Hmm, do you - unpublished (aside from frequent posts on FR), unlistened to, unaccomplished in the field of elections or policy, get to dismiss the National Review, the undoubtable founding of the conservative movement for 60 years in America, as not being conservative? Maybe you need to sit down and leanr your place.
NR's endorsement of Willard was well reasoned and based on conservative principles of life, capitalism, anti-illegal immigration, and a strong international policy against terror. You might disagree with their conclusions, but dismissing them as irrelevant because they aren't 'conservative'? You are pathetic.
I have my disagreements with NR going all the way back to Wittaker Chamber's smear job review of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (far, far worse than the Raddosh review). They do slip up from time to time, but they are, more than any other journal, the benchmark of American Conservatism.
“They do slip up from time to time, but they are, more than any other journal, the benchmark of American Conservatism.”
Actually they are the benchmark of Rockefeller (country club) Republicans, you know, the ones that have given the republican party the reputation that they are the party of the rich.
More so that Human Events? HE claims they were founded in 1944. Do you happen to know when NR was founded? In any case, there is room for many conservative publications as far as I’m concerned.