Print

Social Cons vs. National Review

|

A coalition of social conservatives thinks that the eggheads over at right-wing mothership National Review are shilling for Mitt Romney–and that it just ain't right:

Twenty-two conservative activist leaders will publicly release a letter this week challenging the conservative magazine National Review's "puff work" for presidential candidate Mitt Romney and implying that the magazine is quietly abandoning the social conservative grassroots and constitutionalism. The editors refuse even to acknowledge receipt of the letter, which cites information about which they've misled their readers, most strikingly:

  • Romney's stance and record after his "awakening" are not pro-life.
  • The Massachusetts Constitution says the people are bound only by laws ratified by the legislature; and only the legislature can suspend or alter laws. Blaming judges who admit they cannot create laws and have no authority over the legislature or governor, Romney unconstitutionally ordered officials to act as if judges legalized homosexual "marriage."

However, I'd say it blunts the sense of their wrath at NR just a leeeetle bit that the very first thing the press release quotes to buttress the point that true-blue (true-red?) righties should deny Mitt three times and more is an article from NR's own website, the supposed Romney ass-kissers:

John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition notes NR's glaring refusal to face the implications of a devastating article (May, 2004, National Review) by a leading legal scholar, illuminating why fawning, pro-establishment attorneys such as Jay Sekulow, radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, and (an NR pro-Romney blogger) David French have facilitated Romney's unconstitutional actions:

"The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage…it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step… [I]t became clear that even conservative lawyers had come to incorporate, and accept, the premises that gave to the courts a position of supremacy in our constitutional schemes."
The Missing Governor (National Review Online May 17, 2004)
— Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College

I fully support all conservatives rising up in righteous indignation about the flaws of all the GOP front-runners. Keep it up!

NEXT: Sarkozy the Gaul

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. To some degree the Social Cons are correct. Mitt Romney is rather moderate in his views on social matters.

    Just last week he was quoted as saying to the effect, that he wasn’t interested in “regulating” what adults watch on cable TV in response to a question on pornography.

    The Republican Liberty Caucus heavily supported Romney in his run for US Senate in the mid-1990s when he was running as a “William Weld Republican.”

    I’m for Rudy, but if Romney gets it, I say that’s all fine and good for libertarians, most especially libertarian Republicans.

  2. ARWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  3. “””Twenty-two conservative activist leaders will publicly release a letter this week challenging the conservative magazine National Review’s “puff work” for presidential candidate Mitt Romney and implying that the magazine is quietly abandoning the social conservative grassroots and constitutionalism.”””

    If the conservative were really interested in constitutionalism and grassroots conservatism, Ron Paul would be in first place. He is the only one of the bunch that really supports the Constitution.

    I think Conservatives abandoned much of their beliefs when they bought into the religious right. Limited government limits what the government can tell you to do. The religious right wants government to regulate you to their beliefs. I say pro-choice is a conservative belief, in that it keeps government out of family choices.

  4. Looks like Dondero is prepping a little for his own run.

    There are few things worth reading on NR these days.

  5. Eric D, have you heard the news? Romney is pro-life now (aka libertariana non grata)

  6. If the Christians were really concerned about morality, they would oppose all the Republican leaders who push for more prisons. What promotes homosexual activity more than prison life?

    If the conservatives were concerned about private property, they would oppose the Republican wars, because what is more destructive of property than war.

    Of courser what they are really interested in is a story they can put in their fund-raising letters.

  7. To be fair, Romney seems to be the only “conservative” front-runner who hasn’t divorced yet. Give him some kudos for that.

  8. “”””What promotes homosexual activity more than prison life?””””

    I give up? The gay pride parade?

  9. right-wing mothership National Review

    Brian wins his own thread. Whoooo Hooooo!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.