ONTD Political

Romney's hometown paper endorses Jon Huntsman for president

Jon Huntsman was endorsed for president by The Boston Globe on Thursday.

The endorsement comes just five days before the New Hampshire caucus and is a well-received coup for a campaign that's struggled to win endorsements and backings of major national or regional newspapers or political icons.

But perhaps the bigger news is that the Boston paper opted not to support Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and the Republican primary race's front-runner.

"Huntsman governed Utah as a clear conservative who nonetheless put the interests of his state ahead of ideology," the Globe's editorial board wrote. "He delighted right-wing supporters by replacing a graduated state income tax with a flat tax."

The editorial did not ignore Romney — in fact it says Huntsman and Romney "have shown the breadth of spirit to lead the nation" — but it argues he's inferior to Huntsman.

"Among the candidates, only two stand out as truly presidential, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman," the editorial reads. "But while Romney proceeds cautiously, strategically, trying to appease enough constituencies to get himself the nomination, Huntsman has been bold."

This is the second consecutive Republican primary where the Globe has passed over Romney for an endorsement. In 2008, the paper endorsed Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the eventual nominee. McCain endorsed Romney on Wednesday.

The Globe was complimentary of Romney's tenure as governor but knocked him from backing away from his record.

After giving Romney's economic plan a thumbs up, the Globe writes that his foreign policy ideas "show none of the same wisdom."

"Without personal experience to guide him, Romney is catering to the most vocal constituencies in the national-security wing of the GOP. As in other areas, such as his Robert Bork-led advisory panel on judicial policies, Romney’s ultimate intentions aren’t clear."

But the Globe also acknowledged that Romney, who is coming off the narrowest of wins in Iowa and is leading in the New Hampshire polls, still seems likely at this point to get the nomination. The Globe argued that even so, Huntsman's presence in the field moves Romney in the right direction.

"In New Hampshire, Republican and independent voters have a chance, through Huntsman, to show him a sturdier model," the editorial concluded. "Jon Huntsman would be a better president" the editorial concludes. "But if he fails, he could still make Romney a better candidate."


Not that I expect this to change anything but still interesting/amusing (suck it Mittens)
schmiss 7th-Jan-2012 03:58 am (UTC)
It's a sexist term but it gets used all the time in political media, even newspapers like the NYT and WaPo, so the selective outrage here is a little strange.
illusivevenstar 8th-Jan-2012 04:53 am (UTC)
So because other people do it, it's okay? And this post is about huntsman. So people are going to address him and the problems they have with him. Selective outrage is incredibly dismissive of legitimate issues. He used sexist terms. He wants to be president. So yeah.

Don't stan for this guy. Ugh.
schmiss 9th-Jan-2012 02:15 am (UTC)
Well, honestly, Obama has too. I mean, they're men, and it's politics, so I guess my expectations are lower than everyone else's. But if someone has standards that high, and yet they're giving people passes in some cases and coming down on others, that's selective outrage.

I don't see how this qualifies as stanning, since 1. a stan would be flooding the comm with articles and 2. a stan would actually vote for him if he got the nomination. Unless stan is now just shorthand for fan, in which case I still don't think I exactly qualify (cause again, wouldn't vote for him vs Obama), but I at least think there's more nuance to the debate than "he has a few awful views so he's no different than the people who have almost 100% awful views".
This page was loaded Aug 21st 2017, 6:13 pm GMT.