The New Year Rings in Civil Unions in New Hampshire
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
This was the scene at 12:01 on January first, 2008 in New Hampshire:
Civil unions become legal as of January 1st, and I believe 23 same sex couples lined the capitol steps to share their vows the minute they became legal. I am not going to take this time to bash New Hampshire for legalizing civil unions. I wanted to use this space to take a look at two other angles in this issue.
The first is the way civil unions became law, and the second is the way Governor John Lynch handled the whole issue of civil unions.
First, New Hampshire became the first state to create a civil unions/gay marriage law without the threat of legal action or the courts intervention. All of the other states that have civil unions created them because the courts threatened them or there were pending court cases. In the case of Massachusetts, the courts ordered the state to create a gay marriage law. Think about that, the courts ordered the legislature to create a law. So much for the separation of powers, the checks and balances. The court overstepped their boundaries, and this was accepted. The funny part is that no law has yet been created although Massachusetts is using the law they didn’t create to marry gays.
So technically New Hampshire created civil unions the proper way. The people voted for legislators. One of the elected legislators created a bill, it was debated and it was passed and signed by the governor. A perfect example of a state’s rights to create law. Whether you agree with civil unions or not, at least New Hampshire went about them the right way.
But my problem here is how these legislators got elected. The polls that were shown around the time of the whole civil unions debate showed that they were unpopular. So how did so many pro civil union candidates get elected? In the 2006 election New Hampshire voters went to the polls and voted on a national issue, the war. This has greatly affected the local political scene, and is a perfect example of why you don’t vote on a national issue during a local election. Many voters, upset with the war, voted out of office people who were opposed to civil unions, and voted in the people who were for them. Many Republican voters, upset with out of control federal government spending, and some of the scandals, such as Mark Foley, decided to stay home to teach Republicans a lesson. The Republican voters have been taught the lesson instead. So now whether you are opposed to, or support civil unions, you must accept them in New Hampshire because the voters spoke, and they chose them, even if they had no idea that they were actually voting in favor of them. This is why voters need to do their homework on the candidates they are voting for. Voters of New Hampshire were too narrow-minded in the 2006 election and we are now paying the price for it, on this issue and many others that I will not get into with this post.
The second angle I want to write about is how Governor John Lynch handled this controversial issue. NOT WELL. Here is why I say this.
Governor John Lynch likes to portray himself as a moderate, a leader and a uniter of the parties. He was able to pull of this facade while he had a minority of Democrats in both branches of state government. He promised us he could do so much more good if we only trusted him and gave him a Democrat majority. We did, well I didn’t, but the voters of New Hampshire did, and now he has proven he can’t be trusted as a moderate. The facade is gone, he is a liberal.
Being a liberal, he always intended to push his liberal agenda, and civil unions were a part of it. He just wouldn’t tell us. My problem with him, let me rephrase that, one of my problems with him is the fact that he won’t take a stand on any controversial issue while it is being debated in the state house. He hides on the issues. Before the 2006 election Governor Lynch said he opposed gay marriage, but he wouldn’t say whether he was for or against civil unions. He knew they were unpopular and was afraid to lose votes, so he shut his mouth on the issue. Way to be a leader, gov.
Once it looked as though the bill would pass, he decided it was safe to announce his intent to sign it. But then there is the issue of how he signed it. Fearing a hit to his all so important image, he sent out private messages to the bill’s supporters telling them when the bill signing would be, ensuring there would only be supporters at the public bill signing. An hour before the signing he issued a public announcemnet about the signing. This ensured very little, if any protesters outside the state house. That’s right he only notified supporters of the bill in advance. He gave very little advance notice to people who may be opposed to the bill. Is that leadership? Is that a uniter of the parties? It sounds like someone trying to hide from his true identity, a liberal. He knew the bill was unpopular, but he was put between a rock and a hard place. He had to sign the bill to appease his leftist legislature, but he had to hide it, hoping we wouldn’t notice. It didn’t work.
So while technically New Hampshire created civil unions using the proper procedure, the governor showed a real lack of leadership and conviction. And the voters showed a real lack of either knowledge for how the system worked or indifference to the system, blinded by anti-war Bush resentment.
The New Hampshire government took advantage of the ignorance of New Hampshire voters and pushed across their liberal agenda, you can’t blame them, they made their positions clear ( other than the governor, that is), and they did what they were elected to do. New Hampshire voters just didn’t realize what they were voting for. And that is the real sad part about this whole thing.
Latest New Hampshire Primary Poll (12/30)
In what should be the last poll of 2007, both parties show a dead heat. With just over a week before the New Hampshire primary both races are heating up.
For the Democrats:
Hillary Clinton’s support is down by 7 percent since ARG’s December 16 to 19 survey. Obama is up 3 percent, to 24 and John Edwards up 6 percent, to 21. Other candidates trailed badly. Bill Richardson is at 5 percent, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich at 3, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel at 1, with 8 percent undecided
Obama and Hillary are basically tied, and Edwards is closing the gap. I find Edwards’ surge to be the most astonishing, I thought his campaign was dead in the water months ago. And speaking of dead in the water, John McCain is in a virtual tie with Mitt Romney. McCain’s immigration position should have killed off his candidacy months ago, but yet here he is:
McCain and Romney both gained, rising from 26 to 30 percent in the new poll. Mike Huckabee held steady at 11 percent, with Rudy Giuliani losing almost half his support, falling to 9 percent. Ron Paul is at 7 percent, Fred Thompson at 3, Alan Keyes and Duncan Hunter at 1. Undecideds are just 8 percent.
Mitt Romney’s support has not waned, the rise of McCain seems to be coming from the defection of Rudy and Thompson supporters. It looks to be a dog fight down to the end.
Both parties show undecided voters down to eight pecent as the primary inches closer. The wild card still appears to be the Independent undecided voters. Independent voters in New Hampshire are the largest voting block and at last count, 60% on Independents were undecided, this latest poll doesn’t take into account Independent voters, so anything can still happen.
New Hampshire’s Upcoming Legislative Agenda
Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell
As of the first of the year, forty new laws will go into effect in New Hampshire. The most controversial is that civil unions will now be performed in New Hampshire. New Hampshire will also recognize same sex marriages and civil unions performed in other states as legal.
Some other laws that go into effect are, drivers under 21 will receive driver’s licenses that are printed out vertically instead of horizontal. This is to make it easier for store clerks to tell if an underage person is trying to buy alcohol. Evidently New Hampshire lawmakers think store clerks are too stupid to check the date of birth on the licence. Once a driver turns 21 they will have to go get a new driver’s licence. This means most new drivers will have to go get a new licence before they would otherwise have to, thus bringing in more registration fees. A tax increase if you care to look at it that way, and I do.
It will now be illegal to burn construction materials.
Health insurance companies will now be required to keep coverage on divorced spouses for three years.
Dog owners can be fined up to $400 for a second offence if their dog escapes.
Children in custody battles will have more say on which parent they live with.
As of January 3rd the new legislative session begins, so I thought I would share with you what critical issues will be discussed and voted on this session. First they are going to revisit some old battlegrounds- parental notification, restaurant smoking ban, taxes and civil unions . Then it is straight to more nanny state legislation.
There will be a bill to ban public urination. Don’t get me wrong, I am against public urination, who isn’t, but do we really need the government wasting time on this issue to tell us we can’t piss in public? I think most people understand this on their own, and to tell you the truth I have never seen anyone doing this. This is something people regulate on their own without government interference.
From there they will decide if cigar bars can allow smoking. Another common sense issue cluttering the legislature. If you don’t want to smell cigar smoke, what the hell are you doing in a cigar bar? GET THE HELL OUT.
Banning texting while driving then will hit the floor. Can you say more nanny state? I think you can. I know enough not to text while I am driving, most people do. Again, I don’t need the government protecting me. I can take care of myself.
There is a bill to lessen restrictions on where a clotheslines can be hung. This bill is designed to help save the planet from global warming. More clotheslines mean less energy consuming driers. BRILLIANT!
I am beginning to sound like a broken record while writing about all this nanny state legislation, so let’s move on to another topic. A topic we always must be wary of with a Democrat in charge, especially with a Democrat majority in all branches of government, TAXES.
Rep. James Kennedy, D-Exeter, is proposing a 3.5 percent income tax. Typical. Governor Lynch’s fiscally responsible budget with an increase of 17.5% in spending did not even include funding for his unconstitutional education funding bill. Estimates on that bill are in the $400 million range per year. We will find out the actual cost in February. GULP. New Hampshire must come up with this money somewhere and that is why any proposed income tax should be worrisome. It is coming to New Hampshire, and people like me, who work in Massachusetts and pay Massachusetts taxes are going to be hit the hardest.
All in all this looks to be an interesting legislative session upcoming, and I am going to be sitting here watching it, exposing it, and trying to stop it.
New Hampshire voters, we need to get back to the rational, less intrusive government that made New Hampshire special. We are losing her, and she will be missed.
The Politicizing of Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination
Less than 24 hours after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the latest polls have come out and they show a dead heat in Iowa between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. In New Hampshire Obama and Hillary remain tied in a close battle. In New Hampshire Romney holds a slight lead over McCain. The poll then goes on to try and determine who the assassination of Bhutto will hurt and help the most. According to the poll:
Clinton might gain stature in both states if Democrats’ concern about world affairs increases after Thursday’s assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The poll shows that Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire consider Clinton far better equipped than her rivals to safeguard national security — as do Democrats around the country
And this:
Such a shift in focus away from domestic policy also could affect the Republican presidential contest and benefit Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose campaign has rebounded in New Hampshire. He’s second behind Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.
The poll found that Republicans in New Hampshire and Iowa consider McCain best qualified to handle foreign affairs, though his campaign has suffered from months of weak fundraising and staff turmoil.
Less than 24 hours after her assassination and already the LA Times is looking at this in political terms. Who will this help? Who will this hurt? I have to say I find this in bad taste. The first thing that the Times looks at is how can they push their political agenda. They don’t care about what repercussions could be felt by this brutal act. Immediately they go to the polls and tell us why Hillary and McCain are the candidates to nominate.
Then comes word that the Democrat frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, to show how tough she is, demands an international investigation:
“I’m calling for a full, independent, international investigation,” Clinton said in an interview with CNN.
“I think it’s critically important that we get answers and really those are due first and foremost to the people of Pakistan,” Clinton said.
She doesn’t give a damn about the people of Iraq, she wants to pull out of there and let Iraqi’s fend for themselves. why should we believe she cares about the Pakistani people?
She couldn’t get to the CNN interview fast enough to show America how deeply concerned she is about Bhutto’s death.
She gave the interview from her hotel in Des Moines, Iowa, in a presidential-style setting with the backdrop of an American flag, bolstering the claims of experience and leadership on which she is pinning her campaign.
Typical Clintonese, tell me she didn’t immediately start working on how she could benefit from the assassination of Bhutto. She probably got a little sparkle in her eye when she realized how she could play this to the media.
Meanwhile, Obama actually tried to blame Hillary, and anyone who voted for the Iraq war, for the assassination:
comments made by the Obama campaign that seemed to link former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq
Everything this election cycle is first looked at through a political prism, and in this case I find it highly distasteful.
I don’t care what anybody thinks about Benazir Bhutto, this was a true woman of courage. She returned to her country knowing that her life was in danger and she did it unflinchingly. This was a woman running a campaign on her beliefs and ideals. She did not hide behind anyone, and it cost her her life.
Meanwhile we have a supposed woman of courage running for the presidency of the United States of America who is running on her husband’s ideals and beliefs. She is hiding behind her husband, running on his record. And now trying to capitalize on the tragic death of another woman.
You tell me, who is the real woman of honor here?
Freshmen Democrats Urge Democrat Leaders to Change Iraq War Strategy
This article comes from politico.com, and it talks about how many of the newly elected Democrats want to stop focusing so much attention on their failed end the war strategies, and turn more towards domestic issues.
It seems as though the junior Democrats realize what a losing issue the Iraq war is to the Democrat party. Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made too many stupid end the war promises to America that they knew they couldn’t keep, and the bill has come due. So freshman Democrats, you need to shut up and tow the party line or the Democrat party will make sure you don’t receive funding in your re-election bids.
Democrats continue to lose key battles with the president on the Iraq war. They are trying to oppose the war while supporting it. They oppose it with the filthy rhetoric that spews from their mouths, yet they support it by passing funding for the war. Big talk, no action. Freshmen Democrats realize what is happening:
The restless Democrats acknowledge the war issue remains critically important for the country, but they would like to see their leaders tone down the rhetoric and avoid showdowns with Bush over the war, wherever possible.
Even freshmen Democrats realize that they can’t win this war issue, so they want to avoid conflict.
“My hope would be we start looking at real solutions instead of the dichotomy of cut funding versus stay forever,” said Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who had a change of heart this fall after visiting Iraq and realizing the military surge was working.
“The entire policy has been dictated by the ‘Out of Iraq Caucus’ … What are we going to do, have another 40 withdrawal votes?”
He had a change of heart? Isn’t it amazing how many people have a change of heartafter they have been to Iraq and are able to dismiss the propaganda the media and moonbats are producing? Once they see the results the surge is producing they can’t look at themselves in the mirror and vote to defund the war. We are winning, and they know that if the grab defeat from the jaws of victory, the political results will be devastating to them. The Democrats don’t really care whether we win of lose, as long as they gain power, as can be seen in another war funding strategy being proposed:
Another option being considered by some top Democrats is to pass a short-term wartime funding bill, running only until September or October, which would force Republicans to vote on the issue again shortly before the November elections.
They don’t care whether they win this funding battle or not, they just want a vote on funding timed for the election. They want to get people on record before the election in hopes that is will sway the elections in their favor, that is their ultimate goal.
But in reality, they are already shifting their stategy away from more funding battles with the president that they will lose. They have already begun shifting their position on WHY we need to leave Iraq from we can’t win in Iraq, to Iraq can’t make enough political gains. They are now shifting positions on HOW we should surrender in Iraq.
Senior Democrats and leadership aides suggest that Reid and Pelosi, despite their strong rhetoric on ending the war, are not talking about simply forcing more withdrawal votes.
Instead, Democrats plan to continue to focus on troop readiness and benchmarks for political reconciliation among Iraqi leaders, and to push Bush to accelerate any withdrawals called for by Petraeus and to engage in a broader “diplomatic surge” to accompany the military surge.
They know they can’t win the withdrawal votes, but they still have to appease the anti-war, far left moonbats, so they spew their rhetoric all the while knowing it is utter bullshit. At the same time they are plotting new strategies, such as a diplomatic surge, IE ignoring the great General Petraeus’ recommendations and instead call for a quicker withdrawal based on political reconciliation rather than military gains.
“The most important thing to do is to fix what has not been right with the war — they [the Bush administration] have never had a political or diplomatic strategy,” Emanuel said.
“We will continue to do our job on oversight and push the administration to come up with a political and diplomatic strategy.”
There is that shift in position again, from military progress to political and diplomatic progress. So much military progress has been made this year in Iraq that even when congress tried to smear the great General Petraeus the American people were to smart to fall for it. So the new strategy is to say Bush didn’t plan for the political resolution that needed to follow the war. Hey, at least the Democrats are making progress, without saying it out loud they are admitting this is a war that can be won. Of course they don’t want to win it, that would be bad for them as they have sided with defeat and victory would hurt them as a party.
Congressional Democrats also acknowledge that they will have to coordinate the political agenda and message for 2008 with their presidential nominee, further complicating the war debate in Congress.
And that is the problem I have with the Democrats on this whole issue. The fact that the have to coordinate anything with their nominee on this issue. There should be no coordination needed. If the Democrats stood with America and victory they wouldn’t have to finagle some sort of position on the war. Their position would obviously be victory. The fact that they have to coordinate shows they don’t want victory.
So we come back to what the freshmen Democrats want to make the top priority in the next election, the economy and domestic issues. They feel they can win the election on those issues, not the Iraq war.
Democrats are planning to elevate the economy as the top election-year issue, eager to campaign on what they hope to call a “Bush recession.”
Naturally, I have a problem with the Democrats there also. They are eager to campaign and hope to be able to call the economy a “Bush recession”. Does that sound like a party that has America’s best interests at heart? NO! They hope for a recession so they can pin it on the president because they think it will help them gain power. Once again power over what is good for America.
From the war to the economy, if it’s good for America, it’s bad for the Democrats. That is one hell of a corner to be painted into. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are stuck in the corner holding the brushes, it’s time for the Republican to kick the paint can over.
The Moonbat’s Hatred of George Bush Continues to Hit New Lows
Christmas morning I decided to quickly check out my regular blogs and wish a Merry Christmas to those that had posted Christmas greetings. It was during this time that I realized that the far left will stop at nothing, and will stoop to lows that are unimaginable to most people. Okay, perhaps I already knew this, but my beliefs were reinforced.
You are probably wondering what I am talking about. I stopped by Conservatism With Heart and saw a Christmas post there. Naturally I read it and then I went to post my Christmas wishes, that is where this re-awakening came to me. The far left evidently cannot control their hatred even for one day and enjoy themselves without trying to ruin someone else’s day. A simple Merry Christmas post had to be turned into a political, anti-war statement. Can you imagine how miserable a person has to be that on a day that many consider the happiest day of the year, a person has to try to ruin that day for someone else?
The first two comments were Christmas wishes, and then there was this:
Merry Christmas George Bush.
“The water fills the hole in the saran wrap so that there is either water or vaccum in your mouth. The water pours into your sinuses and throat. You struggle to expel water periodically by building enough pressure in your lungs. With the saran wrap though each time I expelled water, I was able to draw in less air. Finally the lungs can no longer expel water and you begin to draw it up into your respiratory tract.
It seems that there is a point that is hardwired in us. When we draw water into our respiratory tract to this point we are no longer in control. All hell breaks loose. Instinct tells us we are dying.
I have never been more panicked in my whole life. Once your lungs are empty and collapsed and they start to draw fluid it is simply all over. You know you are dead and it’s too late. Involuntary and total panic…
So, is it torture?
I’ll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I’d take the fingers, no question.
It’s horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I’d prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I’d give up anything, say anything, do anything.”
This was written by someone who called himself/herself waterboarding. Naturally there was no link to his/her blog or website, that seems to be the trend of those that disagree. They hide behind the keyboard, and don’t really want to engage in debate. They simply want to make their point, if they have one, and run, never to be heard from again.
But it got worse, after the next comment said that the previous comment should be deleted because it was off topic, this is what followed:
Naah, let’s stay on topic. Who ran our country into the ground? Dee and her readers. Are you afraid to confront what you’ve created in Bush and Cheney? After all, 58 million americans voted for them long after Iraq was needlessly invaded. Are you still in denial? If you are in denial, what will take you to realize the country isn’t what it stands for anymore and that any effort to ban flag burning pales in comparison to the tarnishing that Bush and Cheney have given old glory in the last 7 years?
Iraq has literally been destroyed for nothing, and at least 600,000 Iraqi’s have been killed or injured for nothing. The whole Middle East has always been a powder keg and the fuse has been lit by the Bush administration. They are all war criminals. There should be a mass impeachment and trials for all.
I’m not a very religious person but Bush and company are surely headed to Hell. I just hope they don’t take the rest of us with them.
Dee, from Conservative With Heart, and her readers are destroying the country? What wonderful Christmas sentiment! This is a person so miserable that he/she can’t enjoy anything. If you want to argue the Iraq war, fine, but do it on an Iraq war post, or a George Bush post, but not a Merry Christmas post. There is a time and a place for debate, but that wasn’t it. Not that they want to debate, as I said they didn’t leave a link to a blog we could check out. Just an anonymous voice too afraid and ashamed to carry on a conversation. When Mike posted a retort to these morons, they didn’t reply. Perhaps they just hit and run. Dash off into the night, never to be heard from again. Perhaps it’s better that way.
Rush Limbaugh often says that liberals are just miserable people, who aren’t happy unless everyone is as miserable as they are. When I see something like this it makes me realize that Rush is right about them. They wake up every morning resentful of everyone, and everything around them, and look to bring everyone else down with them.
I worked with a liberal for a short while, and he was always miserable. He once told us a story about the little corner market he would buy the paper from. He was pissed off because the girl behind the counter was always cheery and she would try to have idle chit-chat with him as he was paying. You know, polite customer service. He stopped going to that store and now frequents a store with a clerk who is just as miserable as he. That is the epitome of the typical far left liberal moonbat mindset. I know all liberals aren’t miserable people, the moonbats are just the loudest, so they get the most attention. This got my attention and I felt I needed to write about it.
I am an optimist, so I guess I just can’t wrap my arms around this type of negativity. I understand the war is unpopular, and the president is unpopular, but these people had to have awaken on Christmas morning and made a conscious effort to try and anger people on a day that brings joy to so many.
I don’t understand, and can’t comprehend the mindset, but I do know one thing:
I’m glad I’m not a moonbat!
New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes (D) Named one of USA Today’s Worst Pork Barrel Spenders
Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell
Congratulations are in order for New Hampshire’s second district representative. He took home a well deserved and hard fought award last week. He was named by USA Today as one of the worst pork barrel spending representatives in the House. Congratulations Paul Hodes, you must be proud.
Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter ( New Hampshire’s First district, and my, representative) promised to reign in wasteful government spending, yet Paul Hodes has brought it to another level.
GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen: “After earning the distinction as one of the worst pork-barrel spenders in Congress, it seems that Representative Paul Hodes has found his very own ‘bridge to nowhere.’ This is exactly the kind of project that wastes of taxpayer dollars and adds to the federal budget deficit.”
That was New Hampshire GOP chairman Fergus Cullen’s response after it was learned that Paul Hodes had entrenched himself in his new pork barrel spending award by receiving a $435,000 earmark for a virtual field trip of Mt. Washington for children around the country just a week after being named one of the worst wasteful spenders. Paul, at least if you are going to waste my money, please bring it back to New Hampshire. Perhaps we could name a library after you, or better yet, with the way you spend money, a bank.
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas everybody. I hope you all have a great day spent with your families and loved ones.
Merry Christmas to those that can’t be home with their families:
Latest New Hampshire Primary Poll (12/23)
The polls are coming more and more frequently, so let’s take a look at the latest one. Romney’s lead has shrunk, and he looks to be in a dead heat with John McCain, who is surging in New Hampshire.
Romney was backed by 28 percent of likely GOP voters, McCain by 25 percent, Rudy Giuliani 14, Mike Huckabee 10, Ron Paul 9, others 3 and 12 percent were undecided.
Romney has always been ahead in the polls, but McCain has closed the gap, the poll results are within the margin of error. This is the first time that Romney has been challenged poll-wise in New Hampshire. I don’t understand the McCain surge just based on his immigration stance, but it appears as though his endorsement by Lieberman has helped him in the polls with Independent voters. McCain’s surge doesn’t appear to be taking away too much of Romney’s votes. McCain’s poll numbers appear to coming from Rudy, and Thompson. I think some of the undecided voters have also broken for McCain.
For the Democrats:
Thirty percent of likely Democratic voters backed Obama, with 28 percent for Clinton. John Edwards was at 14 percent, Bill Richardson at 7, 8 percent went to other candidates and 12 percent remained undecided.
This is an odd situation. Hillary had held a commanding 25 point lead at one time. Then came that horrible debate that she had, coupled with several other slip ups within a couple of weeks. this had allowed Obama to pull even with Hillary. But then last week’s poll came out and showed Hillary had built her lead back up to twelve points. Now we see Obama ahead by two points in what is technically a dead heat because the lead is within the margin of error. I don’t know what to make of this.
Boston Herald Endorses John McCain
This is a bit of a surprise for me. The Boston Herald has endorsed John McCain. The Boston Herald is a conservative leaning paper, they are the answer to the Boston Globe. I thought that they would be loyal to the former governor, Mitt Romney. This is two major newspaper endorsements, if newspaper endorsements still mean anything, in the New Hampshire region before the January 8th primary. The New Hampshire Union Leader, which is the only New Hampshire newspaper circulated throughout the whole state, recently endorsed him also. The Boston Herald is also widely circulated in the state.
The Herald sites his courage and intergrity as reasons for the endorsement. They also believe in his national security policy, and that he NOW supports the Bush tax cuts and wants to make them permanent.
The Boston Herald even supports his stance on illegal immigration:
McCain’s name, of course, is also synonymous with immigration reform – the kind of real reform that will both safeguard our borders and provide a path to citizenship – not amnesty – for the 12 million illegal aliens who now live among us.
That is the part that I just don’t understand. How can the paper possibly say his plan is not amnesty? About 77% of America does not agree with this plan, and America does, rightly so, believe this is amnesty.
His immigration policy alone is the reason I will not vote for him. The endorsements are piling up for him in this regeon though, and he is gaining momentum in New Hampshire.
Only 16 days left, anything can happen!
