National Review to Endorse Mitt Romney

By Erick Posted in Comments (125) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

RedState will be endorsing no one if I have my way, btw. We all have our candidates, but this site should overall take a neutral stance, I think, and let each individual here make his own case for his preferred candidate. We're in this together against the Democrats regardless of who the nominee is.

But, anyway, Drudge says NR is endorsing Mitt. I thought they had months ago just reading over there. Is anyone surprised?

Consider this an open thread. I'm off to get sworn into office. Fear me, dirty hippies. ;)

[Update from Ben]: Yes, it's true. Follow the cover link. As an aside, I am still trying to convince Erick that we ought to endorse a candidate. He just doesn't like my top three. Wuss.

An excerpt from NR: "More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney."


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | We like Mike – Just Not for President Comments (93) »
National Review to Endorse Mitt Romney 125 Comments (0 topical, 125 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

"RedState will be endorsing no one if I have my way, btw. "

Good stance for an open conservative forum. Keep it that way. It hurts the objectivity and openness of the forum.

NR is a different journalistic entity. It makes sense for them to take an editorial stance. Should be an interesting read to see their endorsement.

no primary endorsements, just back the GOP candidate when the nomination is made.

The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor

...the Flagship Publication of the Conservative Movement, which has been in business for 52 years, is planning to endorse for President and leader of America's conservative party a man who, though five years older than the magazine, "found" his inner conservative 51 years after NR did.

Lucky for Mitt, he found it just in time for the 2008 Presidential election -- and, apparently, early enough for the surprisingly short-memoried folks now running NR to forget that he just made that switch.

I guess they just can't bring themselves to endorse McCain, since they opposed him so fiercely in 2000.

But if you believe in winning the war, why would you recommend someone who has no foreign policy experience at all?

"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to boot an infant." - W.C. Fields

I would cancel it now, but I did so last year.

I'm concerned with the present and the future of conservatism, and that is elsewhere.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

"But if you believe in winning the war, why would you recommend someone who has no foreign policy experience at all?"

Take a look at Romney delivering a foreign policy speech. He's done it on several occasions. In particular, see the one he gave in Israel on Iran. I think you'll change your opinion of him on that matter rather quickly.

I can't tell you how refreshing it was to see a guy up there like Romney delivering a detailed foreign policy speech and absolutely nailing it. These past 8 years have been a nightmare when time and time again George W. Bush came close but could never make a tight, sealed argument. He just didn't have it.

Romney very clearly gets the threat of Jihadists, and it's something he expressed as a governor over and over again. See his bit on wire-tapping mosques if need be. He's not afraid to say things that will get the leftists all riled up.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

NR endorses someone that up until he decided to run for prez was acting like a liberal. Mitt isn't the best choice they could have chosen, they should not have endorsed anyone

couldnt agree more.

i am a bit miffed at the machine right now.

"Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then."
__________________________________________
First State Politics

Rush loves Mitt (while offering no endorsements in the primary), Sen. Jim DeMint loves Mitt, and now National Review officially loves him, too. When will you stop to consider how ill-informed your vitriolic opposition to Mitt Romney may be?

He's talked him up big time ever since he was in the running. His book, A Mormon In The Whitehouse is good read.

I much prefer someone who is with us NOW (like Romney, GHW Bush, etc) than someone who isn't -- Rudy (on life).

...and that's what matters. None of the candidates running have a perfect conservative record - hell, Ronald Reagan couldn't get the nomination with today's purity test. I'd rather have someone who flipped to our side, rather than someone who is honest about having liberal positions.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

This is a great forum, but the phrase "Ronald Reagan couldn't get the nomination with today's purity test" is pure bunk.

Reagan was the leader of the conservative movement in 1980. Nobody questioned his conservatism. Objections to Reagan in 1980 were limited to (1) electability; (2) his being "too far" to the right; and (3) a combination of (1) and (2) above.

Reagan spoke persuasively and convincely on all three legs of the tripod. Moreover, Reagan did not have the equivalent of Romney's or Huck's position changes within four years prior to his run.

Taxes under California went down under Reagan. Reagan did not run to the left or govern to the left while governor of California. He was vilified as a right wing extremist at every turn.

It would be hard today to be a true across the board conservative. Reagan did it without Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, blogs, or any other type of alternative media.

This idea that Reagan wouldn't get the nomination today is a bunch of bunk.

This is obviously a lesser of evils (who can actually get elected) choice. In practical terms, Mitts the best we can put up against the dems.

Huck is the Jesus candidate.
Rudy is a total liberal.
Fred who?
McCain? Maybe, if it weren't for the shamnesty debacle this past summer.
RP? God forbid!
Hunter and Tanc can't get any traction.

I agree. By process of elimination, Mitt Romney is probably the guy that people who are (ATBC) across the board conservatives (those who are conservative on economic, national security and social issues) need to get behind. I prefer Fred Thompson. But I fear that if the ATBCs split their votes between Romney and Thompson, we could end up with a nominee who lacks the social component (Giuliani) or the economic and national security component (Huckabee). So, maybe Romney's the man.

That's a very thorough reading of it I think.

Its interesting how the rips against Fred are never substantive.

Mitt's a decent guy, but I am going to vote for the conservative candidate.

The National Review folks are obviously not as smart as you, but somehow they managed to address this very objection.

Doh! I should complete my thoughts ....

"It hurts the objectivity and openness of the forum ... "
to endorse and favor one candidate as official policy.

... until the nomination (of course). BTW, what office are you being sworn into?

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

But it's good that they at least are making their biases explicit.

Stop the Presses!

It's not as if NRO hasn't been in Mitt's back pocket for the last year, ya' know.

Of course, at one time they were a magazine that wouldn't trade expediency for principle.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

Sad....but true.

NR is a shell of its' former glory.

This does nothing to change my opinion.

...first of all because I didn't think the National Review endorsed candidates. Second, I would have thought they would go for Fred. Third, there has been some favorable coverage over there for Mitt, but a good deal of unfavorable as well. Byron York in particular tends to be pretty hard on the guy.

Anyway, I'm happy, I guess, though I have my doubts as to whether or not this will "move the needle" in any signifigant fashion.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Fred supporters may lose confidence that Fred can win. I know that this announcement hit me hard. I am nonetheless a Fred supporter until the end.

that NR bought into the whole Fred's campaign is not fluid (a nice way to say not run well) and therefore are looking more at the "electability" factor and therefore chose Romney, thinking that maybe a Fred general election campaign would not have enough "energy" to compete with Clinton.

I dont buy into the argument at all, still believing Fred is the best ideological candidate that we have, but that could be their rationale.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

-- John Adams

If you read the article they say outright that they discounted Fred because he has not run his campaign well and he has not run anything. To quote:

But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either.

And in the very first paragraph they qualify themselves by saying that they had to pick "the most conservative viable candidate." (my emphasis). So they are able to sound like they are being objective by discounting as "not viable" the only two other people that could be considered "conservative" (McCain and Thompson). Once you declare by fiat that those two aren't viable you are left only with Romney. Nobody can argue with NRO that, once you limit the question to three people (Romney, Rudy, Huck) you have to pick Romney as the most across-the-board conservative.

Of course this doesn't address the issue of, if the important thing is being with us now, then why is no credit given to Huckabee's tax pledge and support for the fair tax? Mind you, I couldn't find anybody in the field I like less than Huckabee, but it's too easy to see in this the editors giving one guy a pass while holding the other guy to a higher standard.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison

If you see the way National Review has handled official editorial positions in the past, you should expect to see individual contributors still touting their guy and attacking others. Frum will still be for Rudy, Adler for Thompson, Lopez for Romney, Ponnuru (probably) for McCain, the Derb for Paul, etc. Truthfully National Review and NRO have struck me as a lot fairer across the board than RedState has.

I understand why NRO is endorsing Romney since he is the most Conservative.

However, endorsements do very little for a candidate unless your name is Oprah.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third

The "Country Club Republicans" endorse a "Country Club Republican".

That IS surprising news.

Apparently you can flip-flop on issues as long as you have A LOT of 0000000000's after your name.

Thank you.

endorsed Hillary.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

...and is very influential in conservative circles. I for one take them seriously and I have no doubt about their credentials and values.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Yes, but they endorsed Romney. Therefore they're garbage.

Some people take the primary too personally.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

hey by mikeyc

there's nothing like a Sports Illustrated cover, ehh.

...now when they write their anti-Huck editorials every other day, it will be openly seen as coming from the pro-mitt biased pub (that it has been all year, with K.J. Lopez fawning over Mitt all year as much or more so than Hugh Hewitt).

Hate to spoil the brief 'moment' we Huck supporters were sharing with you Fredheads over this move, but this is BAD for Thompson who was relying on these type of establishment-antiHuck conservatives for help.

Doesn't really hurt McCain, who never really had these insider conservative establishment Country Club types either; Nat'l Review has had it out for McCain long ago, as they've consistently never had a good thing to say about Huck. But McCain deserved it having gone against Bush tax cuts, McCain Feingold, and immigration deal. But McCain will help the Huck ticket be a winning one in the general.

This only helps add extra nails in Thompson's coffin. This is the handwriting on the wall for "conservatives" that its time to give up on Thompson and get on the Mitt team if we're going to beat socially liberal Guiliani and populist Huck.

women and minorities hit hardest, but it will be good for Huckabee.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

several weeks ago NR did a big and favorable article on your candidate, and guess what? after reading about the Huckster, even in a favorable light, I started to oppose him.

We don't need compassionate conservatism redo.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I'm surprised Katherine Lopez isn't including a freaking marriage proposal with the endorsement. (and no, that's not a polygamy joke)

I always forget the difference. My apologies.

This is great news.

And I'm fine with RedState not endorsing somebody, considering that we are for all conservatives.

But I certainly have no quarrel with the NRO doing endorsing Romney. This is wonderful.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

I mean, they *could* have nominated Giuliani after all.

I'm surprised they don't have more support for Thompson though.

Dnag, they really need to move out of New York City.

HTML Help for Red Staters

He's in fourth place nationally and is twelve points behind, lower than 6th place in NH and 28 points behind, 3rd place in Michigan and more than 9 points behind, 4th place and 14 points behind in NV, 4th place and more than 7 points behind in South Carolina, fourth place and more than 18 points behind in Florida. When you're behind nationally and in your best early state you're seven behind in you're not doing too well.

Look, as a Mitt guy I'm certainly happy with the endorsement of NR but I'm not sure it means all that much in the long run. Might give Romney some bump nationally with conservatives who were "skeptical", probably nothing in Iowa (where he needs it) or NH (where he doesn't).

I suspect for them it came down to Mitt and Fred vs. Huckabee and Rudy and I'm figuring that, on balance, they thought Romney had the better shot of stopping the other two.

They could have dumped them all and gone with JMac, I suppose, but I'm pretty sure they'd have a jam a whole lot of stuff they wrote about him down the memory hole.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The editorial is pretty clear that Rudy and Huckabee were out and it came down to Mitt, JMac, and Fred. They picked Mitt pretty much for the reason you said.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

First, it looks like National Review is endorsing Mitt, not specifically NRO, even though they are basically the same. On NRO, which I read daily, they have many different writers supporting many candidates. Ramesh Ponnuru has written a few articles on why conservatives should give McCain another shot. John Podhoretz and Delroy Murdock support Rudy. Kathryn Lopez has supported Mitt. There are a few that support Fred and a few that support Huckabee.

National Review should make endorsements, and if they choose Mitt, thats great. I support Fred and wish they chose him. I think they endorsed Mitt because they believe in converting people to the conservative cause, they have done this for over 50 years.

I fully agree with Redstate policy, as it would not make sense for Redstate to endorse, but it does make sense for National Review to endorse.

Also, National Review is not a "country club" Republican organization. If any one organization is responsible for removing the "country club" Republicans and pushing for Conservatives, National Review would be that organization. They have pushed for conservatives since 1955.

Finally, just because they endorse a candidate, do not expect hardball questions to the others and kid gloves to Mitt. Byron York is an excellent journalist and will hammer every candidate. Also, in the last National Review, they had articles about all top 5 candidates, and why Republicans should support those candidates. Each had a compelling argument.

I'm legitimately curious, but I don't stay as up to date with non-Corner stuff as I should.

And of course, Derbyshire has endorsed Ron Paul.

And according to Huck he will beat up anyone that does listen.

Its a deficiency. Of course, as far as I can tell, the Huck supporter demographics and the caliber of writer NR wants don't overlap much, but surely there's another Joe Carter out there who isn't actually working for Huck? Hopefully one will turn up.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I'm stunned. I didn't think they would make an endorsement. I certainly didn't think they'd endorse Romney.

Anyhow, I wonder if the Weekly Standard will endorse anybody. They seem to be less enamored of vanilla.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Fred Barnes was as nasty an idiot as could be during the AMNESTY debacle.....he thought the masses were idiots.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

some conservatives were coming across as anti-Latino rather than anti-illegal immigration.

"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to boot an infant." - W.C. Fields

I actually think that RedState should make an endorsement. You think that nefariously attacking some candidates while propping up other candidates and turning a blind eye to their shortcomings is noble as long as you don't make it official with an endorsement?

Come on...making an endorsement would, if anything, be the more honest course of action.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Please don't so viciously defame me.

If you aren't a retread, don't you think you should zip it and get to know the site better before popping off like this?

HTML Help for Red Staters

knows who someone is that was banned WAY before that....

Retread either way.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Obviously a man with way too much time on his hands....

...the search function here at RedState. If you go up to the logo and type in "BrooksRob" you will eventually be led to all things BrooksRob.

My point is that if it's not true that you are BrooksRob, and if it's not true that you're some other retread, then you ought to sit tight and be here a while before you start trying to lecture on site policy.

HTML Help for Red Staters

So who are you accusing of "nefarious attacks"? A huge percentage of the blogs and postings here are from people who are neither contributors nor directors of the site. And as was discussed a while back, there's a pretty even distribution of even those who support the various candidates. For someone who's been here a grand total of a week, you have a lot of nerve dropping a turd here with nothing but ignorance to back your lame claim.

Like Neil said, don't like the company? Get lost.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

And the battle of ideas. I can even do so while liking or at least respecting the opposition. Some opponents make that impossible, however.

Don't like me complaining about the editor's one-sidedness? Get lost.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

...Mr. EdState will volunteer to do so.

Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth

See Jeff's RedHot here: http://www.redstate.com/redhot/jeff_emanuel/2007/dec/11/a_directors_view...

The Contributors here at Redstate have widely differing views on the potential nominees. Some have publicly declared their allegiances, some have not. Of the Directors, I'm undecided, and so is Jeff - this doesn't mean we like all candidates equally, but that we really aren't convinced by any of them yet. Thomas has his own leanings, and Erick leans Fred but I think he has serious question marks about viability now.

The latest national numbers have Rudy slightly ahead of the pack, with Huckabee, Romney, Fred, and McCain all within the 12-19% range. I think the debate here at RS is fairly representative of the fact that everyone's clustered together now. It would be ludicrous to think that all of us, or even a simply majority of us, would be able to agree on an endorsement at this stage.

anyone but Huck.

Yup, even Ron Paul would not be as big a disaster, (mostly because he would just be against everything)

Huck has massive disaster written all over him.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I dunno. I think it's truthful.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

"flagrantly wicked or impious"

Okay...maybe there is some hyperbole there...but only slightly. Perhaps it reaches into the gray around between nefarious and some other similar, slightly less "wicked" adjective.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I agree. I'm glad you do too.

NRO is NR's junior bro.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

Mitt Romney not only has the qualifications to win this race, he'll make us proud as President, and I know that I am rededicated to Conservatism at this moment because of your endorsement. It's a risk, but you took the right decision.

Expect my subscription fee in about 30 seconds. The Weekly Standard loses this time around.

nr = felix

romney = bond

voter (especially socons) = blonde.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynoiBF7OjkI&feature=related

I've never thought of Romney's candidacy in terms of anything except the merits. Since I live in Massachusetts I know where a lot of the misinformation about him originates from. It's a powerful source of misinformation, probably more powerful than any other in the country, and all you have to do to understand that is look at the two Senators from the state he was formerly the governor of. I don't think you appreciate the delicious irony of a Mitt Romney endorsement when it comes to those two losers.

I asked him your question at the debate in New Hampshire and I still haven't gotten a credible answer, and that bothers me. I've asked it more than 3 times, not just on this blog but also privately.

Mitt Romney needs to answer that question before I will give him my wholehearted support, but on the other areas I'm glad the National Review agrees with me at least in the main.

I will continue to insist that Mitt Romney answer that question. I haven't forgotten it:

"Governor Romney: What did you mean in the second debate when you said that you supported an "assault weapons ban?" Please be specific."

What's the question that needs to be asked of Romney that you referred to?

Its on a whole littany of questions.

I feel like im getting something crammed down my throat by a campaign which is cold and calculating.

Whats worse is the huckabashing (of another Republican candidate for president) which while I do not support, I agree with a number of values.

Its like - shut up you dumb blonde and let us men talk policy - even when we catch the campaign in so many flip flops its not even funny.

Authenicity counts here in fly over country - and that is something Mitt is not.

At this point McCain has my vote before Romney. At least he gets the frusration and distrust of government.

I don't know what else I can do to change your distrust, except to note that Romney has been in this campaign from the very beginning, earlier than almost everyone (including Fred Thompson) and if you want to call that "cramming things down" someone's throat, I don't know what to say. I mean, he's been in the race since the first day. We have people on this blog calling for Newt Gingrich to enter the race right now, and surely anything Newt Gingrich would do would really be foreshortened and hasty.

There are a lot of people who will just never trust Romney because of personality issues. I accept that. I still think the NR made the right decision.

Is how they (NR) completely white washes what I would view as Romney's single biggest problem.

Its not about you, its about how and what NR wrote.

If we were to take the criteria as set out by NR - Thompson or McCain would be better.

If Romney becomes the nominee - expect a lot of the flip-flop in reverse play.. Not to mention many (like my self) invested in the truthfulness of Kerry's flip flops.

Whats the difference between his changes in positions and Romney's? Not much.

Gimme fred any day of the week. At least I know my guns will be safe.

I took that question as my personal responsibility also when I was in New Hampshire and I just reiterated it to their online campaign manager.

I want an answer to that question as much as you do, and I'm not kidding.

May I suggest that Romney has done more work and spent more money on getting organized? To be effective in a Presidential campaign, you have to have that. Maybe NR, and others see this and have decided that Fred and others do not have that kind of organization. I am an amateur when it comes to a Presidential race, but I know people. ;) These people are telling me that Mitt’s organization is going to be hard to derail. Without a huge amount of grassroots help (which Huck has right now), Rudy is the only challenge, but all the big money is with Mitt.

I personally continue to support Fred, simply because he IMHO is the true conservative. I stand with Fred on principle, and would support Romney on principle as well. I think that most likely I will be supporting Mitt after Feb 5th. Is that a problem for me, not really as I believe that Mitt will stand on the promises that he has made. I think the big money people that I speak of (some of which I have met) love this country, and the freedoms that it provides an individual to be everything they can.

Huckabee is a good man. I don't think there are any in this field who are truly bad men. I think the NR made a weighted decision based on what each prospective nominee's chances are, and their qualifications to hold the highest office in the country. I don't know what else to say. I would never have voted for Huckabee, NR endorsement or not. The same thing is probably true of Giuliani. I may not like everything Romney has said and done, but I know I can work with him, and I know that he's consistently moved in my direction. This endorsement only cements that.

The endorsement editorial by National Review is well thought out. They correctly believe that the nominee should be conservative on both economic and social issues. In addition, they see that Mitt Romney has shown more energy on the campaign trail than Fred Thompson.

Personally, I like Fred Thompson a little better on the issues than Mitt Romney. But I believe that National Review was correct to factor in Romney's experience as a governor working with a Leftist legislature (my bet is that Massachusetts Democrats are more Left-Wing than Arkansas Democrats) and his experience as an executive in the corporate world.

Despite the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review and David Keene (of the American Conservative Union), Romney has a tough road ahead of him. But perhaps an easier road than any of the other candidates.

They can support him if they want to, but I still prefer every other Republican. I lived in Massachusetts while he was Governor. Honestly, I thought he did a decent job, given the heavy liberal tilt of the state and the composition of the state legislature. I am still stunned that the Mitt Romney that did so well, at least in my eyes, changed everything when he decided to run for president. I understand some flip-flopping. And I am willing to overlook the occasional issues of bad judgment, and I am not bothered by a candidate that holds significantly different views, such as the real Mass. Romney or Rudy. Relative to the Dems, they are all Republicans. I still say that if you really want an authentic flip-flopper, go Hillary. She does it more often, and is more skilled at it, than Romney.

MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08

Uh, did you read the editorial? I've seen the questionaire they mention, btw. They aren't making that up.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

...is how little some seem to consider Romney's experience in the business world. The man is running for leader of the free world and to lead the most technologically advanced nation on earth, and it gets almost no attention.

And yet if you look at the guy's record, it's pretty incredible. His entire mission in the business world was to take over flagging corporations and turn them into profit makers, even if it took stripping out all the faulty gears. That's EXACTLY what we need in Washington.

I like a guy who expects a lot of others. It's very obvious that Romney is that kind of guy. Knowing how to delegate responsibility and how to rake through the odds and ends of arguments is a huge leadership trait, and Romney has got it.

My top two guys are Romney and Fred, and I'd be happy with either. That said, I see the leadership skills and successes that Romney has, and I'm puzzled over why he's not the go-to guy by a much larger margin. I guess I'm as interested in past successes and a resume as much as I am about the ideas a candidate sets forth.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

At least that's what someone would think who only came across the website recently. I'm not talking about the general posters but Erick sure seems to be passively endorsing Huckabee with his latest posts.

However...I freely admit that when I see any defense of Huckabee (and much of it - hypocritical when compared to the tone on Romney) I immediately roll my eyes, choke back the painful lump that forms in my throat and pray for our country to, as the Geico cavemen say, "Do a little research."

but he seems to have fallen out of favor. I dunno if Huckabee has actually picked up the unofficial RedState endorsement yet, though most of the actual RedState editors seem to like him.

Mainly RedState is opposed to Romney and that's about it.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I'm talking about contributors or editors or whatever they call themselves. Huckabee is clearly not the darling of the RedState community, which is all for the good.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

They do a good job showing step by step and candidate by candidate how they arrived at their conclusion. This obviously was not done on a whim. I agree with their observation that Guiliani or Huckabee would pull the conservative movement apart from separate sides. They are right that Thompson's campaign just has been too little too late every step of the way. And while McCain would be good, he is just wrong on too many of the issues on which Romney is right.

Romney may not be the perfect choice, but he appears to be the best choice. I'm glad they chose my #1 choice. I hope it does him some good.

No voting has occurred. What if he shows that "fire in the belly" that everyone seems to site the absence of?

As I read the polls, nobody is over 30% whether nationally or in one of the early states. A five point swing one direction and a five point swing in another direction and its an entirely new ballgame.

Iowa is going to surprise us---I only hope it is a pleasant surprise

it's not clear why there's suddenly a consensus that Thompson is no longer a contender

"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to boot an infant." - W.C. Fields

I can follow their logic, but they're basically saying that no conservative can win. When they have eliminated from consideration all the actual conservative candidates, rather than choose the moderate over the liberal they should have just not endorsed anyone.

But they may be right - if they are, the presidency is already lost, no matter the outcome.

Romney, Clinton and Giuliani are:

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate pockets. It's a bit different picture than just Insurance only.

Here is a man of impeccable character. A man who takes the words "till death do us part" seriously. A man who has devoted a significant portion of his life to public service and charity.

A man with an unrivaled record of achievement, far and away beyond any of the Dem candidates.

A man who can communicate effectively.

Is he a perfect conservative? No. But on the three big issues, taxes, security, judges, he is strong. He isn't perfect on immigration, but very few candidates are better.

What's not to like?

but being young and naive, I didn't realize that they were really Congresspeople returning from Happy Hour at the blood bank.

So Batman in the WH seems promising.

Hmmm...Mitt is as rich and preppy as Batman. Could it BE??!!

nice street, very nice... :P

First post...I have a hard time with some of NRs comments on Mitt's ability to 'hold people accountable' because of his executive experience. Just look at the infamous judge that he appointed. She screwed up as a prosecutor and than 6 months later he appoints her.

How about the infamous lawn company. He finds out about the illegals. Does nothing about it (which I find reasonable enough since he shouldn't be harassing others employees). Fires them years later because he's running for president. And worst of all lies about having told the owners personally to stop previously. We all know that if he wasn't running for President he wouldn't have even considered firing them...pure politics.

Oh yeah, and constantly touting his tough on illegals baloney about deputizing the state police which never took effect...kinda unseemly to me

Actually he was harassed by a newspaper on this matter. Else he would never had known about the illegal’s hired by the lawn care co. Once he did he wrote a letter to them demanding stricter policy. He was also under contract with the co.
The second occasion was a result of the same newspaper outing illegal’s employed by Romney’s lawn co. He asked his son to fire the co. because this was the second instance and revealed by the newspaper not HIM!
I hate it when people twist such a trivial story into a conspiracy.

The judges he appointed were qualified and capable. It is not Romney’s fault that she made a bad decision.

He did enact a plan to have the state police to deal with illegal’s 6 weeks before he left office. His incumbent is the one who terminated the program.

Do you realize that all of your complaints are forged on third party associations???

Why? Because Romney does not have the dirt the other candidates have. else people would not try and discount him on dog stories, Mormonism, and third party associations.

to see how Mitt handles the questions from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and company about Brigham Young's comments on blacks, and how he squares them with his citation of Brigham Young as a role model of faith in his "Faith in America" speech.

"B. Young was wrong. Next."

And, by the way, he wasn't cited as a "role model." He was cited as someone who was persecuted.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I think he'd do better to place Brigham Young in the proper historical context. Blacks were still slaves in Brigham Young's day. What do you think other leaders of the day were saying about them?

If you judge people of the past by today's standards then everyone was a scumbag.

The news will chop it to something that makes you look like a buffoon
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

My attachment to the Mittster just went up.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

RedState will be endorsing no one if I have my way, btw.

Some pretenses are too transparent and should be discarded. A neutral site would not have presented this news in such bad grace, imho.

MassConstitutionalist
Does no one remember that prominent conservatives pleaded with Romney in 2003-4 to uphold the Mass. Constitution, and defy the illegitimate Court ruling on homosexual "marriage"? Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel), and EVEN HUGH HEWITT (Weekly Standard, 11-20-03) told Romney to stand up against judicial tyranny. But Romney ignored them & singlehandedly began homosexual "marriage" in Mass. (The Legislature still has not changed our statutes to allow it, as ordered by the Court...which didn't even tell Romney to do anything!) Why did Romney issue orders to his executive branch officials to change the marriage licenses and perform the marriages? There was no new LAW to enforce! If we couldn't trust Romney with the Mass. Constitution, how can we trust him with the U.S. Constitution?
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/

I thought there had been.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Yes, I think there has been a ruling upon this subject. I think links to it are banned.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

5! by Menlo

I agree one hundred percent. If more conservatives in office had the nerve to defy the courts, ignore them, or even just to not bend over backwards to enforce their policy proposals when the courts go beyond the pale, such rulings would not stand, and they would not continue to be made.

It seriously makes one question where a politician truly stands and what he or she believes about the law and the Constitution.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service