National
Review (NR), founded by William F. Buckley Jr. in 1955, was once regarded as
the main outlet of American conservatives. Decades later Rush Limbaugh triumphed on the radio, Fox News won audiences on TV, and Breitbart
won the internet, yet NR had a special place in the hearts of conservatives.
But all of that
changed in 2015 when Donald Trump launched his Presidential campaign. Trump was
not a traditional conservative but he supported all the conservative ideas that
the National Review claims to stand for all these decades.
Yet their attitude
towards Trump was particularly caustic.
Now that Trump
announced his new presidential bid, the NR's venomous fangs are out again
The editorial board
of NR rejected Trump as a candidate for the Republican nomination for president
in 2024 in an article entitled ‘No’
They begin by giving
Trump credit in a bid to appear to be fair.
They give Trump
credit for ending the Clinton dynasty in 2016, three SC constitutionalist
justices, reforming taxes, pushing deregulation, protecting the border,
significantly degrading ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and bringing about
normalization deals between Israel and the Gulf states.
Unsurprisingly there
is no gratitude for ending the Bush dynasty, which should give everyone a clue
about the motivations behind this piece
Then the NR pivot
straight to the attacks.
They claim “the Trump
administration was chaotic even on its best days because of his erratic nature
and lack of seriousness.” They claim he “repeatedly had to be talked
out of disastrous ideas by his advisers and Republican elected officials.” They
claimed Trump “had a limited understanding of our constitutional system, and at
the end of the day, little respect for it.” Obviously, they mention Trump's
mean tweets.
All of the above are
the usual allegations made by the liberal corporate media without many bases
from information leaked by 'sources'. How shameful that a 'conservative' outlet
is following repeating them.
They forget that
Trump’s achievement deserves higher praise because it was done during the relentless
Democrat campaigns to unseat him via the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and the
bogus impeachment.
The NR sticks to the
Democrat narratives of the insurrection and claims Trump incited a mob to storm
the Capitol.
There is no mention
of Ray Epps. There is no mention of the FBI’s refusal to comment if their
informers were part of the mob. There is no mention of Trump urging his
supporters to protest peacefully and patriotically.
There is no mention
of how Covid-19 was an excuse to compromise
the electoral process. There is no mention of big tech suppressing and
discrediting anti-Biden stories and one in five Americans saying that
"truthful" coverage would have changed
the 2020 election outcome.
There is no mention
of Mark Zuckerberg donating nearly
$419 million to left-wing activists to lobby for universal
mail-in voting and to infiltrate sacrosanct election infrastructure.
There is no mention
that sixty-nine
percent of voters nationwide cast their
ballot nontraditionally — i.e., by mail on or before Election Day.
NR is from the school
that believes that a Republican should always be gracious i.e. concede defeat
even before a contest has begun and compromise on their principles even if they
win.
The NR doesn’t mention the Stalinist January 6th kangaroo court trial which is illegal and unfair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePxjwXAIf2E&feature=emb_title
The NR also blames
Trump for the mid-term losses, despite the fact that his endorsements had
a 95
percent success rate. They blame Trump for the loss of seats in the House
and Senate and reducing of GOP governors across the nation since 2015.
They obviously do not
blame the people in charge namely Mitch McConnell who attacked
MAGA candidates and withdrew funds in a key senate race or Ronna
McDaniel for being a placid spectator or Kevin McCarthy for being
overconfident.
The NR urges GOP
voters to “give up on the idea that Trump is a winner.” They cite the fact that
Trump did not exceed 47 percent in either of his campaigns to imply a very
narrow electoral path. They also claim that “with all that’s transpired since
2020, Trump is weaker than in his first two races."
The NR claims
Democrats are pining to run against Trump again in 2024 so they can replicate
this experience on a much larger scale.
If that were the case
the Democrats would not have placed so many impediments before Trump via the
myriad probes. The Biden DOJ and FBI wouldn’t have conducted a raid on Trump’s
home. The Democrat PR wing that masquerades as the media would have promoted
Trump.
The reason there is a
focused campaign against Trump proves that they still know he is a force to
reckon with in his party and beyond.
NR concedes
that “Trump is a magnetic political figure who has managed to bond
countless millions of Republicans to him. Many GOP voters appreciate his
combativeness and hate his enemies, who so often engaged in excesses in pursuit
of him.”
However, they add
that the primaries will present voters with other Republicans “monumentally
selfish or morally and electorally compromised.”
They also add that
Trump will be 78 years old if elected and ineligible to serve two terms.
Overall, the NR’s
piece sounded identical to the various pieces in
the NYT and the pieces in The
WaPo. NR even had phrases
identical to MSNBC.
In other words, the
NR sounded like Democrat mouthpieces who slammed and dismissed. NR attempted to
second-guess voters in primary contests.
How did the NR react
when Trump launched his campaign in 2015?
They slammed Trump
calling him ‘wrong
for the GOP’. They claimed Trump was an affront to those devoted
to NR’s founder Buckley. They called Trump an ‘Anti-Constitutional
Authoritarian’, they called him a conman and
they called him divisive.
The NR probably
prefers the Bushes, the McCains, and the Romneys who seldom stand for conservative principles and who willingly accept their position of being second-class
citizens in D.C. and the muck pelted at them by the left.
Romney marched in a BLM rally. Romey, Bush, and McCain condemned Trump and MAGA republicans
All through the Trump
Presidency the NR seldom stood by Trump, on occasion they remained spectators
and even attacked Trump with left-wing talking points.
The NR's recent article rejecting Trump is
consistent with their overall attitude in recent years.
For seven years,
various media outlets dedicated news space to claim that Trump is
finished as a political force. As they predict his irrelevance they use Trump's name and photos to draw consumers.
It has to be remembered that those who are truly finished will never ever receive mention in any of these outlets. Jeb Bush and John Kasich have never ever been written or spoken about in the news media because they are truly obsolete, the only way they can get some coverage is to attack Trump.
In the end, no media outlet, not the NYT or the WaPo or the NR or the Murdoch media can decide the relevance of Trump.
That remains strictly the right of the voters during the primaries and the general elections.
Trump's journey to
the White House in 2024 won't be easy, but neither has it ever been before.
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment