Monday, November 28, 2011

The New Hampshire Union Leader STILL BATTING ZERO

Well, they've done it again. Backed a GOP candidate who is not a true conservative and has about a snowballs chance in hell of winning the general election against Obama.

Perhaps they like dirty laundry and lots of baggage? Maybe they feel bad for President Obama and wanted to help nominate a candidate who levels the playing field. Loser vs loser?

In 2008, they pushed John McCain down our collective throats. This time around, it's Newt Gingrich. In a time where the economy is our top priority, they want us to nominate someone who can't even handle his own personal and campaign finances.

In an op-ed in Forbes Magazine Sunday , Richard Salsman chimes in on Newt Gingrich:
The latest heartthrob of the GOP conservatives is 15-term Congressman and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, born and raised a Southern Baptist but a man who then flip-flopped by converting to Catholicism in 2009 at the behest of his third wife (a House staffer 24 years his junior whom helped Gingrich cheat on his second wife). Romney has been married once, for 42 years. Conservatives seem to have no problem that Gingrich is both a religious and marital flip-flopper.

Worse, they don’t seem to object that in the past decade his “consulting” firm got $37 million in fees from pharmaceutical firms lobbying for the 2003 prescription drug benefit (Medicare Part D), from ADM and ethanol makers lobbying for subsidies, from Freddie Mac lobbying for federal support for the soon-to-be toxic sub-prime mortgage market, and from banks lobbying for the 2008 “TARP” bailout (which Gingrich endorsed). When he wasn’t busy pursuing these various corruptions, Gingrich was busy promoting Al Gore’s “cap and trade” legislation and global warming myths in widely-publicized TV and print ads sitting cozily on a coach with Nancy Pelosi, whose political tactics he has subsequently characterized as “despicable,” “dishonest” and “vicious.” Well, it takes one to know one.
Salsman nails it. Gingrich represents everything that most conservatives claim to be against. Yet, the ABR faction will look the other way and give Gingrich a pass. This acceptance of him is nothing more than Hypocrisy with a capital "H".

As to what is the reality of this endorsement and what weight does it hold? I can tell you as someone who has been involved in NH and Massachusetts politics for the past 40 years, it means diddly squat.

John McCain won in 08 not because he had the endorsement from the Union Leader, but because he had the best ground game and spent lots of time in the state. This time around, Romney has the best ground game and NOBODY else, I mean NOBODY else comes even close.

I'd like to tell the Union Leader editorial board where to stick their endorsement, but I won't. After all, it's Sunday when I'm writing this.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

13 comments:

Right Wingnut said...

If the endorsement means "diddly squat, why did Romney work so hard to get it?

Right Wingnut said...

Actually....they aren't battling zero. The endorsed Reagan in 1980.

http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2011/11/27/the-union-leaders-endorsement-record/

Right Wingnut said...

They also endorsed Nixon the year he won the presidency.

Your title is misleading..........

Right Wingnut said...

....but it's your site.......

Anonymous said...

you would think that they would endorse a winner but i guess they are like me, i go for the underdog, only in sports that is. Mitt will still win NH.

Anonymous said...

They endorsed Steve Forbes, Pat Bucahnnan TWICE, and Pierre DuPont..anyone remember old Pierre because I sure don't. I think it might be better luck NOT to be have their endorsement because they suck at picking winners!

Ohio JOE said...

"anyone remember old Pierre because I sure don't." Yes, we don't expect you people of Generation Y to remember these old folks.

larry said...

Romney's probably better off not getting it. After looking at those who did, they may have jinxed him if he had been their choice

craigs said...

Personal and professional morality and ethics mean more to me than even policy positions which, understandably, may change with changing circumstances.
I could not, and would not, vote for Newt Gingrich for President. Next to Obama, his ethics and morality, policy positions aside, are miniscule and lilliputian.
have we come to this , that a major newspaper endorses a candidate like Gingrich, partly on the basis of character ? What do they possibly define as " Character ? "
CraigS

DanL said...

Right there with you CraigS. I would never vote for Gingrich. And this election is perilously close to driving me permanently out of the republican party. The hypocrisy that Bosman is talking about here is one of the biggest reasons I can hardly stomach this party now.

leighrow said...

DanL

I am with you on the direction of the GOP. I guess "character" has a different meaning these days. I guess the Republicans have ditched family values in their platform in favor of serial adultrey, if Gingrich is leading in the polls.

Anonymous said...

'character' is a fluid thing for some so-cons and for the UL.

Terrye said...

They said they refused to endorse Romney because he represents the one percent..I guess they are supporters of the OWS.

I have news for these folks, Gingrich is not exactly your average joe. He has not had a real job in the private sector since Gerald Ford was president.