[Reaganesque]

I was particularly interested in this exchange:

HH: And we’ll get to those in just a couple more questions. William F. Buckley, does he participate in this?

RL: Well, you know, technically, he doesn’t 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 haven’t 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.

[Reaganesque]

Mitt Ping!

• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •

[Badeye]

‘One of the fathers of modern Conservatism finds Romney acceptable. That’s big.’

Yes, it is.

[newheart]

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.

Sounds like a desperate attempt just to be a player, which is surprising for such a venerable publication.

And I also would have to suggest this is motivated more than a little by touch of "Huckaphobia." North-eastern conservatives have never been comfortable with Southern evangelicals.

[misterrob]

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.

[mission9]

The real smackdown this morning was Mitt’s appearance on the Today Show. Matt Lauer, true to the liberal attack line, tried to draw Mitt into the dogma squabble with Huckabee by using Larry O’donnell’s outrageous hate speech from the McLaughlin Group Sunday, and by using quotes from the New York Times about Mike’s rhetorical dogma question. Mitt, in optimism and charm, would have none of it.

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.

[jdm]

One of the fathers of modern Conservatism finds Romney acceptable.

It's called senility. He recently wanted tobacco banned, but has supported legalizing marijuana and other drugs. Makes no sense.

[Valpal1]

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.

[Cicero]

Nicely orchestrated. Rich Lowry appears on Hugh Hewitt, who has been plugging romney (I almost said pimping for Romney, but I will refrain) since the beginning.

Lowry does NOT say that Buckley liked the decision to endorse Romney. He just said that he didn’t object to it, but also that he apparently had no active input into making it.

[OKIEDOC]

I’ll give your two Romney's and raise you a great big Fred Thompson.

Sorry National Review, I usually agree with you but this time I will wait for the end results.

Are these the same people who endorsed George Bush?

However, if Mitt wins the nomination he will get my vote.

[Last Dakotan]

In reading the magazine lately, it seems its purpose is to recommend wines.

Like I care what Buckley drinks.

[1Old Pro]

This is HUGH!

[sitetest]

“One of the fathers of modern Conservatism finds Romney acceptable.”

That’s nice.

I still won’t vote for the fraud.

And I will let my NR subscription lapse this spring.

[ari-freedom]

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
—

oh that reallllllly makes me feel better about NR

[JCEccles]

Bump.

National Review is anything but kneejerk in endorsing candidates. NR has been tough--often VERY tough--on Romney. But the editorial board has tested Romney and found him to offer the best overall package of conservatism and electability.

[TheLion]

Mitt bump!

[Tim n Texas]

That settles it for me. I’ve been on the fence over 3 of these guys. Let’s ‘make it Mitt’. All aboard!

[linuxster]

btt

[Mr Rogers]

If I trusted Romney, I’d be willing to support him too. But I remember Bob Dole - conservative as all get out until he had the nomination sewn up...the next day, he became Mr Moderate.

Given how Romney has campaigned before, I’d have to expect him to pull a Dole as well!

[stockstrader]

Mitt is certainly not my first choice--as he is hardly a conservative along the lines of Fred or Duncan. Not even close.

However, I have to agree with NR and Mitt himself--when they both stated that Mitt is the only remaining viable candidate who has any possibility of uniting the 'three pillars' of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and national defense hawks--which have historically been the base of the Party.

Giuliani, Huckabee and McCain could never, EVER unite those three--ALL of which will be required to be 'onboard' to beat Slick Hillie. Although Fred is 'my first choice' by far--Mitt comes closer than ANY of those other three--if it ever comes down to those four. I certainly hope it does not.

[muawiyah]

Still, he always goes for the richest candidate.