n/t

So, this endorsement means what, exactly?

with the Newt Surge demonstrating just how shallow RINO Romney’s real support is. I hope they all kill themselves when he loses.

I’m sure William F. Buckley is rolling over in his grave.

BTW, Memo to National Review, adding “Online” at the end internet version of your publication went away in the late 1990s.

But what do you expect from Establishment Republicans?

as he continues to perpetuate the same mistakes at home and abroad that have been our lot for the last 20 years, while working overtime to create new ones in his pet posterity projects (say that ten times fast). I’m certain that such was the primary consideration of esteemed Romney supporters like D Brooks and Frum, and much of the NRO crew.

It is a Ponnuru piece. Yes, he is a very prominent writer for National Review, but it is not an editorial endorsement saying the magazine as a whole endorses Romney. It is the equivalent of a prominent front page contributor here making an endorsement, not of “Red State endorses…”. National Review usually does at some point publish an editorial endorsement in the GOP primary, and sadly it may be for Mittens but as of yet that editorial for 2012 does not exist so far as I can see. This post in no way is meant to rain on criticizing Ponnuru’s reasoning for the endorsement, which I find extraordinarily flawed, starting with the Romney is ineviatable sentiment.

romney is afraid to face Gingrich.

Good for Huntsman.

If it is indeed the case that Mitt will not participate in such a debate, then that is disqualifying as far as I am concerned for him being the nominee.

I have to say that this surprised me. Newt is leading Mitt in the polls….in certain instances by a wide margin…..and Mitt should welcome the opportunity to reestablish himself.

I don’t know for sure if this means that Mitt will never do an LD debate with Newt, but if it does, it’s pure chicken—-

As for Perry, he should agree to such a debate. Even if he doesn’t do all that well in it, he will be able to say he did what Mitt refused to do.

“If Mitt Romney becomes president, he will almost certainly be dealing with John Boehner as speaker of the House and Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader. While they, too, have their conservative detractors, they are the most conservative congressional leaders Republicans have had in modern times, and they will exert a rightward influence on the Romney administration.

Maybe we should ask Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. DeMint how conservative Boehner and McConnell are. Did we forget about the debt ceiling debacle where conservatives were thrown under the bus?

The only reason Boehner and McConnell are posing as conservatives is because so many of their RINO compatriots were thrown out of office in 2010 and they’re shaking in their wingtips. If they have control of the House and Senate with Romney as president, we are right back at square one with a growing federal government and bureaucracy and more cuddling with the Democrats.

As you previously noted, NRO has been inexplicably pushing Romney as a candidate for President for years now.

I am surprised they are not on the campaign payroll.

Ponnuru’s article makes a lot of sense, especially if you see this as a race between Gingrich and Romney.

Gingrich has a lot of baggage and he has flip-flopped. If Gingrich can beat Obama, Romney certainly can. However, just because Romney can beat Obama doesn’t mean Gingrich can.

Romney’s negatives won’t repel swing voters – Gingrich’s negatives will. Obama can attack Gingrich in ways that won’t work against Romney.

Consider this happening in an Obama-Romney debate.
Obama, “Mitt you’ve flip-flopped on abortion – not me, I’ve consistently favored denying infants who survive botched abortions medical care.” That will get Obama lots of votes – sarc.

2012 is after 2007 – most of the problems with Romney are with the pre-2007 Romney. The post-2007 Romney has been pretty good.

Gingrich has NEVER won a statewide election. Romney has won a state-wide election in a very blue state.

If you don’t want to support Romney, support someone who might actually be better than Romney and electable.

Rick Santorum is a solid conservative with good family values and he has won TWO state-wide elections in the key purple swing state of Pennsylvania.

Rick Perry is a solid conservative with good family values and he has won over FIVE statewide elections.

While you can make a good case for either Rick, if Ponnuru didn’t think either Rick has a chance then his endorsement of Romney makes a lot of sense.

NRO is unlikely to influence anyone with this endorsement and in a year in which the GOP electorate seems dissatisified with everyone, NRO could have made more of an impact if they waited until this was down to a 3 or 2 person race. Or, they should have endorsed an underdog to give conservative principles a look.

George Will makes some strong points today that Huntsman is running a platform to the right of Romney and Gingrich even though the media has cast him in the moderate roles.

…and quoted Ron Paul’s refusal to attend as the sine qua non of “real” Republican contenders. Really? Ron Paul? Can you say fabricated premise?

It is really an art how NRO uses this article to walk through a litany of excuses for Bachmann and Santorum. Then flame Gingrich for attending- which is not really surprising as he starts to creep up and overtake their obvious choice.

The ultimate point of course is to build up Romney (again) and try to dissuade him from attending this “spectacle”. I frankly must have missed NRO’s take-down of the other MSM debates as the staged, partisan spectacles they were.

My sense is NRO wants to see Romney side-by-side with Gingrich as little as possible. That means Romney would have to explain his numerous positions over the years and expose his superficial knowledge of this elections most important issues.

there were a few posts on Perry in this diary, thank God. It seems he is being ignored wholesale in the NM and to a lesser extent here. If I am forced to vote for Newt I will, but it will feel like when I voted for McCain in 2008. I had to hold my nose and close my eyes! If I have to vote for Romney, I will seriously consider which is best for the country. More of OB or an OB with new initials MR?

Perry is the best choice of the “electable” Republican contenders but by no means the “best”. In any case, I am getting frustrated with every time a candidate I support gets set aside as being “too conservative” because they needs to be “middle road” to stand a chance in the GE. I for one believe that if we lose this election and BO is reelected, it may just be the most direct way to stimulate a true conservative mind set in the RP (and nation) that overcomes the nauseous tendency for the party to compromise core Constitutional principles.

It’s not shocking to me and the article is exactly the kind of explanation I’d have expected Ramesh Ponnuru to produce to explain the decision. Of course everyone here suspects Ramesh Ponnuru of being a closet Democrat because of all those appearances on NPR. [Sigh].

Seriously though, I think everyone will feel a lot better once we have a nominee. Gingrich and Romney are both fine men. I forgive both of them for their respective quirks and foibles and tics and wheezes. All of it. I forgive them both. It’s pretty clear to me they’d both be better-than-average Presidents and even better-than-average Republican/Conservative Presidents. One would be more Conservative/Republican than Republican/Conservative but neither of them are blockheads and I think the country will be a lot better of than it is now if either of them are the nominee.

So it’s a good day. And it looks like Cain is going to endorse Gingrich to counterbalance the NRO’s endorsement of Romney. So the caterwauling is sure to continue.