Bloggers Skewer National Reviewer

In an earlier post today, we noted Andy McCarthy's minority opinion in a dissent from an NRO editorial which complained about "hysteria" surrounding former Governor Sarah Palin's characterization of "death panels" in proposed health care reform legislation. The Conservasphere is beginning to erupt over the editorial also, and National Review editor Rich Lowry has to be feeling the heat . Here are five prime examples...

Robert Stacy McCain:

National Review contributes more evidence for the prosecution in the continuing case of Why Rich Lowry Should Have Been Fired No Later Than 2001.

[...]

Lowry's stayed too long at the dance, and people are getting sick of NR being the official Mitt/Jeb 2012 campaign journal, repeatedly slagging Palin and the grassroots.

The Conservative Comeback:

Andy McCarthy's point about Reagan using the Evil Empire phrase is valid. How would todays National Review have treated that comment? No doubt they'd have scolded him for his "hysteria."

[...]

In one week Sarah Palin had a portion of the bill tossed out and along with the help of townhall protesters has put ObamaCare on life support. Can anyone point me to a National Review article that has made headlines to damage this bill?

Ace:

I'm with McCarthy on this.

I don't see what makes her formulation particularly egregious when the White House is engaging in daily demonizations. "Death panels" is particularly evocative, and maybe a bit under-subtle. So what? We are talking style points at this point, and I hardly think that style is the most important concern.

Further, what Obama envisioned is a "death panel."

Dan Riehl:

I suppose the boy Editor will eventually argue, "Well, it was only her words, you see". As if the childish looking dupe could ever pull off a decent Buckley imitation.

What is it going to take for conservatives to finally accept that William F. is dead, the heirs to the throne, with too few exceptions, are a bunch of 2nd and 3rd generation elitist brats who belong to the Inside the Beltway set? They are not a part of the conservative movement that must re-define American politics, just as Reagan did, if there is to be anything like conservatism going forward in the nation's political discourse.

The Sundries Shack:

Andy McCarthy demolished the editorial all by himself, which is a testament to how poorly it was put together. If one man can take apart the work of the entire National Review editorial staff, it’s safe to say they didn’t do their best work.

And they really didn’t. What I got from the editorial is that they don’t like it when conservatives play rough and use hyperbolic language, even if its only a little bit hyperbolic, but they never quite summoned the courage to say that. Instead, they tried to explain that what Palin wrote wasn’t merely hyperbolic but incorrect. Their argument would have been a lot stronger had they not admitted right at the very beginning that she was correct, even if they didn’t do so explicitly.

Update 1: Lowry has finally replied to McCarthy on The Corner. We would have phrased that as "finally answered" instead of "finally replied" had Lowry provided an actual answer to the McCarthy dissent. Instead, the editor sidesteps substance and says, "Hey, we're not that far apart." Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? -- Over.

Update 2: McCarthy fires back, "There's no reason to characterize what "in other words" I must be saying. In my response to the editorial, I said exactly what I meant..."

Update 3: Mark Steyn comes down on the side of the good guys:

I'm with Andy. I think Sarah Palin's "death panel" coinage clarified the stakes and resonated in a way that "rationing" and other lingo never quite did. She launched it, and she made it stick. So it was politically effective.

But I'm also with Mrs Palin on the substance. NR's editorial defines "death panel" too narrowly. What matters is the concept of a government "panel".

[...]

And finally I don't think this is any time for NR to be joining the Frumsters and deploring the halfwit vulgarity of déclassé immoderates like Palin. This is a big-stakes battle: If we cross this bridge, there's no going back. Being "moderate" is not a good strategy. It risks delivering the nation to the usual reach-across-the-aisle compromise that will get Democrats far enough across the bridge that the Big Government ratchet effect will do the rest.

Update 4: Jonah Goldberg sides with the good guys also:

"If Obama, Pelosi, Waxman et al get their way, the relationship between the citizen and the state is profoundly, and perhaps permanently, altered and down that path lurks death panels. Oh, they won't be called death panels, but that function will lurk like the ghost in the machine of the federal bureaucracy."

Update 5: The Underground Conservative opines:

There is an absolute fear and hysteria — yes, we will use their word on them — among the elitists in the GOP, some of whom pass themselves off as conservative, when it comes to Sarah Palin, the same type of fear and hysteria that encircled Ronald Reagan and still does to this day.

- JP