National Review Goes After Gingrich Again

NRO's Editors Dump on Newt

I think it’s pretty clear that there is only so much room in the market for conservative media outlets, and since it’s likewise clear that the National Review has slowly transformed into the Establishment publication of record, I am calling on the editors at the National Review to set aside its claims to conservatism.  Since they’re so interested in cleaning up this race, I think they should step aside as the conservative journal of record.   You may think I’m nuts, but you see, according to the National Review, Newt Gingrich should withdraw from this race for the sake of Rick Santorum.  Newt Gingrich is simply an obstruction, they say.  He doesn’t have the temperament or the popularity to govern or even win the election, they say.  He must go, they say.  To all of this, I say “Nuts!”  Gingrich should respond similarly.  While the Review plays its silly games, pretending to favor Santorum,  I know what it is that they’re really after.

Don’t get me wrong: If Rick Santorum is able to make good on his recent victories, and becomes the eventual Republican nominee, vanquishing Romney, it will be better than Romney winning, but the trouble is that such an outcome isn’t set in stone, and more than this, I believe the call for Gingrich to withdraw is a head-fake.  The National Review doesn’t want Santorum either, but what they would like to do is reduce this contest to just two candidates(other than Ron Paul.)  You see, if this is reduced to a Romney v. Santorum race, Romney and the National Review suspect that with all of the cash at his disposal, Mitt Romney will be able to power through to the nomination.  If Gingrich withdraws, the National Review will likely have been correct, as Romney will grind him down with negative attack ads until the electorate’s eyes bleed.

The problem is that the editors of the National Review are positing a notion intended to give them what they want, but not necessarily what the country needs.  We need a hard fight all the way to the convention, and if it’s a brokered convention in the end, what of it?  That’s our process, and to be blunt, I have more faith in the outcome of that alternative than I do in trusting this process to the judgments of the National Review and the GOP establishment it represents. Make no mistake about it: The National Review is pushing here not for Santorum, but to set Santorum up for elimination. By reducing the number of targets for Romney’s negative campaign, they hope he will finally wrap this up.

Naturally, I disagree with the National Review’s board of editors on this call for Gingrich to withdraw.  Instead, I am calling on National Review to withdraw from the realm of conservative publishing, because if they were actual conservatives, they would be in favor of letting this process work itself out as designed. They would understand that this struggle  is important to the long-run health of the party, and if they really want to issue demands for somebody to  withdraw, perhaps they should focus their calls on the least conservative candidate of them all: Mitt Romney.  No, while the editors claim they think Romney isn’t up to it, they call instead for the withdrawal of a man who  is more conservative by leaps and bounds.  I have no interest in what they have to tell us because at this point, they’ve become the mouthpiece for establishment manipulations in this process.

The National Review has fallen a long way in my estimation, and it seems to have begun as Mr. Buckley’s influence has been on the wane subsequent to his death.  I didn’t always agree with Buckley, but at least I knew he was a sincere conservative.  I no longer get that sense from the National Review, and this call for the withdrawal of Newt Gingrich is just one more bit of evidence that the editors there are interested in short-changing this process.  Conservatives everywhere should recoil at the notion.

Advertisements
Leave a comment ?

6 Responses to National Review Goes After Gingrich Again

  1. Kathleen says:

    Do you ever get the feeling at times theworld has gone crazy but you? I do.

    I agree National Review needs to back off. They need show they aren't crazy and do something construtive.

  2. Sue Green says:

    What is the difference between what the National Review is doing and saying about Gingrich and what you are doing and saying about Romney? Are you superior to them in being conservative? "Looks and sounds the same to me. But then, I don't like any of them and I'm not real pleased with Oboma either. We can do BETTER. Work together for the good and continued future of this GREAT NATION!!!!!!

  3. jan says:

    People need to understand that the establishment is trying to destroy Newt because they fear the changes that he will make. They know he can do it. the problem is : The public is buying these as truths and promoting establishment republicans. Santorum is good on the social issues but he is very bad on spending believing that the need to get their tax money back. Well if there is that much extra money then reduce the taxes. Mitt is an establishment or far left Republican or a democrat. It is hard to tell.

    I would take the negativity of Gingrich as a compliment and means he is the man we need to have as President.

  4. Allison says:

    Excellent post. Thank you for being such a strong voice of conservatism.

    Sue you said, "What is the difference between what the National Review is doing and saying about Gingrich and what you are doing and saying about Romney? Are you superior to them in being conservative? “Looks and sounds the same to me."

    Mark was not calling on Romney to get out of the race like the National Review called on Gingrich to do "for the sake of Santorum". He said, Naturally, I disagree with the National Review’s board of editors on this call for Gingrich to withdraw. Instead, I am calling on National Review to withdraw from the realm of conservative publishing, because if they were actual conservatives, they would be in favor of letting this process work itself out as designed. They would understand that this struggle is important to the long-run health of the party, and if they really want to issue demands for somebody to withdraw, perhaps they should focus their calls on the least conservative candidate of them all: Mitt Romney. No, while the editors claim they think Romney isn’t up to it, they call instead for the withdrawal of a man who is more conservative by leaps and bounds.

    I couldn't agree more and the National Review should know better then to think Newt Gingrich is going to get out. Newt is the most capable to get us back to freedom from the tyranny socialist power grabbing czar creating crony capitalism practicing, big government is. Such corruption it's staggering. Newt will be a leader that respects that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. He will scale back and downsize rather then manage the decay as he so aptly puts it.
    Here we've got this brilliant man willing to put himself thru the turmoil of an ugly campaign and I am so thankful he loves his country enough to do this. He's not dropping out. :) Praying he is our next president.

  5. Joe Nonymous says:

    The situation at National Review is symptomatic of the struggle between conservatism and Republicanism overall. The 2010 midterm-landslide in the House was delivered courtesy of the TEA Party, and the Republican Establishment have never forgiven them for it.
    How dare mere voters think they should have any say in the selection of candidates.
    It is urgent that TEA Party Americans elect enough Representatives and Senators to exert control over whoever is elected President this time around.