Mitt Romney faces a two-front war

Manchester, N.H. -- The barbs directed at Mitt Romney during the Republican presidential debate tonight were fast and furious (as one commentator opined, it's clear several of his rivals simply don't like him).

There's another debate among the GOP White House contenders Sunday night, so Romney presumably will absorb some more slings and arrows. But as he seeks to right his political ship in New Hampshire, the former Massachusetts governor is battling more than just the other candidates. The state's best-known newspaper, the Manchester Union Leader, has him in its sights.

The paper recently endorsed John McCain for president -- something of a surprise, given that the Arizona senator occasionally has strayed from the staunch conservative positions the Union Leader unyieldingly promotes. Not content with spelling out who it was for, the paper on New Year's Day published an editorial scolding Romney for his multiple policy reversals, concluding he lacked "solid political conviction" (the piece was headlined: "Mitt's flips: Why they matter").

Today, Union Leader readers awoke to another anti-Romney editorial, this one on the front page. The piece took a prominent Romney supporter -- one of New Hampshire's Republican senators, Judd Gregg -- to task for trying to lower expectations for his candidate in the state's Tuesday primary.

Gregg, as the editorial noted, was widely quoted not so long ago when he dismissed the importance of the Iowa caucuses. "Iowa picks corn. New Hampshire picks presidents," Gregg had said.

But following Romney's disappointing second-place finish in the caucuses -- which steepened the odds against him in New Hampshire -- Gregg said his candidate now only has to "run well" on Tuesday.

The Union Leader would have none of that. Its editorial began: "First, the good news for supporters of Mitt Romney: A man has survived a 47-story fall from a New York skyscraper. So anything is possible. Now the bad news: Judd Gregg was right. New Hampshire still picks presidents."

The Union Leader once exercised enormous political influence in New Hampshire. That is less so now, in part because fewer of the state's residents sing its political tune. Still, its drumbeat against Romney cannot be a pleasant sound for him.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Dave Hunsaker]

After the debate tonight, this political spectrum of canidates are disavowing critical issues that need attention. Instead vindicativeness and bitter vengence was rabid. I was leaning towards a McCain nomination...but after his embarassing 'triumph' debacle (or debate) with Romney...there is no way I'll vote for him. This is a canidate who first cannot win against an Obama, Hillary or Edwards becuase he does not show the Presidential characteristics needed to carry the GOP forward as demonstrated tonight and moreover would not do the American people justice. Ariziona keep him home! His condecension was pitiful.
Was McCain's heavy sarcasm and bitter dispute with Romeny a form of political posturing, better positioning for New Hampshire? No matter the case it's apparent he has not changed from the McCain-loses-to-Bush days. Maybe he learned something from that time...that is to become just as bitter and again step-up his name-calling; McCain's noteriety.
McCain: today you lost my confidence and vote. And though I am one persion, I feel ashamed that I even thought about voting for you. I hope other people see what type of politician you've become...good luck with the nomination.

[Greggory DeVore]

When this process began months ago I received a flyer from John McCain requesting funds for his candidacy. I donated $500 because I thought his positions had merit. As time progressed, I wondered why McCain did not do well with raising funds. Did others know something I did not? I then attended a fundraiser for Mitt Romney. I listened to him speak, and was impressed that he appeared to be quite genuine. (I have reviewed the flip flops and don't have a problem with his changing positions). I then contributed money to Romney. I have watched all of the debates and have had an uncertain feeling that McCain had a short fuse. Tonight, after watching the debate, it is apparent to me that he has no class and does not only have a short fuse, but would be dangerous dealing with security issues in which he is at the top of the food chain! I thought his performance was "school yard." In addition, it appears that the gang of 4 (McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Giuliani) are a bit jealous of what Romney can do. Win or lose in New Hampshire, Romney showed the most class tonight in the debate. If McCain or Huckabee wins, I think you might as well not spend any more money, cancel the elections, and give the reigns to the Democrats! We had better select a classier candidate to run against the Democrats than what we saw with the GANG of 4.

[Stepan Kasimian]

I appreciated both Democratic and Republican comments on healthcare reform. There is no question that health care access and cost of health care is a problem. The answers that I heard during the debate alluded to providing access or cutting costs. This implies lowering reimbursement to physicians and hospitals. However, this would lead to lowering income to health care providers, including hospitals. In the meantime, the cost of physician practice is increasing with increased cost of medical tuition (now over 250K for 4 years if including living expenses), malpractice insurance, disability insurance, overhead expense, etc. Insurance companies are annually decreasing reimbursement to physicians as well as hospitals. I don't see a clear plan from any of the candidates to improve health care. No one addressed a serious problem in health care, although Senator McCain alluded to this briefly. One of the main problems with healthcare is the cost of medications and medical implants. There is no regulatory mechanism to contain these costs. For example, a patient with Blue Cross or medicare insurance undergoes a spinal operation with instrumentation, the cost of the hardware for a single level fusion (4 screws and two rods and fusion implants) can be $17000 to $20000. The hospital stay (3 to 4 days), anesthesia time, OR time, OR equipment can push the bill to 50k. However, there is a set reimbursement profile that medicare has for this type of procedure no matter what the cost. This reimbursement does not consider any other cost. In other words, if the cost of the hospital stay and surgery exceeded the reimbursement the hospital will lose money. Private insurance companies follow medicare guidelines and follow governmental example for reimbursment. The overall outcome is a loss of money for this surgical procedure. The endgame is that patients are getting older, medicare is decreasing reimbursement and hospitals are losing money leading to bankruptcy and potential closure. I gave an example with spine surgery since this area is familiar to me. However, this can be applied to any patient seeking medical treatment. The cost of pharmacy, medical implants is not well regulated. There is not a simple solution. However, if these costs could be better contained, so that a screw only costed $200 instead of $1200 the hospital would not be burdened with being in the red, the longterm effect would be lower health care costs. Again the spine case is only an example. Applying ceilings to pharmaceuticals and medical implants (heart stents, orthopaedic implants, neurosurgical implants) will decrease cost which can be passed on to patients. Healthcare should not cost this much.

(Very impressive. Thank you for sharing such detailed and provocative thoughts, Doctor. A $1,200 hospital screw sounds like the Pentagon's $600 ashtrays.)

[Mike]

Romney could not beat Ted Kennedy in 94 for the same reasons he is in decline now... lack of character