All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Thursday, April 05, 2018

National Review attacks Roseanne Barr

The worst advice of the day comes courtesy of the formerly conservative National Review, which posted an article, "Trump supporters should think twice before applauding her."

The her is comic Roseanne Barr. The advice comes from a publication that proudly opposed the election of President Donald John Trump.

This also is publication that depicted his supporters as Nazis in a piece, "Father F├╝hrer," and in another piece said we whelp our "children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog."

The Cleveland Browns make better decisions in drafting quarterbacks than the National Review does in selecting presidential candidates.

(No, I don't call him Egg McMuffin, but when I order breakfast at McDonald's I always make the mistake of asking for an Evan McMullin.)

So these sore losers are now calling for Trump supporters not to support Trump supporter Roseanne Barr.

The magazine warns that Barr is suckering us. This is the same magazine that warned us Trump was suckering us.

"As conservatives who have watched the show have observed, however, the politics of Roseanne 2.0 are quite a hodgepodge of class consciousness and political correctness that amount to, as Ben Shapiro tweeted, a sort of 'Hollywood fantasy of what Trump voters are: people who agree with Hollywood elites on values, but just disagree on economics because they're old white factory workers.' The liberal actress Whitney Cummings, a writer and producer of the series, has vowed that episodes beyond the premiere 'are going to piss off conservatives,'" the National Review said in a story with the elegant headline, "Roseanne Barr Is a Complete Nut."

As an old white former factory worker (before my newspapering days), I thank them for their condescension.

I already dealt with Never Trumper Shapiro's take on Roseanne's show. He's so wrong, he could be a host on CNN.

The piece tries to catch up with Shapiro in telling Trump supporters what they think.

"Roseanne has long self-identified as a socialist and in 2012 attempted to secure the Green-party nomination for president. She lost and had to settle for being the candidate of the extreme-left Peace and Freedom Party instead. As a running mate, she selected Cindy Sheehan (remember her?) who initially gushed with excitement about 'the chance to infuse the message of socialism with the heart and soul that is missing from political discourse' but ultimately quit the ticket, claiming that Barr was getting too right-wing. In 2016, Barr refused to support Bernie Sanders’s own socialist crusade, blasting him as a sellout who was 'kind of running on war' and willing to meet Pope Francis," the National Review said.

The magazine's concern trolling of Trump supporters who watch her show is worthy of Hillary.

Barr ran for president with Cindy Sheehan? So what? Who Barr supported in 2016 is all that matters to me because the nation would not survive four more years of the status quo.

I don't care what her reasons were.

I don't care what her beliefs are.

I don't care what she did in the past.

When the time came to save the nation, she was on the side of America. This was a Flight 93 election.

Here is my pecking order:

  1. Those who supported Trump.
  2. Those who sat on the sidelines.
  3. Those who opposed Trump.
  4. Vermin.
  5. Those who still oppose Trump.

I do not wish the last group ill because the Trump Effect will take care of that.

I do not want them to go away because I want to know where they are.

I do not want them to shut up because their pontifications amuse me.

19 comments:

  1. Big D, you are doing me an incredible public service by continuing to read and report on that filthy rag, because otherwise I would not give a rat's ass what NR thinks about anything. They're dead to me now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ho-hum. Another slow news day at National Review, it seems. Can they find nothing better to write about? Oh, well. I stopped reading NR some time ago, and I have never watched Roseanne, either the original show or the reboot. Not interested at all. Apparently she seems to exercise creative control over her show, so she must be a force in Hollywood to be reckoned with. I applaud her for that. As for the reboot of her show, it will succeed or fail on its own merits. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  3. NR sacked John Derbyshire, and then Mark Steyn left, and then it was "Never Trump." They were out at two strikes. The third was just gratuitous. Can't even line your birdcage with glossy paper. Worse than useless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In all fairness, Victor Davis Hanson and Andrew McCarthy are two pro-Trump (with reservations) writers who have a voice at NR.

      There may be others that I'm not thinking about. I still disdain the publication as a whole, given its posture.

      Mark S.

      Delete
    2. Steyn and Derbyshire were epic losses, but I stuck around because I liked Jonah Goldberg. When he lost his mind I never looked back (although still fans of Dr. Hanson and McCarthy too).

      Delete
    3. I still read Victor Davis Hanson whenever I can on a number of other sites, and Andy McCarthy is usually informative. I miss John Derbyshire and Mark Steyn. I check out their websites occasionally, but they lack their previously established kind of panache and seem rather pedantic. Damn! Now I'm talking like they would. Jonah Goldberg used to be okay, but now? Hock, ptui! Worse than worthless. - Elric

      Delete
    4. I was remiss in not adding Conrad Black to this list, who is pro-Trump without reservations.\

      - Mark S.

      Delete
  4. “This also is publication that depicted his supporters as Nazis in a piece.”

    I don’t know any crazed vegetarian artist conservatives, do you?

    The only two vegetarian artist psychopaths who wound up shooting themselves that I can think of are that YouTube shooter and Hitler.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since I'm not interested in taking a scenic cruise with the NRO salesmen, and I have plenty of junk mail already, I never visit that site.

    Until my dying day though- I will bear the mark of shame for once being a subscriber to that putrid anti-American rag, which is so opposed to Making America Great Again.

    I refuse to follow any link to that horrid site, and these days I always check!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Forrest Gump's mother said, we all make mistakes.

      Delete
  6. Two-thirds of the country below vermin? November here we come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must run in different circles than the rest of us. -- BJ54

      Delete
    2. "Two thirds of the country." That's adorable. Two thirds of San Francisco, maybe.

      Delete
  7. "Roseanne Barr is no conservative!"

    True, she is not. The so-called 'tru-cons' have proven to be a bunch of petulant brats more taken with appearances than results and ready to kick me and mine overboard so they may more readily lick the hands that have whipped them. Roseanne at least doesn't betray me.

    -Mikey NTH

    ReplyDelete
  8. And don't forget Joe Sobran, Ann Coulter and Peter Brimelow. All canned by NR in the 90s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coulter was canned after 9/11.

      Delete
  9. NR has been sliding for a long time. When Brimelow and Sobran were fired it set the path that Buckley was taking the mag, and when he became a dotard, the slide to left began in earnest.

    Goldberg went insane before 2004. He went after the paleocons and made a fool of himself. Gottfried got him to tie himself in knots, and he still sputters about how much he loathes the paleos.

    Lowry is simply a poltroon and French, like Lowry, is a jumped up popinjay in well over his head.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The National Review is not a part of my worldview these days.

    It's Against Trump edition made it a thing of the past in the universe of intellectual political discussion.

    ind of like Rolling Stone's utterly false articles on the alleged rape of a head case student has rendered it meaningless these days.

    The National Review has completely marginalized itself from the current political horizon.

    It's a pity, because it was an excellent conservative resource when WFB, Jr. was the editor.

    ReplyDelete