National Review Endorses Romney
National Review, the flagship magazine of American conservatism, has endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination:
More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.
Romney will be sure to trumpet the support of such a well-known outlet of the right, and it does help to assuage doubts about whether he is in fact a sincere conservative — the editorial includes a very strong defense on that point. On the other hand, it's questionable whether a single magazine endorsement will make much of a difference with the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Comments (18)
Endorse Evolution wrote on December 11, 2007 5:32 PM:Yes - we must all endorse our fathers beleifs
and our fathers thier fathers
and thier fathers thier fathers
and so on and so on
down the evolutionary line
till we arrive at a place in the beginning - 6000 years ago
Moron - isum
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 5:37 PM:"[H]as President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws"?!? How do they discern the one from the other. One gather that the NR means for us to understand Pres Bush's "instincts on taxes and foreign policy" to be among his virtues and his " toleran[ce] of overspending" to be among his flaws, but these two supposedly distinct traits are one and the same thing. Pres Bush's tolerance for overspending proceeds indisputably from his insistance that (real and imagined) foreign policy difficulties are best solved by expensive wars, the costs of which must not, under any circumstances, be financed by new taxes. You cannot have those "virtues" without the flaws. Who do they think they are kidding?
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 5:38 PM:His moral positions, whatever those might be today, are correct.
He is able to defend conservative positions in debates, just as he ably defended liberal positions in debates four short years ago.
to anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 5:44 PM:Yes exactly
it's the defense that counts
not the position
a good defense beats a good offence
Although I find Romney to be very offensive as well.
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 5:59 PM:The ultimate question is which mitt the flip do they endorse? Mitt the flip from 2000, or 1992, or 2002, or 2007? Which one? Also, who knows how he will flip next. He could wind up flipping after he gets the nomination to run left of kucinich.
Nick wrote on December 11, 2007 6:00 PM:Go Mitt, go! Willard is our dream candidate ... even HRC would beat this guy.
The Circus wrote on December 11, 2007 6:08 PM:It's as if the repuplican clowns instead of coming out from the big tent to greet America are instead all trying to crowd back into the fundamentalist volkswagon.
Pretty comical I think
Cory wrote on December 11, 2007 6:56 PM:As National Review said, Romney is the most conservative candidate who can also beat Hillary. Huckabee and Giuliani are liberal and Fred is dead. Romney will definitely be getting my vote!
Endorse a new belief wrote on December 11, 2007 7:13 PM:Cory
Oh - so do you, like Romney endorse your fathers beliefs, did he, like Romneys father belong to a racist cult - that being the Mormon "church"
dajafi wrote on December 11, 2007 8:31 PM:"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
--Groucho Marx, anticipating The Mittster
My nightmare is a Romney vs. Clinton general election. You'd have two candidates talking endlessly, saying nothing, vying only to see who can more athletically service the rich and powerful. In that scenario, I think turnout is well below 2004 levels.
michael valentine wrote on December 11, 2007 9:01 PM:And they, TNR, has been right about what lately?
Joe Klein's conscience wrote on December 11, 2007 11:38 PM:Is this a sign that Murdoch is fleeing Rudy's sinking ship(as Rupert owns both NR and Faux News)?
Richard wrote on December 12, 2007 1:20 AM:Is he's just like Bush a good thing? I believe that some look at Romney and feel he is marketable to the voting public.
Except of course to the Dobson Falwell crowd their not buying at any cost. Clinton runs within three points of Romney in head to head in Alabama. Romney would be a sacrificial lamb, so to speak.
dave wrote on December 12, 2007 1:27 AM:With the way K-J Lo has been drooling about Mitt the Hunky DreamBoat and writing "Mrs. K.J. Romney" on her notebook, is it any surprise that National Review endorsed him?
Missed It By THAT Much wrote on December 12, 2007 2:48 AM:-- It might not be a good idea to try a Mormon/moron joke when you can't even spell "-ism".
-- Since '04 had the highest voter turnout ever, it could very well be that '08 has a lower turnout REGARDLESS of who the nominees are.
-- Rupert Murdoch DOES NOT own the National Review; he owns The Weekly Standard. Is this a sign that JK doesn't know what he's talking about?
In the article Eric Kleefeld wrote: "it's questionable whether a single magazine endorsement will make much of a difference with the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere."
-- 155,000 print readers every two weeks, plus 1 million hits per day at their website, might make the case that the choice of a significant number of voters might be influenced.
RobbyLove wrote on December 12, 2007 11:22 AM:The National Review's endorsements will have an impact in the national polls, not in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls. I'd be more interested in seeing who the local papers are endorsing. Whoever gets the jump out of the gate in Iowa and New Hampshire will probably get the nomination.
That said, something about this article makes me think that the National Review has their fingers directly on pulse of the conservative mind-set right now. They want someone "electable" (i.e. not an obvious whacko) but also someone on whom they can hang their conservative hats...or at least pretend to.
I really think we'll see a Romney-Huckabee ticket from the 'pugs. Romney will appeal to the northern yankees, and Huckabee will bring in support from the religious south. From a purely analytical standpoint it's a potent combination and one that I think their base would rally around. However just like Kerry chose Edwards to help in the southern states, I don't think Huck will help the ol' Mittster.
But if Mitt gets the backing of Chuck Norris along with Huckabee then all bets are off. :P
rob wrote on December 12, 2007 11:32 AM:DEFENDING THE UN-DEFENDABLE...
How badly can the social conservatives damage the "big tent" (social, fiscal, security) winning coalition for president?
Just read every blog - 50% are filled up with bigots who want to fight about church doctrine and defend outragous statements which are not in the spirit of our constitutional form of government.
If Huckabee only had a lousy record on taxes, foreign policy, parols, ethics and the social conservatives liked his "style" well maybe you could defend the implosion and self destruction caused to our efforts to defend the White House from HRC.
However - the guy is an obvious "religious bigot" running a "christian candidate - anti mormon rhetoric campaign" - please stop posting bigoted anti mormon crap on these boards - you are scaring away all the Independents....and if you think you can win an election without the Independents you are not only religous "Taliban zealots" you are delusional in the practical aspects of American politics.
At least the National review has some sense of right/wrong and who is the strongest hope for Republicans.
votenic wrote on December 12, 2007 5:19 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening at Midnight.
