This weeks Merrimack Journal again has a “Letter to the editor” from another relatively well connected democrat who is endorsing another democrat—Carol Shea-Porter—without any specific mention of his party particulars.  Peter Flood has a distinguished list of credits including service to his country as a 1^st Lieutenant in the 82^ndairborne, had Dick Gephardt campaign for him in his 1998 loss to Sununu for NH-01, once had the now newly minted Obama VP Joe Biden over at a House Party, and most recently lost to Shelia Roberge in the 2006 district 9 race for State Senate.

Hardly a disinterested party, Democrat Flood comments on the advantages to veterans of having Carol Shea-Porter re-elected and not Jeb Bradley.  Mr. Flood makes a plea to fellow veterans not to be duped by anyone with veteran’s credentials who claims to support candidate Bradley.  One might say the same of Peter Flood in this case, particularly since he made no effort to contest the Veterans policy positions of John Stephen, who also has a shot at challenging Carol for NH-01.   Candidate Stephen has a better plan than either Bradley or Shea-Porter, and his is spelled out in significant detail, a benefit Ms. Shea-Porter does not currently come equipped with. (Not that I could find, anyway) So is the Journal showing a preference again?

While it is possible at this stage that Mr. Flood feels Bradley is more likely to win the Sept. 9^th primary against John Stephen, (Though I suspect this is more directly linked to a letter battle in the Union Leader), what interested veterans should probably be considering is not what any of these Shea-Porter supporters is saying, but what they are not.  If their interest is truly meant to provide the best for Veterans, then endorsing a candidate whose primary support comes in the form of mandating surrender, or by adding more layers of regulation and bureaucracy to a VA system that is already in a quagmire of red-tape,  (who just happens to be the incumbent democrat), suggests that this is more of a partisan affair than a veteran’s affair. 

But my primary position here is to question the intentions of the Merrimack ‘Democrat’ Journal, whose ‘unbiased’ letter vetting process continues to overwhelmingly favor random endorsements by well-connected local democrats, about democrat candidates.

It is also interesting to note that Peter Flood’s letter is the only reader letter visible on the front page of the Merrimack Journals Home page.  That’s two weeks in a row by my count that the only letter to get a front page link was a favorable Dem letter.  (If you go looking there is at least one letter in the letters section that shows a republican in a decent light; it’s written by State Rep Peter Batula, who is a Republican but not identified specifically as such.)

The only other print letter published this week was from Jeanine Notter, who appears to be a John Bircher promoting an upcoming speaking engagement by John McManus, president of the John Birch Society.  The Birchers are somewhere on the more reactionary right with Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul.  Perhaps this is meant to represent some kind of balance, though the letter is more of a short story and an invitation—wholly lacking in any obvious endorsement, other than of McManus’ speaking abilities, and hardly provides any political balance relating to candidates running for office.

The Journal clealy demonstrates an inclination to publish and post in a biased manner.  If it’s unintentional then it is a deep seated preference manifesting itself as a habit; if it is intentional, its crappy journalism and worthy of our derision.  As we get closer to the Primary and the November elections, we will see if they have become the NYT of Merrimack, unabashed promoters of the left.  I’ll be watching.