Replies

They didn’t “endorse” Romney. They have had a couple of editorials endorsing his positions on various things, although exactly how they have determined what his positions are, I can’t fathom.

I know on Saturday they often re-publish an opinion piece from the week. But they obviously have to determine which one it will be, so it’s not entirely casual.

Did they want to get this out there and get discussion going? Was it a quasi-editorial statement? I don’t know.

Aside from all that, though, Peggy Noonan is such a lightweight I don’t even know why the Journal publishes her musings. They’re always overly emotional, highly subjective, and really (in my opinion) not even very well-written.

I would like to suggest a response to the rhetorical question in your excellent reply. I believe the Wall Street Journal publishes Peggy Noonan because she appeals to half the population which has been a severe challenge for conservatism for at least two generations: females.

You note, "overly emotional, highly subjective, and really (in my opinion) not even very well-written." I would agree and I would point out that men watch football games and women watch soap operas.

As a supporter of Newt Gingrich, I would like to see them address a very flagrant vulnerability which is the women's reaction to his marital history. If you read the posts by women on these threads in reaction to Gingrich you will find a disproportionate number oppose him. In any event, I have seen some polls which show he is not getting an equivalent share of that vote.

This is purely speculative on my part, but I suspect we will see some real cattiness concerning Mrs. Gingrich.

Be that as it may, Gingrich has a real problem with the women's vote and he's got to address it somehow.