National Review Endorses Romney
December 12th, 2007 at 09:22am Mark Noonan
A rather large feather in Romney’s cap coming from the premier conservative publication in the United States:
Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.
Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.
A strong argument - but I have to say, I’m still not convinced. It is mid-December, and I haven’t got a clue about who I’ll support in the primaries. But crunch time is coming - our Nevada caucuses are early in 2008, and I’ll have to make a choice. In Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee there are elements I like, and in none of them anything which I consider disqualifying. The only thing I’m certain about is that we GOPers must run as the party for America is 2008 - we must, that is, try to cut through the hatred and lies sown by the left and unify America to complete our great task in the War on Terrorism. In light of this, I hold that Joe Lieberman is the perfect VP pick for whomever gets the GOP nomination.
America is at stake in 2008 - the left has become so motivated by hate that the mere defeat of the GOP isn’t good enough; they want us destroyed, and if they have to destroy the nation to get at us, they feel the price is not too high. This is why they still demand a surrender in Iraq; why they still accuse our troops of using torture; why they still believe any lie, as long as it makes President Bush look bad. As we GOPers choose the man who will have to stand up to the most intense campaign of lies and slander in all of political history we must bear in mind that our responsibility is not just to the Republican party, but to the United States of America.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Political Endorsements, Republicans
9 Comments
1. Retired Spook | December 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Romney is not my first choice at this point, and it has nothing to do with his religion. To be honest, my first choice changes almost daily as more and more is revealed about each of the candidates. I can say, unequivocally, though, that Romney has tons more executive experience (running a business, running the Olympics and running a state) than any of the top 3 Dems. The people who ought to feel bad at this point are the second tier Dems (Biden, Dodd and Richardson), each of whom is imminently better qualified than Edwards, Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
Bottom line, I could live with any of the top 5 or 6 Republicans over ANY of the Dems.
2. Thrower | December 12th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I personally dislike the almost exclusive focus on philosophy in selecting leaders. What ever happened to leadership and executive competence as traits we look for in a President?
In my opinion, Romney is head and shoulders above any other candidate in either party in executive competence. He also seems to be the sort of orator who can move people to think.
Unfortunately all of this native talent has been wrapped around a campaign that seems determined to establish his right wing credentials on issues that divide Americans. On top of that, he has flipped his positions on a couple of those issues (and Republicans have effectively hardened our attitudes about the trustworthiness of people who do that).
I still think that Romney can win next November with a carefully stated campaign. To do that he will have to again become the man that ran and won in Massachusetts. Because if he promises to lead on issues like “marriage protection” and moving the Supreme Court further to the right, he will go down and take his party with him.
3. DM | December 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I totally disagree with Lieberman as VP… unless you plan on which ever Republican is elected President walking around with an invisible bulls-eye on his back. I believe there’s a much higher likelihood of an assassination attempt on a Republican President with Lieberman as VP.
Should the President die the VP would take his place. Not many people that I know from the opposition would want Quayle or Cheney as their President and by default it created an additional sense of restraint for an assassination (besides additional to going to jail).
With Lieberman as VP however, it would be open hunting season. Remember Mark, the hatred of the opposition is so great that almost ANYONE is better than a Republican.
4. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Mark,
Well, at least you acknowledge what is an open secret - Senator Joe Lieberman isn’t a Democrat. He had to gin up a fake political party to overcome the fact that he just couldn’t bear the personal affront posed by his defeat in the Democratic primary in 2006. He can call himself an “Independent Democrat” all day long, but the fact that he caucuses with the real Democrats serves to demonstrate his devotion to power over principle. If he followed his political views, as you acknowledge here, he wouldn’t be the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs because he would be…a Republican.
5. sleepygene | December 12th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I think the NR endorsement has very little meaning in the nomination process. People who read NR are probably 1% of the gop electorate. Their circulation is under 200,000 and has been a money losing enterprise for 25 years. It is a powerful voice within the elite circles of the gop but those people are not swayed by a magazine endorsement they are too informed or too connected to someone else to be swayed. I think the endorsement is part of the Romeney and the Wall Street Republicans’ plan to staunch Huck’s rise and keep it a Rudy and Mitt race.
6. Ricorun | December 12th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
If Romney sinks in the polls, maybe he can consider the NR endorsement as a write-off. Lol!
7. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Mrs. Clinton
You couldn’t be more wrong (I think this could be construed as an oxymoron though) anyway, Lieberman is liberal as the day is long on every single issue aside from the war. And it was his position on the war that got him thrown out of the Democratic party, because you either walk lockstep with MoveOn or you’re out.
He caucases with the Dems as he has for his entire political career, not for power. Of course wehn you’re singularly focused on power, as liberals are, it’s hard to determine any other motive right?
Mrs. Clinton, the more you post, the more confidence I gain for the GOPs chances in ‘08.
8. Ricorun | December 12th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
neocon: And it was his position on the war that got him thrown out of the Democratic party, because you either walk lockstep with MoveOn or you’re out.
Bill Clinton campaigned for Lieberman in CT. Isn’t Clinton supposed to be in MoveOn’s pocket?
And for the record, Lieberman wasn’t thrown out of the Democratic party. He lost the primary. At which point he voluntarily left the party in order to start his own. You shouldn’t take such license with the facts when attempting to condemn others for their own.
9. pfgbulch&hellip | January 14th, 2008 at 8:39 am
pfgbulch
pfgbulch