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 Romney — despite 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:
hmmmm two thoughts. 1. The union endorsed Gingrich to get Republicans to abandon him or 2., Gingrich is actually a RHINO in disguise.
I for one don’t care who endorses him. His comments in regard to legalizing illegals backed me off. Of course he has back peddled, but the horse has already left the barn and you can’t shut the door now.
Newt never said he’d make those who had been here for 25 years or more citizens. Nor has he changed his story. He has, however, had to re’explain what the media and other candidates have twisted. What Newt has suggested is not that far different than what Reagan also did. I’ve never believed you could deport the millions of illegals here. Would cost a fortune to do so anyway, between finding them and sending them home.
The barn door that needs to be shut is the borders, and then deal with sorting out those who have been here for decades. Overall, this didn’t bother me from Newt any more than it did not bother me from Reagan. It is not a path to citizenship. It’s only being portrayed that way by some opposing candidates and media with an agenda.
I believe Newt is establishment GOP in many ways, but he is most definitely conservative. He’s just an odd bird in the mix. And at the moment, the bird with the most appealing colors apparently.
@MataHarley:
Thank you for the explanation. I do my best to keep up with the candidates, but sometimes it is difficult. I will conduct some more research on Newt and see if I change my mind. It would be nice to be able to settle one a candidate as I keep moving from one to another as more information emerges. However who ever is determined to be the Republican candidate will get my support regardless. The future of my family and their families depend upon it.
Mata and Disenchanted Newt proposes a path to “legal status “( Reagan gave full amnesty to all illegals in 1986) for an as yet undetermined millions who are here illegally.Most other contenders including Cain,Perry,Bachmann and Romney disagreed at the last debate.
Poll: Gingrich opens up nine-point lead after Union-Leader endorsement
The Hill.
_______________________
DETAILS:
Newt’s lead comes from OLDER voters and independents.
Conservatives are rallying behind Gingrich as their preferred alternative. Gingrich and Romney are virtually tied among voters 18-44, who are more likely to hold liberal views.
Gingrich is also rallying independents, garnering 32 percent of likely voters who do not affiliate with a party. Among independents, Romney actually trails Paul, who pulls 17 percent of the vote to Romney’s 16 percent.
Interestingly, Cain’s support comes from Democrats that the polling firm believes will cross over to vote in open primaries.
Cain was the choice of 36 percent of Democrats — more than double any other Republican nominee — suggesting that his poll numbers might be nationally inflated and that conservatives truly are coalescing around Gingrich.
I need to find out the bottom truth. I for one am tired of my tax dollars going to illegals for benefits my own family all born and raised in the United States cannot get. I am tired of going to the grocery store and everything is written in Spanish. I live in the United States and the language is English. I will not support anyone who supports open borders, appealing the AZ immigration law, or gives benefits to illegals and/or their families (e.g., perry)
I am third generation German. My grandparents came to the United States for a better life. They came into the country legally, they learned English (my grandmother used to read romance magazines to learn), they became citizens, and they worked and worked hard. Not once did they forget their culture, and they were proud to be Americans – not German Americans, but plain ole Americans. I have no sympathy for illegals, none whatsoever.
@disenchanted and @disenchanted… INRE some differing viewpoints of Newt’s immigration proposals.
Crisis Magazine has an even handed look of support, and is careful to note that Gingrich is *not* suggesting granting citizenship to those that have been here for two plus decades, but only the right to remain and work legally. There is a very specific difference between the two.
And perhaps the trade off should be that any of those allowed to remain and work legally under this plan forfeit any ability to ever obtain citizenship. That may already be a leg of Newt’s plan, but I haven’t seen anything that in depth on the specifics yet.
A not so flattering review of Gingrich at Western Youth, in amongst the other candidates’ proposals, still points out some historic realities… that Gingrich felt duped in supporting Reagan’s 1986 plan because of two promises that never happened.
1: It was supposed to be about 300,000, and ended up about 3 million and
2: It was supposed to be along with a guarantee that the borders were closed, and creation of a guest worker program.
At Newt’s site, (item #6), he laments the same.
NPR did a story in July 2010 about the failure of Congress to follow up on Reagans multi-pronged plan. Peter Simpson, one of Reagan’s speechwriters, noted that Reagan’s views are not so very distant from Newt’s.
Mike Reagan, who praises all the candidates, did note that Newt’s position was closest to that of his father’s, and reminded the viewing public that Reagan was the last GOP candidate to carry a swell of Hispanic vote.
Newt knows of these pitfalls – allowing for the path to legalization (not citizenship), but without first fixing the border entry problem. He isn’t likely to allow one to happen without the other the second time around.
There’s passion involved when ever this immigration overload is mentioned. I’m only the 2nd generation American in my family, on both my parent’s sides. I am well aware that my grandparents entered thru Ellis Island, experienced discrimination and abuse, but worked feverishly to acclimate to this country as their own. I wouldn’t like to see a blanket forgiveness for those who are already here, coming in recently.
Then there are the realities and logistics of an illegals round up and deportation. Truly that is neither practical nor economical. And especially a waste of cash if all that is done, and they merely cross the Rio Grande or slither thru a drug smuggling tunnel and return shortly thereafter.
I agree with both Reagan and Newt… that first the border entry should be reformed and secured, and only then should the status of those be addressed. I will say that Reagan did not support militarization or fencing of the border as the cure.
As for the all of the candidates? They all give the proper lip service to titillate the voting bloc. “Enforce the laws, secure the border.” Few really want to address what Newt has done so boldly… just what do you do with everyone already here? Perry does the avoidance dance at every avenue.
Frankly, I don’t think any of them have a clue how to secure that border. It will not be done with fences and military. But you can remove incentives that make crossing appealing. How to do that within the framework of our Constitution is always dicey… but I think that is the only true way to accomplish the deed. Remove any of the perks of even been here legally to those who cannot show they have entered the nation thru the proper channels.
disenchanted
I like your comment, many think like you, also, but
I think that mentioning RICK PERRY defaulting by putting the children in school
instead of leaving them on the street is not right
simply because the WHITE HOUSE didn’t do their job to close the borders and deal with ILLEGALS, so
the STATES WITH THOSE BORDER are compelled to make decisions to help their states to keep up with the problem to be stuck with a great amount of ILLEGALS,
It’s so easy to judge when you’re not living with borders, and specifically when you have a great flow of working citizens still coming to fill the jobs,
they have to do the best decisions, because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE AT THIS POINT,
BUT PERRY SAID HE WOULD CLOSE THE BORDERS AS SOON AS HE GET ELECTED HE WOULD MOVE RIGHT IN THAT TASK.
THAT SAYS IT ALL. he is credible because he has the problem as GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, and had many conflicts with OBAMA concerning the problem.