The Sadness that Permeates the National Review

by -
National Review

You can nearly smell it between the pixels of the National Review Online. It’s the thickness in the air when you combine failure, anger, humiliation with fresh tears and stale coffee.

The “Against Trump” cabal at the National Review wanted America to believe that it was serving as the protector of conservative values, but the truth always falls in the cracks.

This crew was only looking to preserve its place among the right-appearing intelligentsia of Washington D.C. and its suburbs.

The National Review, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

In their first post-Presumptive Nominee issue, the writing allowed to leak through to their front page appeared wandering and looking for a purpose.

. . . the failings of Ted Cruz.
. . . Little Jonah Goldberg’s “I don’t wanna like Trump” acceptance of reality.
. . . A Trump-Gingrich ticket.

These are the words of lost souls.

Like most irrelevant politicos and their organizations, the talk will quickly shift to coalition and “army” building with a purpose to influence Donald Trump and his pick for Vice President.

This is what the irrelevant do . . . they create irrelevant campaigns to give themselves something to do.

Others, like Jonah Goldberg, will have to spend a few months mocking the GOP nominee before he realizes that no one really cares.

Then there will be those who will slowly shift and pretend that they were ALWAYS in support of Trump. This is the historic operating procedure of the clowns of the National Review, who failed to endorse Reagan in 1968 but didn’t hesitate to endorse Romney in 2008.

The group sat back and chose to cowardly endorse no one in ’92, ’96 and even 2012.

That’s because they prefer to be on the “winning” side of their endorsements, despite living in bubble so thick that they have only called it correctly 50% of the time since 1956.

That’s what we call a losing record.

But the brilliantly stupid people who write for the National Review call it wrong on more than just presidential politics.

These are the neo-cons who backed the invasion and occupation of Iraq under George W. Bush.

They’re the ones who sat on the sidelines as George W. rammed through the largest budget expansions of any “conservative” president and distracted readers as John Boehner acquiesced on Obamacare and nearly every other desire of Barack Obama from 2008 to today.

Don’t be fooled by their legacy left behind by the eccentric and flamboyantly effeminate William F. Buckley . . . the National Review is the place where writers self-define “conservative” while earning a pay check . . . nothing more and nothing less.

Let their tears flow into the gutter . . . along with their careers.

Morgan Mayhew
Morgan is a freelance writer for a variety of publications covering popular culture, societal behavior and the political influences of each.