Fox’s Watters: National Review Writers ‘Putting Pure Conservatism Over the Country’

[bsteadman]

Fox’s Watters: National Review Writers ‘Putting Pure Conservatism Over the Country’

Mediaite
Josh Feldman
1/22/2016

Excerpt:

The hosts of Fox News’ The Five today weren’t exactly praising National Review and the 22 prominent conservatives taking a stand against Donald Trump. Kimberly Guilfoyle said she cares more about getting a Republican in the White House than someone who checks a couple of boxes.

Jesse Watters said Trump checks the only box that matters: having huge crowds of people show up at his campaign events. He agreed that principles “don’t matter if you can’t get elected,” charging that there are plenty of people––the National Review writers among them––”putting pure conservatism over the country.”

He insisted that Trump is “the most conservative guy out there.”

Eric Bolling was concerned this might give “more fuel” to the Democrats––to see all this Republican infighting. Dana Perino defended the writers as good “movement conservatives” who want a nominee who can “respect the big tent.”

Bolling also thought it a little ridiculous that Trump could be bought off by the establishment (despite Trump saying pretty clearly yesterday it’s important to be “a little establishment”). He asked, “Do they have legs to stand on?”

Watters said Trump can’t be bought, and all the concerns that Trump will “turn into this big liberal” are completely unfounded.
..........................

View the complete article, including video, at:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-watt...r-the-country/

[bsteadman]

‘Can You Answer Me?!’ Matthews Confronts National Review Editor Over Trump Attacks

Mediaite
Josh Feldman
1/22/2016

Excerpt:

Chris Matthews got particularly heated with a National Review editor tonight over the anti-Trump manifesto, contending that the only reason all those conservatives hate him is because they love war and Trump doesn’t.

Matthews said that pretty much everyone on that list, especially Bill Kristol, “are all war hawks” and “that’s why they don’t like Trump, because he’s the only guy on the right wing who said it’s a stupid war.”

National Review‘s Eliana Johnson insisted this isn’t a single-issue proposition, but Matthews insisted that’s clearly it because they all love war. He asked, “Can you answer me? Which is not a hawk in that group?”

Johnson said that plenty of names on that list have said Iraq was a mistake. Matthews insisted that “every name on that list supported the Iraq war.”

When Johnson suggested it’s Matthews who has the Iraq “obsession,” Matthews curtly responded, “When we lose 4000 lives in a war that should have never been fought, when we kill 100,000 people, when we get ourselves involved in a situation we cannot get out of for years… yes, it’s an obsession.”
............................................

View the complete article, including video, at:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/can-you-a...trump-attacks/

[bsteadman]

Pat Buchanan: National Review ‘Gave Up Pretense of Objectivity’ Attacking Trump

Mediaite
Sam Reisman
1/22/2016

Excerpt:

Former Republican presidential Pat Buchanan called into Neil Cavuto‘s show Friday to weigh in on the latest volley fired in the GOP’s civil war, specifically the massive manifesto published by right-wing standard-bearer The National Review, bashing Donald Trump as unworthy to lead the conservative cause. The Review, he said, “gave up any pretense of objectivity” when it went after Trump.

As a result of the decision to publish the volume of anti-Trump screeds, the Republican National Committee disinvited the Review from its February debate.

Buchanan said that the Review only gave a boost to Trump by augmenting his role as someone who successfully stands up against the Establishment.

Cavuto somewhat speciously countered that the Republican Establishment, rather than aligning itself with the Review, had cast its lot with Trump, since it disinvited the magazine, not Trump, from the debate. (On what grounds, exactly, would they disinvite the party’s leading candidate?)

Buchanan saw no controversy in the RNC’s decision:

You can’t come on there and act as though you’re sort of a neutral observer or a journalistic observer when you’ve taken a stand saying this man ought to be defeated — and you’re sitting down there questioning him. The National Review gave up pretense of objectivity in that debate when it took this position, and I assume it knew it going in

Indeed, Review publisher Jack Fowler said in a statement: “We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald.”
............................................


View the complete article, including video, at:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/pat-bucha...tacking-trump/