That being said, both are roughly equally liberal.
Posted on 12/24/2007 5:54:03 AM PST by OCCASparky
MILFORD, N.H. — The Concord Monitor broke with political tradition Sunday, telling readers in the state with the first presidential primary why they should not vote for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney instead of whom they should support. In a scathing anti-endorsement that called Romney a “disquieting figure,” the New Hampshire newspaper’s editorial board said he looks and acts like a presidential contender but “surely must be stopped” because he lacks the core philosophical beliefs to be a trustworthy president.
In particular, the newspaper noted the former Massachusetts governor’s change of heart on such issues as abortion rights, stem-cell research and access to emergency contraception, as well as on signing an anti-tax pledge.
“When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state’s first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we’ll know it,” the newspaper said. “Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.”
(Excerpt) Read more at youdecide08.foxnews.com ...
This is the Concord Monitor speaking, not the Union Leader.
The Concord Monitor, actually fears Romney winning, because they endorse Hillary.
Unlike the FReepers with MDS who will eagerly join the liberal chorus in a rabid denunciation of Mitt, I actually read the Marxist screed in issue. The editorial board was especially offended and outraged that Mitt said he would double the size of Guantanamo and had refused to eliminate waterboarding as means of cracking terrorists with mass murder on their minds.
This kind of rejection is EXACTLY the kind of rejection Mitt or any conservative Republican nominee needs.
How can you not see this is a good thing?
This gets posted about 5 times a day
Big bump for a clear and commonsense comment.
First, the medium is the message. All the
papers have NOT endorsed Romney (home state area).
Second, the polls (real tracking polls) show Romney LOSING
even to Hillary (high negatives).
Three, even the Dems, Carville, Estrich, etc WANT Romney.
These are not signs of anything of strength.
Romney is not my first choice, however, having a liberal newspaper attack you should tell you Romney is someone you might think about voting for.
Today the Concord, New Hampshire, Monitor did something I don't remember having seen before. In an editorial, rather than endorsing a candidate in the New Hampshire primary, the Monitor singled out one candidate, Mitt Romney, as the one who "surely must be stopped."
The editorial is a mean-spirited attack on Romney, who must wonder what he has done to merit such unusual treatment. Actually, the Monitor's editorial doesn't clearly answer that question. The main thrust of its attack is that Romney is a flip-flopper. True enough, Romney has changed his mind on some issues. But that hardly makes him unique among this year's candidates; as I argued here, Barack Obama has shifted his position on at least as many significant issues as Romney. But the Monitor isn't labeling Obama the candidate who "must be stopped."
Everyone knows that Romney has moved to the right on the social issues over the years; in that regard, he resembles many other Republicans, including Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. The Monitor is a notoriously liberal newspaper, so it is understandably unhappy with Romney's current positions. Still, given that Romney's views on the social issues are more or less the same as those of the other Republican contenders, with the exception of Rudy Giuliani, it isn't clear why they should be the occasion for such a venomous attack.
The answer to the question comes, perhaps, near the editorial's conclusion:
In the 2008 campaign for president, there are numerous issues on which Romney has no record, and so voters must take him at his word. On these issues, those words are often chilling. While other candidates of both parties speak of restoring America's moral leadership in the world, Romney has said he'd like to "double" the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, where inmates have been held for years without formal charge or access to the courts. He dodges the issue of torture - unable to say, simply, that waterboarding is torture and America won't do it. There, I suspect, is the rub. Romney has refused to toe the liberal line on the war on terror. With respect to interrogations of terrorists, he is to the right of John McCain, his chief rival in new Hampshire. That looks like the real reason why the left-wing Monitor thinks Romney is the candidate who "must be stopped."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019352.php'
Best news for Mitt Romney ever!! Go, Mitt! They hate him so much that they take the time, money and effort to do a hit piece. Don’t you just love it?
Concord Monitor is the commie fishwrap of our state. This is a good thing for Mitt.
Mitt Romney is feared because they have endorsed Hillary Clinton.
And, if the race for president is based on * looks * as is the reason many people vote for a candidate, Mitt is a shoe in.
If the race is between Mitt and Hillary, I would vote for Mitt... not because I like him but because he's the closest candidate to conservative that would be running.
This from a MA resident whose vote doesn't count anyway in the Bluest State.
They like Huckabee! So, does the NEA!
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071125/FRONTPAGE/711250335
“Mike Huckabee was never about fire and brimstone. As a preacher, he was buoyant. The first time he took to the pulpit, as a 16-year-old preaching on a Sunday night, he turned water into wine.”
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/FRONTPAGE/712120302
“Huckabee became the first Republican yesterday to be endorsed by the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association. In a short press conference, President Rhonda Wesolowski lauded Huckabee’s opposition to school vouchers and his commitment to arts and music education.”
First they argue that Mitt was a liberal governor of a liberal state. Can't support him.
And now that that Mitt's presidential candidacy has been thoroughly rejected by liberal voters and the ultra-leftwing MSM in the northeast? No problem. He's still unsupportable. Can't even win his own state.
Give it up. This has been posted numerous times. Mitt should wear it as a badge of honor to be trashed by this liberal paper. Even John King on CNN this morning described it as a liberal paper.
But, the phony label definitely applies to McCain.
***Shudder***
Now that's an endorsement as welcome as late stage cancer.
And yet homeschoolers are among Huck's most ardent fans.
Many conservatives have lost effective use of their brains.
SAY WHAT?
“I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.”
—Mitt Romney
“He was speaking figuratively, not literally.”
— Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for the Romney campaign, responding to questions raised by the Detroit Free Press
You again? I thought you saw the definition of saw that I sent you. Are you sure it isn’t just the fact he is a Mormon that sets you off?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.