two best choices, at least for me.
BKennedy on December 27, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »