I don't believe that was NR's motive. The author of the article is very very anti-Trump. As are many of the NR writers. A majority, I would say. NR does not impose ideological uniformity
I don't believe that was NR's motive. The author of the article is very very anti-Trump. As are many of the NR writers. A majority, I would say. NR does not impose ideological uniformity
Interesting. IтАЩm pretty sure Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of TNR is pro-Trump, or at least, anti-Harris. I am not aware of anyone at TNR being тАЬvery very anti-TrumpтАЭ. In any event, I skimmed the article and disagree with whatever the premise is supposed to be. IтАЩve been opposed to Roe v Wade since it came out. It was decided right before I started law school, and we discussed it as being the result of a liberal USSC making up a тАЬrightтАЭ that didnтАЩt actually exist under the 14th amendment (the right to privacy, which then gave you a right to abortion). It was a bad decision, badly decided, and ripe for being overturned given the right justices on the Court. That said, I agree with Cheney that throwing abortion back to the states has resulted in some draconian laws that unduly put womenтАЩs lives at risk. Any abortion law that has no exceptions whatsoever, not even for life of the mother (and also rape or incest, which are reasonable even if you believe life begins at conception, as I do) is a step too far. I watched Cheney talk about this in one of her interviews and felt she was truthful and sincere. That the TNR writer doesnтАЩt understand the evolution of her thinking, or that her fear of a second Trump presidency is so great that she feels the need to actually campaign for and with Harris, is unfortunate. HeтАЩs entitled to his opinion but I disagree with him. Only MAGAs will agree with his thinking, imho. For the audience of those sit-downs, it wouldnтАЩt have mattered even if she had been asked that question. ItтАЩs a nothing burger.
I don't believe that was NR's motive. The author of the article is very very anti-Trump. As are many of the NR writers. A majority, I would say. NR does not impose ideological uniformity
Interesting. IтАЩm pretty sure Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of TNR is pro-Trump, or at least, anti-Harris. I am not aware of anyone at TNR being тАЬvery very anti-TrumpтАЭ. In any event, I skimmed the article and disagree with whatever the premise is supposed to be. IтАЩve been opposed to Roe v Wade since it came out. It was decided right before I started law school, and we discussed it as being the result of a liberal USSC making up a тАЬrightтАЭ that didnтАЩt actually exist under the 14th amendment (the right to privacy, which then gave you a right to abortion). It was a bad decision, badly decided, and ripe for being overturned given the right justices on the Court. That said, I agree with Cheney that throwing abortion back to the states has resulted in some draconian laws that unduly put womenтАЩs lives at risk. Any abortion law that has no exceptions whatsoever, not even for life of the mother (and also rape or incest, which are reasonable even if you believe life begins at conception, as I do) is a step too far. I watched Cheney talk about this in one of her interviews and felt she was truthful and sincere. That the TNR writer doesnтАЩt understand the evolution of her thinking, or that her fear of a second Trump presidency is so great that she feels the need to actually campaign for and with Harris, is unfortunate. HeтАЩs entitled to his opinion but I disagree with him. Only MAGAs will agree with his thinking, imho. For the audience of those sit-downs, it wouldnтАЩt have mattered even if she had been asked that question. ItтАЩs a nothing burger.
Here is one of many many pieces Charles Cooke has written blasting Trump:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/national-review-charles-cooke-donald-trump-2024_n_6231906de4b020d1596d73a7
Not sure why you would doubt my simple and easily-demonstrated assertion that he is very anti-Trump. ????