Anti-Trump Conservative Magazine NOW PRO-TRUMP
The National Review has been no friend of Donald Trump.
I recall being in Cleveland at the Republican Convention, when the National Review team conspired with Bill Kristol to torpedo President Trump.
Here’s what The Street reported on the rift at one point in the race for the Republican nomination:
National Review has decided to take a stand against Donald Trump. The think-magazine founded by revered conservative William F. Buckley has published an issue dedicated to bashing the Republican frontrunner.
Inside are 22 short essays by noted conservatives like Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz, explaining that he’s like President Obama (Beck), conservatives should yell “stop” (Kristol), and that he’s like a more political Howard Stern (Podhoretz). So far, the repercussions has been a strong Twitter rebuke from The Donald and the Republican National Committee disinviting the magazine from co-hosting a February 26 debate in Houston.
President Trump responded:
Trump invoked the magazine’s founder, William F. Buckley.
This caused Ted Cruz to join in the battle,
“Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan,” Cruz said.
Next, Trump replied to Cruz:
“Conservatives actually do come out of Manhattan, including William F. Buckley.”
Obviously, Cruz realized then that Trump was no pushover.
Later in the year things heated up further, as Sean Hannity entered the fray.
In what was supposed to be a moment of unity within the Republican Party following the national convention, presidential nominee Donald Trump has fostered a party consumed by infighting, much of which is taking place within right-wing media. Fox News anchor Sean Hannity has been at the center of the brawl, going to battle against conservative magazine National Review and an editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump spurred a civil war among the Republican Party following a week where the campaign has been rocked by Trump’s extended fight with a Gold Star family, staff firings, his refusal to endorse several Republican leaders, a variety of additional bizarre and extreme comments, and cratering poll numbers. NBC’s Chuck Todd has described this as a “crisis” faced by the campaign, stemming from Trump’s “36 hours of total and complete chaos.” Several Congressional Republicans have refused to endorse Trump, with Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) announcing he will vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
The disarray is not limited to the Republican Party. Infighting also broke out within conservative media circles this week over the GOP nominee. Sean Hannity, a fervent Trump supporter and defender, along with Breitbart News, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, and Ann Coulter lashed out against what they called “establishment Republicans” who tepidly endorsed the nominee and the Republicans who refuse to support Trump, saying they would be to blame if Trump loses in November. Several right-wing media figures, including George Will, Erick Erickson, and radio host Charlie Sykes, have said they would not support Trump.
We all know the outcome. Trump won, and so did all his ardent supporters.
A Trump win meant the National Review lost. Because President Trump’s performance shut down the naysayers. So now it seems the National Review is “kindler and gentler” towards President Trump. Or maybe they just decided to give the man a fair chance?
As National Review reported,
Will President Trump order the disclosure of any warrant applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the FISA Court) in which the Justice Department and FBI presented any information derived from the Steele dossier?
We don’t need to imperil national security. There is no need to disclose the entirety of any application. There is no need to expose intelligence sources or methods of gathering information — they can be redacted. We don’t even need to see any actual application; a declassified summary of the relevant information will do. We just need to know if what administration supporters are saying is true: In seeking surveillance authority on the rationale that Trump associates were acting as agents of a foreign power, did the Justice Department and the FBI present the FISA court with the Steele dossier as if it were a product of U.S. intelligence reporting — rather than what it really was, a political opposition-research product commissioned by the Clinton campaign?
That is an explosive charge. So, at the very least, will the president order the Justice Department to provide any such FISA applications to the House Intelligence Committee — preferably along with an explanation of why the president’s own appointees at the Justice Department and the FBI have been defying the committee’s requests for information?
Be still my heart, but the National Review requests that President Trump expose the DC dirt?
They do realize the Shrapnel could hit some establishment Republicans?
Bill Kristol remains reticent, as he realizes that with all his brilliance, he chose wrong. Sadly, Kristol is worse than some 16-year-old teenie bopper dating the 35-year-old biker hellyan, just to piss off Daddy.
Isn’t there something creepy about corporations giving cash bonuses to employees explicitly because of the passage of certain legislation or because of specific regulatory actions? Doesn’t it have something of a Road to Corporatist Serfdom feel to it?
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) December 20, 2017
Kristol got blasted by social media, including me.
Great way to think about it actually: What would your response be if, due to rising corporate tax rates, firms started taking away bonuses? Identical phenomenon.
— data golf (@DataGolf) December 20, 2017
But the National Review seems to be coming around. And you can bet that many others are as well.
Republicans haven’t known what winning feels like in quite some time. Now they do!