I dissent from National Review's editorial on Gingrich

Nevertheless, if the Editors were enterprising enough, they could just as easily write a similar editorial, with the same tone of alarm, about, say, Governor Romney or Governor Huntsman. Their heresies, too, are notorious — and their explanations no more satisfying. I am not suggesting that such editorials be written — particularly with respect to Romney who, like Gingrich, would make a superb president. I am just saying that it could be done. For the Editors to single out Gingrich for this kind of raking — particularly when his accomplishments in government dwarf anything his rivals have managed to achieve — fails the test of judgment conservatives expect from National Review. The transcendent mission of our founder calls for explicating principled conservative arguments about the great issues of the day, not “winnowing” intra-GOP primaries. I appreciate, as Jonah Goldberg recounts, that the magazine has made endorsements in some prominent contests throughout its history. In this instance, however, we are talking about clearing a seven-person field — eliminating strong conservatives, preserving spots for two moderates (and one solid conservative who is a very long long-shot) — before a single vote has been cast…

Is Newt guilty of so many missteps that the tremendous good he has done is outweighed? I don’t think so, but that is what the primary process is about. Although I think NR should stay out of the endorsement/disqualification business at this early stage of the GOP race, I would not complain if my colleagues were simply assessing both sides of the ledger and deciding that other candidates are preferable to Gingrich. But to conclude that he is unfit, as the Editors do, is not only wrong; it is a gross exaggeration. NR absolutely should give conservatives the information they deserve — good and bad — to make an intelligent choice. Moreover, while I don’t subscribe to this view, it is certainly defensible to argue that beating Obama is so vital that nominating a surer winner trumps nominating a potentially better president. But to declare, as the Editors do, that Gingrich should be “exclude[d] from consideration” is an unfair evaluation of his candidacy; more significantly, it is a disservice to conservatives and other Republicans, who are more than capable of assessing his worthiness vel non.