All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Friday, January 24, 2020

The 4th anniversary of National Review's suicide



It may be difficult to believe in this enlightened age but there was a time not so long ago when National Review was the intellectual heart of America's conservative movement. Its writers were sharp, gifted and irreverent. Their appearances on Fox News and other TV outlets made them rock stars.

All that ended on January 22, 2016, when the magazine posted online its "Against Trump" issue. Once again, the editors proudly chose to stand athwart history rather than make it. They chose to lose with what they consider honor rather than win.

22 writers signed on, each penning a small missive which was published inside.

The magazine's editors did not like him. They called him a witless ape and buffoon and even attacked his wife's looks. Later, they portrayed his supporters as little Nazis in a piece called the Father Fuhrer.

The main editorial said, "Donald Trump leads the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. There are understandable reasons for his eminence, and he has shown impressive gut-level skill as a campaigner. But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

"Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy. (He and Bernie Sanders have shared more than funky outer-borough accents.) Since declaring his candidacy he has taken a more conservative line, yet there are great gaping holes in it.

"His signature issue is concern over immigration — from Latin America but also, after Paris and San Bernardino, from the Middle East. He has exploited the yawning gap between elite opinion in both parties and the public on the issue, and feasted on the discontent over a government that can’t be bothered to enforce its own laws no matter how many times it says it will (President Obama has dispensed even with the pretense). But even on immigration, Trump often makes no sense and can’t be relied upon. A few short years ago, he was criticizing Mitt Romney for having the temerity to propose 'self-deportation,' or the entirely reasonable policy of reducing the illegal population through attrition while enforcing the nation’s laws. Now, Trump is a hawk’s hawk."

The argument was that 1. you cannot trust anything that he says, and 2. look what he is saying!

Later, the editorial said, "If Trump were to become the president, the Republican nominee, or even a failed candidate with strong conservative support, what would that say about conservatives? The movement that ground down the Soviet Union and took the shine, at least temporarily, off socialism would have fallen in behind a huckster. The movement concerned with such 'permanent things' as constitutional government, marriage, and the right to life would have become a claque for a Twitter feed."

I had forgotten that the idea that electing Donald Trump president upends a constitutional government is not original to Democrats.

National Review ended its suicide note, "Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself."

Hahaha.

Fools.

Four years later, we have completed the first three years of this Magnificent Age Known as the Trump Years.

MAGAPILL has catalogued the successes.

Thousands of regulations are gone. 170 conservative judges are appointed, confirmed, and doing the Lord's work.

Tax rates are lower and the economy is expanding. Unemployment is at a 50-year low. Wages are at an all-time high. Retirees are enjoying huge growth in their investments.

Mexico protects our border while we build a wall.

Planned Parenthood stopped accepting federal money. Donald Trump will become the first president to address the March for Life in person.

Everything the writers at National Review said they wanted done, he's done.

A conservative publication by now would have admitted it was wrong, apologized, and celebrated.

These witless apes want him impeached. On the fourth anniversary of its suicidal Against Trump editorial, the magazine's staff ran an editorial, "Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime."

Madison, Mason and Hamilton say, Wha'???

My reaction to Against Trump was, "National Review Hoists White Flag, Defiantly Rows To Outcast Island." Ahoy!

I was correct. National Review now serves no purpose other than as a platform for an occasional column by Conrad Black or Victor Davis Hanson.

How odd that the people who called for losing with dignity do not have the dignity to own up to their error, which has aided and abetted the critics and opponents of the most conservative president since Reagan.

91 comments:

  1. Long, long ago, in a basement office far, far away, I toiled as a humble serf in NR's circulation department. I was an ardent young conservative and thought I was one of the luckiest people alive. On a daily basis, I got to see and interact with folks whose by-lines I had only read in the magazine.

    I continued to subscribe through the 80's and early 90's. But after the end of the Cold War, I began to notice a change. NR seemed increasingly rudderless. (Though, to be fair, so did most of the American Right.)

    Then, they began firing their best writers. It started with Joe Sobran, who, despite his many faults, was the most elegant writer on the magazine. (WFB included.) Then came Peter Brimelow, followed by Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn and several others who were moving in a Trumpian direction long before Trump.

    Today, only a dessicated husk remains. I have no desire to read David French or any of the other bozos who today populate its pages. It's sad, and I take it personally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NR is where I discovered Mark Steyn. When they dumped him, I dumped them.

      Some of those in the Never Trump issue have changed their tune. I still tune most of them out. It was sad that the great Thomas Sowell was part of that issue.

      Delete
    2. Like millions, I learned about conservatism from WFB. He took his shots at Donald Trump, but he was still capable of learning, unlike these guys. It's a bittersweet memory, but that's life. The Reagan/Buckley movement was co-opted by the Professional Conservative(tm) Grifters. Some are even Police State pimps now. And the Spirit of Liberty moves on.

      God Bless Our President and the United States of America.

      Delete
    3. I thank NR for introducing me years ago to Victor David Hanson, Conrad Black, and Mark Steyn, who I always read.
      The rest of the Never Trumpers at NR can suck an egg

      Delete
    4. Still read Derbyshire, don't read NR

      Delete
    5. Mustn´t forget Florence King. Lordy, could that woman write.

      Delete
    6. Loved Florence King and “The Misanthrope’s Corner.” She was eminently readable. Her memoirs are great reading.

      Delete
  2. It is unquestionably headed the way of the Weekly now what was that called, oh, yeah, Standard.

    What this demonstrates is that the National Review's writers were and remain members of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party. Its demise is long overdue, it seems to me, in light of the many, many options available for our reading pleasure that do not kill trees.

    ReplyDelete
  3. can I get a double shot of Heedless and Cruel, with a salted rim, please? and some nachos, por favor?

    waterman

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's columns like this that make this site the sine qua non of my daily reading list.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would ask "what is it about Donald Trump that makes his critics completely incapable of admitting they were wrong about him?", but I know the answer. They've been proven wrong time and time again by the person they characterized as a witless ape. That would be a pretty bitter pill to publicly swallow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In his salad days, WFB was J. Swift. Devastating. Now they're both gone. Damn.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I always liked Fred Barnes. His understanding of how government actually worked pre Obama was always informative for me. Even his recent comment on the Urkraine joke was good. How he ended up with someone as frivolous as Kristol is a mystery.
    The NT are a miserable lot. Bair's panals usually include one now. They poison the conversation with drivel to such an extent we now almost never tune in for more than a few seconds.
    If I were being generous to them I would say that the NT misread Democrat reluctance after Obama to share loot from the public purse. Reagan and Kennedy were able to cut taxes for example because of bipartisan dealing for mutual profit. With Obama this willingness dissapeared.
    "Conservative" NT blathering had even less effectivness than before. Wall Street journal editorials pleading for "sanity" became especial objects of demoralizing ridicule.
    Only Trump was able to break through such resistance to sharing, indeed so much so that anything at all was accomplished. Were they unaware of their supposed enemy's Obamatronic and Maginotic inflexibility?
    I don't think so. As MBAR hints, they probably just didn't really care then, certainly not now. Trump always makes night into day.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, the worst the National Review crowd can say is that Donald Trump is cynically doing what he promised to to do.

    As opposed to the other Republican politicians who cynically promised to do things, while all along promising to betray us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "other Republican politicians... promising to betray us."

      Promises kept, due mainly to Paul Ryan.

      Delete
  9. Jiminy Christmas, I read posters here ALL THE TIME admitting they were wrong and Mr. T was right about this, that, or the other. One example: I was wrong about Endless War. Grown men of sound character are able to do such things. Richie Rich and his band of Merry Millenials are not. Come on back, y’all. Make amends. You don’t want to have to write a book some day called “What I Missed at the Revolution.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #Walkback. If Democrats can #Walkaway.

      Delete
    2. I don't want them back. Traitors get hanged. Period.

      Delete
    3. We don't want them back. If they betrayed us once, they'll do it again. And if they're not man enough to admit that Trump gave us everything that they always said that they wanted,we have no use for them. They lied to us for decades, apparently.

      Delete
  10. The National Review has assured us that conservatism consists of two fundamental principles and only these two principles: (1) tax cuts for the crony-capitalist rich, and (2) everything Obama wants, but only a little more slowly. Conservatism was never meant to bend the arc of history away from progressivism and it most certainly was not supposed to provide anything of benefit to "those" people. Seeing that I am one of "those" people, I prefer POTUS-Trump to the Never-Trumpers.
    -TK

    ReplyDelete
  11. I can't wait to see NR's new weekly DC rundown show on 'Gorilla TV'....boy howdy!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting article: I was a subscriber to National Review and American Spectator, and Playboy for many years, decades really. I quit both National Review and American Spectator when they went Globalist. I just didn't see how losing millions of jobs in America was a good thing. I Quit Playboy when they went anti 2nd amendment with a passion full of lies. All of them went Bankrupt. Playboy tried to change back but it was too late and they were already on the plastic women bandwagon. People might not remember, Playboy was one of the largest literary magazines in the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still have my hardcover edition of Playboy Interviews. What other book has both Joseph Heller and Mel Brooks baring their souls?

      Delete
    2. thank God they didn't bare anything else!

      Delete
    3. Playboy was very good at knowing what you wanted bared by a given person and only giving you that.

      Delete
  13. Wages are at an all-time high.

    Fake news! When you adjust for inflation wages are no higher than twenty years ago. Duh. The koolaid is thick and heavy today as the march toward bankruptcy accelerates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. -When you adjust for inflation wages are no higher than twenty years ago.

      Uh, actually they are. I know from first hand experience. But don't take my word for it, here's a quick John Stossel video for ya.

      https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkHn5Fd6zM

      Delete
    2. How much was a 65" TV 20 years ago?
      How about 100Mbps Internet?
      And cell phones that can replace your camera, flashlight, radio, maps, and so on?

      Focusing on wages rather than overall quality of life is missing the forest for the trees.

      Delete
    3. (I wish there was an edit button instead.)

      So wages were stagnant under Obama?

      Delete
  14. Do we get to go on a cruise for reading this?

    ReplyDelete
  15. A number of people who wrote for the issue or contributed to the symposium have abandoned the NeverTrump disposition, among them Charles CW Cooke, Andrew McCarthy, RR Reno, Thos. Sowell, Michael Mukasey, and Cal Thomas,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump was an unknown quantity in 2016 and I had serious reservations about him from the start. I didn’t vote for him in the primary. But I hoped for the best when I cast my vote for him because it was so crucial to defeat Hillary. In 2020, Trump has my vote on his merits.

      Delete
    2. Correct. Charlie Cooke is still worth reading--no one is better on gun rights. And Lowry himself has moved to a more nationalist viewpoint and was locking horns with Jonah Goldberg fairly early on in DT's presidency.

      The worst of the Never Trumpers have left for the Dispatch. I can't believe I'm saying this about Jonah--but good riddance.

      Delete
    3. Agreed. I used to love Jonah. No more.

      Delete
  16. National Review died with William F. Buckley, Jr. The current editorial staff has run it into the ground. Their best writers have diversified and are now published on multiple websites. Not only do I not miss it, I avoid it. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NR died well before Buckley passed. NR died as a conservative publication the moment Buckley sacked Brimelow and O'Sullivan at the behest of his New York neo-con friends Kristol and Podhoretz. It became nothing more than the 1990s New Republic when it sacked Coulter and Derbyshire 10 years later.

      Delete
  17. I'm sad about Williamson. He was a brilliant writer, but he just completely lost it over Trump. The Father-Fuhrer article was silly and I got too embarrassed for him, now I just can't bear to read him anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I still listen to his and Charlie Cooke's podcast, but KW's writing has gotten so nihilistic I've lost interest. I have noticed this, however: As much as KW hates Trump, he does seem able to note from time to time DT's accomplishments without further whining--which the people at the Dispatch are unable to do. I haven't read one single thing from Jonah, French, et al, that hasn't followed an accomplishment with a sour, condescending caveat.

      Delete
  18. Poor NR. They mistook Dave Burge's observation about Lefties taking over, gutting an organization and wearing it as a skinsuit and demanding respect as a how to guide, not a critique.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I always saw most of the writers at NRO as intellectual mercenaries ... NRO was hiring when they got out of school ... they would have worked for the Huffpo if it was hiring ... most of the nevertrumpers over there have never done anything else in life but write pundit porn ... they are children of the left who are just returning to their childhood desires ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an excellent point, Kaiser. Yes, I think simple careerism is far more important than most of us believe.

      Delete
  20. I would have liked to hear what Charles Krauthammer would have thought of the Trumpster three years in?? Charles lost me when he called Trump a fraud and a clown. Charles was up to his neck in it with the never trumpers but he became ill and I never heard from him shortly after the election and then he passed. He was a sage and wise man and I often wonder what he would think of the now President Donald Trump??

    ReplyDelete
  21. I was a subscriber for 25 years. When that issue arrived, I put it in an envelope, attached a short letter cancelling my subscription, and sent it back back to New York. (Surprisingly, they refunded a part of my subscription fee.)

    NR is utterly useless now. It's a little sad when anything -- not just a magazine -- that was in its time so valuable is reduced to just taking up space, and living off its rapidly-dwindling years-old reputation.

    Anyone want to speculate on the over/under on when NR will join the Weekly Standard in the dustbin of history?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I was fine with the Against Trump issue. Though I disagreed, I thought it at the time they made some valid points. But those points have since been proven wrong. Completely.

    NR, by not admitting this, no longer appear to be conservative. They appear foolish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. When Trump first announced, I added him to my “when hell freezes over” list.

      I started to panic when he started winning. I always found him to be a despicable person. Would I have to vote Democrat for the first time in my life?

      Fortunately, the Democrats took that off the table when Sanders and Hillary became the finalists. They both were already on my “not even if the universe is collapsing” list.

      Like so many, I have been pleasantly surprised. The man is a twofer, driving the liberals completely bonkers on the one hand and pushing through a very conservative agenda on the other.

      I don’t really blame the dissenting conservatives for their cognitive dissonance. I still find myself dealing with the same alternate-reality feelings.

      How could playboy-billionare-doofus Donald Trump have ended up being such an amazing conservative president? It just does not compute.

      Pride is a dangerous character trait to have in general, but wounded pride is the most dangerous of all. It makes people irrational and hateful. It’s the sort of emotion that causes people to crucify their saviors.

      Trump is a walking pride wounder. One of the other services he has provided is demonstrating which of us have too much of it.

      Delete
    2. I suspect that the private Donald Trump is a very different person than the public Donald Trump. I often wish he was a little more artful but frankly, I just don’t care if he eats his entire dinner with the salad fork. The guy knows what he’s doing and I like what he’s done.

      Delete
    3. Right there with you brother. I said "Anyone but Trump" Shortly followed by "Not Hillary."

      Here is what i think happened. trump is man without principals. He literally doesn't care about policy except to do what works. The Democrats demonized him to such an extent they could never work with him, so Trump turned right. Given rightish policies are generally wildly successful whenever applied, it leads us to where we are today, a surprisingly conservative Trump.

      Delete
  23. VDH makes it all better for me. A sage.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Infiltrated, subverted, indoctrinated. Alinsky would be proud.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Name names of the guilty. Lowry, Goldberg, et al. All guilty of being collaborating Vichy Republicans.

    ps.

    Reminder: NR opposed the Tea Party movement just as vociferously as the Donald. In 2012, the ran a similar hit on Newt Gingrich to give us mild Mitt. The hit on the Donald was not NR's first attempt to squash a populist revolt against their stable of conceited losers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had forgotten that. They’re still traumatized by Ayn Rand.

      Delete
  26. It's about rice bowls being disturbed and egos being bruised.

    ReplyDelete
  27. At this point, NR will have to take money from liberal plutocrats rather than conservative ones to stay afloat, so we can safely predict it will never return to conservatism, if it was ever sincere in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I had been a fan for years for one online item only: The Corner when it was short, clever, practically stream of consciousness. When that morphed into a dull series of unpolished essays, I was done with them. Why stick around when it was mostly country club Republicans barely hiding their class prejudice?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Florence King and her Misanthrope's Corner was the main reason I read NR. When Lowry came on board I dropped it. It no longer held to Buckley's high standards. I loved that man.

      Delete
  29. Two words:
    Andrew McCarthy.
    The work he's done over the past three years (and continues to do) defending the presidency from those who would destroy it has been formidable. Curious that there's no recognition of that stellar effort here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andy McCarthy provides a lot of lawyerly context and it has its place, but that doesn't move the needle for most people.

      Delete
  30. Conquest's/O'Sullivan's law need a codicil:

    Law: Any organization not explicitly conservative becomes left-wing over time.

    Codicil: This sometimes also applies to explicitly conservative organizations.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Outer-borough accents" is probably the most telling phrase. We regular folk should be more greatful that NR's editors and writers deign to instruct us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I noticed that, too. Turns out their whole stable is filled with David Brooks.

      Delete
    2. You just summed it all up. Perfectly.

      Delete
  32. I was ‘Never Hillary, So .... Trump ... I guess?’ I was wrong. I should have just gone with the ‘He fights’ and been okay with that.

    At this point, I just want an actual, effective and forthright advocate for what is important to me. Trump the salesman / businessman saw a market inefficiency, and is riding that to great success and profit.

    The reason NT can’t repent is it means admitting they never were advocates working on my behalf.

    Trump 2020: Because F’ Them Again

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His real-world executive experience and his apparent understanding of human nature assuaged my anxiety about him when I cast my vote in 2016. I have no regrets and my hope for the future has been restored.

      Delete
  33. Poor #NeverTrumpers.

    They used to be important. Now they are reduced to being pseudo-Republican Pomeranians, circling and yipping, trying to bite President Trump's ankles, a nattering pack of insufferable sissies. They, sadly, still think they are in charge.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Queensberry Rules Republicans explains NR's dilemma. And the whole "standing athwart history" schtick was clever 60 years ago, but was well past its sell-by date in 2016.

    Rather, it should be something on the order of "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." To be "against" a candidate (or a policy) qualifies as childish obstinance, as it doesn't provide direction or leadership in favor of the decision the public has at-hand.

    And it serves as a mocking reminder that conservatism, as such, isn't favorable to anything--it only stands in opposition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conservatism very much favors something: The tried and true. If it ain't broke, don't fix. Leave well enough alone. Let sleeping dogs lie. All of which mean: America of the Founders is the answer to human woes.

      THAT is what Conservatism means today.

      Delete
  35. If you want to understand the real Trump, look for his audiobooks on YouTube. He's apparently not enforcing their copyright. And if you do, you'll discover someone quite the opposite of the claims of NR and the liberal media. You will discover someone who is quite smart and business savvy, along with a guy who is generous enough to share his tips for success with others.

    I starting to understand what makes Trump tick. He was wildly successful in business, making far more money that he could spend even with a personal 757. He's going for something different now. He's fiercely interested in acquiring the love and respect of those that our elites heap contempt on. He intends to protect and serve them. That's what he is doing. I can remember presidents back (just barely) to Eisenhower. I've never seen one as committed to keeping his campaign promises as Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I am sympathetic to NR. While I appreciate the judges and the reduction in regulations, I cringe everyday when I read the POTUS tweet storms. Trump is a tribal leader, a good tribal leader. But conservatism is or should be a coherent philosophy, not a tribe. I guess I should accept Trump as my chief, beat my chest, and imitate the berations. The collectivist are reflexively more tribal already, so I fear for our country, while this article exults that our tribe is winning! Boo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. I wrote that National Review is fake conservative because it does not care that conservativism is winning again.

      Noone is asking you to accept behavior you dislike.

      All I ask is that you choose substance over style on Election Day.

      Delete
    2. Discourse is substance. Judges, regulations, abortion those are battles, important battles. "lying Nancy, dumb as a rock AOC, witless apes.' those are primal grunts. Conservatism's war is over the pluralistic notion that this nation’s collection of individuals can coexist and thrive alongside each other, even together. Conservatives argue that issues like abortion and over-regulation erode at the foundation of pluralism. But likewise these pillars can be preserved, even as the structure they held is destroyed.

      Consider: sanctuary cities and take-as-you-like immigration statutes, state pot laws that conflict with national laws, the absolute confusion of gender rules. what does winning a few rules and passing some new laws even mean any more? The whole house if falling, we are accelerating away from a nation of law to a land cohabited by two tribes… umm, except tribes don’t co-habit.

      Delete
    3. Witless Ape is what National Review called Donald Trump.

      I choose substance over style. I choose winning over losing, too.

      Delete
  37. Went to a MAGA meet lower night.. Now all DJT supporters. Went some the room and most were converts. Various stories of eyes opening. My opposition was him calling or Colorado assembly bogus since Cruz won. I was in the room counting votes so I was pretty ticked. But Then... Scott Adams and his discussion of persuasion. Very special genius and all... Them I saw, and this was before the results.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Let me admit that I was a huge fan of WFB and NR. My attic held literally hundred of old copies and it was only a move to a new home that forced me to discard the dozens of boxes that held them. It was only the advent of Donald Trump that made me reexamine my love affair with the man and his magazine.

    The problem was that Buckley never even tried to connect with the common man. He was not about winning elections. I recall that he ran for Mayor of NYC. When asked what he would do if he won, he said “demand a recount.” When Democrats were winning the culture wars, fans of Buckley were reading NR and fulminating ineffectively against those rascally Democrats.

    Trump is different. I actually did not know that he is the First President to appear at the annual Right to Life parade. He’s willing to diss the Global Warning crowd while NR is putting its finger in the air. NR is at peace with same-sex marriage and will call men and women of any gender by their preferred pronouns. It is always fighting a rearguard action but is never willing to cross the bounds of “respectability.” Which is understandable because it’s founder, the eminently respectable W.F. Buckley always made sure he never transgressed the zeitgeist. As a result, he never moved the Overton Window which explains why he was a fixture at NPR.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The signatories:
    BECK GLENN
    BOAZ DAVID
    BOZELL BRENT
    CHAREN MONA
    DOMENECH BEN
    ERICKSON ERICK
    HAYWARD STEVEN
    HELPRIN MARK
    KRISTOL WILLIAM
    LEVIN YUVAL
    LOESCH DANA
    McCARTHY ANDREW
    McINTOSH DAVID
    MEDVED MICHAEL
    MEESE EDWIN
    MOORE RUSSELL
    MUKASEY MICHAEL
    PAVLICH KATIE
    PODHORETZ JOHN
    RENO R.
    SOWELL THOMAS
    THOMAS CAL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I presume this is the "Against Trump" list from 2016. Have any of these changed their minds?

      Delete
    2. McCarthy is somewhat pro-Trump, I think, at least as compared to some colleagues.

      I think the only real pro-Trump voice left there is Hanson.

      Delete
    3. Glenn Beck is pro Trump. Bozell, Loesch, Pavlich, Podhoretz, Sowell, Thomas, McCarthy all are pro Trump or certainly no longer never Trumpets.

      Delete
  40. The National Review is UNABASHEDLY PRO ----__NOT__---- "We, the people"!ANYBODY NOT "We, the People" they are FOR.!

    ReplyDelete
  41. I still won't go to National Review and if I see parts of a NR article that makes sense on one of the aggregators, I assume it's simply time on a broken clock and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think that line about "outer borough" really sums up a lot of the opposition to Trump. As someone from the same borough as Trump, I've actually thought that for a while. I didn't know NR had used it as a cheap shot. Good to have the confirmation.

    ReplyDelete
  43. A recent issue of NR said (1) Trump deserves impeachment; (2) The New York Times is a respectable and trustworthy news organization (!!); (3) there was a third example, too, but I threw the magazine in the trash and I can't remember what it was now. WFB may or may not have become a never-Trumper today, in the style of, say, Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg, but he would never have called the New York Times an honorable newspaper. Never.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I harbor I'll will toward everyone who signed that cover. Including Dana Loesch, even though she started turning around. They all lost my respect. Goldberg and Medved were no surprise but a few there certainly were. Their demise warns my heart, as the president exposed these grifters.

    ReplyDelete
  45. NR reminds me of an established mainline protestant church that hired a radical minister who is chasing away the flock. Management knows they have a problem with the minister, but they are the ones who hired the minister and the people who like the minister are becoming a bigger and bigger percentage of the flock as the rest of the flock leaves.

    I saw this phenomena firsthand at the First Presbyterian Church in Arlington, VA. They hired a radical minister who drove of 60% of the flock within a year. Thereafter, the rest of the flock slowly bled out over the course of the next 25 years as people died or moved away and no one replaced them. In 2017, a new radical minister sold the sanctuary and is now using the money for something other than a Presbyterian church.

    NR is now just another dead brand walking news magazine that has lost most of its readership and is slowly bleeding out the rest. NR is living off of the accumulated capital from earlier generations just like the former First Presbyterian Church of Arlington did from circa 1990 to 2017 when it finally died.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Please stop referring to the publication as "The National Review."

    It has never had a "The" in the name, including when Buckley was the editor.

    It's a small error on your part, Don, but one that is worth fixing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No such thing as a small error. I shall fix. Thank you.

      Delete