The conservative media publication started in 1955 by William F. Buckley, Jr., known as National Review, has put together an editorial coming out against Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee. In response to the editorial decision publicly opposing Trump, the Republican National Committee has disinvited National Review as a debate sponsor on February 25.

Report from CBCNews:

An influential conservative magazine published an editorial on Thursday urging Republicans to rally against the front-running presidential candidate Donald Trump, with Iowa poised to begin the search for a 2016 nominee in 10 days.

National Review, a New York-based magazine founded in 1955 by famed conservative thinker William F. Buckley Jr., drew heavy scorn from Trump, on Twitter and at a Las Vegas news conference, for its issue entitled: “Against Trump.”

“Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP (Republican Party) in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones,” National Review said.

In the issue, 22 prominent conservatives write essays giving their reasoning, including William Kristol, Glenn Beck, Cal Thomas, Dana Loesch and Erick Erickson.

The magazine’s argument is one that has been made by several of his rivals for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, most notably by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Trump has dismissed the piece as coming from a “dying paper,” and I don’t think something like this is going to damage him much. National Review has been writing negative pieces against Trump since he announced his candidacy last year and it hasn’t seemed to slow him down.

The other news is that the RNC has now dumped National Review from the upcoming Republican debate on February 25. Report from Politico:

The Republican National Committee has disinvited National Review from a presidential debate partnership following the release of an edition devoted to taking down Donald Trump, the conservative magazine reported late Thursday.

Jack Fowler, publisher of National Review, outlined the RNC’s rationale in a piece published on the magazine’s website.

“The reason,” he wrote, explaining the RNC’s stance: “Our ‘Against Trump’ editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald.”

The real estate magnate and frontrunner in national Republican presidential polling slammed the edition on its release in a series of tweets.

I honestly can’t see any way this actually will hurt Trump’s chances. If anything, it will further lend credibility to him and his supporters as they fight against the establishment entrenched in both parties.


  1. Well deserved slap in the face for a publication that has become a depository for rude and crude writers, a faint dissipating shadow of what it’s founder William F. Buckley, Jr. had created. Clever satirical musings have been surplaced by clumsy grade school linear thinking, passing itself off as something of substance.

    • I see the Megyn Kelly thing in this light: A leader shouldn’t shy away from the harshest critics or most vile of opponents. Ted Cruz handled poor moderation with tact, by confronting it directly. Donald could learn a thing or two from him instead of whining whenever things don’t go his way.

      • Ha! That’s a good one. Of ALL the candidates, of both parties, Cruz is the worst. If he is asked a tough question, he says, “I’m glad you asked that question,” but then, he talks about something completely different. He’s like a talking doll. Ask him any question, pull his cord, and he delivers a canned answer that has nothing to do with the question. Moderators have repeated the question, sometimes more than once, and they still can’t get a straight answer from that guy.

        In the most recent debate:
        QUESTION: How do you disagree with Trump regarding the Supreme Court issues?
        CRUZ: I don’t like the president.
        REPEATED QUESTION: Specifically, how do you disagree with Trump?
        CRUZ: I don’t like Muslims.

        QUESTION: You voted to restrict the government from access to phone records, considering the recent attack, was your vote a mistake?
        CRUZ: I don’t like Muslims.
        REPEATED QUESTION: Rubio said you were wrong to vote against phone access.
        CRUZ: I don’t like Rubio.

        QUESTION: You said you’d “carpet bomb,” wouldn’t that kill civilians?
        CRUZ: We’re not bombing enough.
        REPEATED QUESTION: Would you “carpet bomb” Raqqa, the ISIS capital?
        CRUZ: I would carpet bomb in a pin-point process [A normal person would just answer the question, “no.”]

        QUESTION: Rubio has said you voted against the Defense Authorization bill three times, how can you “carpet bomb” if you don’t have planes and bombs?
        CRUZ: I promised my constituents that I would.

        QUESTION: You’ve said you wish Saddam, Gadhafi, and Mubarek were still in power. Do you like dictatorships?
        CRUZ: Yeah, and now Obama and some Republicans want to topple Assad.
        REPEAT QUESTION: But Gadhafi and Mubarek toppled by their own people.
        CRUZ: Netanyahu agrees with me.

        [After arguing against toppling other governments, Cruz says, “a regime we SHOULD change is Iran.”]

        QUESTION: Rubio says your immigration policy is not much different from his.
        CRUZ: I like Ronald Reagan.

        QUESTION: Regarding Syrian refugees, you voted for a 500% increase in visas.
        CRUZ: I want to secure the border.

        QUESTION: You have supported legalizing the illegals in this country. Would you rule that out?
        CRUZ: We need to enforce the law.

        QUESTION: You have said in private that Trump shouldn’t have control of our nuclear arsenal.
        CRUZ; “WHAT I SAID IN PRIVATE IS EXACTLY WHAT I’LL SAY HERE”–that voters need to decide [which is not at all what he said in private].
        CRUZ: “I’m answering the question”–Reagan fought Communism.
        REPEATED QUESTION: I just want to clarify, do you think Trump has the judgment to be president?
        CRUZ: Voters need to decide.


  2. “Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP (Republican Party) in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones…” sounds exactly right to me!

    • People are listening to Trump because he has changed the whole dialogue. All politicians are “opportunists.” The difference is that Trump doesn’t seem to be in it for personal gain, or gain for his cronies and supporters.

  3. The difference is that Kelly made very personal attacks on Trump. If she had stuck to policies–or if she personally attacked any other candidate–then you might be able to call her objective.

    • TheBlaze offered to host a debate where every candidate would be allowed to answer every question. But no… they’re too biased… and that was before Beck’s endorsement of Cruz. Sorry, folks.

  4. Trump is playing Megan Kelly and the National Review like a harp. The more they try to put him down; the stronger he becomes. He uses these petty battles to demonstrate how the Press has lost it’s way.

    • Fox New’s (aka Tel Aviv TV) Megan Kelly is a Zionist shill — and, Trump destroyed her credentials as being an impartial reporter.

      Now, Tel Aviv TV wants their shill Megan to do another hatchet job on Trump, again — but, Trump outplayed them this time.

      His boycott will cost Fox Aviv a lot of money, and the Megan-shill will get nowhere this time.

  5. And people wonder why the “Establishment” isn’t stopping Trump. What a joke. Trump is as Establishment, money-loving, unprincipled, flip-flopping, unreliable, and aisle-reaching as Kasich, Christie, and Bush. Dare I add Fiorina, Rubio, and Huckabee to the list? Why yes, I believe I do.

Comments are closed.