Mark Levin Takes The Battle To NRO

Keep in mind, we're all just warming up. The battle to come after November is going to make this stuff seem like a slap fight. And most everyone already knows that by now.

Yes, McCain is a known notoriously flawed individual. But he's a part of the GOP establishment NRO is beholden to. And that's just a fact. It's abandoned the legacy of Buckley, movement-wise, cashing it in for an operation that looks more like a K Street concern, than a conservative mag.

As I recall, National Review endorsed John McCain over J.D. Hayworth. I don't recall any concerns mentioned about his Keating Five role or his widely reported temper tantrums. No, J.D., we were told, had all kinds of flaws. Hell, he even did an infomerical promoting federal grants, which would not have to be paid back. These, they concluded, were fatal flaws. All of McCain's disastrous positions and tactics over the years -- from his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, promotion of cap-and-trade, support of amnesty, draconian efforts to limit free political speech, etc., etc., were to be forgiven, or in the big scheme of things, tolerated. I believe we will pay a heavy price for McCain's return.

NRO has learned nothing over the years. They seek to be some Right-side equivalent of a mainstream media. By definition, they should be advocating for conservatism, or at least, not hurting it. But they want to be seen as better than that by the inside the beltway set. Hence, they always walk a line, falling into DC, as opposed to outside, where they might get their khakis dirty mixing with the great unwashed - one I believe Buckley valued - and would value more today, than NRO, as currently comprised.

Think I'm being too harsh? Leftist movement publications would never do what NRO does. It's more interested in being seen as some honest and elite broker by the beltway set, than the grassroots conservatives they now falsely claim to represent. They simply are no longer a movement publication. They are GOP establishment - fat, a bit too rich, even if always hat in hand, and woefully misguided in navigating the greatest political battlefield of our time. But they'll have great access to the liberal Castle's staff if he wins, so, I guess there's that that is in it for them. There just isn't all that much in NRO for grassroots conservatives these days. Pity, but they're above all that, doncha know!

Comments

[Ragspierre]

I agree with Mark.

I even agree with SOME of what you say about NRO.

Your binary view of NRO is off; it isn't homogeneous.

We do not need to eat our own.

We do not need to hyperbolize.

We CAN criticize our friends (or even friend-ish types) without demonizing them.

[Dan Riehl]

Oh, but our friends can eat conservative candidates? Sorry, if they can do that, we can eat them.

[Ragspierre]

No, Dan. I suggest it ISN'T alright for them to eat our friends (although Hayward was not my friend). We SHOULD criticize them when they're wrong (and, IMNHO, they were WRONG to endorse McAnus).

We just need to do it a bit more...I dunno...constructively. And without resorting to generalization when it really isn't appropriate. Mark posts to NRO, too, ya know...

[Jeff]

too many eggheads at NRO ...

they just made a big deal about one of their writers finishing up his PHD ...

too few dirty finger nails over there ... yes, some of the writers are good but too many are just intellectual mercenaries with a passing nod to conservatism in general ...

[ThomasD]

Dan, I agree. After November the fight is on. The only thing I would ask is that some remain (at least partially) focused on kicking the collective (heh) asses of the Wiggle's and Frieddorks' who will seek to capitalize on the action.

Might as well figure on Allahpundit getting in on the action too, once it becomes clear to the MSM paymasters that the aforementioned Mobys are too marginalized to be of benefit...

[Gary Ogletree]

NRO could be a lot worse. They have some very writers, and guests. They also have some RINOs. Don't let the RINOs throw you off. McCain may have learned a few things thanks to Sarah Palin. He may not be sucking up to the BFF media that trashed him two years ago. Did he learn enough for us to put up with him? We will see.

[Ragspierre]

"they just made a big deal about one of their writers finishing up his PHD ..."

Dude! Mark Levin holds a doctorate!

Like me, it may be a dirty doctorate, but...hey.

VD Hanson holds a doctorate!

You can't shoot the guys with an education. Some of us STILL have dirty fingernails...and common sense.

[Rcocean]

No Dan, you don't need to be more "Constructive". We already have too many 'Little Lord Fauntleroys', afraid to actually get mad about anything. I'm glad Dan and Levin are attacking NR even though its a little late in the game. NR lost all credibility when they fired Coulter, hired Frum, and called Novak 'unpatriotic', not to mention their mindless cheerleading for McCain and Bush.

[TC@LeatherPenguin]

"Hence, they always walk a line, falling into DC, as opposed to outside, where they might get their khakis dirty mixing with the great unwashed - one I believe Buckley valued - and would value more today, than NRO, as currently comprised."

They have forgotten--if not downright currently completely repudiate--WFB's famous "Boston phone book" quip. They, and their ilk, no doubt believe that it is THEY who should be telling us poor rubes what we should do, like that asinine idiot Frum, when it comes to 'electorial strategerying™.' Levin was right to disassociate himself from NRO, since it has become obvious they are all about playing a short game (aka:mini-golf) instead of taming a professional course.

It's not about the Tea Party energy; it's about the DC cocktail party entreaties.

[Lightwave]

The real bad guy here is Liberalism and the Democrats, folks.

Say what you will about NRO but Jonah Goldberg is dead right when he theorized that the eventual endpoint of any liberal system is always complete and total fascism.

[Ran / Si Vis Pacem]

Dan, methinks your argument might serve better if you took aim rather specifically at the girlie-man in chief. With him/her out of the way, the cozy Republican cluster relationship would need a "reset." There are some talented and motivated libertarians & conservatives on board who could better navigate.

Then again, Mark Levin might do better instead to get busy working *with*, say, The American Spectator or Human Events than to take pot-shots at NR.

http://spectator.org/

http://www.humanevents.com/

Cheers.

[Tom]

NRO's Jonah Goldberg summed up William F. Buckely's well-known election philosphy best - with which I agree and which I believe is still applicable:

"Buckley's policy was always that he was for the most conservative candidate ELECTABLE."

What's the point of supporting candidates - no matter how great they are - who have little or no chance of actually winning? If you don't win a seat at the table . . . you ain't at the table.

[SM]

"Say what you will about NRO but Jonah Goldberg is dead right when he theorized that the eventual endpoint of any liberal system is always complete and total fascism"

What a brilliant insight. Too bad it was made decades before by other, smarter men.

[SM]

"Buckley's policy was always that he was for the most conservative candidate ELECTABLE."

Yes, that's why he supported Barry Goldwater. There is a lot of revisionist history going on here.

The reality is that National Review has been drifting to the left for a long time now. At this stage, as Dan mentions, it scarcely deserves to be called "conservative" - it's now the spokespiece of the GOP establishment.
It's a reluctant follower rather than a leader.

[Ragspierre]

"Buckley's policy was always that he was for the most conservative candidate ELECTABLE."

**Yes, that's why he supported Barry Goldwater. There is a lot of revisionist history going on here.**

Damn sure is, and you are guilty of doing some of it.

Andy McCarthy writes for NRO, as does VDH and about a dozen others we can name who are standard-bearers of this movement.

Geez, you'd think we didn't have any target-rich environments for our disdain...

[jakee308]

More like what would pass for conservative among the well to do crowd along the Northeastern shore. They're just barely fiscons and only if they happened to have to have worked for their stash. If they got it from grandad or daddy then forget it, they think taxes should be higher and prove it by electing democrats to office all along the shore (in some cases the virus has spread inland but mostly you find these elite rich types within 20 miles of the ocean, sound or bay.

I've lived among them so as to see how they live and who they elect and where they spend their money. To them we're the folks who do the roof and collect the garbage i.e. a necessary evil but nobody they'd want to or see the need to get to know.

It's my biggest negative in re the GOP; too many snobs and white shoe old money.

I see that the media is keeping up the meme that the Tea Party is just a more active Republican Party.

They're in for some more 'unexpected' news.

[Xiaoding]

"What's the point of supporting candidates - no matter how great they are - who have little or no chance of actually winning? If you don't win a seat at the table . . . you ain't at the table."

A valid point...and a losing one.

Why be at a table, but sell your soul to get the seat?

The point is to NOT be at that table!

The point is, to de-legitimize the table, the whole table proccess. The people at the table, can then no longer claim, to represent the people. They lose legitimacy. The system must change at that point, or violent revolution follows.

We are at the point now, where enough people see, that not being at the table, is more important than having some sell-out there. Either elect a true conservative, or leave that seat EMPTY.

[Paul Zummo]

"Either elect a true conservative, or leave that seat EMPTY."

Except that the seat won't be empty. It will be filled with a radical leftist who is going to vote for Charles Schumer to be the Senate majority leader.

I care not a lick for lefty Republicans, but it's not some sort of meta selling out of our principles to hope that a moderate wins a seat that will otherwise be won by a flaming loon leftist. This is not Alaska or Utah or even Pennsylvania, and O'Donnell is not Miller or Lee or Toomey.

[SM]

"Andy McCarthy writes for NRO"

Andy was brought on board for his anti-Islamic credentials. NRO was surprised and disconcerted to discover that they'd accidentally brought on board a full-blown conservative at the same time.

"you'd think we didn't have any target-rich environments for our disdain..."

We do have a target rich environment in the Republican Party. National Review is now one of those targets. It pains me to say it, as I was an avid reader of NR (in print) not all that long ago. But they've been moving steadily to the left and that shows no signs of stopping.

Once upon a time, NR represented the conservative wing of the GOP. Nobody could make that statement today with a straight face. As Dan said -

"They simply are no longer a movement publication. They are GOP establishment - fat, a bit too rich, even if always hat in hand, and woefully misguided in navigating the greatest political battlefield of our time"

[Bob]

Isn't it better to go for the House this year and focus on the Senate in 2012? I think if we go for the more conservative candidate now, it serves notice that other office seekers have to straighten up.
RINO republicans are all liberals and detrimental to us. If the Senate is in Republican hands, and many of them are RINOS, what have we gained? Having McCain, and similar in charge is like being run by a cabal of our enemies.
I've been on 2 NRO cruises. Mark Styne is great, Andy McCarthy wonderful...but 90 per cent of the cruisers are ancient, reflecting something about the Republican readership of the magazine.

[SM]

"90 per cent of the cruisers are ancient, reflecting something about the Republican readership of the magazine."

It probably reflects the demographics of the sort of people who go on cruses - retired (with time on their hands) and wealthy.

"RINO republicans are all liberals and detrimental to us."

Yes, this is the problem. We already know the consequences of being "pragmatic" and electing moderate Republicans (like McCain). We saw those consequences in the Bush years, and they came damn near to destroying the GOP.

[Xiaoding]

"Except that the seat won't be empty. It will be filled with a radical leftist who is going to vote for Charles Schumer to be the Senate majority leader."

I fail to see the difference. At least the leftist is commited to some sort of principles!

Look where we are now. We got here, by settling for moderates. Time for settling is over.

[Ragspierre]

Michelle Malkin, NRO.

Please, people...!!!!

[SM]

"Michelle Malkin, NRO."

She is not "NRO". They publish some of her columns there form time to time. But she'e not part of the NRO editorial structure and has zero input on the magazines or websites direction.

Never in a million years would Malkin have endorsed John Mccain.

[Ragspierre]

Gee, SM, you know the innermost thoughts of NRO...or pretend you do.

They brought McCarthy on for his anti-Islamist views? Is THAT all he writes about?

They ONLY publish Malkin, but she has no influence on the organization? How do you come by that?

Now, granted, Lowery is NOT my idea of a movement conservative, but...really...

Go down a list of their authors. You will find a dozen or more of the most important THINKERS of the conservative movement.

We agree they were WRONG in endorsing McAnus. That does NOT make them a pack of Leftie-lites. Malkin sure does not agree with that.

[Ragspierre]

Today on National Review Online . . .


ROBERT COSTA: Sen. Jim DeMint hopes for great things for the GOP in November -- but tells NRO that winning isn't enough. November, and Beyond.

MONA CHAREN: Before peace can come, Palestine's culture must be changed. These Talks Are Doomed.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Some presidents may not like being wartime leaders. But they don't get to decide; history does. Obama, Our Distracted Command-in-Chief.

JIM GERAGHTY: Hey, look, it's another lousy jobs report. The Only Thing This Administration Can Construct Is a Narrative.

WILLIAM VOEGELI: The important thing now is to avoid any mistakes that could make a slow recovery even slower. First, Do No Harm.

REA HEDERMAN: Crunching the numbers in this anemic jobs report reveals some good news. Two Bright Spots for Workers.

JOHN DERBYSHIRE: John Derbyshire on Ron Paul, the GZ mosque, gypsies, and more. August Diary.

JONAH GOLDBERG: I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Bill Clinton. Obama Needs Salesmanship.

RICH LOWRY: Tea partiers are mad as heck, and they're letting the world know -- politely. The Revolt of the Bourgeois.

YUVAL LEVIN: In a room full of poli-sci Ph.D.'s, civic engagement is wildly popular -- and the tea parties most definitely aren't. Isn't This What You're Talking About?

MICHELLE MALKIN: When it comes to terrorizing workers, the head of the AFL-CIO knows whereof he speaks. Big Labor's Legacy of Violence.

MATTHEW SHAFFER: Some bad news about college tuition. 'Makes the Housing Bubble Look Pretty Lame by Comparison.'

REIHAN SALAM: A payroll tax holiday? Why didn't Obama think of this before he pushed the stimulus? The Right Time for a Payroll Tax Cut?

UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE: Haley Barbour for president? The Mississippi governor responds. Politics with Haley Barbour, Part 5.

*******
Maybe you can't learn anything from reading that. I can.

I don't think I'll burn them down.

[John Burke]

It's outlandish to think that Bill Buckley would not agree that nominating and electing Castle is the right thing to do to enhance the possibility of a crucial change in control of the Senate. Buckley's argument was with a GOP in New York and the nation that was largely dominated by a heavily Eastern Establishment embodied over decades by Wendell Wilkie, Tom Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower, somewhat ironically Richard Nixon, Henry Cabot Lodge, Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, George Romney, at al., not to mention WFB's favorite target, John Lindsay. Nonetheless, Buckley had no hesitation in giving his support to Republicans over Democrats at every turn, except for the zealously liberal like Lindsay and Javits -- because he was not a fool. It should be clear to all that Mike Castle is no John Lindsay or Jacob Javits, who voted on the liberal side of almost every issue.

Castle has a 50% ACA rating. What would be a satisfactorily conservative rating? 60% How about 65%? One thing we know for sure: Castle could be the decisive vote for GOP control of the Senate -- and that alone is enough reason to elect him. If his primary opponent could also win election handily -- as was the case with either Republican in the Alaska primary -- that's one thing. Expecting just any Republican to win in Delaware is very much another. Not gonna happen.

[SM]

"Gee, SM, you know the innermost thoughts of NRO...or pretend you do."

Silly me, I should have realized that knowing the the innermost thoughts of NRO, or pretending to, was your bailiwick.

"They ONLY publish Malkin, but she has no influence on the organization? How do you come by that?"

She has no control over the editorial direction of the organization, that's how. When they make her a senior editor, get back to me on this.

"We agree they were WRONG in endorsing McAnus. That does NOT make them a pack of Leftie-lites. Malkin sure does not agree with that."

I should have realized that you know the innermost thoughts of Michelle Malkin, or pretend to.

[Ragspierre]

No, no, dear.

I'm not the one who CLAIMED (silly claim, too) "Andy was brought on board for his anti-Islamic credentials."

Then this: "She has no control over the editorial direction of the organization, that's how. When they make her a senior editor, get back to me on this."

I know who the editorial staff is. Are they the only people who have influence? Silly argument from you...again.

"I should have realized that you know the innermost thoughts of Michelle Malkin, or pretend to."

Nooooo, no. I pretend to nothing of the kind. Malkin PUBLISHES her stuff there. That leads me to...I dunno...surmise she doesn't find them antithetical to her views. Whaddaya think???

Also, note Mr. Levin's Facebook blurb. He doesn't call anybody a name. He doesn't SUGGEST they are ALL sell-outs. He takes reasoned exception to Jim Geraghty's apparent support for Castle. He calls on him to maintain perspective.

Hmm... Not a bad idea, that....

[SM]

"It's outlandish to think that Bill Buckley would not agree that nominating and electing Castle is the right thing to do to enhance the possibility of a crucial change in control of the Senate."

Oh, balls. This is the same Buckley who refused to endorse Nixon in his re-election campaign.

Electing Castle does nothing in terms of a "crucial change" in the Senate. The insinuation behind all this sort of talk runs like this:

"We already have 48 solid Republican Senators, so lsts do what we have to to get the number of Senate Republicans in the Senate over 50, including electing Castle if necessary. That way all our conservative Republicans will be running the important committees."

The problem with this is that the GOP Senate caucus is already teeming with people like Castle, not with conservatives. So what you actually accomplish with a Senator Mike Castle is to move the Republican Party to the left, and NOT to empower conservatives.

We saw this all through the Bush years, as the party pandered relentlessly to the Chaffees and Jeffords and Specters..
The result of Republicans trying to be "pragmatic" and electing liberals is that the Democratic party takes power.

Because the people want a choice, not a echo.

[SM]

"No, no, dear."

Oh, thop it, honey-bunch!

[fortcww]

Buckley helped elect Joe Lieberman over the Republican in 1988.

Here's from Ann C.'s beautiful obit of WFB (google Ann Enfant Terrible):

With liberal Republicans still bothering everyone even after Reagan, Buckley went all out against liberal Republican Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. When Democrat Joe Lieberman challenged Weicker for the Senate in 1988, National Review ran an article subtly titled: "Does Lowell Weicker Make You Sick?"

Buckley started a political action committee to support Lieberman, explaining, "We want to pass the word that it's OK to vote for the other guy or stay at home." The good thing about Lieberman, Buckley said, was that he "doesn't have the tendency of appalling you every time he opens his mouth."

[Kyle]

Ragspie, sure McCarthy and VDH write on NRO. The site wouldn't be of any value otherwise. Ever notice how often McCarthy has to try and straighten out the other 80%? You can usually hear a collective sigh on
the Corner each time the guy posts. Ever notice how quickly Ramesh gets going to cross McCarthy's T's and dot his I's, to clean up the conservativism dripping from McCarthy posts? NRO is a well funded Mag and blog with Ivy League silver spoon pedigree.

[Ragspierre]

Dan said: "Think I'm being too harsh? Leftist movement publications would never do what NRO does."

Maybe somewhere in there is the key.

Conservatives are not homogeneous. We do not think in lock-step. Integrity and critical thought are important to us. Because we respect others, and ourselves, we feel that others like us can respect what we say.

That is the spirit in which Mark Levin wrote, I think. I think that is what distinguished Buckley and Reagan.

It is no bad thing to emulate. Personally, I do not want to be like Leftists. Not. At. All.

[Rcocean]

This stuff about Buckley is absurd. WFB supported Goldwater in '64. He ran against Lindsey in '66 (the most conservative 'electable' Republican) because he wanted Lindsey out of the Party. He supported "extremist" Reagan in '76 over Ford (who was supported by Goldwater). He supported a Democrat over Weiker.

It made absolutely no sense to support someone like Crist or Spector who pretended to be somewhat conservative and then bolted the party when its convenient for them. It makes no sense to keep re-electing people Graham or McCain when in six years you could elect a REAL conservative.

And when faced with a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican - vote Democrat. At least you can then nominate a conservative next time without NR telling you have to support the liberal R incumbent.

[anon]

"Oh, but our friends can eat conservative candidates? Sorry, if they can do that, we can eat them."

Gov. Chris Christie Endorses Mike Castle for U.S. Senate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnQPS2Qhzi4&feature=player_embedded#!

So are ya going to eat Christie too?

I like your site and I like NRO. Although I don't always agree with both.

As for the rest, disagreement is one thing, sneering at the principled who disagree with you is another... but if you want to be a right-winged Koz knock yourselves out.

[anon]

and btw, Mark Steyn likes NRO (a lot) and he's the Chuck Norris of conservatives.