Free Republic

'We Expected This Was Coming': National Review Publisher Reveals What Happened After Publishing Anti-Trump Issue The publisher of the National Review said late Thursday that his publication had been disinvited from the Feb. 25 Houston debate after it published a special "Against Trump" issue. Just got a call from top GOP official. @NRO disivinited from Houston debate on Feb. 25th becasue of #AgainstTrump. https://t.co/KrPECb1Mwz- Jack Fowler (@jackfowler) January 22, 2016 Jack Fowler wrote in an announcement that a "top official with the RNC" called to break the news to him."The reason: Our "Against Trump" editorial and symposium," he wrote. "We...

Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited [from the CNN debate]. The reason: Our "Against Trump" editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald.

Today, The National Review magazine, for decades the must-read monthly of the conservative movement, has published a yellow journal worthy of the best discourse Facebook has to offer. This formerly revered publication, founded and edited by William F. Buckley, Jr, was the premier resource for conservative commentary from 1955 until the illness and retirement of its renowned leader in the mid-2000s. The New York polite society of pious, trust-fund Ivy Leaguers who formed the backbone of the founding editorial staff had given National Review an air of the lamp-lit gentlemen's club: leather wing chairs, green velvet wall coverings, cigars and...

National Review's publication of the collective anti-Donald Trump missives from 22 self-appointed conservative potentates has caused quite a stir in Republican circles. The nationwide responses range from, "Wait, I thought National Review went out of business years ago," to "Ed Meese? Seriously?" The Gang of 22 have officially become parodies of themselves. One would have to reach back to the days of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew to lift an adequate quote to describe them. "Nattering nabobs of negativism," "vicars of vacillation," "pusillanimous pussyfooters," "the decadent few," "ideological eunuchs," "the effete corps of impudent snobs," or "the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs...

Last night, National Review published articles from twenty conservative intellectuals “Against Trump.” This afternoon, publisher Jack Fowler sent this letter to friends of the magazine: Dear Friend, Today is a big day for National Review. Our editors have made a very forceful defense of conservatism, of principle, and against the politics of attitude, in our editorial, Against Trump. We have received angry calls, and cancel ­my­ subscription demands. One in particular broke my heart. Well, let’s hope time heals. None of this was unexpected. But: We have also received very strong expressions of support from many NR friends. People who...

Sorry sight last night, post-Palin speech, seeing the Fourth Estaters pooh-pooh Republican charges that the media are pro-Obama. But perception is reality in politics, and according to a new SurveyUSA poll, this limited to Washington State registered voters, folks believe the press is pressing for the Democrat candidate. When asked "Is the media rooting for Barack Obama? Rooting for John McCain? Or trying its best to be fair to both?" 52% said "for Obama," 8% said "for McCain," 35% said "being fair to both." Interesting: 28% of Democrats, 28% of liberals, and 42% of moderates chose "for Obama." It would...