1. Ive read National Review @NRO for a long time. I think its important to read material across the ideological spectrum. But there are enough conspiracy theory blogs in the crazy reaches of conservatives; i dont need to read another one posing as thoughtful. I'm done with NRO...
2...today, NRO features a number of pieces that I would think were from the Onion if I didn't know better. It was like a parody of every looney thing that gets spewed from the furthest reaches of the internet. The women who confronted Flake on the elevator? Oh, ACORN, Soros...
3...booogy-boogy. "Because they are democratic activists, they are lying about their sexual assaults." The writer knows nothing about what happened to these women, but he has created a new standard: Any Democratic activist who says she was sexually assaulted is lying. I was....
4...however quite amazed that the writer didn't mention Benghazi, emails, birth certificates, and the other top forty of conservative conspiracy theories. No, he stuck with ACORN and Soros. The use of Occam's Razor - these women were so anguished in discussing their sexual....
5...assaults because they were sexually assaulted - is not even considered. Then, another piece: The left has weaponized Congressional investigations. No seriously, they said this, without even the slightest sense of shame. The party that spent 4 years investigating a....
6...terrorist attack, which resulted in 10 investigations, all of which reached the same conclusion, so formed a special investigating committee to investigate AGAIN, focusing all of its attention on a former government official who had been out of office for years but....
7....who just happened to be running for the democratic nomination - no, that was legitimate. The other thing that @NRO has fallen into - calling democrats "the left" and "leftists." This is the new trope among conservatives, the latest variation of "Democrat Party." They....
8...can't just call them democrats. They have to use the same name they use for socialists and communists from the 1950s. But the bottom line of this: @NRO seriously is arguing that, when a woman steps forward to claim she was sexually assaulted by a judicial nominee, and....
9...establushes that she has been saying this for years, @NRO finds it OUTRAGEOUS that democrats would want such a thing investigated. Or, when Republicans try to shove past it with their show-trial (he said/she said - oh, he denied it! Let's vote!) that people reacted with....
10...outrage that this woman was being shoved aside and ignored, why, anyone who didn't say that was dandy was just a leftist weaponizer using Congress for opposition research. So the two messages here: If you are a democrat and say you were sexually assaulted, it is suspect....
1...and if you accuse a Republican man, it is outrageous that anyone would even consider conducting an investigation.
@NRO really did used to be a useful magazine that presented thoughtful, interesting pieces. Now, for business purposes, it has devolved into just another...
@NRO really did used to be a useful magazine that presented thoughtful, interesting pieces. Now, for business purposes, it has devolved into just another...
12...part of the conservative scream/conspiracy bubble. If William F. Buckley Jr. saw the horror show his magazine has become, how it appeals to the worst of our souls, he would have been appalled. So, @NRO - take Buckley's name out of your history. You arent what he founded.
...my background with @NRO - Ive been reading it since 1984, probably longer than a lot of its writers have been alive. So I know what it was. And I can tell what it is. And those have nothing to do with each other. Despite it's pre-election attack on Trumpism, it joined the fold
