Union Leader Publisher Has To Be Joking

In what was somewhat a surprise move, the Manchester Union Leader (New Hampshire's largest newspaper) endorsed Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney. Until that endorsement, Romney had held a big lead in every poll taken in New Hampshire and most people believed he would easily win that state. Now all of that is in question, and a recent Insider Advantage Poll shows that Gingrich is closing the gap in New Hampshire (and is now within the poll's margin of error). The poll nows has Romney at 31% and Gingrich at 27%.

This has to be devastating news for Romney because other recent polls show him trailing badly in both Iowa and South Carolina to Gingrich. In Iowa, Insider Advantage has Gingrich at 28% and Romney at 12%, and in South Carolina they have Gingrich at 38% and Romney at 15%. If these three polls are correct, and there's no reason to believe they aren't, then the nomination may once again be slipping away from Mitt Romney. To remain a viable candidate, he needs to win New Hampshire, and win it big.

This brings up the question -- why did the Union Leader endorse Newt Gingrich (the candidate with more ethical and moral skeletons in his closet than any of the others)? After all, Mitt Romney has been the leading candidate in NewHampshire for many months now. It would have been easy for the paper to jump on board with the candidate New Hampshire voters seemed to favor.


Last Monday the publisher of the Union Leader, Joe McQuaid, told Fox News why the peper had chosen Gingrich over Romney -- and frankly, the reason he gave made me wonder if the paper had completely lost touch with reality. Or maybe he was just making a very bad joke and didn't want to reveal the real reason for their strange endorsement. He actually said they had not chosen Romney because Romney was a candidate who represented the 1%.

That's right, it was because Romney was a member of and represented the 1%! Here's what he actually said, "I think -- and this is crazy, but so are we -- that Gingrich is going to have a better time in the general election than Mitt Romney. I think it's going to be Obama's 99% versus the 1%, and Romney sort of represents the 1%"

Let's leave aside the fact that every poll taken shows that Romney would be a more formidable opponent for Obama than any of the other Republican hopefuls, including Newt Gingrich. Let's just look at who among the Republican candidates does not represent the 1%. Frankly, I can't think of any. Every single one of them supports the GOP trickle-down policies that favor the rich over everyone else, and all of them have come out in favor of new and massive tax cuts for the rich. Policy-wise they are identical octuplets vying to be the new champion of the 1%.

But maybe he wasn't talking about the identical policies of the candidate. Maybe he was referring to the fact that Romney is himself a member of the 1%. But even that doesn't work, since Romney is far from the only member of the 1% among the Republican candidates. The paper's endorsee, Newt Gingrich, made over $2.5 million last year (and had a $500,000 charge account in one of New York City's high end jewelry stores). That undoubtably puts him in the 1%. And using the New York Times definition of an income of at least $700,000 a year, three others easily qualify as members of the 1% -- Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum.

And it doesn't stop there. Michele Bachmann's income, as near as can be figured, is somewhere between $280,000 and $840,000, and Ron Paul makes between $360,000 and $1.1 million. If their income is near the top of those ranges, and it most likely is, then they are also members of the 1%. That leaves only Rick Perry. Rick and his wife made about $210,000 last year, but their income has exceeded $1 million in some years (like 2007). And Perry has amassed wealth easily in excess of $1 million -- and did it while serving as an elected official (since he has never held a real job in his life).

The Union Leader's excuse for choosing Newt Gingrich just doesn't pass the small test. They are either lying, perpetrating a huge joke on the state's voters, or they have completely lost touch with reality. But whatever the reason, Democrats everywhere should thank them. They have just boosted the chances that the ethical black hole known as Newt Gingrich could win the nomination. What more could President Obama want?