The Daily Caller versus National Review
If there's one thing that I love, it's tiffs--small and large--between two like-minded publications, especially if they're conservative. It suggests a vibrant debate, tensions, and forward movement within conservatism. It proves, contrary to the liberal media's portrayal, that there is no lock-step Right.
With that in mind, I turn your attention to a piece today in the Daily Caller by Tucker Carlson which goes after National Review and, specifically, NR's editorial endorsing the Pledge to America. Carlson calls NR's editorial an "inside job." It was, he alleges, "prearranged" by National Review and Neil Bradley, an aide to Rep. Eric Cantor.
We know that GOP leadership aides were aware of, and excited by, National Review’s editorial before it was published. We know that the piece was posted online just minutes prior to the start of the Wednesday evening caucus meeting, yet somehow aides were ready with copies to pass out to members. A coincidence? Please.
But there are also some things we don’t know. Who at National Review (or its non-profit arm, the National Review Institute) spoke to members of the Republican leadership staff about the editorial, and when? What was the substance of those conversations? And are there other instances in which National Review has used its influence to help the Republican leadership placate its conservative base?
I pointed out last week that NR wrote a glowing editorial praising the Pledge even though some conservatives have criticized it as fluff--the Pledge does not, for instance, mention earmarks, entitlements, or a balanced budget amendment, even though it is ostensibly focused on reducing the debt and the deficit.
This is in part why National Review's endorsement of the Pledge, as Carlson points out, was "precious" for Republican lawmakers. Carlson writes:
If you’re a member of the Republican establishment in Washington, ideologically out of sync with your conservative supporters but anxious not to offend them, endorsements like these are precious. And indeed, leadership aides passed out copies of National Review’s editorial at the GOP caucus meeting.
In the tug-o-war between the conservative establishment and the grassroots, does National Review hang with the iced-tea or the martini crowd?
National Review has written enthusiastically about the tea party folks. But in the past, under the George W. Bush administration, NR was criticized by conservatives for hawking RNC talking points rather than facilitating an open discussion about the state of the GOP. Is it fair to say, as Carlson suggests, that NR is acting as an organ of the establishment fellows of the Republican party? Carlson concludes, "National Review has taken sides, providing ideological cover for the party’s establishment wing at a critical moment."
What do you think?
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
National Review : New Republic :: Daily Caller : Mother Jones
It's all good.
Jul '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Someone (not me) wrote that he laments the leftward drift of National Review under the leadership of Rich Lowry. It's hard to disagree with that.
Jul '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
I think NR has a long history of dismissing earmarks as a side show.
http://old.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200601310806.asp
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NzgwNzI2Y2RiMmYyYzZkMzRhMDFkZGE5NDI5MGU5Nzg=
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229302/high-marks/kevin-williamson
Further, entitlement reform starts with Obamacare and passing a "balanced budget amendment" is pie-in-sky, utopian nonsense.
Jun '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
I've often thought that Rich Lowry's egalitarian instincts were pretty anemic. I don't think he drops down from the heavens into America's flyover country very often. He needs to do it more.
Jun '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?"
Sorry, just couldn't resist. Each publication has a distinctive voice (and voices within that voice), and each will undoubtedly work to their own self-interests to capture market share and influence. There are writers for each I've learned to trust, and others I view with skepticism.
I like some distinction between generally like-minded entities. Sure beats the general uniformity of the NY Times and the Washington Post.
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Disclosure: My husband used to work at National Review, I'm friends with many of the folks there, and I have read the magazine for 20 years.
I'm having a REALLY hard time understanding what, exactly, the Daily Caller is accusing NR of having done improperly.
It's not like NR editorialized anything surprising. As previously noted, Ramesh Ponnuru has been saying opposition to earmarks is silly considering what an infinitesimally small budget concern they are (relative to entitlements and regulatory burdens).
But am I daft? I just don't get what the accusation is.
May '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Gee, I didn't know we were allowed to criticize National Review here. But if you insist.
The Corner has become insufferable with the exception of a few really excellent writers. They are always referencing their liberal buddies like The New Republic.and The Atlantic (this may constitute their readership). It is a rare day that Jonathon Chait is not only cited but treated as if he were a sane individual with a brain capable of cogent thought. Ramesh Ponnuru is particularly left-leaning and annoying. And don't get me started on the self-congratulatory back patting about the superior intellect and political acumen they each possess. Or the need for hip boots to wade through the squishiness.
I like the magazine though.
The magazine is a little better. but NRO has become so squishy (again with a few outstanding exceptions)
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Mollie -- I agree with you: I certainly don't think it's surprising that NR came out in support of the Pledge.
But I think what TDC (Tucker Carlson, specifically) is accusing NR of is something like colluding with Republican lawmakers about the public roll out of the Pledge--and affecting the way the public perceives the Pledge. I think the key excerpt from the piece is this:
What do you think Mollie? Is that a felony or a misdemeanor--or no crime at all? I have to jump offline for the rest of the afternoon, but look forward to reading the responses when I return!
Edited on Sep 27, 2010 at 9:42amJul '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed. : Mollie -- I agree with you: I certainly don't think it's surprising that NR came out in support of the Pledge.
But I think what TDC (Tucker Carlson, specifically) is accusing NR of is something like colluding with Republican lawmakers about the public roll out of the Pledge--and affecting the way the public perceives the Pledge. I think the key excerpt from the piece is this:
Sep 27 at 9:37am
Edited on Sep 27 at 09:42 am
Is there even an instance here? Lowry's flat-out denied it. Maybe Rich is lying (though I doubt it), but if Tucker has the goods he's hiding them.
May '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
If The Daily Caller had the same level fo influence as NR, Carlson would have jumped at the chance to break the Pledge story. Anyone who seriously believes that TDC never coordinates any story with a source is as full of fecal waste as most congresspersons are for playing the earmark game.
That said, NR always was absolutely correct- and still is on raw numbers- in arguing that earmarks are relative small potatoes in regard to effect on the federal budget. That was definitely true until the ARRA, when it developed a massive life of its own rivaling ObamaCare in annual marginal budget size.
NR's problem is that it is and always has been an elitist entity. It is all NY/Washington, and staffed almost completely by people who went to impordant (the "d" is intended) schools to become Learned Pundits. That career path was taken by most (not Andy McCarthy), in lieu of working in a business/labor job somewhere in flyoverland for a few years.
NR still gets the theory mostly correct, except for the nativist streak pummeled into them by an organization and blogging representative that shall remain nameless, but sounds like CIS/MK.
Sep '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Rich does deny and so does Andy.I read both publications, but, unless you want to start calling the folks at NR untruthful, it looks like DC may be reading a bit much into this. Tucker has a great idea going, but, they really need to tighten up. This isn't the first time that something like this has flared up. Hammer away all you want, I think debate is healthy for the dextrosphere, but, let's not start acting like old media.
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Emily,
But what does "collusion" mean, specifically? That's what I want to understand.
Jul '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Duane Oyen:
NR still gets the theory mostly correct, except for the nativist streak pummeled into them by an organization and blogging representative that shall remain nameless, but sounds like CIS/MK. · Sep 27 at 10:19am
Sounds like what?
Jul '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
The problem with National Review is that the arrow of influence used to be from NR to the GOP. Now the arrow is reversing, if not reversed.
Edited on Sep 27, 2010 at 11:51amJul '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Mollie,
The "collusion" would be an editorial that had congressional fingerprints in some capacity.
Essentially what Tucker is arguing is that NR didn't craft an editorial based on it's opinions about The Pledge. Rather, NR was merely cheerleading Republicans in congress.
He's saying that NR isn't (in this instance at least) an independent voice of conservatism (or squishiness according to taste), instead it's a propaganda arm of congressional Republican using it's rep to mollify Tea Party types about The Pledge.
I think it's a crock, but there you are.
Here's the original article (warning non-Ricochet appropriate language included):
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/24/conservatives-denounce-gop-pledge-as-sellout-inside-job/
Edited on Sep 27, 2010 at 10:50amRe: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Palaeologus,
Yeah, I read the original article. I just didn't find any evidence of anything, much less collusion. I mean, are they saying that Republicans let NR read the pledge before it was publicly released? Or are they saying that NR wrote something they don't believe in order to collude with the GOP? One's not a problem, obviously, as journalists frequently deal with embargoes. And we're not even talking about a "news" story but an editorial, so I'm not sure what journalistic rules even apply there.
But did NR say anything different than they would have otherwise? Is there any evidence? I mean, it seemed like pretty standard NR stuff to me. And NR was one of many conservative sites or orgs that gave the pledge a thumbs up. Were the OTHER people honest and only NR lying? That sounds like a bizarre claim.
And, of course, if NR was "colluding" -- why did the Corner feature NR writers slamming the pledge?
Like, nothing adds up here -- but I sense that I'm missing something obvious.
Jul '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Mollie Hemingway: Palaeologus,
And, of course, if NR was "colluding" -- why did the Corner feature NR writers slamming the pledge?
· Sep 27 at 11:32am
Mollie, with due respect, you know better than this. The official editorial of National Review is the last word of the magazine. Other contributors may disagree with the Editorship, but this space is the Institution's stance on an issue.
The issue is whether or not National Review acted unethically in selling its endorsement of "the pledge" for heretofore unknown concerns.
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Rich Lowry just posted a response to Tucker Carlson's reporting.
I can't wait to see what Tucker writes in response.
May '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
Michael Tee
Duane Oyen:
NR still gets the theory mostly correct, except for the nativist streak pummeled into them by an organization and blogging representative that shall remain nameless, but sounds like CIS/MK. · Sep 27 at 10:19am
Sounds like what? · Sep 27 at 10:35am
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Linda-Chavez-Progressives-and-Immigration-Reform-85506827.html
Aug '10
Re: The Daily Caller versus National Review
This looks like the DC trying to make name for itself. Nothing inherently wrong with that, I suppose, as long as it's not fabricating stuff.
NR and NRO were the lone voices in the wilderness for a very long time and I read them both religiously. The recent turnover in staff has left me a little cold (the newbies just aren't as interesting) so I don't read NRO as often but I still read every issue of the magazine.