The Editors on National Review Online
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.
Jebus. The election is a year away. Maybe a real conservative like Fred Thompson would be a more viable candidate if you at least waited a couple of months.
Almost anything can happen in the next three months. I hope you end up choking on Romney’s “viability.”


Romney is “viable” is the same way that Kerry was “electable”
Against a flawed candidate Kerry came perilously close to being elected. The Goldwater/Mcgovern blowouts are fairly rare, and usually happen when there’s an incumbent and/or special circumstances (i.e. the JFK assassination). With no incumbent, the election is likely to be close. Under those conditions, the old adage is true: anybody can be president. How else do you explain Millard Fillmore?
Slick Willie Clintoon wasn’t born yet??
Ol’ Jimmeh Cahtah wasn’t yet even a naughty gleam in his daddy’s eye?
To my mind (and I do have one, honestly, I do!), Romney is to “viable candidate for President” about as George C. Wallace was to “viable candidate for President” - just at the (approximately) opposite end of the “conservative” spectrum - stranger things political, however, have been known to happen -
OTOH, I find it difficult to imagine a President Mitt…sounds more like a garment than a POTUS.
So what? Many people support Mitt. People whose opinions I value. That NRO is jumping on a band wagon. Will that cause me to consider supporting Mitt? No. I have supported Thompson since prior to his entry into the race, and I still do. His positions and approach I can support, though I wish he got better press.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, whether their opinion should ever be shared with anyone else…