Trump Rails Against ‘Failing’ National Review Over Its Anti-Trump Issue

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a rally at the Reno Ballroom and Museum in Reno, Nevada, Sunday, Jan. 10, 2016. (AP Photo/Lance Iversen)

After National Review published an entire edition devoted to bashing Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate tore into the conservative publication Friday, criticizing the magazine for not knowing “how to lead.”

The anti-Trump issue included an editorial and a collection of essays from conservatives like Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson, Bill Kristol, and Dana Loesch making the case against Trump.

In the editorial titled “Against Trump,” the National Review editors wrote that Trump “is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries,” arguing that he has flip-flopped on important issues:

Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy. (He and Bernie Sanders have shared more than funky outer-borough accents.) Since declaring his candidacy he has taken a more conservative line, yet there are great gaping holes in it.

The National Review editors said that when it comes to immigration, Trump “makes no sense and can’t be relied upon,” and that he knows “almost nothing” about national security.

The editorial declares that Trump is not a true conservative:

His obsession is with “winning,” regardless of the means — a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power. The Tea Party represented a revival of an understanding of American greatness in these terms, an understanding to which Trump is tone-deaf at best and implicitly hostile at worst. He appears to believe that the administrative state merely needs a new master, rather than a new dispensation that cuts it down to size and curtails its power.

The Republican National Committee on Thursday removed the National Review as a moderator of a February Republican presidential debate following the publication of the anti-Trump edition, stating that moderators “can’t have a predisposition.”

59
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Anyone who disagrees with Poodlehead is “failing”, a “loser”, “dying”, “decaying”, “falling off”, etc.

    We get it, Don. Your stupid, predictable routine is old and worn-out. Go fuck yourself.

    This is the face of “leadership”: throwing more insults per minute than the next asshole.

  2. 8:45 am from

    NCSteve

    Well they had no choice. They weren’t treating Trump fairly. He might have fired off Tweets calling them business failures and losers if they hadn’t ditched the liberal National Review. Which someone very close to them told me is failing miserably. Listen, their circulation is awful. I’m not judging, that’s just what someone told me.

  3. Trump: If National Review were to endorse me, I would say its the most influential publication, thanks to Sir Buckley.

  4. …and the classiest publication.

  5. Trump supporters don’t just get their information from the National Review. They read, you know all of them Katie.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

53 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for rob_beatty_walters Avatar for sabatia Avatar for ajaykalra Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for mattinpa Avatar for manhattan123 Avatar for maxwellsdemon Avatar for Lacuna-Synecdoche Avatar for inversion Avatar for mantan Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for captaincommonsense Avatar for riverstreet Avatar for backlit Avatar for pine Avatar for benthere Avatar for emilianoelmexicano Avatar for beattycat Avatar for igbert Avatar for edhedh Avatar for just_observing Avatar for expfcwintergreen Avatar for oistein

Continue Discussion