Friday, January 22, 2016

RNC cuts debate ties with irrelevant-seen better days conservative magazine National Review over anti-Trump issue

Irrelevant conservative Rich Lowry, National Review  

I stopped taking National Review seriously the day one of its editors encouraged Mitt Romney to release his tax records when Harry Reid lied about him not paying his taxes.
  It was a PC knee-jerk reaction coming from a magazine that throws up the White Flag when the going gets tough.  National Review used to be a magazine worth paying attention to.  But, their era as being a strong conservative voice is way past.  We don’t need soft, willing to be accommodating to political correctness, conservatism.  That doesn’t cut it trying to fight against Obamaism.     
Fox News reports the Republican National Committee announced late Thursday that the venerable conservative magazine National Review had been dropped as a debate sponsor after it published an issue devoted to why voters should reject Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

RNC spokesman Sean Spicer confirmed to Buzzfeed News that the magazine had been dropped as a sponsor of the Feb. 25 debate in Houston, saying "a debate moderator can't have a predisposition."

"We expected this was coming," National Review publisher Jack Fowler wrote in a blog post early Friday, calling the RNC move  a "small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald."

The move by the RNC leaves CNN, Salem Media and Telemundo as the remaining debate sponsors. Earlier this week, the RNC announced that it had severed ties with NBC, the previously scheduled debate host, due to dissatisfaction with the way the network conducted a debate on CNBC this past October. 

The National Review issue, described as a "symposium", featured a collection of scathing anti-Trump essays from noted conservatives, underscoring the deep resistance that remains to his unorthodox candidacy, despite his commanding lead in early polls.
Two of the National Review essays came from Fox News contributors Katie Pavlich and Cal Thomas.

"Trump’s liberal positions aren’t in the distant past—he has openly promoted them on the campaign trail," Pavrich wrote. "Trump isn’t fighting for anyone but himself, which has been his pattern for decades."

More here


  1. So, the GOP establishment is not allowing criticism of Trump? Cannot have voices like Thomas Sowell, or Dana Loesch, or Katie Pavlich, or Andrew McCarthy heard I guess. WE have Bob Dole saying Cruz is a disaster, and Trump is better. I think we know who the REAL establishment guy is

  2. Doug

    I just think the GOP establishment is feeling the wrath of the conservative base and its embodid in Trump. It has nothing to do with his lack of conservatism. That dog doesn't hunt anymore.

    1. Sorry, Sam, but I'm not convinced of his conservatism either. He's talking about a complete 180 from virtually every political position he's ever held. Eight years ago there was another politician who got elected by telling people what they wanted to hear. Where is the empirical evidence that Trump has changed his stripes?

    2. I agree with Sam. The GOP has realized the necessity of falling into line with its base; and, like it or not, that base is supporting Trump.

  3. No worries Proof. I respect your position.

  4. Agree with your assertion that the GOP has come to the realization that to not support Trump, is to commit suicide. At least one entrenched establishment in Washington has realized its base is ready to mutiny.


FAIR WARNING-Due to high volume of Anonymous spam comments Anonymous comments will be automatically deleted. Spam is not welcome here.