All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Friday, February 19, 2021

National Review trashes Rush Limbaugh

Liberals spent much of the last 2 days trashing Rush Limbaugh, so it was no surprise that National Review would join in. NR now stands for Never Rush.

Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote what his fellow NR-er Jim Geraghty said was a tribute to Mister Limbaugh.

They are really weird over there.

Dougherty's column -- "Rush’s Place" -- was subtitled, "Rush’s program, beamed into cars sitting in traffic across the nation, was a beacon telling millions of people, ‘You are not alone.’ It was also a turnoff for millions of others."

Fact check: OF COURSE.

Limbaugh turned off every freaking liberal in America. That was one of the things his listeners liked about him. He drew flak, which meant he was over the target.

And make no mistake, National Review knew what it was doing by running this column. If his first paragraph did not inform the editor of Dougherty's belly full of bile for Limbaugh, the second one did.

The Never Rusher wrote, "Many conservatives who have loathed the Donald Trump era will look back on Limbaugh’s success with regret, realizing that the talk-radio revolution was the giant leap from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump."

No conservative loathes the Trump era. Real conservatives took a chance on the dude and hit the jackpot. He made America great again by bringing the working class back to the movement.

That is his sin. The Republican Establishment could tolerate Reagan's appeal to the riff-raff, but Donald Trump was the last straw.

Paragraph 3 was so smug that it could have been written by a Prius driver.

Dougherty wrote, "For millions of other people, Rush Limbaugh was the largest impediment to embracing conservatism. I count myself in this group. I’m not Rush Limbaugh’s target audience and never was. At 14 years old, I bought and enjoyed Al Franken’s book Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. I don’t think I would enjoy it now because I simply don’t care about mass-media figures the way I did then. I vividly remembered the controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton a dog. She was about my age. And I was a child! How evil could a guy be?"

Calling a man evil is a tribute?

In his very next sentence, Dougherty said, "I had to overcome Rush Limbaugh to become a conservative."

That's like saying you had to overcome Lincoln to free the slaves.

The column was a display of elitism, which is to say it was a display of ignorance.

He wrote, "It is obvious that voting blocs of 70 or 80 million Americans cannot be adequately represented by one face or one type of character." 

And yet 75 million people lined up behind Donald Trump on Election Day. They were so adequately represented for 4 years that they wanted 4 more.

That is what really bugs the elitists. We realize we do not need them. National Review has never earned a nickel in its life. It lives on subsidies from rich folk. Its writers have day jobs with think tanks. Dougherty is with the American Enterprise Institute.

Rush Limbaugh brought in millions of bucks from advertisers because he had a show that 30 million people tuned into. He saved an entire medium -- AM radio -- along the way. Millions mourn his passing because he gave them hope in some pretty depressing times. 

What has NR ever done for us except attack conservatives? Never Patrick Buchanan! Never Newt Gingrich! Never Donald Trump!

Now Never Rush.

But the trashing of Limbaugh and his fans was a set-up for Dougherty's pitch for National Review's podcasts.

He ended his column, "If anything, considering the place of Rush Limbaugh in his nation’s political life is to realize that conservatism has been late to develop a voice that cuts in somewhere between its aloof intellectuals and aggro broadcasters. Conservatism is still searching for a middlebrow voice. Perhaps it is starting to emerge on the podcasts like those hosted by Ricochet and National Review. The effort to conserve, Limbaugh well knew, was an effort to build something new."

Dougherty was unfit to shine Limbaugh's shoes.

70 comments:

  1. Dougherty is what Rush would have scraped off his shoes after a walk through the hog pen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. haters gotta hate, no talent haters gotta tear down those who did better than them

    ReplyDelete
  3. Does anyone read National Review anymore? Certainly not true conservatives!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Dougherty column is very funny.
    1) Dougherty columns = McLaughlin Group predictions
    2) A middlebrow voice is National Review podcasts. LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  5. National Review has become a sad Never-Trump shadow of its formerly-robust self. WFB is spinning in his grave so fast, he probably could have provided power for the Texas green crisis.

    And what he thinks of Jonah Goldberg at this point probably isn't printable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a pathetic wretch. Waiting until a man is dead, and unable to respond, to attack him is such a coward's move.

    ReplyDelete
  7. His subtitle immediately exposes him as an elitist loser. He thinks anyone in a car is stuck in traffic because - cities.

    I listened while flying down highways and backroads as Rush’s voice would start to fade, praying I would find the next station to carry on. I kept a list in my car for Rush stations in all directions. He was my driving companion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here. Was my co-pilot for 2 decades.

      Delete
    2. I remember listening on a Crow Tribal radio to
      Rush on long flights out in those Buffalo hills.

      Delete
    3. You nailed it! I also would listen to Paul Harvey's broadcasts three or four times if I could. I could only listen to Rush once, but then his was a three hour educational show.

      Delete
    4. I subscribed to 24/7 I couldn't always get it live so I'd listen after. The real plus was I didn't have to listen to the liberal news guys during the breaks. Sometimes I'd drive an extra hour just listening. Yup co pilot. People mention Rush in the same breath as Paul Harvey. 2 icons in radio

      Delete
  8. The current NR's treatment of Rush is especially offensive given the reverence he had for Bill Buckley and the original National Review.

    Go here to see what Rush had to say in 2007 about Buckley and NR when he accepted the Media Research Center's FIRST William Buckley award for Media Excellence (2nd vid at link):

    https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2021/02/17/radio-icon-rush-limbaugh-delighted-mrc-galas-stay-truth

    In return, Rush gets trashed by people unfit to tie his (or Bill Buckley's) shoes.

    As to NR, they couldn't handle Ann Coulter and several other strong writers either. And the ones like Jonah Goldberg (who fired Coulter) and who became Never Trumpers and Bulwarkers deserve nothing but our deepest contempt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NR has disgraced the memory of Bill Buckley. Buckley would be appalled at the lack of talent, as well as the lack of mastery of the English language. Not to mention the pettiness and lack of gravitas that passes for intellectual thought these days.

      Delete
    2. NR has disgraced the memory of Bill Buckley. Buckley would be appalled at the lack of talent, as well as the lack of mastery of the English language. Not to mention the pettiness and lack of gravitas that passes for intellectual thought these days.

      Delete
    3. NR has disgraced the memory of Bill Buckley. Buckley would be appalled at the lack of talent, as well as the lack of mastery of the English language. Not to mention the pettiness and lack of gravitas that passes for intellectual thought these days.

      Delete
  9. Weasels at NR have some podcasts with Victor Davis Hansen....VDH is on a lot of different shows/channels/websites, so not really sure how that works. Want to say NR on YouTube has VDH interviews - say 3-5 years old, and runs them like they are first on as of Jan 28, 2021.....had to figure out when VDH was talking to get real idea of who was Preezy or not

    ReplyDelete
  10. Once again I thank you Don for paying attention to this tripe so that I don't have to. Your summaries are all I need to know about NR. Whoever the big pockets are who subsidize NR, they're not getting much for their money are they?
    And in about five minutes here, I'm going to see what Mark Steyn has to say today about Rush Limbaugh.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Rush’s program, beamed into cars sitting in traffic across the nation, was a beacon telling millions of people, ‘You are not alone.’ It was also a turnoff for millions of others."

    That was what made him a hero. He broke the back of the Lefty prop-aganda.

    He also took Conservatism out of the Brooks Brothers suit and put it in a flannel shirt.

    Where it belongs.

    Rush Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton a dog. She was about my age. And I was a child! How evil could a guy be?

    First of all, she is. Hildabeast without all the surgery.

    Second, I see no mention of all the Conservative women and their daughters trashed by the Left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calling Chelsea a dog was wrong. When I consider all the attributes associated with dogs, none apply to Chelsea.
      Then I think about all the ones we could use to describe a rabid skunk...

      Delete
    2. Rush never called Chelsea Clinton a dog. That's a lie propagated by the MSM.

      On his TV show, Rush made a reference to Clinton. When he did, one of his technical people flashed a photo of - as I recall - a beagle puppy. Rush stopped the show and said:

      "NO! We're not going to do that!"

      The person responsible for the incident was subsequently fired for it. However, the MSM, with their usual level of accuracy, began repeating the Lie that he called her a dog. He didn't. Ever.

      Delete
  12. I had to overcome the National Review to become a conservative...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm still hopeful that all the NeverTrump pond scum at Conservative, Inc. will someday be turned into biodiesel.

    ReplyDelete
  14. PRIUS driver?
    Fusion Hybrid.
    SMARTER than a Stang driver anyday

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a Rush loving Trump supporting Prius owning conservative.

      Delete
    2. Priuses are actually good, solid, well-built cars. I won't buy one. They are trouble-free for the most part, for more than 150,000 miles. If you like to keep a car longer than that, which I do, they're not for you. Over $3000 to replace the battery and about $6000 to replace the generator.

      Delete
    3. At night in the SF Bay Area, our local social justice warriors cruise around looking specifically for parked Priuses, so they can steal their catalytic converters.

      Apparently they are easy to steal from Priuses. Each one the thieves steal nets them $200. Victims need to pay about $2,000 to get them replaced.

      Many Prius owners here pay a mechanic $200 to have an assembly installed over their cat converters to protect them. Cheaper than $2K.

      Delete
    4. Would never own a Prius, but as an auto repair shop owner I will tell you that they have been around for over 20 years and will give you 200,000 to 300,000 miles reliably, just like any other Toyota product.

      Delete
  15. Shine his shoes? Nah.. This POS isn't fit to lick his shoes after walking through a working barn.

    ReplyDelete
  16. National review are all pedafiles just like the Lincoln project boys

    Hoodies off little boy fooooooooooooook ers

    ReplyDelete
  17. They were too afraid to talk that crap when rush was alive

    Now we will finish them off for Rush

    ReplyDelete
  18. National review are all pedafiles just like the Lincoln project boys

    Hoodies off little boy fooooooooooooook ers

    ReplyDelete
  19. National review are all pedafiles just like the Lincoln project boys

    Hoodies off little boy fooooooooooooook ers

    ReplyDelete
  20. A conservative's opinion on Limbaugh seems to be directly related to their level of mainstream media trust.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why is Rush Limbaugh crucified but Howard Stein considered amusing? Think on that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. We've seen this coming for a long time now; Globalists can't be Patriots no matter what they call themselves. My "Oh, Schiff!" moment came with the GHW Bush "New World Order" speech, and the sudden realization that not all Republicans want what's best for our republic. So it's only natural that Globalist "republicans" hate Patriots like Rush, Trump, etc. How could they not? We will know who's who by their fruit.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I tried to comment on the NR article: "Who are you?" but you have to be a subscribed member to comment. That's the last place I want to subscribe to even just to troll.

    ReplyDelete
  24. “ No conservative loathes the Trump era. Real conservatives took a chance on the dude and hit the jackpot. He made America great again by bringing the working class back to the movement”

    This 100x ... every week was like Christmas he had a conservative present for us ...

    The rest of Don’s article is spot on and the rest of the NR article is smug and terrible too ...

    ReplyDelete
  25. My take is that the NR crowd are filled with the same envy and jealousy as those on the left. They will have no home with either side and I take pleasure and comfort in their wandering in the netherworld.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, we all know about Rush's comments regarding Chelsea. What NR failed to mention was that Rush apologized on the air and said he regretted it. We've all said thoughtless things we'd love to take back. What a bunch of losers they are at NR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you could apply that truth to some of NR folk? I don't follow Dougherty, but he's all right. And read the column--it contains far more sentences seeking to be polite to Rush and his fans, and nearly nothing directly critical. No, Dougherty doesn't directly come out and say what he should, that the conservative movement generally owed Rush quite a bit. Dougherty was always idiosyncratic, I knew him when he was a student, and just about the only openly pro-Pat Buchanan conservative back in the days when it was most unfashionable to be so. I happily voted Trump in 2020, and have been puzzled by NR's overall direction circa mid-2017 to the present, but I hate seeing stalwart conservatives like Rich Lowry, Jay Nordingler, and MB Dougherty get treated this way. Moving forward, conservative populism has to retain its connections to NR/Buckley-style conservativism, and it has to avoid across-the-board anti-elitism, instead cultivating selective appreciation and placement of the right kinds of elites. It is the slanderers of today's populist defense of democratic say, who say it is anti-intellectual, just as Prog Mandarins of old (e.g., Hofstadter) smeared the original Populists. Don't conform to the slanderer's stereotypes. And be an adult and recognize that not every conservative, especially in intellectual circles, took to Rush and Donald. Dougherty told the truth about his early impressions of Rush. Did you want him to lie? Ingratitude towards what Trump and Rush accomplished for conservatism can be considered a sin, agreed. But beyond attacking such instances, let's be better with some of these NR folks, okay? Probably most of the commenters here would like Dougherty if they met him, and talked over a few drinks. His dream of a place for "middle-brow" conservative commentary is not a bad one, even if I don't think NR is going to become that place.

      Delete
    2. skatemanta:: "...conservative populism has to retain its connections to NR/Buckley-style conservativism, and it has to avoid across-the-board anti-elitism, instead cultivating selective appreciation and placement of the right kinds of elites."

      You keep using that word, 'elite'. I don't think it means what you think it means. If by 'elite' you mean the snob class, then no. We don't need them.

      Psuedo-elite, psuedo-conservative, psuedo-intellectuals are not assets to anyone but the Leftist Mandarins they curry favor from.

      Delete
  27. NR is full of Never Trumpers who think they're better than you. In particular the patronizing condescending Rich Lowry who makes his way around the Sunday talk show circuit (F Chuck Todd). If he were the conservative he professes to be they wouldn't have him

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am confident that Rush's shoes will be filled by one or more aspirants who know that to succeed, one would have to be courteous, humorous and optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tucker Carlson (whom Rush always referred to as Chatsworth Osborne, Jr.--an obscure reference to a character in the early 60s sitcom "Dobie Gillis" for those of us old enough to remember) would be my first choice. He's smart and quick enough and simpatico in terms of politics. Just don't know if he could handle the phone calls.

      Delete
  29. Nobody on the Right (real conservatives) pay any attention to National Review. It's garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I advise everyone to never visit National Review again. It went to the dark side long ago. Rush did so much for these ingrates yet they're so shameless as to mock him!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Just out of curiosity, there's one other aspect of "early-Rush" that I haven't heard mentioned in the past couple of days.

    Like many folks, I'm always working during the radio show slot - but my discovery of Rush occurred back c. 1993/1994. Back then for a stretch, he had a late-night 30 minute television show - and one of my local stations used to rebroadcast it at 6:30am, so I'd watch it while having breakfast and before heading off to work. I knew who Rush was by that point, but this was the one vehicle by which I saw and heard what he was doing.

    He would often be rollicking, but he would usually include a monologue that was deadly serious. The one that has always stuck with me (prompted by something during the rancid Clinton years) was when he said something to the effect that "Folks, this is heading in a bad direction. We're starting to think that life is simply a commodity - that we can create it or destroy it entirely at our own whim. If we keep this up, it will lead to a very dark place."

    I don't know anyone else caught his 30 minute TV show back then (either live or, like me, on following-morning rebroadcast), but that particular monologue really did have a profound (and serious) effect... as it should have had for everyone...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do remember the show. Unfortunately he was working the cigar even then. [sigh]

      The talk I remember was on the radio though. He described the characteristic of the Left to worship false gods.

      How many gods they've been through since then. George whatshisname just being one of the latest. The Horst Wessel of his age.

      Delete
  32. When speaking of William f Buckley always remember he was a real man. Sure he loved wealth and sounded a little soft, but he was a man’s man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We do owe WFB a debt of gratitude that, in its day, is similar to the one that we owe Rush today.

      Back in the day, the lefties tried to promulgate the idea that all smart, thinking people were naturally by definition going to be "progressive" - while anyone conservative/traditional at all was a troglodyte Neanderthal, a fossilized relic that would soon disappear from the scene.

      While this silly line of non-thought thought has never gone away (with the "bitter clingers" nonsense and such), WFB shot it full of holes and rendered it permanently untenable.

      Here was someone conservative - who was not only articulate... but obviously VERY SMART too. That alone made it impossible to dismiss "conservatives" as cavemen. And way back in the way-back day (before my time - just repeating what I was told), "Firing Line" served as a Rush-like breath of fresh air amidst the fetid swamp of leftist media propaganda group think. Here was high thought and high intellect - from and FOR conservatives.

      My two favorite WFB jibes are:

      "I would rather be governed by the first hundred names in the Boston telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty."

      "Back in 1964, all the 'smart' people told me that if I voted for Barry Goldwater, there would be riots in the streets of America and we'd get into a war in Asia. Well, I did and there were and we did."

      If you slough over the 1964 part (Rush was 13 at the time), if you told someone that those things were said by Rush rather than WFB, they'd probably believe you.

      Delete
  33. You are known by your enemies El Rushbo! And that's why we loved you man! I hear the golf in heaven is great, enjoy yourself Rush.

    ReplyDelete
  34. National Review: I gave up on them when they went Never Trump, and now they're trashing Rush, now that he's dead and cant fight back, NR now stands for NancyBoyReview. They are the lily-livered boys. The STUPID is STRONG in these ones. Who are the fools who buy the magazine?

    "Dougherty was unfit to shine Limbaugh's shoes." He would be fit for having Limbaugh's shoes wiped on him, though.

    Another thought: National Rotters would be a more correct name for the mag.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I would advise all conservatives as I have been for years since they went to the dark side to never read or donate money to the National Review. Let the Democrats continue to fund it as they have been doing for years! Rush did many fundraisers for these mostly never Trumper ingrates

    ReplyDelete
  36. <3 Tammy Bruce.

    Tammy Bruce on meeting Rush Limbaugh.

    In the 90s I was a host on a talk radio station in LA, the same that aired Rush. I was president of LA NOW, and the liberal wkend host when he visited the station. He was so vilified by my then-crowd, I expected a monster. Instead, I met a remarkable, kind, and encouraging man. He was gregarious & generous when we met. He shook my hand and I was shocked that he was nice and genuinely curious about my radio work and activism. I realized I was going to have a fascinating conversation. There were many events during this time as a radio talk show host that changed me. It was my first job in the medium starting in 1993. My meeting Rush and our conversations made me realize the left had been lying to me about many things. Rush was not a monster, he wasn’t evil, he did not mean people harm, he wasn’t a bigot, or any of the other smears lobbed against him by my leftist associates. I liked him very much, and while we disagreed on many things (then) he was nothing as he had been painted. n my conversations with him, we talked about the issues and despite the disagreements, he also took time to give me advice about hosting, style, connecting w the audience, etc. He encouraged me and gave me advice that made a huge difference in my career. He approached me and everyone else as separate individuals worthy of respect and with a desire to help and inspire. Regardless of the fact that I stood for everything he stood against. It was a generosity of spirit you would never see on the left. The impact of realizing that I’d been lied to about Rush was significant, but that as a conservative he represented more of what I felt was valuable & important was a revelation. He made it possible to even consider that which is what made him so dangerous to the left. During this time as an activist leftist, it was talk radio, the audience, and meeting Rush Limbaugh that was the undeniable trigger making it possible for me to rethink my alliances and eventually leave the leftist establishment. It wasn’t just Rush, but I’d also been lied to about conservatives in general, realizing that by speaking with callers every day who were conservative and responding fairly and w curiosity to my arguments on the air. Rush made that medium, and experience, possible. My leftist associates begged me not to go into talk radio. I eventually realized they were so opposed because of what I would learn. That leftist effort to deny access to ideas and info continues w even more vitriol and punishment for those who dare to challenge leftist lies. Rush created the potential of the medium and set the tone for entertainment, analysis, and education. Honest conversations open to everyone are anathema to the left which is why they’re obsessed w creating fear and the cancel culture. The ugliness of the left will be seen throughout today & the days to come in response to the death of Rush, an American titan, and defender of conservative values. The left is ugly and horrible but it is exactly their nature and should serve to remind you of the importance of our fight. The good news is, Rush not only changed our lives by helping us understand the imperative of freedom and generosity, but he now serves as an even more essential example for all of us. Rush may be gone, but now it’s up to all of us to continue his commitment to our great nation. Thank you, sir, for the time you took with an arrogant and smug LA leftist feminist, one of the millions of lives you changed for the better.
    (source: @heytammybruce Twitter)

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Standing Athwart History Yelling 'Ahoy!'"

    These Reagan-Fakers would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Beijing phone book--beginning with "Xi".

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank God for Rush, Trump and the 75+++ MILLION VOTERS who love America and seek to save it.
    .
    The clown NR author is a joke. There are many ways to measure success. Net worth of $600,000,000 is telling.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Can the geniuses at the Republican Establishment figure out what would happen to their Party without Rush and his 30 million strong audience? They think they're sitting pretty because if we don't want MarxistUSA, then we have no other choice but to either vote for them or surrender our Suffrage. That, or their denial of a stolen election means that they get some benefit from rigged electronic voting machines too. National Review is another word for the elitist ruling caste. They all have more in common with the Democrat Party than the Conservatives. To them, the rest of us are stuff stuck on their fancy leather shoes. So NR writer writes, "It is obvious that voting blocs of 70 or 80 million Americans cannot be adequately represented by one face or one type of character."

    Is he on crack? Isn't that what we're doing with Presidential elections? Don't all our Congressmen stay in their positions until they're taken out feet first or until their fingernails scratch the floor all the way to the Capitol steps while they desperately claw back to their seats? [I'm thinking of the day Nancy looses an election].

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well, NR founder William F. Buckley may have been a foundational conservative philosopher at cloud city level, with admirable works like God and Man at Yale, but he and his patrician chin-thrust and FDR-inspired accented loquacity never reached out beyond the rarified environs of the West Side of Manhattan. Mid-80's my brother, a hands-on working class Vietnam vet retired AF NCO, called me and said, "you have got to listen to this guy Limbaugh...he's the only one saying things I have been thinking for years but heard no one else say..."
    God has called in his talent loan. Rest easy Rush.....

    ReplyDelete
  41. I didn't know that National Review was still in business. How do they make money? Certainly not from leftists or MAGA. Talk about a small piece of the pie.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I dumped my NR subscription years ago. Never went back.

    ReplyDelete
  43. NR is a joke and has been for a long time. They are the epitome of RINO. The lead editors likely have giant posters of Romney, Ryan, McCain, etc, etc hanging in their "hallowed" halls. Gag. Collectively these elitist pricks might make a pimple on Rush's ass.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I left National Review years ago, when they started sounding just like the Pravda media. Why go there, when you just had to turn on tv to hear lies.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ich bin gemacht $ 84, 8254 soweit in diesem Jahr Online arbeiten und ich bin ein Vollzeitstudent. Ich benutze eine online-Geschäftsmöglichkeit, von der ich gehört habe und ich bin so viel Geld verdient. Es ist wirklich benutzerfreundlich, und ich bin einfach nur froh, dass ich fand heraus, über es. Hier ist, was ich Tue. für weitere Informationen öffnen Sie einfach diesen link danke....www.dollars9.com

    ReplyDelete
  46. I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart……… More Info

    ReplyDelete
  47. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month I generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum of 2 hours a day of my life. The easiest job in the world and the earnings from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and visit tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks......_http://kutt.it/ZHQmHU

    ReplyDelete
  48. People still read the National Review?! Why for God's sake? They are the poster boy for the expression "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good".

    ReplyDelete