National Review editorial: Just say no to Gingrich — and Perry

posted at 9:17 pm on December 14, 2011 by Allahpundit

They’re not endorsing Romney — yet. Right now they’re down to him, Huntsman, and Santorum as the final three worthy of “serious consideration.” But since the polling for those last two is stuck in single digits combined, you can guess which way the wind’s blowing here.

Ben Domenech tweets, “The editors of @nationalreview stand athwart history, mewling ‘please allow Mitt to pass.’”

Gingrich’s colleagues were, however, right to bring his tenure to an end. His character flaws — his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas — made him a poor Speaker of the House. Again and again he combined incendiary rhetoric with irresolute action, bringing Republicans all the political costs of a hardline position without actually taking one. Again and again he put his own interests above those of the causes he championed in public.

He says, and his defenders say, that time, reflection, and religious conversion have conquered his dark side. If he is the nominee, a campaign that should be about whether the country will continue on the path to social democracy would inevitably become to a large extent a referendum on Gingrich instead. And there is reason to doubt that he has changed. Each week we see the same traits that weakened Republicans from 1995 through 1998: I’d vote for Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform; Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is radical right-wing social engineering; I apologize for saying that, and no one should quote what I said because I was wrong; actually, what I said was right all along but nobody understood me. I helped defeat Communism; anyone who made money in the ’80s and ’90s owes me; I’m like Reagan and Thatcher. Local community boards should decide what to do with illegal immigrants. Freddie Mac paid me all that money to tell them how stupid they were. Enough. Gingrich has always said he wants to transform the country. He appears unable to transform, or even govern, himself. He should be an adviser to the Republican party, but not again its head.

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. Republican presidential candidates have not been known for their off-the-cuff eloquence in recent decades, but conservatism should not choose a standard-bearer who would have to spend much of his time untying his own tongue.

That’s a fine, persuasive argument against Gingrich. Not so persuasive is the idea that we should rule out Perry because he’d supposedly spend “much of his time” as president doing damage control over gaffes. No one seriously believes that, which means the real calculus here is whether his record as governor is sufficiently impressive to warrant bearing the risk of rhetorical error in having him as president. NRO says his record was “exemplary” — in which case, why not assume the risk? And why, oh why, if Gingrich is disqualified for being untrustworthy does Romney somehow make the cut?

This isn’t the only endorsement (or anti-endorsement) from a prominent conservative publication that’s out tonight either. Over at the Examiner, home to Romney critic extraordinaire Philip Klein, they’re endorsing … Mitt Romney. Click and read at least to the part where we’re breezily assured that Mitt “knows he must accommodate to the GOP mainstream, not the other way around.” If you say so, guys. Rather than dwell on that unpleasantness, though, let me throw you a curveball: Second look at … Jeb Bush?

So a writer I follow who lives in New Hampshire just tweeted:

@publicroad: I live in NH & just got a robocall polling me about what I think about Romney vs. Gingrich vs. *Jeb Bush*.

Other folks are reporting the same polling is taking place in New Hampshire.

Other folks are indeed reporting that. Erick Erickson’s heard from three sources about it and the mayor of a town in New Hampshire claimed on Facebook that he was “just phone-surveyed about Jeb Bush for President.” Doesn’t mean that Jeb Bush is behind it — it could very well be (and probably is) an outfit like PPP trying to gauge how the frontrunners would fare in a hypothetical match-up — but times are sufficiently desperate right now that any murmur about a deus ex machina is worth blogging.

Perhaps Hitler has some insight here. Content warning.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Hahahahaha!!!!

The evil mean corrupt GOP establishment National Review dismisses Newt “Freddiemac” Gingrich and Rick “DUH, I forgot!” Perry as unacceptable!

It’s about time…..all rational folks already knew that Romney is the only candidate that will beat Obama.

csdeven on December 15, 2011 at 12:38 AM

I wholeheartedly agree with you, gotsig. This Romney hatred is more than a little intellectually irritating. He is far more conservative than most conservatives here and elsewhere give him credit for. Is he the ‘only electable’ candidate like so many of Romney’s supporters claim? No, that’s ridiculous. But he balanced Massachusetts’ budget without raising taxes. He tried to appoint conservative judges, but his 85% Democrat (!!!!) state legislature wouldn’t let him. So its Romney’s fault that moderate to liberal judges were appointed? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. He tried to cut taxes and spending more, but guess what? A veto-proof liberal majority didn’t allow him to. But that’s proof Romney is ‘not conservative’ in many people’s minds. Its especially ironic, given that many of the people bashing Romney are Perry fans, people who truly believe Rick Perry is a ‘true conservative’ who just unfortunately sucks at debates. Can I get a LOL? I say this as someone 100% behind Michele Bachmann, not Mitt Romney. I say this is someone who knows Romney’s issues, and doesn’t pretend that he’s as conservative as I’d like or want him to be. I say this as someone who simply wants some honesty and intellectual integrity in the discussion.

LevinFan90 on December 15, 2011 at 12:40 AM

First of all, if I’m a conservative, I wouldn’t run for governor of a blue state just so I could govern as a lib.

I would if i know i can do only 1 or 2 good things, if not for Romney MA would have given in state tuition for illegals and he vetoed it, he balanced the budget, so i am open to the idea of a conservative being able to do only small things in a state where liberalism is basically the way of life, and yes he stopped the state from going all crazy on health care with a 10% business tax, MA would have been in CA territory if not for Romney

Second, how about neither? Just because one side puts up a stupid plan doesn’t mean one is obligated to respond with a stupid plan of his/her own.

I guess you forgot how government works, the legislator crafts the bills and the governor can veto it but it can be overridden, so yes he had to come up with a different bill

I wish you Mittbots would make up your minds. Earlier, you said he couldn’t fight for conservative ideas in Mass because the state is so liberal, now you’re saying the plan he passed was a conservative plan, developed by some of the so-called most conservative folks in the country, which would mean he COULD “fight for conservative ideas

No, i was implying that if you believe that a mandate is not a conservative idea then what do you want from a republican governor from MA, but i personally believe that since Reagan mandated free health care in emergency rooms there is only 2 options left, either you repeal that law, (good luck with that) or you go for the mandate which is much more conservative then taxing everybody to pay for the free hospital visits, so in that sense he picked the conservative position

Blah blah blah……give me a break. Do you believe in bigfoot too? Don’t hand me that “government doesn’t work that way” crap. No one said he shouldn’t have done anything, but he for damn sure wasn’t forced to do something stupid. And in this case, doing nothing WOULD have been better.

But you just said that how about he did neither so which one is it, doing neither, or nobody said he shouldn’t do anything,

In the end if not for Romney the legislator would have done what their plan was and taxed the hell out of the people in MA, because they write the laws, not the governor, so Romney
HAD to come up with a different plan, and the plan couldn’t be just a plan, because the liberal MA legislator would have rejected it and went on with their own plan, so he came up with a plan that is not really conservative, but considering the other options is the most conservative plan that had a chance to convince the MA legislator to vote for it, so yes i give him credit for it,

And that is the reason why he is not denouncing it, he knows that a lot of folks in our party have no idea how it is to govern a liberal states, most of our party sits in safe republican states and never have to worry how to fight the other side, so why try to explain something to people who won’t understand it anyway, better to stick with what you did, when you know that your decision saved the state of MA from going totally bankrupt

OrthodoxJew on December 15, 2011 at 12:41 AM

National Review? National Review? The magazine founded to “stand athwart history”?

They have gone from insurgent to establishment. They are now the kind of people who would trash Churchill and endorse Chamberlain.

All great leaders seemed eccentric and unelectable — until they won. Of all the GOP candidates running, Gingrich has the spark of true potential greatness.

One can’t help but conclude that NRO is still bitter at Gingrich for some slight, somewhere. Oh establishment, how bitter thy bitterness!

Whitewolf7070 on December 15, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Perry has shown he not ready for prime time.

Newt’s baggage will be an albatross that will dominate campaign coverage.

The nominee must be able to make the election about
Obama. Neither Newt, nor Perry can do that.

AMDG_BA on December 14, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Not ready for primetime? Perry is the only long-serving SUCCESSFUL governor in the USA with a proven history of conservatism.

If you watched the ABC debate last Saturday night the only candidate on the stage who went after Obama was Perry! and he did it powerfully over the Iran Drone disaster.

Rapunzel on December 15, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Wow, sellouts.

Can the National Review do math? Without the base a moderate Republican (who can’t get the base) cannot win. That would be Romney.

By all means, nominate him. He’ll lose.

M_J_S on December 15, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Just because you support Gingrich does not make Gingrich the choice for the base,

fact is the base is not happy with anybody currently running, so the base will have to hold the nose in this election anyhow, the only question left is how big we would have to hold our nose,

BTW for the record, I am as much the base as you

OrthodoxJew on December 15, 2011 at 12:48 AM

If you watched the ABC debate last Saturday night the only candidate on the stage who went after Obama was Perry! and he did it powerfully over the Iran Drone disaster.

Rapunzel on December 15, 2011 at 12:45 AM

We have also watched 10 more debates other then the one mentioned above, and it wasn’t pretty

OrthodoxJew on December 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM

It’s about time…..all rational folks already knew that Romney is the only candidate that will beat Obama.

csdeven on December 15, 2011 at 12:38 AM

…and do you get the impression that the rational kind are the most populous here, on HA? :-)

jimver on December 15, 2011 at 12:51 AM

Romney won in liberal Massachutts; he’ll win against liberal Obama.
He’s smart, honest, conservative, and and would be a great leader on a world stage. And he’ll get us back to work.

enerwaste on December 15, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Wow, sellouts.

Can the National Review do math? Without the base a moderate Republican (who can’t get the base) cannot win. That would be Romney.

By all means, nominate him. He’ll lose.

M_J_S on December 15, 2011 at 12:21 AM

can you? without the indies, a Republican basket case like Gingrich (who cannot get them) cannot win. and that’s the problem, you have to think past the primaries. Indies will never vote for Gingrich. Should I spell that out for you? N-E-V-A-H :-)

jimver on December 15, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Why can’t you have both the base and the moderates? A good communicator should be able to do that.

Romney won’t even try to court the base, so he’s lost at least some of them for good. It didn’t have to be this way.

Of the two, I think Newt has the best chance to win both the base and moderates.

Galadriel on December 15, 2011 at 1:03 AM

I’m so glad NRO gets it about Newt. Even if he can win, which I doubt, he’d be a terrible President and would constantly covet MSM approval. That’s his M.O. and has been for 25 years. In the general election the people who make up their minds in Sept and Oct would look at him and say no.

bluestatemisfit on December 15, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Looking at NRO’s endorsement history, they seem to have never picked a candidate who ended up being strong or innovative on domestic policy. They really seem to like the play it safe guys.

I don’t know if we can afford to play it safe at this point.

Bluray on December 15, 2011 at 1:06 AM

National Review editorial: Just say no to Gingrich — and Perry

Already have the former and have no use for the latter, but thanks anyway.

rukiddingme on December 15, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Unlike Harry Reid, my crystal ball says that Zombie Reagan will rise to be the Republican nominee. Even as a Zombie, Reagan will eat Obama alive during the debates. Go Zombie Reagan!

Gladtobehere on December 15, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Foul language or not, that video was hilarious.

I’m not particularly enamored of this field of candidates, but at this stage of the game where are we going to get anybody else? We can’t make anybody run and the ones I was most hoping would throw their hats in the ring chose not to.

backwoods conservative on December 15, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Said it before and will say it again…if its lil newtie, the election campaign will be all about Gingrich and not about Obama and his failed policies, Obama will control the situation. If it Mitt it will be all about Obama and his failed policies. Not a Mitt fan; I am just able to figure it out and I want to win!

AReadyRepub on December 15, 2011 at 1:14 AM

PS should read “If it is Mitt”. Also we have a narcisstic gas bag in the WH now, why would you want to put in another one???

AReadyRepub on December 15, 2011 at 1:17 AM

He’s smart, honest, conservative, and and would be a great leader on a world stage. And he’ll get us back to work.

enerwaste on December 15, 2011 at 12:56 AM

There is nothing honest or conservative about Mitt Romney. His whole public life has been him lying about what he believes while pushing progressive policies in MA. If anything, Mitt is weak, spineless, and too awkward to be on the world stage. I will not cast my vote for Mitt Romney or his shameless campaign to become POTUS.

Punchenko on December 15, 2011 at 1:18 AM

I am gonna say “Yes” to newt here IN IA.

Not cause I support him mind you… eeeuuuuuk! He’s an awful Statist that sucjered for that AGW crap – just like that ignorant, blood-clot Ken-Doll Romney and that drooling Twit Huntsman. (My opinions of these RINOS, don’t like it, too bad). My hope is the Troglodyte Newt gets enough support that he keeps the beta-male RINOS split in half so that a real conservative like Santorum can win in the end.

Let the pseudo-cons beat each other bloody and cut the erudite coastal gentry class RINOS votes by 50% I say, and I will work to encourage Newt to Stay in it as long as possible to continue to damage Romney as much as possible – and vice-versa. Both of these trolls are completely unacceptable to any Regan Conservative in my opinion, and the only good thing I have to say about either of them is that, God-willing, they will destroy each other so badly that neither is viable anymore.

Plus… as a fringe benefit… I’d love to see Captain-Willard-Romney-Care-The-Nanny get tub-thumped – just so I could listen for the sonic-boom like noise proceeding Lil’Allah’s head bursting like an overripe grape while he reads of “Willard’s implosion” in his copy of Newsweek, Time, or whatever literature Beta-Male pseudo-cons peruse while pretending to be a conservaive.

I’d pay good money to be a fly on the wall…

SilverDeth on December 15, 2011 at 1:59 AM

Basically the same neo-con wing (i.e. Bush wing) of the GOP, the same people who ended the era of Reagan and the same people who ousted Newt, are now once again are trying to be the gate keepers of who gets nominated and once again run the GOP. It really is amazing that a select group of Northeast dinosaur country club republicans still have so much power after all the disasters they have caused to conservatism in America. They live in a sea of liberalism and it clouds their judgment and makes them frightened of their own shadow. Hence it explains their obsession for nominees like Romney and for the love of god another Bush.

I don’t understand Perry supporters being happy about Newt’s possible slide, because Newt is too aggressive and conservative for them and that should say something! If Newt is dangerous to these folks, Perry is downright toxic. I think a lot of anger toward Newt is they could not control him, like they could with Bush. It is the same cringe you get when you mention Reagan, or the Tea Party, etc., to these gatekeepers. Let’s face it, Newt with all of his faults did more for the conservative cause as speaker than all those GOP leaders and pundits combined have done since he left as speaker. So these failures pick on the one conservative winner, flawed that he may be, we have had since Reagan.

William Eaton on December 15, 2011 at 2:02 AM

Nat’l Review – the same clowns who were trying to get Jeb Bush nominated.

Django on December 15, 2011 at 2:22 AM

It’s truly shocking how much I don’t care about what the National Review folks think.

Seriously, what’s their circulation? 50,000?

So much onanism.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2011 at 2:34 AM

Mitt is squishy. He stands for nothing. He does not believe in and cannot articulate a defense for conservatism. He will intensify cronyism and alliances between government and business in DC. I cannot and will not vote for him.

Newt is the best alternative. He can articulate a defense of conservatism from a number of angles. He knows what he’s talking about. He knows how to fight the media and the Democrats. He’s got my primary vote.

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2011 at 2:38 AM

ROMNEYCARE

Cased Closed. Can we all please move on?

Afterseven on December 15, 2011 at 2:46 AM

My first comment at Hot Air is also on the day I decide to never comment at NRO again.

To everything turn, turn, turn….

IMHO, Perry/West 2012.

tonotisto on December 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM

If you watched the ABC debate last Saturday night the only candidate on the stage who went after Obama was Perry! and he did it powerfully over the Iran Drone disaster.

Rapunzel on December 15, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Dude. Do you really have faith in Perry replicating that same attack on Obama heads up? Really? Perry could screw up his own mothers name in a debate.

Roymunson on December 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM

Again and again he combined incendiary rhetoric with irresolute action, bringing Republicans all the political costs of a hardline position without actually taking one. Again and again he put his own interests above those of the causes he championed in public.

Money quote.

rickyricardo on December 15, 2011 at 3:41 AM

ROMNEYCARE

Cased Closed. Can we all please move on?

Afterseven on December 15, 2011 at 2:46 AM

Totally agree. Romney is tired of the questions about it, because its his downfall. If Newt were so petty. You would see him getting antsy and crossing his legs over old stuff. You dont. He says bring it.

I’m waiting for Romney’s ultra desperate attack to be about Newts weight and age. It’s coming. 10k bet on it.

Gedge on December 15, 2011 at 3:48 AM

Again and again he combined incendiary rhetoric with irresolute action, bringing Republicans all the political costs of a hardline position without actually taking one. Again and again he put his own interests above those of the causes he championed in public.

So instead we get Mitt, who doesn’t take a position at all on anything. How is that better?

alwaysfiredup on December 15, 2011 at 3:59 AM

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 14, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Holy crap!! Dude, you are a hard core Pythonite.

I thought it was pronounced Y-A-C-H-T??

rickyricardo on December 15, 2011 at 4:03 AM

Recall the polls showing the Generic Republican beating Obama handily – that Generic Republican is Mitt Romney. Like other posters here, I agree that with Newt as GOP nominee, the campaign will be ALL ABOUT NEWT and not about the massive failures of Obama.
Mitt may not be the rock-hard conservative but neither is Newt after he left the Speakership. Mitt has the business cred and the ability to attract the independents that will be needed to beat Obama

BabysCatz on December 15, 2011 at 4:54 AM

If he is the nominee, a campaign that should be about whether the country will continue on the path to social democracy would inevitably become to a large extent a referendum on Gingrich instead.

This is precisely the heart of the matter. It is true of all the candidates except for Romney and it is decisive and unavoidable. People keep saying how easy it will be to beat PBHO. Well, they’re right, BUT ONLY IF OUR NOMINEE IS ONE WHO CAN KEEP THE ELECTION ABOUT PBHO! If the election is instead about the whether this nation can stomach the alternative people will stick with the devil they know.

Americans don’t want to be whip lashed, trading a lefty kook for a righty kook. Americans want and need a stable, sober POTUS who can bring along the vast majority of us from across the political spectrum.

A vote for Newt in the primaries is a vote for PBHO. It is just that clear.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2011 at 5:09 AM

National Review? Oh God, I dont care. I dont know anyone who buys the magazine.
A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama

Flapjackmaka on December 15, 2011 at 5:14 AM

A vote for Newt Mitt in the primaries is a vote for PBHO. It is just that clear.

MJBrutus on December 15, 2011 at 5:09 AM

See how easy that is.

swinia sutki on December 15, 2011 at 5:15 AM

I haven’t time this am to read through all the posts, so I
apologize if this was stated elsewhere:

The National Review has been for Romney all along – for years
now. This has been obvious for some time.

We all know this. Why is their opinion newsworth on this site
other than to post another negative article on Newt? Do we
see a trend?

Amjean on December 15, 2011 at 5:33 AM

It’s about time…..all rational folks already knew that Romney is the only candidate that will beat Obama.

csdeven on December 15, 2011 at 12:38 AM

…and do you get the impression that the rational kind are the most populous here, on HA? :-)

jimver on December 15, 2011 at 12:51 AM

From what I have seen “rational” and “csdeven” do not belong
in the same posting.

Amjean on December 15, 2011 at 5:35 AM

If we’re going to nominate Romney, we may as well admit we have no principles or convictions about anything except making sure the guy in the White House has an R after his name. Any media outlet that endorses him for the nomination is not conservative.

And the Mittbot meme about Romney being the only candidate who can beat Obama is stupid. Even a first year polysci student knows polls this far out from an election have the same value as a wad of used toilet paper.

DRayRaven on December 15, 2011 at 5:46 AM

disappointed in NR

cmsinaz on December 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM

polling me about what I think about Romney vs. Gingrich vs. *Jeb Bush*

None of the above. No more Bushes. Christie or Petraeus would be more like it.

petefrt on December 15, 2011 at 6:00 AM

swinia sutki on December 15, 2011 at 5:15 AM

Yes, being wrong is the easiest thing in the world. Congrats. I explained just why what I said is true. All that you did is edited the names and slapped yourself on the back.

To repeat, if we make this election about PBHO’s disastrous leadership we win. If we make it about whether the GOP nominee is as corrupt and insane as PBHO we lose. Romney wins, Newt loses.

You may want play lemming with our nation, but most Americans have not given up and never will give up on our country!

MJBrutus on December 15, 2011 at 6:19 AM

morning joe talking about this right now…
just giddy about this…

cmsinaz on December 15, 2011 at 6:19 AM

Not a Mitt fan; I am just able to figure it out and I want to win!

AReadyRepub on December 15, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Mitt’s McCainesque assertion that he won’t go after [say anything 'incendiary' about] Obama spells defeat. And irritation.

Worse, mark my word, Obama with his billion$, in a character assassination, will play the ’94 & ’02 Romney pro-choice clips ad nauseam. This will deeply repel all voters. What is shocking is the GHWB ‘read my lips’ intensity in which Mitt espoused choice. To go back on his word just a couple of years later shows that his “word” is good for zilch. Indeed, we ourselves cannot fully trust Mr. Romneycare to sign the repeal of you guessed it. Imagine “I really felt that way on the campaign trail… but when faced with the prospect of real lives being affected, I couldn’t sign the repeal.”

He should retire now to his La Jolla beach house, where he can wait for the sea to rise into his living room, and then consult his ex-”advisor” J Holdren.

anotherJoe on December 15, 2011 at 6:21 AM

Arghhh! For the first time since I started voting in 1980(Guess who I voted for…) I am undecided 3 weeks out from the NH primary. I don’t want to vote for any of them so I must decide who can get rid of that LOSER in the WH. Arghhh!

ksmoola1 on December 15, 2011 at 6:28 AM

Mitt’s McCainesque assertion that he won’t go after [say anything 'incendiary' about] Obama spells defeat. And irritation.

Worse, mark my word, Obama with his billion$, in a character assassination, will play the ’94 & ’02 Romney pro-choice clips ad

anotherJoe on December 15, 2011 at 6:21 AM

yup

*sigh*

cmsinaz on December 15, 2011 at 6:35 AM

Losing to Newt will be the best thing to ever happen to Mitt Romney.

mike_NC9 on December 15, 2011 at 6:38 AM

The review board in my house has pretty much decided it’s either Perry or Santorum, depending on which is still alive by Super Tuesday.

GeorgiaBuckeye on December 15, 2011 at 6:39 AM

He’s Sarah Palin is smart, honest, conservative, and and would be a great leader on a world stage. And he’ll she’ll get us back to work.

enerwaste on December 15, 2011 at 12:56 AM

FIFY

ProudPalinFan on December 15, 2011 at 6:51 AM

It’s business, not personal. National Review seems to get it that if you don’t win in November, then nothing else matters. Newt and Perry aren’t looking like very strong candidates in the general. Maybe NR is taking Vince Lombardi’s advice, let’s find ourselves a winner first …
http://www.ombudizen.com/2011/12/11/winning-isnt-everything/

ombdz on December 15, 2011 at 7:00 AM

How does NRO profit by supporting a flip-floppin’ faux-Conservative, who can’t even get over 25% of the vote in his own party?

kingsjester on December 15, 2011 at 7:04 AM

…starring Newt Gingrich as Marshall Will Kane in the motion picture High Noon.

equanimous on December 15, 2011 at 7:29 AM

kingsjester on December 15, 2011 at 7:04 AM

They think they look mature and erudite, they have found the guy who will always use his inside voice. They are certain he will not stir things up.

Cindy Munford on December 15, 2011 at 7:35 AM

Cindy Munford on December 15, 2011 at 7:35 AM

I’ll be interested to hear Rush’s take on this today.

kingsjester on December 15, 2011 at 7:52 AM

I wanted a Mitch Daniels / Paul Ryan ticket myself, but neither one is interested. The current slate of candidates we have leaves one underwhelmed. Whomever I vote for in 2012, I’ll have to hold my nose to do it.

Conservchik on December 15, 2011 at 7:54 AM

Question is, if you are a conservative which side do you go, raise taxes on businesses, or rather mandate everybody to buy insurance and leave the government out of it?

OrthodoxJew on December 14, 2011 at 10:54 PM

How do you square that circle? How is the government left out?

Talon on December 15, 2011 at 7:54 AM

How does NR go from saying that Perry has done an exemplary job in Texas and then down play his candidacy for not bringing gravity to the national stage? Not one vote has been cast and if he has done a great job in Texas and he’s a true conservative. What a joke this is. Romney is the farthest thing from a conservative and Santorum has NO chance of winning. Perry is going to shock a lot of people in Iowa and South Carolina and then he’s going to be on his way to winning the nomination and then we’ll see these so called conservatives saying they always supported him..right? Levin, Rush, Hannity, Medved have all missed the boat on this guy.

jrfromdallas on December 15, 2011 at 7:57 AM

Question is, if you are a conservative which side do you go, raise taxes on businesses, or rather mandate everybody to buy insurance and leave the government out of it?

OrthodoxJew on December 14, 2011 at 10:54 PM

How about neither and the gov’t is not responsible for everyone’s health care? If you think you are conservative yet believe that the gov’t is responsible for everyone’s health care, you might want to rethink what you believe conservatism is.

Monkeytoe on December 15, 2011 at 8:08 AM

National Review generally has stated it will always go for the most conservative electable candidate. That is what they think they are doing here. I disagree with them that Romney is the most conservative electable candidate. I disagree that he is the most electable. I certainly disagree that he is conservative.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Romney has been running for president for at least 5 years. Yet I still don’t know who he is, what he truly believes or what his vision for the country is. that is a leader? That’s a good candidate? He’s a non-entity. He has no personality, no charm, and no central philosophy. He just wants to be president. Once he’s president – then what? With no driving philosophy and no vision, what does someone like that do?

People like that always, always move left. They don’t want the press to hate them and don’t want the “elite” Washington insiders to hate them. so they make “bi-partisan” deals, which translates into giving the dems what they want.

Romney is basically Souter. Someone that the elite are telling us to trust them – he really is conservative – with absolutely no evidence to support it. (Yeah, I know, he did a hell of a job in MA with the Big Dig and Romneycare – but he lowered taxes!). All of the historical evidence about Romney is that he is not conservative. Not that he’s liberal – I don’t think he has any ideology aside from what is convenient at the time. Thus Romneycare and his now claiming to be conservative when he claimed to be against conservatism when running for Senate and Governor.

Romney certainly won’t be as liberal as Obama. But what good is that really? He’ll slow the leftward drift down a little? Big woops.

And, I don’t think he is much of a campaigner. He certainly isn’t showing it in the primary. The fact that his national head-to-head numbers against Obama – when Romney has been running for the job for 5 years – aren’t that great. With unemployment and with Romney being about as generic as generic can get, he should be beating Obama by 5-10 points in head to head match ups right now nationally. That he isn’t says a lot about his electability. In 5 years Romney has failed to sell himself to republicans or independents.

Monkeytoe on December 15, 2011 at 8:17 AM

If Gingrich is such a master debater, why hasn’t he convinced me that he’s a conservative?

If Romney is a conservative, why does he not apologize for the progressiveness of his past?

Steven McGregor on December 15, 2011 at 8:18 AM

Well now I have to add NR to the Hugh Hewitt category-in the tank for Romney and in deep denial.
If Gingrich is the nominee he will take the fight to Obama. He won’t follow the media’s rules, and play nice while the other side breaks out the hatchets. Every time he appears he will be attacking Obama’s record of failure.
If only Mitt showed the same intensity going after Obama that he does going after his fellow Republicans! We won’t be in this situation if Mitt didn’t act like such a predictable ruling class loser in the mode of McCain/Dole.
The Establishment fears Gingrich. He might actually shake up their cozy little nest. That’s why they all want Mitt-with him the fix is in. The more the Beltway crowd freaks out the more I think Newt is on to something.
I like Perry but he has not been the articulate messenger we need. Maybe VP? He could handle a Biden debate perhaps.

Remodernist on December 15, 2011 at 8:20 AM

It always bothers me when liberals support a particular “conservative” Republican candidate . . . I envision political double agents.

rplat on December 15, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Question is, if you are a conservative which side do you go, raise taxes on businesses, or rather mandate everybody to buy insurance and leave the government out of it?

OrthodoxJew on December 14, 2011 at 10:54 PM

If you subscribe to either of these positions then you are not a conservative.

rplat on December 15, 2011 at 8:25 AM

NRO is “Nominate Romney Only” this cycle. Romney posts on their website, and many of their writers have worked for Romney in some way. They can hardly been seen as impartial. With the proportional delegate allocation, this thing is going to go on for awhile. The base will ultimately decide it. That’s Romney’s biggest problem.

monalisa on December 15, 2011 at 8:28 AM

Rick Perry has been underestimated before and emerged victorious — even against an old fighter like Karl Rove. Perry just keeps getting steadily better as he calibrates his Texas persona for a national audience. I look forward to voting for him in 2012. Gov. Perry has an unmatched record of job creation and the most substantive reform platform of all the candidates. He is a true leader who inspires supporters with his bold ideas, unwavering principles and strong moral character. Perry 2012! Presidential leadership should NOT be defined solely by the ability to respond to complexity in a sixty-second sound bite.Resilience, moral courage, and grace under fire, are far more important character traits for America’s Commander in Chief.A genuine sense of humour, and humility, are also helpful. He is the only candidate I truly want to vote for. If he runs with Marco Rubio, the Electoral College map will be a sea of red with a couple of tiny blue dots. Rick Perry 2012!

nancysabet on December 15, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Dude. Do you really have faith in Perry replicating that same attack on Obama heads up? Really? Perry could screw up his own mothers name in a debate.

Roymunson on December 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM

Yes, When Perry runs he WINS. That’s why he’s a 3 time governor of the state of Texas.

When Mitt Romney ran for U.S. Senate against Teddy Kennedy he LOST, and that’s when he was pretending – to be as Liberal as Kennedy.

Dr Evil on December 15, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Last 50 years: RINO GOP Presidents – 4, Real Conservative GOP Presidents – 1.

rhombus on December 15, 2011 at 8:38 AM

The content warning was a clear signal to ingest any liquids remaining in the mouth prior to watching. No matter how many times I see that video, I can’t help but to laugh hysterically. Lord knows after the preceding HA post I sure did need it.

Perry has been my governor for over 10 years, and has done a far better than average job. I feel he would make an excellent president, but he is not used to national politics. Anyone who lives here knows that Texas is different. We are more apt to overlook a gaffe or uncomfortable pause than the majority of the country (maybee it’s jest the waaay weee tawk daown heeer). Perry needs more practice.

I do tend to get very nervous when anyone attempts to pick our nominee for us. The “it’s Mitt’s turn” crowd has been cramming this down our throats fast and furious for some time now, and I’m not biting. In my mind, Romney’s an Obama clone. While I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for him in the general (same holds true for Mickey Mouse), I feel we have a historical opportunity here, like we haven’t seen since 1980. Mitt will blow it (mostly having to do with Obamney care).

1) Newt
2) Perry (and take our chances)
3) Santorum

After that, I don’t know. At that point I think we’re all screwed anyway, so I might just ingest several adult beverages and call it a day.

Spark Chaser on December 15, 2011 at 8:39 AM

This is nothing new.I recommend you go back to 1978-79 and read some of the things Dems and the establishment republicans were saying about Reagan.Now before you blow your top.I am in no way saying Newt is like Pres. Reagan.Reagan was a great pres and we probably will not see another like him in our life time.

logman1 on December 15, 2011 at 8:42 AM

Yes, When Perry runs he WINS. That’s why he’s a 3 time governor of the state of Texas.

Dr Evil on December 15, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Four time, but Texans are stupid.

cozmo on December 15, 2011 at 8:44 AM

Sobering thoughts focused on the ability of a candidate to function as a president, not doctrinal conservatism. Gingrich’s talents are as an instigator and provoker but not as a presider. His history as Speaker and the sometime chaotic nature of his campaign is evidence. He has made himself relevant again on the national scene but he is, like Bret Favre, destined to lose the game in the end.

oznerola on December 15, 2011 at 8:44 AM

Romney 2012 = McCain 2008, just for different reasons. Don’t believe me? Just nominate him, if you can after he loses the primary in every Southern state, then find out.

Knott Buyinit on December 15, 2011 at 8:45 AM

This back fighting is ridiculous. We all have our candidates, but this attitude:”my candidate or a third party run” is utterly destructive. Let’s defeat Obama with anybody! Cast your vote, accept the results, unite behind the winner and win the election.

chairman1057 on December 15, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Everyone – Pick the guy that can beat Obama head-to-head. Stop this self-defeating mentality whereby you nitpick and nitpick until you end up with a fruit basket that can’t even when a mayoral election.

The alternative is more systematic destruction of western civilization by a second-term Socialist.

But hey! At least you didn’t support that guy that sat on a couch with Pelosi! Way to stand by your morals while free enterprise crumbles. You are men of conviction!

michaelthomas on December 15, 2011 at 8:59 AM

Thurston Romney 2012, He Knows What is Best for You!

SurferDoc on December 15, 2011 at 9:00 AM

I’m surprised Huntsman is getting no traction at all. He’s a smart guy, probably the most consistently conservative of the lot (with a couple of exceptions) and an expert on China (a quality that might come in very handy over the next four to eight years).

macnorfin on December 15, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 14, 2011 at 9:43 PM

+1 for the username, Mr. Luxury Yacht.

mankai on December 15, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Do you remember?? I do. Gingrich has his good and bad…but the good far outweigh the bad. Why do you think Gingrich is hated by Republicans and Democrates alike? Read below….1992..and Rick Santorum was a member of the “Gang of Seven”.

“congressional check-kiting scandal”. RUBBERGATE: In the early days of the scandal, when the media began reporting on the loose practices, Republican Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, along with 7 freshman Republicans referred to as the Gang of Seven or “The Young Turks,” made the strategic decision to publicize the scandal in an attempt to sweep congressmen with overdrawn accounts, most of them Democrats, out of power. Gingrich realized that far more Democrats could be implicated in this scandal than Republicans, so he made the decision to make the identities of all of those involved public and “let the chips fall where they may.”

Gingrich pressured the then Speaker of the House Tom Foley to ensure that the special counsel appointed to investigate the matter informed the voting public of the overdrafts and the identities of all of the Congressmen responsible.

coach1228 on December 15, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Four time, but Texans are stupid.

cozmo on December 15, 2011 at 8:44 AM

Typical yankee pap. Get a life Cosmo.

Spark Chaser on December 15, 2011 at 9:09 AM

I like how all the people on this site keep calling Newt pompous when you all here think that you are the only ones in the whole country who know what the rest of the nation is thinking or are going to do. This site and the rest of the pundits on tv and radio are just a 1% of a 1/2% of a 1/16 per cent of maybe a state the size of CT. I am glad you all think so highly of yourselves that you are so sure that you can predict what everyone else in this country is going to do. I think that any on these candidates except Paul could be Obama in the general because there will be such a stark distinction between what they believe and what he has done. But go right on ahead and tell us all what you know to be true and we will surely take that to the voting booth with us (sar/).

jistincase on December 15, 2011 at 9:14 AM

I’m a little late and someone may have said this already. Didn’t one of NR’s editors endorse Obama last time around? Why yes, yes he did. Chris Buckley, Bill’s son.

NR has been dead to me ever since.

angryed on December 15, 2011 at 9:17 AM

This back fighting is ridiculous. We all have our candidates, but this attitude:”my candidate or a third party run” is utterly destructive. Let’s defeat Obama with anybody! Cast your vote, accept the results, unite behind the winner and win the election.

chairman1057 on December 15, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Couldn’t agree more!

jistincase on December 15, 2011 at 9:19 AM

For all the Newt haters:

Yes he took money from Freddie. Yes he got divorced. Yes he sat on a couch with Nancy. But none of that compares to being the architect of Obamacare. It’s the difference between getting a few parking tickets and driving drunk at 100MPH on the highway.

angryed on December 15, 2011 at 9:19 AM

Spark Chaser on December 15, 2011 at 9:09 AM

I have a life. It is to show to the world that Texas, and Texans, is/are a myth. That backwards little state has nothing when compared to the thoroughly modern progressive states that should be the model to rebuild America into a true leader in the world.

No one needs the things Texas has, or stands for.

God, guns, self reliance, every thing Texas and Perry stands for…how quaint.

cozmo on December 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM

I’m surprised Huntsman is getting no traction at all. He’s a smart guy, probably the most consistently conservative of the lot (with a couple of exceptions) and an expert on China (a quality that might come in very handy over the next four to eight years).

macnorfin on December 15, 2011 at 9:05 AM

I know right. It’s crazy that a guy who went to work for Obama isn’t getting much support from people who want to defeat Obama. These crazy Tea Partiers, I tell ya….

angryed on December 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM

Spark Chaser on December 15, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Besides, what would you know about Texas anyway? You could be one of those northerners who actually have a “Texas state of mind”.

cozmo on December 15, 2011 at 9:24 AM

And stop with this “expert on China” stuff. He was ambassador. Ambassadors are appointed as political favors. He’s as much of an expert on China as I am.

angryed on December 15, 2011 at 9:24 AM

I really wish Palin would drop the MEGATON and jump in.

I think our only hope is for some quality conservatives to win Senate/House seats to keep Romney in check.

Lord of the Wings on December 15, 2011 at 9:24 AM

I am unhappy with the state of the current campaign as it is presented on TV, and therefore, I don’t feel it is a good time for the National Review article. Upfront, I would say I am a longtime Romney fan, but I would rather they give a projection showing their ideas, and then say whether or not they can come thru with their ideas. Are they credible ideas, do they require a republican congress. The media is hounding Romney everyday on this class warfare idea, and the questions the media present to Gingrich and Romney both, create a scenario of Zany questions, and media shaped answers.

I am someone who believes that Romney is an outsider and that Gingrich is a Washington insider and a Fox news media insider. Of course his professional friends have to ask him questions as hard as they ask the other candidates, but don’t conclude this means there is a media conspiracy against Newt and that makes him an outsider. The questions from the media are ruining this primary.

I am patiently awaiting the Mitt interview on Sunday, and tonight’s debate to see if there is any expository information to be gained thru the journalists questions.

Not, questions that sound like they want the candidates to condemn their own blessings of wealth, not questions that focus on any candidates regligion…not Perry’s, not Romney’s, not Gingrich’s, not Santorums… NO FREAKING questions on religion. It’s a republican debate, lets presume that the candidates start out on moral footing. Please God, no stoopid questions tonight.

I want to hear Santorum asked a question about economic policy that does not force a social issues answer, and I want them to ask Mrs. Bachman a dignified question that has to do with her Service to this country in the Congress.

So tonight, I hope the questioners read the info on the websites, read the 59 points, read the New contract for America, read what they put out to represent themselves, and ask them how it will work. Thank goodness we don’t have to hear that nine nine nine anymore, I for one, am sick of slogans.

Fleuries on December 15, 2011 at 9:28 AM

ROMNEYCARE

Cased Closed. Can we all please move on?

Afterseven on December 15, 2011 at 2:46 AM

I could forgive him Romneycare, but I cannot forgive him for defending OBAMACARE while the rest of us were fighting it.

Eff You, Mittens. And your little accomplishment too.

Laura in Maryland on December 15, 2011 at 9:28 AM

It’s about time…..all rational folks already knew that Romney is the only candidate that will beat Obama.

csdeven on December 15, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Not that you’d know, since you’re anything but rational.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

GRAMMY!!!!11!1!

ABDICATE!!!!

fossten on December 15, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Erick Erickson nails NRO to the wall this morning:

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, he is so bad a candidate that National Review cannot even use the word endorsement in their endorsement. They describe it as “winnowing the field,” but they stack the field for declaring that he and two guys barely at 2% in the national polling (Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum) are the only viable candidates.

[snip]

If National Review wants to endorse or not endorse that’s fine by me, but trying to sell us Romney with a non-endorsement endorsement that makes Clinton’s non-denial denial about Lewinsky look honest is a bit much.

The fact is Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have huge vulnerabilities. The base is being asked to choose between two cults of personality, neither of which are actually very conservative. But for all of Gingrich’s mouthiness and new-age silliness, he got a federal budget balanced and welfare reformed while Mitt Romney was out at the same time shunning Ronald Reagan and funding Planned Parenthood.

BTW, the title of Erickson’s post is “A Chorus of Scientologists Claim Jim Jones Runs A Cult.”

heh

Y-not on December 15, 2011 at 9:34 AM

No matter how its cut, we members of the “Red State” are pretty much going backwards…again.

IMHO, the party itself (GOP) will NOT support a Socially Conservative candidate; that much is the case.

Since 1990 on all of our final candidates for election at the national level (top of the ticket) have NOT been strict conservatives, and barely Republican at that.

President Bush (2000-2008) came the closest to being the “ideal” Conservative (for that time in history), while not being able to articulate the position as well as Reagan did….But to his defense, that could be said about a lot of other people too.

That being said: while the PARTY may not be as Conservative as we would like it, the members at the grassroots level if anything have become MORE conservative, especially socially. So why the loggerheads?

Term limits: The party desperately needs to term limit the upper ranks of the GOP and soonest: From the RNC chair to the Executive board, Republicans & Conservatives NEED to step up and demand that the GOP act like they know what the meaning is to be an “opposition party” and not a watered down version of the DNC. If you need a hint, act like you GOT a pair.

I want President Obama to be a 1-termer. There is no NO reason why we cannot rally and bring enough good thinking people to the polls to defeat this man and his agenda, regardless if its Gingrich or Romney on the ticket!

BlaxPac on December 15, 2011 at 9:36 AM

So basically NOT ONE GOP CANDIDATE can win against the WORST president in American history. Romney would have to win without the GOP base; Gingrich would have to win without the GOP establishment and those oh-so-crucial moderates; and everybody else is an also-ran.

And the GOP never fights the Democrats in any serious way, but the GOP will happily dissolve into internecine warfare just because the GOP establishment hates and fears anyone who would really change how things are done in Washington. I guess the GOP has more in common with the Democrats than they do with the rest of us.

I’m so disgusted with the entire right-of-center establishment right now.

Aitch748 on December 15, 2011 at 9:36 AM

I could forgive him Romneycare, but I cannot forgive him for defending OBAMACARE while the rest of us were fighting it.

Eff You, Mittens. And your little accomplishment too.

Laura in Maryland on December 15, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Laura proves that one doesn’t need to go on and on and on
about why many of us don’t like Romney. She got right to the
heart of the matter. I agree 100%.

Amjean on December 15, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Or – we could just say no to National Review. Because that running a milquetoast moderate (McCain) worked out SO well last time.

datripp on December 15, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Four time, but Texans are stupid.

cozmo on December 15, 2011 at 8:44 AM

This stupid Texan needs to correct you. He was already Lieutenant Governor in 2000, and took over the office (without an election) when GW Bush left for the White House. He then won the next THREE elections.

TMOverbeck on December 15, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I agree whole-heartedly with Eric. National Romney Online lost me with their bow-tie conservative, Eastern elite attitude in this primary. The same for Ann Coulter, and yes, even Sean Hannity as well as Faux News.

Perry is the best qualified to be President, and he is rightly feared by an establishment that sees him coming at their smug corruption with a wrecking ball.

http://www.differentdrummer.cc

Different Drummer on December 15, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I’m surprised Huntsman is getting no traction at all. He’s a smart guy, probably the most consistently conservative of the lot (with a couple of exceptions) and an expert on China (a quality that might come in very handy over the next four to eight years).

macnorfin on December 15, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Maybe Huntsman should break out the ol’ keytar again, like Clinton did with his saxophone. :)

TMOverbeck on December 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5