NRO's 2007 "webathon" slogan: "Help Us Stop Hillary!"
National Review Online announced its 2007 fundraiser -- or "webathon" -- on October 1 under the slogan: "Help Us Stop Hillary!" The website features a photo of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) inside a red octagon with a slash through it and links to an October 1 article by National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez, who wrote of the fundraiser: "This year, you'll notice, we have Hillary Clinton's picture on the homepage. The message is: 'Help us stop her.' No one here is pining for the Clinton drama's return to the White House. And neither, I suspect, are you."
From Lopez's October 1 article:
Here we go again.
For as long as we've had these online fundraisers here at National Review Online, they have been accompanied by a little reticence.
Our readers come here seeking food for thought, not looking for beggars. Well, this week, you'll find both.
This week is our annual fundraiser, and we need your help. I like to think of National Review Online -- the free web magazine that you're visiting right now -- as a multi-layered partnership. We partner with writers who have something to report, a story to tell, a point to make. We partner with politicians who share our vision. We partner with folks who are recapturing the culture. And you partner with us to keep it all going.
This year, you'll notice, we have Hillary Clinton's picture on the homepage. The message is: "Help us stop her." No one here is pining for the Clinton drama's return to the White House. And neither, I suspect, are you.
In the coming months, National Review Online seeks to bring you comprehensive coverage and analysis of the primaries, the conventions, and the election (please God) of a conservative president. Salaries, travel, light, cameras, and action bear down on our frugal budget. Writers continue to be paid much less than they deserve -- or that others offer -- and they do it because they know appearing on National Review Online is worth the financial sacrifice -- they know they'll be read on National Review Online, and they know that they will have impact.
The immigration debate surely demonstrated the truth of this claim this year. But, it is far from the first, or last, significant mistake NRO has played a leading role in keeping Washington from making.
And so we begin a week of fundraising here at National Review Online. We do so in new, smaller National Review World Headquarters -- a moneysaving move. I tell you this not to whine, but to assure you that we're not throwing money away. Your donation to National Review Online's 2007 fundraising drive will be used to do what we're here for: to bring you the best reporting and analysis we can. Your donation to National Review Online today will help our staff stand athwart history 24/7.
Disgusting. Pure and simple. It is partisan and disgusting.
Partisanship bug you? Why do you read this web site?
Where is the bias here? What's next? The Fairness Doctrine print-equivalent for print magazines - even partisan ones like NRO, The Nation, etc.With this thread, MMFA has clearly shown that it is a creature of the Clinton camp's creation.
At least they don't disguise their motives like some media outlets:
In the coming months, National Review Online seeks to bring you comprehensive coverage and analysis of the primaries, the conventions, and the election (please God) of a conservative president.
As long as they stick to factual coverage rather than truthiness disguised as reporting, I don't have a problem with their advocating for the right.
All that Clinton drama.Aside from the Republican witch hunts trying to tear down the Clintons, I don't remember all that much drama.In fact, it seemed like the conservatives dream of a government you hardly had to watch.The cons just insisted on making everybody watch.
Actually John, they may be disguising their motives more than you think. It's a dubious tradition to attack a candidate of the opposition party during that party's primaries. We forget that Hillary is not running against ANY of the 'conservatives' these people are hoping to get elected. She is running against Obama and Edwards. Getting attacked by far-right groups while the nomination is still very much in doubt can more than easily be interpreted as an effort to push the nomination to Hillary. Who are they talking to? Their readers aren't the ones voting in the election Hillary is running in. This is a much used and much-overlooked tactic. Nothing better for a Democrat to attract the party's base than to be in a fight with the right.
Excellent analysis Sundog. The GOP knows she is the easiest candidate to beat. Noone will rally the the GOP base like her. She is a get out the GOP vote campaign in and of herself. The GOP is scared to death of Edwards hence ther attempts to marginalize him as a fake Democrat. Obama is clearly the most articulate of the candidates but I think his inexperience shows and people pick up on that. As for the others, it's a shame that they can't pickup traction. It's all about the money. If Hillary is nominated we get four more years of GOP White House control. I fail to understand why the base doesn't see that. The Democratic base is notorious for this, look at Dukakis. I believe the base is going to have to compromise on this and nominate someone who is electable. You can't run a polarizing figure on our ticket and expect to win.
Maybe MMfA put this here to commend NRO for not being misleading as to their intentions.
There is nothing stealth or underlying in this "webathon". It's a politically partisan website born out of a politically partisan magazine that is actively campaigning against a particular candidate they do not want to see elected.
Is it just because it's a Democrat that irritates here, or is the freedom of political activism itself that's being frowned upon.
Not being that familiar with National Review myself, do they clearly bill themselves as biased? Or do they make claims similar to that of Fox News?
I looked for an "About" link or something similar but didn't see one.
The National Review is Conservative.
So what's the shocker here?
A Conservative website wants to stop Hillary. Is that a surprise?
Is MMFA now expecting a partisan site to be non-partisan?
If so, let's see MMFA lead the way.
Jeter , I am not sure if that is the case. The site is being blatantly partisan, was the National Review always a GOP site?
It's 6 and 1/2 dozen of another, Doris. The NRO was always conservative, and since there's only 2 parties in the US, I guess you could say "GOP", but only because the NRO isn't going to support another Dem candidate instead of Hillary.
WITH crowd
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
I think this falls under "forwarding the conservative agenda".
It uses "and" which indicates it must also meet a standard put forth before "forwards conservative agenda."
This is unseemly IMO. They stole the idea from Sean Hannity who calls his the "Stop Hillary Express". If I remember correctly he started it the day after the 06 elections.
"Help us Stop Hillary" is unseemly? How is that?
Would you call The Nation unseemly is they held a similar "Help us Stop Rudy"?
It's unseemly to me to take the wife of a former president and single her out as though she were some dangerous character becasuse she's married to a president you and your crowd demonized for 8 years and then anoother 7, unjustifiably.
Dude, whatever. I'm no Republican and looks like I'll be voting for Hillary at this point, but if you can't take it, don't dish it and don't post on a web site that dishes it daily.
I have no idea who "your crowd" is, but I will let it slide since it's really not relevant to much of anything.
The "wife of a former president" is now the leading front runner for the Democratic nomination for president, and her opponents are vigorously trying to stop her from being elected.
There is nothing unseemly about that, it is a mere exercise in political free speech....something liberals should be applauding, even if they disagree.
And let's not forget the only other Democratic figure who riles the right wing base more and gets the pitchforks out is the devil himself, Bill Clinton.
If you're on the right and want to raise funds you have to mention Bill and Hillary Clinton.
It's odd, really. Clinton I was pretty centrist, not much further left than a current likely GOP nominee, yet he was reviled. Why? He was the figurehead of the party the right loved to hate. Same thing with Bush, he was hated by the left prior to the Iraq invasion, although not nearly as much by the middle.
there were and are very good reasons to dislike bush.
I think Hillary passes Bill on this one. Frankly I like her better than Kerry and Gore combined. (Of course that isn't saying much.)
What happened to the conspiracy theory that Republicans are only mentioning Hillary in order to prevent the supposedly stronger candidates from getting noticed, thereby precluding them from getting the nomination? I kinda like that one. Makes those Rovian puppets sound even smarter and sneakier than they really are. :-)
It's not a conspiracy. You know she is the best chance for a GOP win. Is there any other candidate who will rally the GOP base like she will? Is there another candidate who will ensure that Republicans who would otherwise not vote will damn sure vote to keep her out. They are scared to death of Edwards. A populist message is always dangerous to the status quo. He is electable. Heck, just about any Dem candidate is except maybe Kucinich and Gravel. She isn't. She is going to ruin it for all of us.
It's unseemly to me to take the wife of a former president and single her out as though she were some dangerous character becasuse she's married to a president...
Did you consider a Presidential candidate, current US Senator & Former First Lady referring the current sitting Vice-President as "Darth Vader' unseemly?
I thought Hillary's quip was funny, but you must have been appalled. You weren't? Oh I see, you just get all perturbed when a Democrat is involved?
Hillary is a dangerous character on her own. She supports the corporate/military/prison state, is fully behind the Israel Lobby and it's racist agenda, and has declared she wants to force the American worker to buy insurance he/she cannot afford now. She's a right-wing corporofascist zionist sociopath with a track record of voting for bad things and helping kill innocent people in foreign lands. Seems pretty darn dangerous to me.
Now, if National review starts using the slogan "Fair and Balanced" I'm going to have a big problem with them.
Heh. You work for the copyright office?
As you may recall, Fox has already lost that case:
[link to www.cnn.com]
Is this where the phony soldiers hang out? Ah, yes. Bingo.
I am not sure why this was posted. The National Review is a conservative website. I don't see any misinformation here.
This site is devoted to attacking any press that slights or slurs a Democrat. The biggest conservative misinformation is that Democrats are liberals. But they never refute that. Wonder why.
I thought this site was to "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
And what is wrong with being liberal?
Well, what it says it is and what it does is two different things. And I am a liberal, a Green. Democrats aren't liberals, they back way too many far-right policies.
National Review is a good read and I've given them money in the past to support their efforts. The Hilary ploy actually worked because it prompted me to give them more. I need to get their marketing people on my payroll.