National Review came out today against a Newt Gingrich run for the White House. In lauding Gingrich's undeniable impact on American politics and conservative politics in particular, NR nevertheless warns, "[s]licing up the considerable conservative vote into smaller shares would not, needless to say, advance the ideas he champions."

Generally, at this stage, no-shot candidates should be discouraged from joining the race (hello, Alan Keyes). They do little to advance the conversation with primary voters, but do much in gobbling up air time. Gingrich, however, doesn't fit that category. Even though NR believes that Gingrich won't win the nomination -- a good bet -- the former Speaker, much like Al Gore, would immediately vault into the first tier, if not by poll numbers than by how he can control a lot of the debate. Fact is, next to Gingrich, some of the other candidates would look like lightweights in the realm of policy and ideas. Is this what NR is getting at?

But the late entry of such a controversial conservative candidate to the presidential field wouldn't benefit the Republican party, or the Republic. There are already three top-tier candidates -- Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain -- contending to be the conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani. With the support he manifestly enjoys among the grassroots, Gingrich would take his share from those conservatives unwilling to back Giuliani.

As NR indicates, a Gingrich candidacy would benefit Giuliani the most. And although NR doesn't say it explicitly, I see a bit of an anti-Rudy message underlining its anti-Newt editorial.