« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Shocking Endorsement by NRO

By: streiff (Diary)  |  December 2nd, 2011 at 11:56 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In a shocking move, NRO has endorsed Mitt Romney for president… again.

None of us here at RedState saw this coming. Yeah, all of Romney’s oppo drops somehow made their way into NRO after a bit of stenography by Katrina Trinko but we thought surely they won’t make the same mistake they did in 2008 when they essentially ended up atop Romney’s car in the same crate as his dog. They won’t go back to the days of KLo’s palpitating heart being audible every time you read an NRO article. We were wrong. That’s where they are.

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Scope

    n/t

    • logicalpositivist

      Who was on the McCain train from the beginning?

      Limbaugh? Nope. Ann Coulter? No way. Hugh Hewitt? No. RedState? Not even.

      I’d be impressed with any talk show host/political publication that can claim to have a history of endorsing winners before the nomination is sewn up.

      The Democrats have their Kennedy’s (or had, I should say). Who are the counterparts to the Kennedy’s on our side? The Bush’s?

      • anonymousbosch

        Oddly enough if anyone can claim to have been the kingmaker in 2008 it’s Charlie Crist. His endorsement in FL was the difference there and FL pretty much wrapped it up for McCain heading into Super Tuesday

        • logicalpositivist

          Interesting.

          • red_oakster

            McCain was surging and Crist wanted the VP slot. McCain would have won Florida without the Crist endorsement.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I continue to be surprised that we don’t have more rock solid tea party conservatives that decide to run for the nomination.

  • johnconradarens

    So, this endorsement means what, exactly?

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      National Romney Online. The same as they were in 2008.

    • logicalpositivist

      Governor Chris Christie, former governor Tim Pawlenty, Governor Dave Heineman, Governor Butch Otter, Senator John Thune, Senator Roy Blunt, Senator John Hoeven, Senator Jim Risch, conservative judge Robert Bork, soon-to-be Senator Jeff Flake, former House Speaker Denny Hastert, former Senator Jeff Talent, former Senator Judd Gregg, former Senator Wayne Allard, former Senator Norm Coleman, House Rep Rodney Alexander, and Ann Coulter.

      At least the NRO is taking a stand.

      • tdawg89

        oh wait…

  • Tbone

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

    • logicalpositivist

      He’s spent the greater portion of his life in the beltway. I guess his unflinching support for sending poor kids to after-school janitor jobs qualifies him as a beltway Republican whose thinking is a little bit outside of traditional beltway thinking.

      But not much.

      • Common_Cents

        Please post proof of Gingrichs:

        big insider special interest PAC money.

        where are his insider establishment endorsements?

        I’d really like to know.

        • sunshinek67

          –nt–

        • sunshinek67

          -nt-

        • logicalpositivist

          A beltway establishment corporation.

          I don’t know how long Gingrich took those payments. Newt says he only collected a total of $300k.

          Bloomberg has reported that the total amount was between $1.6 million and $1.8 million.

          Newt has spent most of his life inside the beltway. Other than his “put your kids to work” idea and some of the ideas in his book, his ideas for how to improve the country are beltway ideas.

          The individual mandate to pay for healthcare was an idea from Newt Gingrich’s book, “Winning the Future”. Newt is a total inside-the-beltway guy.

  • J. Leg

    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?

    • logicalpositivist

      over Republican Lowell Weicker in 1988. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277277/faith-joe-lieberman-robert-costa

      Buckley again endorsed Joe Lieberman over Republican Alan Schlessinger in 2006. (As did Newt Gingrich) (John McCain stuck with Schlessinger.)

      I could actually see Buckley either endorsing Mitt Romney or withholding any endorsement until the primaries are over.

      Buckley was more committed to his lifelong Catholic faith than to any political party. Nor did Buckley march in lockstep with either Bush administration.

      Buckley was an independent-minded person who wasn’t afraid to change his mind about certain issues. He initially opposed the 2007 surge in Iraq but then supported it after its early successes.

      I don’t believe he backed any candidate in 2008.

  • aesthete

    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.

  • andy_in_texas

    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.

    • logicalpositivist

      Isn’t falsely claiming an endorsement from a magazine the kind of thing that people on this site get banned for?

      It seems like that’s the kind of statement that would get someone banned here. Someone with less influence, perhaps.

  • Common_Cents

    romney is afraid to face Gingrich.

    Good for Huntsman.

    • logicalpositivist

      This would be like debating Herman Cain in October or debating Rick Perry in September.

      Perry/Cain/Gingrich has absolutely nothing to say other than “I’m not Mitt Romney”. This could be interpreted as saying “I’m not Mormon”, but I probably shouldn’t go there as no one here seems to believe that there is a subtext to any of the statements or omissions made by any of these candidates or their proxies.

      So why should Romney give any credence to the flimsy argument that Newt is a “substantive” candidate by showing up at Newt’s silly debate?

      • aesthete

        Wouldn’t want the Dauphin to get his dainties soiled by having to associate with the cruel and drab process of, you know, explaining himself to the Republican electorate.

        • logicalpositivist

          If anyone, and this includes you, has any questions at this point, I’m sure you can find the answer to your question with a simple google search.

          Newt wants to try to control the debate. He’s picking who comes to the debate, who moderates it, etc.

          This is not going to be a fair fight. If Huntsman had a shot at winning, he wouldn’t be going near this debate. I just hope that the moderator asks Newt whether or not he had a job when he was 14. This is Newt’s big idea on how to end poverty in the U.S.

          It would be nice if Newt led by example for once.

          • papabear

            Many times. Every side of every subject. Sometimes he even has pioneering positions (what other candidate has shown the flexibility to do the splits on a barbed wire fence)!

            We owe Huntsman a debt for his definition

            Romney = perfectly lubricated windsock

      • JSobieski

        For someone who has spent much of the last two decades running for office while managing to win just one race, anyone offering to debate Romney is doing Romney a big favor.

        Romney is the paper tiger that the Chinese have been talking about all of these years.

        Huntsman and Newt are both far better talkers, and Perry is a far better walker. Perry also has better hair.

        Romney’s sole strength is in keeping low expectations, and even there he underperforms. Seriously—no capital gains taxes on people making $250k? That is your growth driver? Really?

  • reggie182

    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.

    • circlegranch

      Romney ‘had a prior engagement’ and couldn’t show up for the Thanksgiving Family Forum. That was curious given the fact that he’d been so adamant in his defense of his faith and wanting to convince everyone that he’s a true Christian, not a cultist. Yet, when given the chance to go sit in a Christian church and do some straight talk about faith, he bailed.

      If he’s bailing now on the NH debate between Huntsman and Gingrich, he’s proving what people are saying about Newt: he’s the only one that can effectively debate Obama. As stated up thread, Perry should go and whether he gives a stellar performance or not, at least he’s in the arena and taking the swings. He’s never walked away from a political fight before, and he won’t start now. So, who is it, again, that is the most electable because of debate skills and ability to hold their own on the stage? Remember when there was suggestion that Perry might not do all the debates? Romney’s camp was one of the first to come out and say that if Perry can’t hold up in a debate w/ his peers, how will he ever manage against Obama?

      Seems like this situation is like all others where Gov. Romney is concerned. When he flips, don’t dare mention the flop. If he sits out a debate, no problem. Ann Coulter will be there to take cheap shots and call critics nasty names and cover up the mess in the litter box. All is forgotten really quick. If Perry had sat out the Thanksgiving Forum and Mitt had gone, we’d still be hearing about it.

      One wonders how long it’ll be before Mitt comes out as Kerry did and says that “many world leaders want me to be elected”. As Mitt continues his inability to force us to like him or to trust him that he’s really and truly seen the Conservative Light shining on the great City on the Hill, he may have to resort to skipping over us altogether and try to trump up support abroad. He probably would be rather popular amongst the stuffy EU types.

      If the Republican Establishment wing of the Party and the high profile and influential so-called conservative media shove Romney across the finish line to the nomination with a support percentage of 30% or so, the threats of a grassroots Third Party that will stick to our founding principles and actually work to educate and draw in the Independent vote will become a reality and become a force to reckon with.

      • nathanalbright

        …but perhaps Perry could challenge Newt. That would be quite daring. Clearly Willard is lacking in confidence in his debate skills. Maybe he should wear a white feather in the next debate in honor of his cowardice.

        • Common_Cents

          Perry can prove himself in an open unmoderated debate. I think Perry would do well where he has time to get his point across, instead of 30-60 sec sound bytes.

          Perry does better in more of a casual conversation arena.

          So does newt. Gingrich correctly states that solutions are a bit more complex and nuanced than sound bytes/bullet points. something he gets criticized for.

          • logicalpositivist

            Nancy Pelosi. And she doesn’t want to debate him.

            Perry and Gingrich should agree to a no-holds-barred debate where any topic, including personal baggage, was fair game. I’d love to see that. Eye-gouging would be out. But hair-pulling would be encouraged.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    “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.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    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.

    • logicalpositivist

      Robert Bork, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Jim Talent, Norm Coleman, Jeff Flake, John Thune, and Ann Coulter must also be getting secret payments from Mitt Romney.

      Because there is clearly no reason why any self-respecting conservative would endorse a candidate who has a chance of beating Obama.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        You must be kidding. Please explicate on Romney’s conservative bona fides.

        I believe every other candidate in the race has a lifetime ACU rating between 85-90.

        • logicalpositivist

          It rates legislators. It certainly doesn’t rate pizza-men.

          Therefore, you are wrong if you believe that “every other candidate in the race has a lifetime ACU rating between 85-90″ you are wrong.

          It would be interesting to see what Rick Perry’s ACU rating is.

          He was a Democrat legislator before he flip-flopped and became a Republican.

  • David123

    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.

    • YnotNOW

      for his continuing standing by RomneyCare. Everything else is forgivable, and he is very conservative on the vast majority of his positions. Even if you don’t trust him because of the change from past positions, he would likely promote most conservative policy options.

      BUT

      His support of government-enforced and mandated universal healthcare undercuts the argument against Obama’s signature “achievement” in office. And the number-1 thing that we need to reverse with the new administration (there are many others, too, but O’Care is #1). And undercuts the argument to the swing-voters who oppose ObamaCare that “a vote for me is a vote against ObamaCare.”

      Not to mention the fact that creating a government mandate “solution” reveals a disturbing tendency to allow government to “solve” problems for us (which usually makes them worse than before).

  • Getting_Back_to_Basics

    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.

    • YnotNOW

      Romney, Gingrich & Perry. No one else has a chance.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    …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.

  • Wayne

    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.

  • kowalski

    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.