Here's the endorsement:
Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.
I don't disagree with their arguments. What concerns me is that, currently, their arguments don't seem to be catching on in Iowa. I wonder if Romney has the money to go the distance? That might be where we're headed.


Gasp. I totally did not see this coming. Is Hugh Hewitt next?
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 05:03 PM
I will vote for Romeny for dog-catcher. I really think his penchant for flip-flopping will allow him to sneak up on unwary dogs, just as he has conservatives.
Posted by: jj | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 05:07 PM
Don't worry, if it is a matter of money, he can outlast all of the rest.
Posted by: Metzger | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 05:21 PM
Here's a piece of news for all you Huckabee haters. Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project, has endorced Huckabee for President. What? Does Jim know something you don't, Dan?
Posted by: jj | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 06:31 PM
"Does Jim know something you don't, Dan?"
Yes, read my post on it - he cut a deal. SO you tell me, what's in it for Gilchrist??
"Gilchrist said factors other than immigration went into his decision, but declined to get into them."
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/12/um-seriously-im.html
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 06:52 PM
Romney will certainly have the ca$h to win any election.
Ca$h is not an object to the Miracle Mormon from Massachusetts.
But will his politics from his past serve to trip him up... or is will our patience be so stretched to the limit that people will pick him after Huckabee has deflated and people want someone slightly less liberal than either Frau Hitlery or Rudy "I've never met a gun control law I didn't like" Giuliani?
I'm hoping beyond hope that Mitt and Rudy and Huckabee tear each other from limb to limb, and Fred is there to pick up the pieces... but I'm not counting on it.
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 07:06 PM
i hope they don't tear each other from limb to limb. we are going to need everybody to pull together in '08. ronald reagan knew what he was talking about.
Posted by: tally | Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 01:19 AM
That depend on how Romney handles his negative campaign:
There's a sort of an Occam's Razor that comes into play with the mudslinging.
The more mud he slings, the worse it will make him look as an 11th GOP Commandment violator.
Assuming McCain, Fred, and the other two cellar-dwellers continue to dry up and blow away in the poles, Romney might be the "barely tolerable" alternative to the absolutely intolerable ones.
I'm still gonna pull for Fred though. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment :/
Posted by: seekeronos | Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 02:55 AM
Many of the adolescents at NRO have been oblivious to the charlatan that Romney is.
Sad....NR started out as an erudite journal dedicated to promoting a philosophy. NRO has devolved into a website dedicated to promoting a political party.
Posted by: spider97 | Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 01:43 PM