Ramesh, it seems odd to me that you’d endorse the editors’ rendering of a judgment on something as important as Hayworth’s “statesmanship” on the basis of a dopey informercial he did when he was not a public official, but then say I’m “nitpicking” when I marshal things McCain did as a public official serving in the very office to which he is seeking reelection. After all, many of my complaints were not too nitpicky for NR to cite them in various criticisms of McCain over the years. That said, though, I have had more than a fair opportunity (for which I am grateful to Rich and the editors) to say my piece, and readers can judge the merits for themselves.

On the matter of endorsements, however, you’re misstating my reasoning. My main contention was not that NR should stay out of Republican congressional primaries because readers can make up their own minds; it was that NR has a unique place in the conservative movement. It risks diminishing that special role when it strays from shaping the big-picture to involvement in relatively low-level, tactical politics.

You’re also comparing apples and oranges in two ways. First, I don’t think a preference for refraining from congressional primary endorsements should necessarily apply to races that are more significant — e.g., presidential primaries and general elections. If, as you imply, I had argued that the only reason for refraining was that readers can figure things out for themselves, then I’d agree that there’d be no good reason to distinguish these different races. But that’s not what I said. And your observation that the magazine does not endorse in most congressional primaries implies some level of agreement with me that many races are just not consequential enough to warrant an NR endorsement.

Second, I don’t think a preference for refraining from these endorsements should apply to individual writers. I was talking about NR, the institution. The fact that you and I endorsed (different) candidates has no bearing on whether it is in NR’s interest to endorse candidates.

I’m glad you raise this, though, because I am really ambivalent about this endorsement stuff. I publicly endorsed Rudy largely because I was involved in his campaign. It seemed to me that, to be straight with our readers, it was important to disclose that I was not impartial. I hope I didn’t take any position that I would not otherwise have taken — I don’t think I did. Regardless, though, honesty requires disclosing those kinds of arrangements. In the event, the endorsement was quite the opposite of the liberating move I hoped it would be. I felt like every time I said anything about any candidate, I should be disclosing the endorsement, no matter how little it had to do with what I was talking about and no matter how many times people had already seen me do it.

It’s entirely possible that I am projecting my personal discomfort with all this onto NR. But I don’t think so. I am just one person. Yes, I would give it a longer think before I’d endorse someone again, but I still can’t imagine that an endorsement from me means much to anyone. NR, to the contrary, is a special institution. If I had my druthers I’d keep the mag presumptively out of the endorsement business, like the big gun that you only take out when it really, really matters. You’re right that I’ve never before made an argument for a non-endorsement principle (for individual writers or NR). But all of us, I’m sure, took some time after the ‘08 election to reflect on what could have been done better, and endorsement is a topic I’m still wrestling with.