Posted on 12/12/2007 8:02:19 AM PST by Reaganesque
HH: We lead off with a newsmaker today, National Review endorsing Mitt Romney on a cover story that has sent shock waves across the Republican national primary electorate. Joined now by the editor of National Review, Rich Lowry. Rich, good to have you, thanks for joining me.
RL: Hey, Hugh, thanks for having me.
HH: Take me inside first the process by which National Review arrived at its endorsement.
RL: (laughing) I dont know, Hugh. Its a really tightly held process here. Its like selecting the Pope. We cant reveal too much, but
HH: How many people got a say in this?
RL: Well, its our senior editors, our publisher, our president and our Washington editor and myself. And weve been talking about it the last two weeks or so, just because this is our, through the quirks of our publication schedule, this is our last issue before people vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. So if we were going to have a say, this had to be it. So it really forced us to think about this seriously, as I hope other conservatives now are thinking about it seriously. And I think once you really consider it closely, Mitt Romney is the best choice.
HH: Now tell me, was there division among the senior members of the board who made this decision?
RL: You know, there was some. We have a couple of Rudy supporters, most prominently Rick Brookhiser, you know, whos going to, he is for Rudy, has been for Rudy for two years or so, or more, ever since 9/11, and thats where he is, and thats where hes going to stay. But outside of that, we coalesced around a pretty good consensus, because as I said, once you really consider it closely, I think the merits of Mitt Romney become pretty evident.
HH: And well get to those in just a couple more questions. William F. Buckley, does he participate in this?
RL: Well, you know, technically, he doesnt have a role anymore, because he no longer edits the magazine, obviously, or owns it. But you know, he obviously was clued in on this, and signed off on it.
HH: And does he approve of Romney as well?
RL: Yeah, I havent talked to him in depth, you know, about his feelings about the candidates, but he was certainly on board National Review endorsing Romney.
HH: Now lets talk a little bit about why. Give us sort of the big three reasons why Romney over everyone else.
RL: Well, there are a couple of things, Hugh. One, as I think you know very well, the primary vehicle of conservative public policy success in the United States the last thirty, forty years has been this coalition that we have, and that National Review had a big, historic role in helping form, of free market conservatives, social conservatives, and national security hawks. You need all three. If we dont have all three, the Republicans arent going to win elections, and were not going to achieve any conservative goals. So I think that immediately takes off the table, even though they have their virtues and merits, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, who have problems at sort of opposite ends of that coalition. Rudy, obviously, the social conservatives, Huckabee with economic, and maybe even foreign policy conservatives. So then youre down to three, and I think between McCain, Thompson and Romney, I think Romney is the stand out there. He agrees with us on pretty much everything now. Now of course, he changed on some issues, and thats been very emphasized in this campaign, I think somewhat unfairly. Everyone has moved to the right in this race, and thats a good thing. Mike Huckabee, as we speak, is scrambling to the right in this race. So the question is, one, if you look at Romneys record in 1994, when he was running against Ted Kennedy, that was a pretty conservative campaign, certainly in the context of Massachusetts, where he was in favor of welfare reform, and a whole host of other conservative initiatives. The big thing where he changed is abortion. And I think hes very up front about that. And the question conservatives have to have is do you believe him? Do you trust him? And I do. I dont think hes going to switch back. I think hes one of us on that issue now. And if you put that all together, together with his record as a businessman, a family man, a governor in a liberal state, I think hes got a very good package there.
HH: Now last week, Romney gave a speech, Faith In America. I thought it was objectively a great speech, given who liked it. And the people who he touched with it are the people he needed to reach. Was the speech part of the conversation at National Review? I cant imagine it was, but I want to check, given your deadlines, et cetera.
RL: Oh, it was. I mean, it wasnt the hugest consideration, but look, that was a big moment for Romney. And you know, if he had stumbled and fallen flat, we, you know, some of us might have said uh, do we really want to pull the trigger on this? But it was a big occasion, and he rose to it. So that did play a role. It wasnt the biggest, but it was a consideration.
HH: Now what about management experience? A lot of people think technocratic and not connecting with people.
RL: Yeah.
HH: How did you guys overcome that concern?
RL: Well, you know, he obviously does have that technocratic edge to him. I think its good, because people are looking for competence this time around. And I think when it comes to executive experience, you know, Mitt and Rudy have the most impressive records there, and for reasons we already talked about, I think Mitt is preferable to Rudy, and a better general election candidate than Rudy. But we do, you know, we do have some advice for Mitt in this editorial. And it really is, he has to show people there is a there there. He is not just a hollow robot of a candidate. I believe he does have a political soul, we saw it in that College Station speech where he showed some passion and emotion. And I think he needs to let loose a little bit more. I dont know whether hes over-coached, or whether hes over-cautious, just given we live in a YouTube era, and what happened to his Dad. In this presidential race, he needs to let people see his core a little bit more, because he does care about this country with a passion. And I just think people need to see that.
HH: Rich Lowry, lets talk about the electoral map. Obviously, to win in 08, Republicans either need to keep everything that Bush won in 04, or they have to add some states. Where does Romney expand the map for Republicans?
RL: Im not sure he expands the map much. And you know, I dont know whether theres much map expanding to be had from any of these guys. And thats part of Rudys argument, of course, is that they can expand the map, or at least make Democrats expend resources in states where they wouldnt otherwise. But if you look at those polls in those kind of states that the Rudy people tout theyll be competitive in, like California, he still loses. It just that he loses by less of a margin than another more traditional conservative might. And at the end of the day, that doesnt get you anything.
HH: Thats right.
RL: That doesnt get you any electoral votes. So I think Mitt, Im not sure he expands the map, but he has a much better chance of holding the map.
HH: I think he does take Michigan and make it competitive. I think he can take Minnesota that extra step that it needs, and Wisconsin the same way, that that Upper Midwestern roots
RL: It could be. Yeah, they talk about the Upper Midwest, and that he could have some appeal to that vote, those sort of folks. I havent thought about that much, whether thats the case.
HH: Lets talk about Mike Huckabee for a moment. Does obviously, National Review is going to be delivered by the Romney people to every doorstep in Iowa, I think, over the next couple of weeks, and that will matter to Iowa conservatives. But Mike Huckabees boomlet, weve got to talk about it. To what do you attribute it?
RL: Well, its a couple of things. One, theres obviously a kind of a built-in constituency in Iowa for a real social conservative purist with a religious edge, you know? Its why Pat Robertson got about 25% there, its why Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer, if you add up their vote in 2000, you know, running against George W. Bush, a social conservative Evangelical himself, they got about, you know, 25% of the vote. So theres a built-in Huck vote there. Now the thing is, is that hes obviously expanded well beyond that at the moment. And I think its because hes likable, hes a good campaigner, and he is filling this vacuum that has always been in this race, you know, the Bill Frist, George Allen, Fred Thompson vacuum, you know, that seemed like Fred was going to fill for a while, until he disappointed once he got in. Now the thing is, if he holds that vacuum, hes going to be a real formidable candidate. But it could be, and weve had these boomlets for various candidates as weve gone through, and when people really focus on them, like they did with Fred, its like oh, maybe Im not so excited about him after all. I believe, I cant guarantee, but I believe that process will also take place with Huckabee. We just need to see where he hits his plateau, and I think hes going to come off of that.
HH: Now obviously, theres a Des Moines Register debate tomorrow, and theres also a Meet the Press date for Mitt Romney with Tim Russert on Sunday. After that, given that were into the two weeks before Christmas and New Years, does anyone pay any attention to anything after this?
RL: Yeah, you know, I think people will. I just think people will be doing some multi-tasking, obviously. Thats preparing for the holidays, and shopping, and all the rest of it. So I dont think it goes totally dark. And I do think people will still be paying attention. But were in uncharted territory. And I dont think anyone really knows the answer to your question.
HH: And in terms of the economic instability we have around us, the Dow plunged 300 points today, because they wanted a half basis point, not a quarter basis point. And people are, the Wall Street Journal wrote a big story yesterday about this could be another S&L situation, or a tech boom bubble bust sort of thing. Does that play to Romney
RL: It does.
HH: and to his economic experience?
RL: I think it does, and thats something that people havent talked a lot about. The war on terror was obviously, and it deserves to be, a huge issue in this campaign, but it dominated the and until a couple of weeks ago, it dominated this race. Now were in kind of this sort of religious war, social conservative fight. But the thing that may be animating the average voter more when we get into next year is those kind of economic issues. And this is, you know, this is, I think, one of Romneys strengths, not just because he was an effective businessman, but you know, he was an effective manager of the Olympics. This is something he cares a lot about, economic growth, that he has very strong views on, and I think he has much more credibility than some of the other candidates on this stuff.
HH: Quick last question, Rich Lowry, did Romney have a tough time selling the National Review editorial board on his chops on the war on terror?
RL: Well, we were a little concerned about some of the wiggle he demonstrated every now and then on Iraq. But at the end of the day, I think his views on foreign policy, on the war on terror, are right in the conservative mainstream. I think thats true of the three other major candidates. I might except Mike Huckabee. And the question then becomes how do you execute? Do you have skills to do this job?
HH: And obviously, you think National Review thinks he does. Thank you very much, Rich Lowry.
End of interview.
HH: And well get to those in just a couple more questions. William F. Buckley, does he participate in this?
RL: Well, you know, technically, he doesnt have a role anymore, because he no longer edits the magazine, obviously, or owns it. But you know, he obviously was clued in on this, and signed off on it.
HH: And does he approve of Romney as well?
RL: Yeah, I havent talked to him in depth, you know, about his feelings about the candidates, but he was certainly on board National Review endorsing Romney.
One of the fathers of modern Conservatism finds Romney acceptable. That's big.
‘One of the fathers of modern Conservatism finds Romney acceptable. That’s big.’
Yes, it is.
I am waiting for the Hunter Kool Aid squad to swamp the thread talking up their qualified but never going to be elected candidate.
I like Mitt because I am a business owner with a family to feed. He gets the business thing better than anyone else. I think he will appoint conservative folks to the bench and he will support the free market. Not in love with him all in all but there is no perfect candidate. He’s not my first choice but I see no need to tear him down either.
I would say at the age of 82, William F. Buckley, has lost it.
That’s too easy of a criticism in my book. Huck has a lot of issues that render him another “compassionate” conservative.
The father of the pro-life movement nationally and internationally, Dr. John Willke, has endorsed Romney too. That's big. Too bad so many people around here want to dismiss these thing
Mitt did properly define the “attack” ad on Mike’s immigration record as a fair statement and contrast of the respective records.
Again Mitt showed great Presidential poise and grace.
It's called senility. He recently wanted tobacco banned, but has supported legalizing marijuana and other drugs. Makes no sense.
Of course. Along with the majority of the magazine’s staff, nearly all of Conservative talk radio, several prominent Evangelicals, the head of the ACU and so on and so on and so on...
Answering myself, it looks like James Garfield was the only “ordained” president.
Yep.
I think we all need to accept the fact Romney will be the GOP candidate when the dust settles.
‘It’s called senility. He recently wanted tobacco banned, but has supported legalizing marijuana and other drugs. Makes no sense.’
Actually, both positions are based on economics.
Stick a fork in me, I’m done!
Whatever happened to standing athwart history, yelling STOP! ???
For me it’s just another symptom of the passing of an era. The conservative movement has been co-opted by the professionally power hungry. It’s not about real change, it’s about winning and aggregating power.
I don’t need another conservative in office expanding the nanny state.
I’m not really a Huckabite. Unless he gets the nomination. But then I will no doubt support whoever the nominee is.
I’m pretty sure that Carter was not an ordained minister but I don’t see that as a problem. I’m not saying it is preferable, I just don’t see it as a problem (except perhaps in electability).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.