National Review: It's Mitt

The editors of National Review have endorsed Mitt Romney.

They make a plausible case for Mitt being the most (a) electable (b) conservative, balancing those two values. They acknowledge that McCain is a fine man, but note that he has run an anemic campaign, voted against the Bush tax cuts, supported the amnesty bill, etc.. They say much the same of Thompson, noting that he has never run anything, not even his own campaign.

They assert that Huckabee and Giuliani would both fracture the conservative coalition:

But he [Rudy] and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

In short, it's Mitt almost by process of elimination -- which mirrors my own evolution. But the editors are not entirely without enthusiasm, and note that he was never a Rockefeller Republican, even in the dark days of 1994.

For those who just tuned in, National Review is the venerated flagship of the conservative movement, founded by William F. Buckley in 1955, before Ronald Reagan even knew he was a Republican. Although it has been challenged by the Weekly Standard for preeminence on the center right, it remains a very powerful voice, and its endorsement is a huge pickup for Romney.

I remain concerned about Mitt's flip-flops on key issues, but I'm not convinced that Hillary is exactly positioned to capitalize on that issue, and Obama's utter lack of executive experience is an effective counter. Obviously, this field has failed to produce a consensus winner on either side. For now, I agree with NR: Romney is the best of an imperfect lot.