Who in their right mind would? I find it humorous the NRO provides Kirk's definition for conservatism and yet I haven't seen any of those supported in the pages of the NRO for more than a few years. The NRO is basically run now by hawkish social and fiscal liberals
"The NRO is basically run now by hawkish social and fiscal liberals"
Dear God - what do you call "social and fiscal liberals"?!
Is Kathryn Jean Lopez not pro-life enough for you?
Know a lot of people who've fleshed out the intellectual argument against gay marriage more than Stanley Kurtz?
Rich Lowry getting too snuggly with feminists for you?
Mark Steyn too enamoured with socialists?
Donald Luskin remains a fiscal liberal because he only eviscerates Paul Krugman two or three times a week, when he could do so every day?
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, NRO has remained remarkably unsquishy, and deserves huge kudos for it (given how difficult it apparently is for our own Senators to remain unsquished). Do they allow dissent within their pages? Of course - and they should. Each writer there probably does dissent on a single issue or two, but taken altogether, if you asked the various writers and contributors to vote on any conservative policy, the solid right position would win almost constantly. In fact, I can't think of a single "social or fiscal liberal" policy that would garner majority support there, with the -possible- exception of opposition to the drug war, but I for one don't consider that a necessarily liberal position. Please, do share on what other subject matters you've observed that they've all become liberals now if you've observed otherwise.
Qwinn