[rmlew]

Mr. Poe,
National Review has published articles on how Hispanics are hurting conservatives. They also ran anti-immigration pieces in 2 of their last 4 issues.
Clearly there are neo-cons on the Staff, but they do not control the magazine. (The online site is another matter.)

I also think that VDare did the movement a disservice with the ad hominem attacks on Jonah Goldberg. I had lunch with him after the YAF conference last summer. He actually agreed that the importation of large number of people from foreign cultures and polities undermined our common culture and was driving the American polity to the left.
Then Paul Gottfried (a nice enough person with which to correspond by e-mail) started a series hitting Jonah on immigration. This had the effect of angering Jonah and making sure that he would not change positions.

[Richard Poe]

<< Clearly there are neo-cons on the Staff [of National Review] but they do not control the magazine. (The online site is another matter.) >>

Dear rmlew:

Actually, I was referring to the online version. The exact phrase in my article that aroused this unexpected controversy was, "In the unimpeachably neocon NationalReviewOnline.com..."

Also, please note that I did not mean this as a put-down of NRO. While I am attempting, in this column, to identify some of the ways in which I may disagree with neocons, I do not look upon them as the enemy, and I do not use the word "neocon" as a pejorative.

I offered the above links to Vdare.com not to take sides in their feud with NRO, but simply to illustrate that when I characterized NRO as "neocon," I was doing so accurately. Frankly, I was a bit surprised that I even had to defend such an unremarkable assertion.

And, by the way, I wasn't kidding, in my article, when I said, "...it is possible that the neocons are right." My mind is not closed to any of their arguments. I am raising questions here, not pronouncing dogma.