Probably not--it tends to support levying taxes to finance "economic development" and has occasional outbreaks of populism--though the competition is slim. Fortunately, the RNT does offer up healthy doses of libertarianism from time to time. Here's a sample from today's issue:

EVIDENCE MOUNTS that Rome needs a new “Clean It or Lien It” ordinance —one that would be applied to the brains of some in the municipal bureaucracy. The nit-picking mentality of some of the “hired guns” charged with protecting the beauty (in some places) and historical ambiance (in even fewer places) of this fair city is starting to get obviously out of hand. Rules should be guidelines with some flexibility built into them. Those increasingly seem not the sort that Rome has.

Worse, there appear to be so many chefs stirring the pot that an odd concoction is sure to result. Planning Commission, Rome Historic Preservation Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments, City Commission all seem to have some sort of say on the most trivial of appearance matters — and often the ability to “veto” the opinions of the other.

At some point, perhaps already reached, this state of affairs will drive away new enterprises. Is it really impossible to do business in Rome without having a staff of lawyers on retainer to deal with the city?

I've opened comments for readers to suggest other papers with libertarian leaning editorial pages. I've also put another sample from the RNT below the fold.

UPDATE (12/8): I have added another example below the fold.

No business is required to do or sell anything it doesn’t want. For example, a well-known fast-food chain does not sell any drive-through meat but chicken. If a customer demands a hamburger, must they be accommodated? Beef, like Plan B, is an entirely legal product. Similarly, if an employee at said fast-food chain believes in sparing the lives of chickens, would he or she have the authority to deny the sale of most of what’s on the menu? Amusing thought? Not really.

What is it about the term “free enterprise system” that is no longer understood?

TO BE “FREE” an enterprise must be able to determine its own products, policies and approaches. Customers are similarly free to decide where to spend their dollars and on what. In both instances there are already sufficient restrictions and regulations on the part of government to sometimes hamper this, sometimes provide needed protections.

If a business does not want to sell Plan B, or artichokes, that decision belongs to it, as do the traffic and profit consequences. If a store doesn’t offer what a customer wants, he or she has a choice as well: Go elsewhere. As for the employee, since when does disagreement with company policy permit it not to be followed? If such policy is actually illegal, there are authorities to go to. Otherwise, the employee either does as directed or looks for another job.

UPDATE (12/8): Here's a third example:

There’s also nothing wrong with parents, in the home or outside it, allowing their youngsters to have wine with a meal. It doesn’t matter if you agree with that or not. They are still our kids, aren’t they? If they belong to the state, can we send City Hall the food and clothing bills, too?