National Review's Love of Romney and Huntsman Absurd
I still read certain writers at the National Review, but I believe that the group of editors have changed over the last few years from strong conservatives to pragmatic Republicans (which I believe is why the Republican brand has been tarnished over the past decade to begin with). As Andy McCarthy of NR points out, the Editorial against Newt Gingrich was over the top and totally unbalanced. In it, they highlighted Gingrich's weaknesses but none of his strengths (including his defeating HillaryCare and balancing the budget). They side with the GOP who kicked Gingrich out of his leadership position but fail to mention that his replacements were anything but disciplined from an ethical or spending perspective.
So who do the NR editors prefer? Romney and Huntsman - those bastions of conservative discipline (chuckle). Huntsman is a joke and would be about the same or worse than John McCain - he used to say he really liked Obama until he realized Americans think he's a disaster. While Romney is probably better, he too has his faults which the NR editors neglect. The times seem to be changin' at the NR when they say that Romney and Huntsman are the two most qualified to be president.