Based on the coding, this is appears to be the issue dated September 19, 2011.
In contrast, here's a Romney cover they ran. (Thanks2LewRockwell)
(Thanks2JamesMiller)
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
National Review Hit Piece Coming on Ron Paul?
National Review is running the below cover on its web site to attract new subscribers (I wonder how well that will work out). Judging by the cover, it doesn't look like it is going to be a friendly piece.
Based on the coding, this is appears to be the issue dated September 19, 2011.
In contrast, here's a Romney cover they ran. (Thanks2LewRockwell)
(Thanks2JamesMiller)
Based on the coding, this is appears to be the issue dated September 19, 2011.
In contrast, here's a Romney cover they ran. (Thanks2LewRockwell)
(Thanks2JamesMiller)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can't help but notice the subliminal message (?) at the top of the very same cover re: Obama's "foreign policy" by none other than John Bolton. How intriguing.
ReplyDeleteThe seem to be talking about it at the link below, I guess it's out on Nook?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailypaul.com/177379/my-twitter-conversation-with-kevin-d-williamson
Scumbags to the end....
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason National Review is always begging its subscribers for money....
ReplyDeleteAmazing that the National Review people should come up with this, while even Huffpo is running nice pieces about RP:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-trice/ron-paul-elections_b_939004.html
The Statist Terrorists will do anything to keep their tax livestock. Wouldn't you?
ReplyDeleteI read the piece already. It's absolutely awful and incompetent.
ReplyDeleteSympathetic piece from Boston Globe.
ReplyDeletehttp://boston.com/community/blogs/less_is_more/2011/09/ron_pauls_chance_to_shine.html
I just finished the piece. I think he intended it as a hit piece alright.
ReplyDeleteExcept for two paragraphs about Rand and his wife, it was chock-full of explicit smears and innuendos.
It linked him to the extremists, Chomsky (read anti-Americanism) and conspiracy theories, to anti-Semites and racists, red-baiters, kooks, fringe groups..and even sex with underage children.
It called him a rube and a dork, a monomaniacal, laughable, inflexible idealogue and a coddler of nuclear mullahs..
More negativess para by para:
1. personality cult...stammering Elmer Fudd minus the menace...kind of a dork...
2. raging personality cult..conspiracy kook lunacy...puritanical..
3. overheated rhetoric, too crazy for the John Birch society...paranoia..
(also manages to drag in the Mary Kay Letourneau sex scandal with a minor school boy)
4.fringe lunatics..john Birch society..maniacally focused...irredeemably bats...racially-charged, anti-gay....conspiracy..crackpots...
5. Wilful blindness....racist sentiments..philosophy in the ether..Ron's "Ronness" (apparently this is a Very Bad Thing though he never explains what it is or why it should be)
6. careless about choosing friends and enemies
Bircher buddies
7. racist..no-hoper candidate..desultory speech..high thin voice...
( note sneering references to corn-dogs being masticated, which makes them sound like obscure rural sex acts; note metaphor of "spark to the powder")
8. funny little habits...Great Libertarian hope.. goon Gestap suits..far from polished...bar stool philosopher...not a smooth speaker..not a coherent speaker..careers from topic to topic..awsomely off-kilter...painful to watch
9. most successful awful retail politician.. gesture like swatting a mosquito..terrible at small talk
10. maniacally 100 percent sincere...
11. weird personality cult...risible... Birchers..
12. dogmatic....angy, ugly..
unpopular...Noam Chomsky...brainwashing...
13. freeze-dried Chomsky..far left-far right, George Bush's gift to the Republican party
14. personality cult..
15. (this para implies that RP coddles the mullahs)... doctrinaire libertarianism...
not his finest moment
16. This para starts out as if he were going to be more balanced. (It descibes his pro--life stance). But in the end, it only does that in order to chastise him for equating abortion to war..
17. nickel and dime...perhaps hostile to conservatism..
Yeah. I think you could call that a hit piece.
I watched Paul in the Pub debate tonight. If he is a spokesman for your positions, he is very ineffective. He just has a tin ear for policy. They asked him about a border fence to keep illegial aliens out of the US and he ranted on a security fence keeping Americans in. The IRS and financial controls keep people in America now - not chain link in Texas. He has a tin ear is not that smart and sounds like a nut. If you are sucessful, not being able to take any of your assets out of the country is a more effective control than the Mexican border fence. Gawd.
ReplyDeleteI remember subscribing to them well over a decade ago in the mid to late 90s, but eventually figuring out the magazine was full of it when they defended Lincoln, blasted Steve Forbes for being pro gold standard, accused Buchanan of being an anti-semite, and I found out years later that they fired Joseph Sobran for being against the first Gulf War.
ReplyDeleteWilliam F Buckley the Trotskyite could tolerate a lot of things, but being anti-war was not one of them. I also remember being sent letters in the mail constantly saying how WFB and National Review lost all sorts of money every year because there were not enough subscribers to justify their costs.
I also remember in the early 2000s when that idiot son of the woman who taped Lewinksky got into it with lew rockwell writers, and they destroyed him. His editors forced him to stop posting about lew rockwell because he was humiliated to the point of making NRO look bad.
The only good thing ever about National Review were the old Florence King columns.
Been f*<!ng with the author (as well as another from a hit piece on RedState.com - which is a perfect name for a commie website!) all night, and they get flustered.
ReplyDeleteOne of them made a homophobic remark about my hair, and I told him (excuse my French) "this F*<!ing Faggot is a PROUD Ron Paul supporter" and he shut up.
I urge all twitter users to message the author and tell him to get f*<ked!!!
Anonymous@ 9:25 PM,
ReplyDeleteThis is for you. They don't seem to be from the mind of a tin-eared, un-smart nut-job to me.
www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
....and here's a late addition just in case you're a voracious reader and intellectual giant.
ReplyDeletewww.lewrockwell.com/paul/
NYC - London collaboration: Obama Nation Part 2
ReplyDelete@anon 9:25
ReplyDeleteIneffective? He has expanded the libertarian ranks like nobody else living today. If he is so ineffective then why do the other candidates try so hard to copy his message?
@Dan,
ReplyDeleteBecasue it works! :-P
I wonder how much Willard (lets all use mitt's real name) spends on non surgical face lift creams to keep his jawline firm and "presidental"?
ReplyDelete