Andy McCarthy thinks that the editors’ case for McCain over Hayworth is “thin”; I think his counter-argument mixes some wrongheaded judgments (about the surge, for example) with a lot of nitpicking. I’ll resist the temptation to nitpick in return, and instead focus on Andy’s opening and closing thoughts. Andy thinks that the magazine generally stays out of congressional primaries. He also thinks that’s a good practice: “Arizonans can figure out which candidate would best serve them. Primary endorsements push us into the spin business. . . .”

It’s true that the magazine does not make endorsements in the vast majority of contested primaries—there are a lot of them. But neither are such endorsements exceptional, especially in high-profile races. Like Andy, I have not done a comprehensive review of NR’s endorsements. But I know that the magazine backed Rubio over Crist, Toomey over Specter, and Garrett over Roukema; I am pretty sure that it also backed DeMint over Beasley and Coburn over Humphreys.

Anyway, if magazines shouldn’t endorse candidates in congressional primaries because voters can figure things out, there’s no reason magazines (or anyone else) should endorse in other primaries or in general elections either. In the 2008 presidential primaries Andy endorsed Giuliani and I endorsed McCain, and we had a vigorous debate about it here. Neither of us, though, suggested that endorsements should be avoided on principle, and I think we were right not to do so.