Via Mark Levin on Facebook. I didn't see this, as I don't waste my time reading NRO. I'd feel better about them if they would at least be honest and re-brand as a corporatist, beltway publication, as opposed to a conservative one. Much of the movementÂ that went to DC under Reagan is corrupted in their thinking. Influence andÂ money, due to the need to sustain themselves,Â is at the heart of that corruption.
That's why I say any genuine resurgence in conservatism must come from beyond the Beltway. We can not rely on these DC-cronyists to speak for conservatism today. NRO could simply have stayed out of the primary. But I gather they want access to McCain and succumbed to pressure. What a pathetic rag they are today, compared to what they once were - just another Beltway welfare publication more interested in preserving itself, than grassrootsÂ conservatism.[More]
I looked at the NRO endorsement (important point—this is a primary challenge, so they're endorsing McCain against a Republican) and they're saying things like
"Hayworth is, to say the least, not obviously a more exemplary statesman than McCain. "
He is to me—McCain was for an open border before he was against it, and against a border fence before he was for it. No one knows, from one day to the next, whether he'll be a Republican or not. NRO also says McCain "may not be Marco Rubio, but heâ€™s not Arlen Specter either."
He's exactly Arlen Specter—they voted the same way on amnesty, and Specter's abandonment of his party is something McCain has been toying with for years.
Michelle Malkin wrote recently John S. McCain, Will You Please Go Now?
I'd like to apply that to National Review.