Love the 86 issue, George Will and Jeanne Kirkpatrick-our enemies and Tories. Now I know why his supporter hauls out “you’re a Torie” when accusing me of being a traitor. Wish they had page 5, “Why the Republicans Deserved to Lose”
I’ve read several of the newsletters. Not sure any of them are “daming” or “devestating.” However, RP needs to address who wrote what articles. One can tell that the articles on race issues have a different author than the ones on, say, government waste.
That said, I think it’s the rhetoric of the newsletters that is cuasing offense in conservative circles, rather than what’s said. Here on FR and elsewhere, the same criticisms have been made vis-a-vis paternal government welfare policies and their crippling effect on black culture. The “95%” stat I’ve seen cited I haven’t been able to find in a newsletter. However, what exactly was said and what number is closer to the truth?
As for the MLK articles, again, I think the rhetoric or glee with with the incriminations are presented is what sets folks off. Also, one fears whether MLK’s allegations were part of a government smear campaign and why a civil libertarian would applaud such data-warehousing on folks who threaten to upset the government apple-cart.
A lot of the other stuff is just vintage conservative/sall gov/leave folks alone ideas, sometimes (not always) expressed badly.
The difference in tone between these articles and RP’s congressional speeches is striking. Which is the real “voice” of RP? Do any candidates write their own material any more? What is anyone’s “real” voice if no one writes their own stuff? One answer is to be careful of who you let write your stuff under your name.
Folks should read as many of the newsletters as they can, at least the ones linked at TNR, not just the snippets.