This is one of the silliest messes I've seen in a while. Good grief, the tone is so embarrassingly childish.
"As LBA wrote, "Trump beat The National Review, The Weekly Standard, Rich Lowry, Stephen Hayes, Stuart Stephens, and the rest of the conservative griftosphere because they thumb-wrestle for participation trophies while he dropkicks people for the win."
Poor Bill Kristol did not warrant a mention.
Well, none of them do"
Yeah, I keep hearing that, and they keep getting mentioned, so...
"The nomination and confirmation of Kavanaugh has them returning to the team. Or trying to return."
It's amazing. Another bitter, angry winner.
"The National Review was all pro-Kavanaugh and that was nice. It even thanked Susan Collins for voting for him, but curiously not President Trump for nominating him and standing by him when some National Reviewers were arguing Kavanaugh wasn't worth saving."
NRO is made up of many different authors, it isn't just a monolith. Are we sure no one mentioned Trump in a positive manner? Really?
"But follow the money -- or in the case of the National Review, the lack thereof -- and you will see why the sudden change in heart.
The magazine is begging for money, again. Its latest pitch is "Your Support Keeps NR a Vital Force in American Life.
Hahaha."
Lol! What a complete child.
"Walk down the street and ask the first 10 people you meet about National Review. Get back to me on how many feel it is a vital force."
I'm willing to bet more people would be familiar with NRO than with Don Surber or Sorber or whomever.