Gingrich snags Union Leader endorsement in NH

posted at 10:45 am on November 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Most people assume that Mitt Romney has New Hampshire in the bag, but at least one influential voice in the Granite State disagrees.  The Union Leader, New Hampshire’s only state-wide publication and major influence on Republican politics, has endorsed Newt Gingrich instead of Romneydespite the efforts of Romney to win the nod:

America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.

He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they’re going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again. …

We don’t have to agree with them on every issue. We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.

Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich. He has the experience, the leadership qualities and the vision to lead this country in these trying times. He is worthy of your support on January 10.

Had Romney won the endorsement, it would have amounted to a dog-bites-man story, given the amount of time and effort Romney has put into New Hampshire.  According to NBC, Romney spent a considerable amount of energy in winning this endorsement, too.  It apparently didn’t impress publisher Joseph McQuaid:

The Union Leader’s Gingrich endorsement comes after significant courting by Mitt Romney, who has been campaigning in the state for several years. This is the second time that the Union Leader has chosen not to endorse Romney. In 2008, it notably backed John McCain who eventually went on to win the New Hampshire primary following a major comeback from a near-dead campaign the summer and fall before the primary. The paper’s editorial team also took several significant swipes at Romney in the process, undoubtedly hurting his chances in New Hampshire.

McQuaid appears to reference Romney in this paragraph of his endorsement of Gingrich:

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don’t back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.

How influential is this endorsement?  It hasn’t exactly been a perfect predictive indicator of who will win the primary.  Reagan won in 1980, but no one remembers the Pete DuPont victory in New Hampshire in 1988, because George H. W. Bush beat him without it; in fact, DuPont didn’t even come in second or third in New Hampshire that year.  Likewise, Steve Forbes got the endorsement in 2000 but came in third behind John McCain and George W. Bush.  However, in 1992, the Union-Leader endorsement lifted Pat Buchanan’s campaign into a near-victory in the primary over the incumbent elder Bush, and Buchanan won the 1996 primary outright with the Union-Leader’s boost.

The counterintuitive nature of the endorsement, coupled with the failed effort by Romney, is what makes this newsworthy.  Romney has a substantial lead in New Hampshire in most polling, so the electoral impact of the Union-Leader’s choice may be limited — or it may convince primary voters to take a second look at Gingrich.  If Romney has to start sweating out his prospects in New Hampshire, he will have less time to work on other early primary states, and his inability to close the deal with the Union Leader might have some voters in other states rethinking his inevitability, too.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

National Review editors and Jennifer Rubin (WaPo) hardest hit.

DaydreamBeliever on November 27, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don’t back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers.

If voters had that attitude, Romney would probably be in about 8th place right now.

ddrintn on November 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM

How influential is this endorsement? It hasn’t exactly been a perfect predictive indicator of who will win the primary. Reagan won in 1980, but no one remembers the Pete DuPont victory in New Hampshire in 1988, because George H. W. Bush beat him without it; in fact, DuPont didn’t even come in second or third in New Hampshire that year. Likewise, Steve Forbes got the endorsement in 2000 but came in third behind John McCain and George W. Bush. However, in 1992, the Union-Leader endorsement lifted Pat Buchanan’s campaign into a near-victory in the primary over the incumbent elder Bush, and Buchanan won the 1996 primary outright with the Union-Leader’s boost.

And out of all of those names, only Reagan won the nomination. Heck, Buchanan couldn’t even parlay the 1992 “success” into Next-In-Line™ status.

Steve Eggleston on November 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM

They endorsed the pro-amnesty candidate (McCain) over Romney last time too.

Jon0815 on November 27, 2011 at 10:53 AM

They endorsed the pro-amnesty eventual candidate nomeny (McCain) over Romney last time too.

Jon0815 on November 27, 2011 at 10:53 AM

fify

idesign on November 27, 2011 at 10:58 AM

ouch….

cmsinaz on November 27, 2011 at 10:58 AM

As a NH voter I can tell you the UL endorsement means little within the State. It’s nice and all but will influence few.

jeanie on November 27, 2011 at 11:01 AM

How influential is this endorsement? It hasn’t exactly been a perfect predictive indicator of who will win the primary. Reagan won in 1980, but no one remembers the Pete DuPont victory in New Hampshire in 1988, because George H. W. Bush beat him without it; in fact, DuPont didn’t even come in second or third in New Hampshire that year. Likewise, Steve Forbes got the endorsement in 2000 but came in third behind John McCain and George W. Bush. However, in 1992, the Union-Leader endorsement lifted Pat Buchanan’s campaign into a near-victory in the primary over the incumbent elder Bush, and Buchanan won the 1996 primary outright with the Union-Leader’s boost.

Well, comparing past U/L endorsements to recent ones is missing one huge piece of the puzzle, namely that Joe McQuaid isn’t William and/or Nackey Loeb, who ran the paper from its founding until she died in 2000 (he died in 1981 and left her the paper). The Loebs owned the paper, now it’s owned by the employees, and Joe doesn’t carry quite as much weight as Bill did.

Del Dolemonte on November 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM

We look for conservatives of courage and conviction

…..not a wind-sock.

Marcus on November 27, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Whatever… I can’t wait to who the 3rd party choices will be.

FloatingRock on November 27, 2011 at 11:06 AM

I don’t think Romney’s all that inevitable myself. Like I said in the thread last night, the media have hardly touched him, and that tends to account for his good numbers. I fear it could be because they are waiting to spring something on Romney in the general.

Sekhmet on November 27, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Does anyone pay attention to newspaper endorsements any more? Does anyone even buy newspapers any more?

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM

While Newt does seem to fit their criteria, it’s clear that they’ve never liked Mitt, and no amount of schmoozing on his part was going to change that.
Their comment on Republican voters looking for an “unattainable ideal” is spot-on. We need a candidate that will have the will and ability to start the job of reversing the Messiah’s blunders, not one that merely gets a checkmark for every possible conservative talking point.

n0doz on November 27, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Romney is Hillary ’08 — all money, organization, establishment endorsements, and little else. Good for the NHUL in getting behind a viable alternative to the Mittens coronation procession.

Punchenko on November 27, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Better for Gingrich that he got the endorsement than Romney getting it.

Vince on November 27, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don’t back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.

So why did you endorse Newt? I understand not endorsing Romney, but Newt?

cartooner on November 27, 2011 at 11:19 AM

So why did you endorse Newt? I understand not endorsing Romney, but Newt?

cartooner on November 27, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Who else is realistically left to take down Romney?

idesign on November 27, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Sure hope this endorsement wasn’t “bought.”

listens2glenn on November 27, 2011 at 11:24 AM

This is the second time that the Union Leader has chosen not to endorse Romney.

They didn’t like Romney when he was the “conservative” candidate in 2008 and now they don’t like Romney when he’s the “moderate” candidate in 2012. It seems they don’t like him. Given their support for McCain last time, I have a hard time accepting their conservative bona fides. It looks more like a personality clash than a principled stand by either of the parties. This is why voters should make up their own minds and tell all of the “experts” to pound sand when they try to tell us how to vote in any direction.

jnelchef on November 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Romney is Hillary ’08 — all money, organization, establishment endorsements, and little else. Good for the NHUL in getting behind a viable alternative to the Mittens coronation procession.
Punchenko on November 27, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Does that make Newt Obama?

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:27 AM

So why did you endorse Newt? I understand not endorsing Romney, but Newt?

Newt’s risky but more likely to shake up Washington.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Newt is our own Adlai Stevenson, exect he never shot and killed a 16-year-old . . .

Wander on November 27, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Gingrich’s immigration plan amounts to an amnesty. There’s no way the courts will uphold two levels of resident: citizen/permanent non-citizen. The local boards will be dominated by pro-illegsl, bleeding heart liberal types and will be rubber stamps.

Unlike other issues, amnesty is something that cannot be repealed. Newt has always been pro-illegal and weak on enforcement.

The main difference between Newt and Mitt is that Newt does a better job of faking it, like he did with his wives.

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Newt’s risky but more likely to shake up Washington.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:30 AM

He’s more likely to shake up his marriage and personal life and everything else, too. He’s just not a very stable, grounded person.

FloatingRock on November 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Gingrich’s immigration plan amounts to an amnesty. There’s no way the courts will uphold two levels of resident: citizen/permanent non-citizen. The local boards will be dominated by pro-illegsl, bleeding heart liberal types and will be rubber stamps.

I guess it’s a good thing Newtie wants to take on the courts.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Who else is realistically left to take down Romney?

idesign on November 27, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Great idea. Let’s go with the anti-Romney with the candidate that’s most like Mitt, another big-government moderate who is wired to Washington insiders.

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:34 AM

He’s more likely to shake up his marriage and personal life and everything else, too. He’s just not a very stable, grounded person.
FloatingRock on November 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM

That may be true wrt Mitt. I don’t see a Romney divorce in the future.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Great idea. Let’s go with the anti-Romney with the candidate that’s most like Mitt, another big-government moderate who is wired to Washington insiders.
bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:34 AM

There’s always RuPaul.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:37 AM

I guess it’s a good thing Newtie wants to take on the courts.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Histroy shows that Newt’s talk is far more conservative than his walk.

Google the “Contract with America,” which was overwhelming popular. How much of it ever was enacted? How much did Newt even attempt to enact?

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM

We don’t have to agree with them on every issue. We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.

Yeah, the actual positions don’t matter, character does. How stupid is that? An honest Communist is better than a dishonest Conservative? (I’m not saying that either description applies to Gingrich or Romney). Plus the lying Newt is now somehow been transformed into honest Newt just because he revealed his true immigration position. Newt is neither a Conservative nor honest. This is a stupid endorsement.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Histroy shows that Newt’s talk is far more conservative than his walk.
Google the “Contract with America,” which was overwhelming popular. How much of it ever was enacted? How much did Newt even attempt to enact?
bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM

History also shows Newt shook things up.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:40 AM

He’s more likely to shake up his marriage and personal life and everything else, too. He’s just not a very stable, grounded person.

FloatingRock on November 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Newt has been married to Castilla for about 10 years. Time to start looking for a newer model withy fewer miles?

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Ouch!!! Romney and Romneybots hardest hit.

I would have preferred they endorse Perry but Gingrich is certainly a heck of a lot better than Romney. What this does though is help make NH competitive instead of a runaway win for Romney.

Now can I hope that conservatives will also disregard the polls, the trumpeting of Romney’s so-called “inevitability” and Perry being “toast”, and make a choice based on who can best lead this country out of the mess we are in?

If conservatives can do that, then we will be translating a near-certain loss with Romney as nominee to better chances of winning with either Perry or Gingrich as nominee.

The advantage Perry holds over Gingrich is that Perry is a better manager than Gingrich due to his successful governing experience. Gingrich has always been said to be a poor manager due to his outsized ego and know-it-all attitude that created lots of conflicts when he was Speaker.

But then I will still take Gingrich (warts and all) over Romney any time of the day.

TheRightMan on November 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM

History also shows Newt shook things up.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:40 AM

So did Obama.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM

I would have preferred they endorse Perry but Gingrich is certainly a heck of a lot better than Romney. What this does though is help make NH competitive instead of a runaway win for Romney.

I don’t like either of them, but how is a guy with no core better than a guy with a Progressive core, always coming up with Rube Goldberg type solutions and using his considerable rhetorical skills to sell them? I expect Romney to go along with what’s politically expedient but I expect Newt to actively push his nonsensical solutions (along with some good ones).

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Newt is our own Adlai Stevenson
Wander on November 27, 2011 at 11:30 AM

How? I can’t imagine a candidate or person less like Adlai Stevenson.

rrpjr on November 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM

History also shows Newt shook things up.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:40 AM

What was actually accomplished? The budget was balanced for a few years thanks to the dot.com bubble, the fact there were no major wars and there were far fewer illegals in the country than there are today?

As I said, Google the Contract with America. What got passed or even brought up for a vote?

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM

History also shows Newt shook things up.
MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:40 AM
So did Obama.
Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Isn’t it time for your Hitler reference? Actually, when you think about it, Obama just sped up the natural progression.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Wow! Romneybots are taking this pretty hard. :)

I guess you see how primary voters (especially the base) hates Romney and constantly being told by the media/Dems/GOP Establishment who to vote for – while denigrating and destroying candidates the base genuinely likes.

It led to Crist’s loss, Castle’s loss, Murkowski’s primary loss, etc…

Why does the GOP Establishment consistently pick so-called “moderates”, who they very well know their base hates? The Dems never do that.

TheRightMan on November 27, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Every recent Hot Air thread dealing with Newt seems to be swamped by vitriolic, ad hominem attacks. That probably delights some core group, but I am growing weary of the lack of analysis. Perhaps that is the goal of the attacks.

GaltBlvnAtty on November 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Isn’t it time for your Hitler reference? Actually, when you think about it, Obama just sped up the natural progression.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM

What’s your point? Mine was that just shaking things up isn’t a positive by itself. Who is shaking them up and for what reason matters.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:50 AM

What was actually accomplished? The budget was balanced for a few years thanks to the dot.com bubble, the fact there were no major wars and there were far fewer illegals in the country than there are today?
As I said, Google the Contract with America. What got passed or even brought up for a vote?
bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM

It seems you’re picking and choosing the history that best suits your narrative. In any case, if you want principled, there’s always Ron Paul.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don’t back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers.

Shake your cane at me when you say that, sir!

I love this. It sounds like the paper is owned by by a couple of old guys sitting out on the porch. How do I subscribe?

29Victor on November 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM

UNION leader?! Oh man that’s it for Newt he’s toast now and… oh… it’s a newspaper? Never mind…

Skywise on November 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Crucify the Guy?

Hate Gingrich. Hate Mitt. I wish you people would step back and look at what the Dems elected and how they elected Him.

1) He sure had flaws.

2) A lot of His base thought they were getting Lenin.

Try to nail the positions and cite the faults but geez…

BTW, in re. Mitt and amnesty, NBC aired a clip at 11:20 AM Sunday of Romney more or less advocating outright citizenship in 2007. Now this is my paraphrase and out of context. I am a Mitt supporter and depressed. I knew he resembled Dear Leader but really…yuch.

IlikedAUH2O on November 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I wrote here about the importance of the Union-Leader’s endorsement for Newt & about the enthusiastic crowds that greeted Newt this weekend.

LFRGary on November 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM

What’s your point? Mine was that just shaking things up isn’t a positive by itself. Who is shaking them up and for what reason matters.

You claimed Obama shook things up. How?

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM

It is what it is Mittbots and antiNewts. The Union Leader knows Romney well and it’s telling that they chose someone other than Mitt.

Vince on November 27, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Newt, Mitt, Barack.

Sounds like a command in alien.

Klatu barada nicto.

profitsbeard on November 27, 2011 at 11:52 AM

KELLY AYOTTE HARDEST HIT!!!
mwahahaha!!!!1

abobo on November 27, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Every recent Hot Air thread dealing with Newt seems to be swamped by vitriolic, ad hominem attacks. That probably delights some core group, but I am growing weary of the lack of analysis. Perhaps that is the goal of the attacks.

GaltBlvnAtty on November 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Lack on analysis? OK

-Voted for the Department of Education
-Expressed support for individual health care mandate and a mandatory bond posted by those making over 50K per year.
-was for cap and trade, was against it, had some middling positions, made an ad for it with the opposition.
-Supported Scazzafava against a conservative opponent.
-Came up with a fairy tale explanation for his influence-peddling gig with the evil Freddie Mac.
-Called the Ryan plan right-wing social engineering.

And this is just what I can remember of the top of my head.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Gingrich’s immigration plan amounts to an amnesty. There’s no way the courts will uphold two levels of resident: citizen/permanent non-citizen. The local boards will be dominated by pro-illegsl, bleeding heart liberal types and will be rubber stamps.

Congress decides naturalization and not the courts. Read the Constitution instead of spamming for Romney.

Punchenko on November 27, 2011 at 11:56 AM

You claimed Obama shook things up. How?

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Passed the health-care “reform”. Put the country on the road towards bankruptcy by passing a stimulus of the size that a regular politician would not be able to accomplish. Put the US on anti-Israeli foreign policy course. Went on an apology tour to the Muslim world. Influenced the outcome of the Arab spring to benefit Muslim Brotherhood.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:57 AM

It seems you’re picking and choosing the history that best suits your narrative. In any case, if you want principled, there’s always Ron Paul.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:50 AM

The man who sold out his supposed core convictions to American neo-Nazis for 500 bucks? Nope, try again.

ebrown2 on November 27, 2011 at 11:58 AM

@floating go ahead vote for third party while you are at donate to the Obama campaign because that’s who you are helping.

terryannonline on November 27, 2011 at 11:59 AM

BTW, in re. Mitt and amnesty, NBC aired a clip at 11:20 AM Sunday of Romney more or less advocating outright citizenship in 2007. Now this is my paraphrase and out of context. I am a Mitt supporter and depressed. I knew he resembled Dear Leader but really…yuch.

IlikedAUH2O on November 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I had been fooled by this clip myself. If you go further you realize that he wasn’t talking about amnesty at all. I saw it again this morning and they stopped it at just the “right time, this is a hit job, not honest reporting.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Passed the health-care “reform”. Put the country on the road towards bankruptcy by passing a stimulus of the size that a regular politician would not be able to accomplish. Put the US on anti-Israeli foreign policy course. Went on an apology tour to the Muslim world. Influenced the outcome of the Arab spring to benefit Muslim Brotherhood.

As I said. Natural progression. Though, Obama’s stance on Israel does seem slightly more radical than that of many in Congress.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Newt is getting slimed.

When you make me President and I pull off my my antitrust action against the liberal media, I’m adding some control on the mud slinging. What they did to the former Governor of Alaska…

Hey, I can dream can’t I?

IlikedAUH2O on November 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

@meathead no way will vote for an isolationist

terryannonline on November 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

What was actually accomplished? The budget was balanced for a few years thanks to the dot.com bubble, the fact there were no major wars and there were far fewer illegals in the country than there are today?
As I said, Google the Contract with America. What got passed or even brought up for a vote?

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Wow. The lengths to which someone will go to tear down a candidate in order to justify their choice of a candidate just amazes me sometimes.

I suppose you believe that the Soviet Union would have crumbled under its own weight, right? And Reagan wasted all that money building up our nukes? Right? ‘Cause, you know, these things just happen.

We had a .com bubble here in WA. You know what our elected officials did with all the extra revenue? They spent it. They started new programs and expaned old ones and managed to put the state on the hook for so much money that we are now slicing and dicing apart all that they did and still having trouble paying the bills.

29Victor on November 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Every recent Hot Air thread dealing with Newt seems to be swamped by vitriolic, ad hominem attacks. That probably delights some core group, but I am growing weary of the lack of analysis. Perhaps that is the goal of the attacks.

GaltBlvnAtty on November 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM

You might wish to read this analysis of Newt regarding his history in supporting illigal immigrants if you are looking for substance:

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/november-23-2011/gingrich-shows-compassion-illegal-aliens-he-helped-stay-rooted-us.ht

Newt’s part of the problem, not the solution.

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:54 AM

All of your points have been argued for and against many, many times. I understand that you don’t like Newt but why do you have to troll every Newt post? How about arguing for your candidate. If you list what you consider a negative against Newt, explain why your candidate is better on that point.

Vince on November 27, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Congress decides naturalization and not the courts. Read the Constitution instead of spamming for Romney.

Punchenko on November 27, 2011 at 11:56 AM

The courts decide anything they want to decide. Read the news instead of spewing nonsense.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:01 PM

The man who sold out his supposed core convictions to American neo-Nazis for 500 bucks? Nope, try again.

So now RP sold out to Neo-Nazis?

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Ouchie!

gophergirl on November 27, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Newt is getting slimed.

IlikedAUH2O on November 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Actual physical contact. Can he move?

29Victor on November 27, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Romney is Hillary ’08 — all money, organization, establishment endorsements, and little else. Good for the NHUL in getting behind a viable alternative to the Mittens coronation procession.

Punchenko on November 27, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Does that make Newt Obama?

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 11:27 AM

No, Obama had money and a pretty good campaign behind him when he was up against Hillary. Newt is something else entirely if he manages to beat Romney and snatch the nomination. A Newt win would certainly be a blow against the conventional wisdom that whoever has the most money wins.

Punchenko on November 27, 2011 at 12:03 PM

@meathead no way will vote for an isolationist
terryannonline on November 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

I disagree with the characterization but the point stands. If Newt doesn’t make the cut, then whom? Ron Paul?

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM

As I said. Natural progression. Though, Obama’s stance on Israel does seem slightly more radical than that of many in Congress.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

But that’s not really the point. The point once again, to make it specific, is this: indeed Newt is likely to shake things up because he is a “big idea” man. His ideas are often (a) Progressive (b) disasterous if taken to completion. I prefer the amoral Romney just going with the flow to the Progressive reformer Newt, although I support Cain and Bachmann.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Ha, ha, ha. This is hilarious. A bunch of dumb-a$$es on Twitter think a “union leader” — as in, a union boss — has endorsed Newt in New Hampshire, so they’re all…confused.

Rational Thought on November 27, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I guess you see how primary voters (especially the base) hates Romney…

TheRightMan on November 27, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Yes, I’ve noticed. They hate Romney so much they’d rather have somebody even worse.

I don’t like either, but I think the Republican Party is simply irrelevant if Newt is the best they have to offer.

Roll out he 3rd party!

FloatingRock on November 27, 2011 at 12:06 PM

But that’s not really the point.

Oh it’s not?

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 12:07 PM

The man who sold out his supposed core convictions to American neo-Nazis for 500 bucks? Nope, try again.

So now RP sold out to Neo-Nazis?

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 12:02 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

ebrown2 on November 27, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Oh it’s not?

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 12:07 PM

OK, I give up. I was trying to make my point and it’s irrelevant to that point whether Obama is a natural progression or shook things up. What Newt is likely to do is what I was trying to steer this to.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:10 PM

ebrown2 on November 27, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Ron Paul has been crystal clear on his stance on racism.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don’t back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers.

Shake your cane at me when you say that, sir!

I love this. It sounds like the paper is owned by by a couple of old guys sitting out on the porch. How do I subscribe?

29Victor on November 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Here’s their website, subscribe away. BTW, the paper is now owned by the employees.

Fun trivia: early in his career a dude named Ben Bradlee was a reporter for the Sunday edition. He’s now at a paper called the WaPo.

http://www.unionleader.com/

Del Dolemonte on November 27, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Go see Drudge. At the very top there is a smiling picture of Bill Clinton with a caption “Bill Likes Him Too…”

SO Newt’s got THAT going for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/26/bill_clinton_praises_newt_hes_articulate_and_attracts_independents.html

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:14 PM

I had been fooled by this clip myself. If you go further you realize that he wasn’t talking about amnesty at all. I saw it again this morning and they stopped it at just the “right time, this is a hit job, not honest reporting.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Well? Don’t leave us hanging! What was the clip about? What came after the point where they stopped it at “just the right time?”

Vince on November 27, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Well? Don’t leave us hanging! What was the clip about? What came after the point where they stopped it at “just the right time?”

Vince on November 27, 2011 at 12:15 PM

If I remember correctly he went on to further explain that they should not be precluded from going back to where they came from and applying for citizenship there, like everyone else. He was basically advocating removing the permanent punishment that would result from having been caught in the country illegally.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Ron Paul has been crystal clear on his stance on racism.

MeatHeadinCA on November 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM

He certainly has been, he loves the money and support of racists and anti-semites. Actions (and inactions) speak louder than political mouth-vomit.

ebrown2 on November 27, 2011 at 12:21 PM

He certainly has been, he loves the money and support of racists and anti-semites. Actions (and inactions) speak louder than political mouth-vomit.

ebrown2 on November 27, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I’ve also been touched by his against-the-grain support for the legitimate aspiration of the Iranian mullahs. I mean first they came for the mullah, and only Ron Paul said something.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:24 PM

As I said, Google the Contract with America. What got passed or even brought up for a vote?

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM

The Contract laid out eight common-sense reforms to take shape in 10 bills. The bulk of the reforms were taken from Ronald Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union. All 10 bills came to a vote within 100 days. A majority was defeated in the Senate, but several were enacted. Many were demagogued by Clinton. A few were vetoed, one veto was overridden.

As a political document, the Contract avoid divisive issues. Whatever one’s view of it, the Republicans ran on it and won majorities for the first time in decades. How was is bad or “nonsensical”?

Micklethwait & Wooldridge argue in The Right Nation that the Contract placed the Congress firmly back in the driver’s seat of domestic government policy for most of the 104th Congress, and placed the Clinton White House firmly on the defensive.

George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein has argued that the Contract “show[ed] . . . that [Congress took] federalism and limited national government seriously,” and “undoubtedly made [the Supreme Court decision in United States v.] Lopez more viable.”

As we all know, the legislative “sausage-making” process is brutal. That most made it the floor and some passed is pretty remarkable.

http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-with-america
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

But of course, Romney has his great signature achievement far beyond the modest scope of the Contract.

rrpjr on November 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM

The courts decide anything they want to decide. Read the news instead of spewing nonsense.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:01 PM

No, they really can’t, Igor, and the Constitution is not nonsense. The courts cannot lay and collect taxes, nor can they make laws regarding the standard uniform code for naturalization as both powers are reserved for Congress to decide:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…

I’m sorry if this derails your “Newt’s non-citizen legality will lead to court-led citizenship for illegals!111!!!!!” narrative, Igor. :-(

Punchenko on November 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM

See you all later!

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM

No, they really can’t, Igor, and the Constitution is not nonsense. The courts cannot lay and collect taxes, nor can they make laws regarding the standard uniform code for naturalization as both powers are reserved for Congress to decide:

But they can decide whether someone is subjected to unequal treatment under the law. And look at all the decision-making around Obamacare. One court says it’s OK, the next one says it isn’t. And the Supremes will decide it by a single-person margin. It’s basically partisan politics by other means.

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:29 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/26/bill_clinton_praises_newt_hes_articulate_and_attracts_independents.html

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Newt/Clinton 2012!

FloatingRock on November 27, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Speaking of endorsements, guess who got the coveted “America’s Toughest Sheriff” (Sheriff Joe Arpaio) endorsement?

Gov. Rick Perry!!!

Take that, you Perry haters that sought to distort his record on border security and illegal immigration.

OT: Sheriff Joe Arpaio to endorse Rick Perry next week

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., who calls himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” will endorse Texas Gov. Rick Perry next week, a source with knowledge of the endorsement told ABC News.

Arpaio espouses a hard-line stance on illegal immigration, leading raids to round up and jail illegal immigrants, and was a major proponent of the controversial Arizona immigration law.

Ed, can this please get a front page article or headline thread?

Is Gov. Perry getting his second look? You betcha!

TheRightMan on November 27, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Now all that is left is the Palin endorsement – and I am optimistic it will go to Gov. Perry.

Because, face it guys/gals, when you consider the candidates (warts and all) – Gov. Perry wins hands down. His warts, at least, are to do with style rather than substance.

TheRightMan on November 27, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I’m no Perry or Romney or Cain fan but I definitely place them all above Newt. I think people should go back to whoever they were supporting before, or else reconsider Bachmann or even Ron Paul. Otherwise, unless somebody better enters I suggest it’s time that people be open minded about a 3rd party if there is a worthwhile candidate. (Who knows…)

That’s my 2¢

FloatingRock on November 27, 2011 at 12:41 PM

We might not like Newt’s immigration position, but I just cannot see how in practice his presidency would have any different impact on it than any other of the viable republican candidates. For one thing, it is congress and not the President that is going to determine what happens (remember Bush’s push for amnesty?), Newt is as likely to secure the border as any of the other guys. With respect to the millions already here, no matter who wins they either will leave the status quo or have to come up with some sort of path to legalization, nobody is going to initiate a mass deportation and they are all unlikely to clamp down on illegal hiring and services sufficiently to create significant self-deportation.

neuquenguy on November 27, 2011 at 12:46 PM

FloatingRock on November 27, 2011 at 12:41 PM

LOL… it’s called “overplaying one’s hand”.

Romney, with the help of his media buddies, organized a huge number of “gotcha” debates knowing very well that it was Perry’s weakness. They then ganged up on him right from the beginning and tried finishing him off just via the debates alone.

Unfortunately for them, since they made the debates the only deal – it is natural that the best debater (Gingrich) has been pushed to frontrunner status over Romney. And that is one thing they didn’t plan for.

The debates and follow-up have exposed flaws in all the candidates and is now leading primary voters to consider every candidate thoroughly hence leading to the race still being in flux. How it will play out, no one knows – but Romney will definitely not be the nominee. :)

TheRightMan on November 27, 2011 at 12:51 PM

With respect to the millions already here, no matter who wins they either will leave the status quo or have to come up with some sort of path to legalization, nobody is going to initiate a mass deportation and they are all unlikely to clamp down on illegal hiring and services sufficiently to create significant self-deportation.

neuquenguy on November 27, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Unfortunately, you are probably correct as the special interests and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have more clout than the 60%+ who want tougher immigration laws.

If the 12-20 million illegals gain citizenship, this country is in for real problems unless we eliminate chain migration.

bw222 on November 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM

neuquenguy on November 27, 2011 at 12:46 PM

You paint with a broad brush. Bachmann has been a consistent opponent of illegal immigration just like she’s been consistent on other issues. She isn’t in the same class as the other candidates who all have their fingers in the wind.

FloatingRock on November 27, 2011 at 1:03 PM

2 key phrases that caught my eye that I agree with:

We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.

We look for conservatives of courage and conviction …

texasconserv on November 27, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Newt will blather, screw-up, bore and RINO the voters so much that they will gladly send Obama back to the White House.

He has huge dislikeability and a mansion full of baggage.
Clinton played him in ’96 like a fat fiddle.

This ain’t good…

TexasJew on November 27, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Newt will blather, screw-up, bore and RINO the voters so much that they will gladly send Obama back to the White House.

He has huge dislikeability and a mansion full of baggage.
Clinton played him in ’96 like a fat fiddle.

This ain’t good…

TexasJew on November 27, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Oh I agree. If Newt gets the nod, I’m going to volenteer to drive Democrats to the polls on election day. I’m hoping that if I’m on the list for the “good” side, then perhaps I’ll get health care under the Obama administration.

Nothing I could do would get me anything under the Newt kingdom.

Snake307 on November 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Why would a union leader endorse a GOP candidate?

/

keep the change on November 27, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Oh I agree. If Newt gets the nod, I’m going to volenteer to drive Democrats to the polls on election day. I’m hoping that if I’m on the list for the “good” side, then perhaps I’ll get health care under the Obama administration.

Nothing I could do would get me anything under the Newt kingdom.

Snake307 on November 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM

You are a good democrat. It’s I, me, myself all the time.

Vince on November 27, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Go see Drudge. At the very top there is a smiling picture of Bill Clinton with a caption “Bill Likes Him Too…”

SO Newt’s got THAT going for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/26/bill_clinton_praises_newt_hes_articulate_and_attracts_independents.html

Igor R. on November 27, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Reverse psychology, my friend.

Even Chuck U. Schumer was singing Newt’s praises on the Sunday squawk shows this am.

What intrigues me is the fact that what to do with our current abundance of illegals was even a topic in a debate focused on foreign policy. If the question had been posed about our porous southern border and its role in jeopardizing our national security, the question would have had more validity.

There were many issues of international consequence not even posed during the debate. As a consequence of this one response by Gingrich, now the focus has distracted away from areas in foreign policy and national security where Obama is weak and given the Dems their talking points until the next issue comes up.

onlineanalyst on November 27, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2