The Editors of National Review give a well worded explanation of whom they feel is an acceptable candidate, and in doing so, lose all credibility.
|Next time, think things through. If there is a next time.|
Three other candidates deserve serious consideration. Governor Huntsman has a solid record, notwithstanding his sometimes glib foreign-policy pronouncements; his main weakness is his apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues. We still think he would make a fine president, but time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters’ skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record and his managerial disposition. Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience.As Republican primary voters consider their choices, they should ask themselves several questions: Which candidate is most likely to make the race turn on the large questions before the country, and not his personal idiosyncrasies? Which candidate is most likely to defeat Obama? Who could, if elected, form an effective partnership with Republican leaders and governors to achieve the conservative agenda? We will render further judgments in the weeks to come as the candidates continue to make their cases and are, just perhaps, joined by new candidates.
What would William F. Buckley think? You can be erudite and still know that while Huntsman and Romney are buttoned down, they are either not conservative, hollow, or both. Of the three choices they mention as acceptable, Santorum is the only one that can be regarded as conservative, but I would hardly consider him the most electable candidate.
They offer terrible, terrible reasoning that merely belies an establishment mentality and betrays real conservatism. Huntsman? The article offered pablum and the formulaic reasons to not pick Gingrich, Perry, Paul or Bachmann.
I'm beyond annoyed with that article, which is unfortunate because there are a number of contributors to National Review that I truly enjoy reading and do respect. For now however, I'll be avoiding reading it for a little while until I cool down.
Huntsman? That's worse than encephalitis and only slightly better than Obama. Maybe.