National Review: Anyone But Newt
This afternoon, National Review issued an anti-Gingrich appeal—or a de facto Romney endorsement, depending on how you look at it. While they're at it, almost as an afterthought, NR's editors disqualify Perry from consideration too.
[T]he White House seems winnable next year, and with it a majority in both houses of Congress, so that much of this conservative consensus could actually become law. A conservative majority on the Supreme Court, a halt to the march of regulation, free-market health-care policies: All of them seem within our grasp. But none of them is assured, and the costs of failure — either a failure to win the election, or a failure to govern competently and purposefully afterward — are as large as the opportunity.
We fear that to nominate former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in the polls, would be to blow this opportunity.
[...]
Gingrich is not the only candidate whom we believe conservatives should, regretfully, exclude from consideration for the presidency. Governor Perry has done an exemplary job in Texas but has seemed curiously and persistently unable to bring gravity to the national stage.
Three other candidates deserve serious consideration. Governor Huntsman has a solid record, notwithstanding his sometimes glib foreign-policy pronouncements; his main weakness is his apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues. We still think he would make a fine president, but time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters’ skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record and his managerial disposition. Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience.
[...]
At the moment we think it important to urge Republicans to have the good sense to reject a hasty marriage to Gingrich, which would risk dissolving in acrimony.
- Comment (79)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Good for National Review, they've done the party, the conservative movement, and the country a favor by pointing out that we can do better than a megalomaniacal lobbyist.
Also, see a very similar editorial from the Washington Examiner. They go the extra step and actually endorse Romney, rather than just narrowing it down to Romney, Hunstman, and Santorum.
Jul '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
To think I used to have subscription to NR.
There's been a conservative base backlash against NR which is well chronicled on their website and elsewhere. The authors there protest that "there are no cocktail parties where the conservative elite meet and discuss issues."
But the facts are when I lived in DC, I went to plenty of these cocktail parties as my assorted friends and girlfriends were active in the conservative movement. I have met many of the conservative intelligentsia at parties in Georgetown and elsewhere. There is a certain groupthink to these parties as there are in any type of social engagement of this order. To say I was out of place would be an overstatement.
I've always been skeptical (I'm a scientist after all), but I try to remain uncynical (blowing the doors off everyone reading this). But after the Bush elections and the fawning over Mr. Rove, despite their unmitigated disastrous domestic policy, my opinion of these publications has changed. I felt that at the time, the party goers were saying the "right thing" while believing another. But I've come to think that they are the opposite of MSN.
This confirms it.
Dec '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Wow. Romney or one of the two non-Romneys that have to combine their poll numbers to get invited to debates. I could almost hear Derb in the background screaming we're all doomed.
Apr '11
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Yeah, I'm thinking that this is partly because of responses like Michael Tee's. They don't want the personal abuse that would have accompanied another Romney endorsement. Plus, K.Lo really likes Santorum and... I have a half recollection of Ponnuru sharing that view. Not sure.
Dec '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
I like Santorum until he says something. I heard him describe himself as the squeaky wheel the other day and thought it very appropriate.
Apr '11
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Huntsman? Maybe he would be a good president or maybe not, but he's been nary a blip on the radar since announcing. If he's just waiting for momentum, well time is running out.
I've been "meh" on Romney since the beginning. I don't dislike him, and certainly I'd vote for him rather than Obama, but Romney seems in the vein of George W. Bush -- willing to 'work together', seeing government as a positive force in guiding citizens' lives.
Gingrinch, on the other hand, seems a bit more like McCain Lite to me.
These of course are just my general impressions.
May '11
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
I like all of these candidates until they say something. We are indeed doomed.
Apr '11
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
There's a much more upbeat endorsement from a member of the WSJ editorial board today. I'm irritated that it doesn't mention Bain's record of job creation in response to the suggestion that it was negative (the net gain of 10k claim was deliberately conservative on the basis that newpaper analysis saying it's too low should look very good, the opposite terrible). Other than that, it seems to echo my view that a budget turnaround is what the US needs most, so I think it's very insightful. ;-)
In other news, if you're worrying about a Santorum nomination or presidency, King, I have good news for you.
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Good guy, but man oh man, if I have to listen to him frantically list off his resume another time...
Jul '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
C. U. Douglas: Huntsman? Maybe he would be a good president or maybe not, but he's been nary a blip on the radar since announcing. If he's just waiting for momentum, well time is running out.
I've been "meh" on Romney since the beginning. I don't dislike him, and certainly I'd vote for him rather than Obama, but Romney seems in the vein of George W. Bush -- willing to 'work together', seeing government as a positive force in guiding citizens' lives.
Gingrinch, on the other hand, seems a bit more like McCain Lite to me.
These of course are just my general impressions. · Dec 14 at 4:47pm
C.U. Douglas, before you paint Gingrich with the same brush as McCain, read this.
Aug '11
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Michael Tee
C. U. Douglas: Huntsman? Maybe he would be a good president or maybe not, but he's been nary a blip on the radar since announcing. If he's just waiting for momentum, well time is running out.
I've been "meh" on Romney since the beginning. I don't dislike him, and certainly I'd vote for him rather than Obama, but Romney seems in the vein of George W. Bush -- willing to 'work together', seeing government as a positive force in guiding citizens' lives.
Gingrinch, on the other hand, seems a bit more like McCain Lite to me.
These of course are just my general impressions. · Dec 14 at 4:47pm
C.U. Douglas, before you paint Gingrich with the same brush as McCain, read this. · Dec 14 at 4:52pm
I wish that had been put on the main feed.
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
This is not National Review's finest hour. Romney is a plausible candidate and may be the man for whom we must in the end vote.Calling him a conservative is, however, ridiculous.
Santorum lost his Senate seat by a margine of 18%, and Huntsman is a clown. Neither is or should be a contender.
The hysteria directed at Gingrich is preposterous.
Mar '11
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Brokered convention, let us stop any wild swing to put any of these candidates over the top. We need more time.
Oct '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Understatement of the year, Dr. Rahe.
I opened my subscription to National Review back in 1992 when I was just seventeen years old. The difference between the magazine then and now is striking. I simply cannot imagine the National Review of John O'Sullivan even considering the endorsement of a non-conservative non-entity like Mitt Romney. Nowadays, instead of thoughtful political commentary, we get the systematic thrashing of one principled conservative after another by that publication.
In addition, I find it rather interesting that now that Newt Gingrich is the frontrunner, National Review can't seem to find enough instances of apostasy on his part against the principles of conservatism. When will they apply such exacting standards to Romney? Right around the Fourth of Never, I reckon.
Dec '11
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Newt Gingrich has been a great friend of National Review over the years and it is well-known that he enjoyed the esteem of William F. Buckley, Jr.
Apparently the magazine's institutional memory was lost with Bill Buckley's passing. Alas.
May '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Paul A. Rahe: This is not National Review's finest hour. Romney is a plausible candidate and may be the man for whom we must in the end vote.Calling him a conservative is, however, ridiculous.
Santorum lost his Senate seat by a margine of 18%, and Huntsman is a clown. Neither is or should be a contender.
The hysteria directed at Gingrich is preposterous. · Dec 14 at 5:30pm
Hear, Hear
Nov '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
Mike LaRoche
Understatement of the year, Dr. Rahe.
I opened my subscription to National Review back in 1992 when I was just seventeen years old. The difference between the magazine then and now is striking. I simply cannot imagine the National Review of John O'Sullivan even considering the endorsement of a non-conservative non-entity like Mitt Romney.
Imagine how those of us who remember the National Review of Bill Buckley feel.
I actually believe that WFB's death has much to do with the problems of American conservatism in recent years. For example, I can't believe that any of those "conservative" pundits who endorsed Obama would have done that if WFB had been around to deflate their pretensions.
Wonder how many subscriptions will be canceled.
Jul '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
NR has been carrying water for Romney for years now. The marked decline in their reporting makes me question my subscription at times, but at least they still feature several Ricochet contributors, Brookhiser, and Nordlinger.
Aug '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
The King Prawn:
I could almost hear Derb in the background screaming we're all doomed. · Dec 14 at 4:32pm
Huh? Derb hates Gingrich
Aug '10
Re: National Review: Anyone But Newt
These are the same guys and gals who write editorials saying that conservatives shouldn't let the MSM choose their candidate? I guess it's because NR wants to choose our candidate.
What if Newt were to win the nomination? All the Obama team and supporters have to do is point to the most heralded conservative publication through the years and say, "look, NR also thinks Newt is a nut-job." Way to go guys...