Shilling

National Review's endorsement of Mitt Romney is somewhat fascinating. Pretty much everyone agrees that from the point of view of orthodox conservatism, the current GOP field is a bit of a problem. Since someone has to win, I can imagine plausibly arguing that, all things considered, Romney should be the first choice of National Review readers. But the magazine seems determined to just deny that there's any problem:

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.

They also kindly concede that "He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism." The notion that he hadn't thought about the "political dimensions" of these issues is ridiculous. I lived in Massachusetts during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign, and I well-remember that Shannon O'Brien tried to use the abortion issue against Romney. It was a big problem for him as a Mormon and a Republican to convince people that he was really every bit as pro-choice as the Democratic alternative. As you can see, he got a bit indignant about it:

He still might be the best candidate for conservatives, but he's also plainly someone whose positions on these topics isn't driven by conviction and it seems to me to be a disservice to readers to try to sweep that under the rug rather than concede the point and argue that it should be ignored.

Comments

And speaking of dripping brown liquids, I guess the NR didn't talk to Seamus....

Posted by lambert strether | December 13, 2007 12:45 PM

Who was it the other day pointing out that Romney and his supporters donated $10,000 to NR? That might have helped make them feel friendly toward him.

Posted by El Cid | December 13, 2007 12:55 PM

The best candidate for conservatives is Ron Paul, since he is the only conservative in the race. The best candidate for Republicans is probably Giuliani -- or perhaps zombie Mussolini if he is available.

Posted by jim | December 13, 2007 1:15 PM

...he's also plainly someone whose positions on these topics isn't driven by conviction and it seems to me to be a disservice to readers to try to sweep that under the rug rather than concede the point and argue that it should be ignored.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention for the past quarter century. Republicans will only nominate and vote for saints. What the facts won't support faith and denial will. Once the faithful admit to any human weakness in their leader his power is gone.

Democrats, on the other hand, find great sport in their leaders' weaknesses. I don't know anyone who would ever argue that Bill Clinton was perfect or that he never made any mistakes. Not even his most ardent supporters.

But even today, with the New American Century going the way of the Thousand Year Reich, the reaction in Republican circles is to either circle the wagons and defend their man to the death, or, for the more pragmatic, like the presidential candidates (which at this point seems to be one out of every two Republicans), just studiously avoid any mention of mad King George. Under no circumstances will any actual criticism be allowed...not even for the most unpopular POTUS in the modern era.

It's a Republican thing.

Posted by majun | December 13, 2007 3:33 PM

It's worth noticing how far superior this gubernatorial debate format appears to be not only to what we see in the presidential primaries but typically to what we see in the general election as well.

Posted by jason | December 13, 2007 4:08 PM

God, he is a slimy son of a gun, isn't he?
The press was all over Al Gore for allegedly being a smarmy, irratating know-it-all.
Romney defines the very type.
So where is the press? And why isn't Romney being described as the slimy, slippery, insufferable know-it-all he obviously is?
Ahhh, the liberal press!!!...

Posted by frankie d | December 14, 2007 12:10 AM