Posted on 07/01/2010 1:52:34 AM PDT by pissant
havent been keeping score, but my sense has been that National Review stays out of Republican congressional primary races, at least most of the time. This is a good thing. It reflects an ethos focused on the strategic direction of the conservative movement rather than tactical politics. It underscores that issues are more critical to us than personalities.
As a practical matter, moreover, it avoids diminishing the magazines prestige. A candidate who wins despite NRs endorsement of his opponent could become hostile and less open to our ideas especially because he knows NRs endorsement of the other guy will be used by the Left as a cudgel against him. And then theres NRs readership: Not only would the magazine appear less influential if its conservative readers reject its preferred candidate; readers will be doubly miffed if their preferred candidate loses a tight general-election race to a leftist who has exploited the NR endorsement.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
National Review is ruined.
Coulter had them pegged.
The meaning of ‘conservative’ escapes many.
Let’s ask McCain if he still thinks the Usurper is a good man. Those were his words during the election. Let’s ask him.
Hayworth should make use of it.
McCain did nothing when Barry very publicly PIMP slapped him during the Health Care “summit”. Girlymen indeed.
Yes. His only blunder is being so negative on Iraq. We won. We are leaving. It will stand.
I don’t know what that term is; sounds like something from BET or something, this is America, man. On the other hand, McCain is in on this whole thing just like all the other Pubes who don’t want to speak up against the pure and utter evil that resides in our country.
Maddening sometimes, but surely not ruined.
Still a great resource - lots of good contributors.
Glad they gave Frum (pro-abort) and Junior Buckley (loopy) the boot.
Not sure why the reins where given to Lowry and not Brookhiser - both are smart as all get-out, but Brookhiser seems a bit more, well, manly.
NR has jumped the shark. I wouldnt be surprised when 20-30 years from now if NR turns into a typical extremist liberal rag.
Why Frum(Canadian Lib) was there at all I don’t know.
Great article by McCarthy, and the above summary well points out the hypocrisy and appalling lack of consistency on issues that many who've endorsed McCain have displayed. It is amazing that so many political commentators have admitted their many differences with McCain, but still chose to endorse him. I've stop listening to several talkers and now dismiss the opinions of several columnists because this degree of inconsistency can't be explained away. Maybe all these McCain endorsers, few if any who ever served in the military, are eaten up with some sort of guilt complex they just can't shake when it comes to evaluating Juan McCain's long history of stabbing his party in the back.
McCain is a sort of litmus test, who flushed out those more guided by Beltway cronyism than by principle, and those who possess some psychological flaw which renders them unable to admit how totally at odds McCain has been with his party's principles for years.
Andrew McCarthy (and others) strongly continues the legacy of William Buckley’s intellect and conservatism at National Review. This is why National Review still provides much value. If we condemn all of NR, we’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater (imo).
Can’t be trusted = ruined.
I live 30 miles from those signs Governor Brewer is talking about (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDlN7VLmXQ).
I don’t have any more time for this National Review silliness.
I'm all for NR getting involved in primaries. I want a primary in National Review so we can get conservative editors there.
Great tagline nomination!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.