[For votes to count, referees must reasonably explain why they voted as they did. Thus, please explain your vote. If you voted to publish pending minor changes, specify each change, why it is needed, and, possibly, how it should/could be done.]
1) The review of relevant literature is basic and should be more comprehensive. There is a lot of relevant literature that could have helped in solving the following problems: 2) The paper would benefit from a clearer theoretical framework for analysis/interpretation. 3) The analysis is highly descriptive (a qualitative journal might expect more sophisticated qualitative data analysis. 4) The contribution is not clear (except the important argument that NRM did not change rhetoric), and at times it seems more like (sound) political commentary than qualitative research/analysis.