Wow, after all this wasted time, you now agree with me, and my point.
Just as Limbaugh, talk radio, and Fox News prompted some initial disdain from the old Bill Buckley/Firing Line/National Review crowd,
When Limbaugh began his national program, his manner was often criticized as jarring and brash, and his venue -- talk radio -- was new and decidedly declasse for the National Review readership and Buckley fans.
We National Review readers and all of the conservative world were thrilled to get Rush, and 8 years later, thrilled to get Fox news, we weren't waiting around like children to see if Bill Buckley approved, or if National Review would write an editorial telling us it was OK to listen to this first national conservative, or to watch Fox news when it came out 8 years later.
You make us National Review readers sound like out of touch, fearful, children, waiting for permission, or too elitist and snobbish to watch a new news channel, or the creation of a national radio talk show, rather than jumping on board enthusiastically, from the beginning.
You were projecting your own personality and timidness, onto the rest of we National Review reading conservatives.
After 11 years, you are still covering for Beck by pretending that he is new, and that like Rush and Fox, conservatives will come to accept him (which wasn't true either, our acceptance was full bore from the beginning), something that we never went through with Rush or Fox, Beck is already old news, he is in his 11th year, and he is still seen as a huckster and more and more is referred to as an untrustworthy guru, and more importantly, the Mormon cult member is open about not being a conservative.
Beck is not a "responsible" conservative, he isn't a conservative at all, he is a libertarian/liberal.
“We National Review readers and all of the conservative world” . . . You seem to have an air of royal absolutism.