<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > National Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/national_review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The National Review&#8217;s fake plagiarism scoop</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/the_national_reviews_fishy_plagiarism_scoop/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/the_national_reviews_fishy_plagiarism_scoop/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 23:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elizabeth Warren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plagiarism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12923198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Updated: After falsely accusing Elizabeth Warren of plagiarism, the conservative magazine apologizes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The National Review says Elizabeth Warren is guilty of the gravest crime a writer can commit: Plagiarism. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/300502/plagiarism-2006-book-co-authored-elizabeth-warren-katrina-trinko#">Katrina Trinko compares passages</a> from "All Your Worth: The Ultimate Money Lifetime Plan," Warren's book with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, with passages from "Getting on the Money Track," a book by Rob Black. The passages line up perfectly. The wording and even the punctuation are identical. It's plagiarism all right. Except it looks very much like Warren is actually the <em>victim.</em></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/the_national_reviews_fishy_plagiarism_scoop/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/the_national_reviews_fishy_plagiarism_scoop/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>73</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jonah Goldberg&#8217;s desperation</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/jonah_goldbergs_desperation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/jonah_goldbergs_desperation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 08:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hack List]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12917683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The National Review hack is a unique figure: Striving for seriousness, but too lazy to achieve it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jonah Goldberg is a syndicated columnist, author of books and National Review Online editor because his mother nearly took down Bill Clinton. He is, it's fair to say, aware of that fact, or at least aware that everyone else thinks it, and his insecurity has made him a uniquely pathetic figure in contemporary conservative thought: He aspires to be taken seriously as a public intellectual, but he is the world's laziest thinker. It is a grand and wonderful joke that Jonah Goldberg, of all people, would write an entire book about how liberals rely on clichés instead of original thought and intellectual argument.</p><p>On the back of my review copy of "The Tyranny of Clichés," Goldberg's latest, it still claims that the author "has twice been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize." That, of course, was revealed yesterday to be <a href="http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11608553-conservative-author-jonah-goldberg-drops-claim-of-two-pulitzer-nominations">utter bullshit.</a> He is a two-time <em>entrant</em> for Pulitzer consideration -- to enter requires solely an application and a $50 fee -- and while Goldberg claims not to have added that line to his bio, it appears everywhere he writes, and it's hard to believe he hadn't noticed it until this week. That said, I can't imagine a person dumb enough to actually believe that Jonah Goldberg had been seriously considered for a Pulitzer. (Well, OK, I can imagine <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/157254/big-time/kathryn-jean-lopez#">one person dumb enough.</a>)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/jonah_goldbergs_desperation/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/jonah_goldbergs_desperation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>73</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another National Review contributor pals around with nativists</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/another_national_review_contributor_pals_around_with_nativists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/another_national_review_contributor_pals_around_with_nativists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Derbyshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12880111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[National Review editor-at-large John O'Sullivan was on the board of anti-immigrant site VDARE]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's hard to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/is_the_right_really_breaking_up_with_its_racists/singleton/">expunge white nationalist racism from respectable conservatism</a> when some of the most respectable of conservatives dabble in white nationalist racism. John Derbyshire, accomplished as he was, was just a contributor to the National Review. John O'Sullivan is a former editor of the National Review, a current "editor-at-large," a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a former speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher, and Commander of the British Empire. He's also <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/274488_National_Reviews_John_OSulliva">on the board of directors at the foundation that publishes VDARE</a>, the nativist site listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.</p><p><a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/274488_National_Reviews_John_OSulliva">Gus from Little Green Footballs found documents</a> showing O'Sullivan was on the board of the "Lexington Research Institute Limited," aka the VDARE Foundation, from 2006-2010. During that time, VDARE helped found nativist site "Alternative Right" with a $35,000 grant. Alternative Right is edited by Richard B. Spencer, <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/alternative-rights-ugly-racism">yet another racist/racialist white nationalist.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/another_national_review_contributor_pals_around_with_nativists/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/another_national_review_contributor_pals_around_with_nativists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the right really breaking up with its racists?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/is_the_right_really_breaking_up_with_its_racists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/is_the_right_really_breaking_up_with_its_racists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charles Murray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Derbyshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12865831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The National Review fired two bigots -- but don't expect it to part with the idea that race determines intelligence]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The National Review this month is having one of its semi-regular "purges," in which formerly welcome members of the conservative establishment are declared distasteful and relegated to the "fringes." It began when self-declared racist and longtime National Review contributor John Derbyshire wrote a <a href="http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire#axzz1rxMzOJZb" target="_blank">piece</a> (not for the NR but for "Taki's Mag," an online magazine devoted to lighthearted racism) that went well beyond the bounds of "acceptable" race-baiting. He was canned. Shortly thereafter, another National Review contributor, Robert Weissberg, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/167372/national-review-drops-another-racist-writer">was fired</a> for having given a presentation at a conference devoted to white supremacy last month.</p><p>These two were not fired for suddenly revealing some hitherto unknown and successfully buried racist attitude -- these were not out-of-left field outbursts, like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amjUNF_R_PY" target="_blank">Michael Richards' onstage meltdown</a> -- but for beliefs they had always had and had always expressed. This is what makes it a purge -- a decision that this sort of modern "racialism" is no longer considered an acceptable mainstream Conservative attitude.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/is_the_right_really_breaking_up_with_its_racists/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/is_the_right_really_breaking_up_with_its_racists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>316</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Racism and the National Review</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/racism_and_the_national_review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/racism_and_the_national_review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Derbyshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trayvon Martin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12835081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Derbyshire may be gone, but William F. Buckley's magazine championed divisive racial politics – and still does]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>National Review editor Rich Lowry finally did the right thing <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/john_derbyshire_racist_hack_gets_canned/singleton/">and fired John Derbyshire</a> for an unbelievably racist and deeply stupid column (printed elsewhere) about the "advice" he gives his son about avoiding black people. Maybe it represents a ratcheting back of right-wing ugliness about the Trayvon Martin case. But if you want to understand how that tragedy went from being an occasion for bipartisan sorrow to another ugly battle in the culture wars, the National Review is a good place to start.</p><p>Although founder William F. Buckley is widely credited with driving John Birch Society extremists out of the conservative movement, he made his own contributions to the ugly coarsening of American politics on the issue of race. He and his magazine defended segregation and white supremacy in the South (though he later apologized), while in the North, he played a leading role in making the issue of rising crime both racial and political – with arguments and tactics still being used in the Trayvon Martin case today.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/racism_and_the_national_review/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/racism_and_the_national_review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>105</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>John Derbyshire, racist hack, gets canned</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/john_derbyshire_racist_hack_gets_canned/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/john_derbyshire_racist_hack_gets_canned/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12832081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Derbyshire has been writing racist screeds for years. So why did no one notice until last week?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>[UPDATE BELOW]</strong></p><p>Like any old friend of a publication's founder who considers it his right to contribute lazy nonsense only when it pleases him, John Derbyshire seemed to pop off from his National Review perch for weeks or months at a time. He would eventually resurface on National Review Online, perhaps touting a playful new book on the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Are-Doomed-Reclaiming-Conservative-Pessimism/dp/0307409589">apocalypse,</a> to share his oddball musings on various affairs while his more dependable, hawkish colleagues busied themselves with outrage at the Democratic Party. A latter-year blog post from Derbyshire -- "Derb" or "The Derb" to colleagues and critics alike -- would usually go something like, "My flowers have just come in, looking a bit limp I must say. Did you hear about this latest fashion preoccupation among teenage girls? Nor did I. Watch out for the blacks." These blasts of Derbitry had become the only reason to visit National Review Online, reliably providing rich material to satisfy the daily fixes of outrage and mockery.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/john_derbyshire_racist_hack_gets_canned/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/john_derbyshire_racist_hack_gets_canned/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>97</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The coming war on Mormon jokes</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/the_coming_war_on_mormon_jokes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/the_coming_war_on_mormon_jokes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12815991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As Republicans consolidate behind Mitt Romney, liberals are about to be accused of mass bigotry]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Once Mitt Romney has the the nomination completely sewn up, a conservative movement that has been skeptical of him will quickly close ranks behind him and do their damnedest to get him elected president. Whatever lack of enthusiasm the movement's activists and opinion leaders suffer from will not be at all apparent in their defenses of Romney's record and credentials.</p><p>A vital early job for the party is setting the boundaries of what is and isn't "fair game" for political attacks. While most negative rhetoric is sort of cheerfully accepted by the objective press and "Village" elders as part of the wonderful game of politics, some lines of attack -- like stuff involving children and families and oftentimes health -- are considered beyond the pale. The line is informally negotiated early on. In 2008, the right largely failed to make it seem improper to go after John McCain's age. Liberals (though right-wingers will disagree) failed to make Barack Obama's church membership off-limits.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/the_coming_war_on_mormon_jokes/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/the_coming_war_on_mormon_jokes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>248</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conservatives baffled at idea of white Hispanic people</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/conservatives_baffled_at_idea_of_white_hispanic_people/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/conservatives_baffled_at_idea_of_white_hispanic_people/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trayvon Martin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12791411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A brief primer on race versus ethnicity]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently conservative have decided that the liberal media, in their endless quest to smear conservatives as racist by <em>forcing them</em> to defend George Zimmerman, have now made the ludicrous claim that a Hispanic person can be white. That's ridiculous, liberal media! Only white people are white! <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295126/nothing-do-justice-actually-victor-davis-hanson">Isn't that right, Victor Davis Hanson?</a></p><blockquote><p>The media then created a special rubric “white Hispanic,” when its narrative of white-on-black crime was endangered by new information that Mr. Zimmerman had a Latino mother, although it normally does not use such terminology for others of mixed ancestry — Barack Obama himself being a good example.</p></blockquote><p>I think the argument here is that if the media wants to claim Hispanics can be white, they better also call the president a mulatto.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/conservatives_baffled_at_idea_of_white_hispanic_people/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/conservatives_baffled_at_idea_of_white_hispanic_people/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>216</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No, Newt, don&#8217;t quit to make room for Santorum</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/no_newt_dont_quit_to_make_room_for_santorum/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/no_newt_dont_quit_to_make_room_for_santorum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Santorum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12350391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Never, ever listen to the National Review]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The National Review has attracted <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/02/national-review-santorums-best-attribute-hes-not-romney-or-gingrich/48619/">some attention</a> today for <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290895/santorum-s-turn-editors">publishing an editorial suggesting</a> that Newt Gingrich abandon his presidential run in order to allow Rick Santorum to fly free and destroy Mitt Romney. (Ramesh Ponnuru <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290964/come-and-go-you-please-ramesh-ponnuru">contests the notion that the editorial calls on Gingrich to quit the race</a> but "the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit" seems pretty unambiguous even if it's prefaced with a reminder that Gingrich told Santorum to do the same thing last month.)</p><p>Gingrich should not listen to them. At all. (Not that Gingrich listens to anyone, besides perhaps his wife, but still.) This editorial can be safely ignored for the following reasons:</p><p>First of all, everyone should always do the opposite of whatever a National Review editorial says to do. The opposite of what "The Editors" want is invariably the correct choice, morally and politically. If politicians always made "doing the opposite of what The Editors of the National Review want" a top priority, there would be universal peace and prosperity and kick-ass super-trains crisscrossing the nation.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/no_newt_dont_quit_to_make_room_for_santorum/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/no_newt_dont_quit_to_make_room_for_santorum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Komen victim of &#8220;bullying,&#8221; sad abortion foe says</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/komen_victim_of_bullying_sad_abortion_foe_says/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/komen_victim_of_bullying_sad_abortion_foe_says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bullying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planned Parenthood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12295101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Someone make an "It Gets Better" video for poor Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Poor Kathryn Jean Lopez, the National Review Online's resident delicate flower, anti-feminist traditional Catholic, and enemy of all homosexualists and abortionists. She was <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289798/taking-back-pink-planned-parenthood-news-precious-reporting-kathryn-jean-lopez">so delighted</a> when Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced that it would no longer be sending grant money to Planned Parenthood to fund breast cancer screenings and mammogram referrals, because it meant that her side had "won" a battle in the war against women's health providers that perform abortions and provide contraception.</p><p>She was so excited, in fact, that she forgot that the decision was <em>NOT ABOUT ABORTION WHATEVER GAVE YOU THAT IDEA</em>. Later she posted that hilarious <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289934/komen-explains-itself-kathryn-jean-lopez">YouTube video of Komen CEO Nancy Brinker</a> explaining that the Planned Parenthood decision was not in any way political, no sir. (At least one commenter noted the disconnect: "Really curious what K-Lo thinks Komen is actually doing here. When the news broke, she seemed pleased and pointed out right-to-lifers had been trying to force Komen to shuck PP. But she also believes Komen's [ridiculous] assertion that the decision has nothing to do with politics and was just a big coincidence? Hunh?")</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/komen_victim_of_bullying_sad_abortion_foe_says/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/komen_victim_of_bullying_sad_abortion_foe_says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>44</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The right spins the Santorum surge</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/the_right_spins_the_santorum_surge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/the_right_spins_the_santorum_surge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iowa caucuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Santorum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=11865681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sure, no one liked him when he was down and out, but now he's not-Romney No. 1!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick Santorum's not-quite-victory in Iowa last night was unlikely but also sort of inevitable -- he was "next in line," and Ron Paul was doomed by the portions of his platform that <em>aren't</em> horrible -- and now we get to watch the anti-Romney conservatives pretend they've always liked ol' Rick, the True Conservative, the only credible standard-bearer, an electable, decent man who isn't a Washington insider.</p><p>(<a href="http://videosift.com/video/Glenn-Beck-Rick-Santorum-is-the-next-George-Washington">If Glenn Beck, for example,</a> could trust "the reins of power" in any current GOP candidate, it would apparently be Rick Santorum.)</p><p>Some are wise enough to bemoan the entire remaining slate, though they of course blame outsiders, and not the actual rank-and-file of their own movement. Jim Geraghty <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287127/what-iowa-means-nro-symposium">hates Iowa,</a> and says the kooky results (Ron Paul!!!) can be blamed on the lack of a Democratic primary sending unreliable "independents" -- presumably baked out of their minds -- to GOP caucuses to spoil the entire campaign.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/the_right_spins_the_santorum_surge/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/the_right_spins_the_santorum_surge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Americans no longer love America, to dismay of conservatives</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/americans_no_longer_love_america_to_dismay_of_conservatives/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/americans_no_longer_love_america_to_dismay_of_conservatives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Exceptionalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10233616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Poll: Americans best in the world at doubting American exceptionalism]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sad news: Americans are more anti-American than ever. Effete socialists make up more than half of the population, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/despite-popularity-among-gop-candidates-american-exceptionalism-on-the-decline/2011/11/17/gIQAa4uNWN_blog.html?wprss=the-fix">according to</a> a new Pew Research Center report, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283482/belief-american-exceptionalism-subsides-brian-bolduc">as highlighted by the Corner's Brian Bolduc.</a></p><blockquote><p>Belief in American exceptionalism is declining, the Pew Research Center concludes in a new report:</p>
<blockquote><p>About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others.</p>
<p>While opinions about cultural superiority have remained relatively stable over the years in the four Western European countries surveyed, Americans are now far less likely to say that their culture is better than others; six-in-ten Americans held this belief in 2002 and 55% did so in 2007.</p></blockquote>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/americans_no_longer_love_america_to_dismay_of_conservatives/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/americans_no_longer_love_america_to_dismay_of_conservatives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>99</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>National Review contributor declares Taylor Swift winner of GOP debate</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/national_review_contributor_declares_taylor_swift_winner_of_gop_debate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/national_review_contributor_declares_taylor_swift_winner_of_gop_debate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kathryn Jean Lopez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Perry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taylor Swift]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10191732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Being governor and running for president at the same time must be hard, and other insights from K-Lo]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let's check in with National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez, shall we? Lopez, the world's greatest political blogger, has made two very compelling points about last night's Republican debate. The first, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282817/re-perrys-moment-kathryn-jean-lopez">made shortly after it ended:</a></p><blockquote><p>In all seriousness, it cannot be easy to be governor of Texas and run for president at the same time.</p></blockquote><p>That is the entirety of the post. (<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282817/re-perrys-moment-kathryn-jean-lopez#comment-371873">Commenter "motherofthetroops"</a>: "K-Lo, I say this in Christian love: what Perry is to debaters, you are to Corner commentators." People who preface things with "I say this in Christian love" are people who are about to say something awful to you, usually.)</p><p>This morning, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282837/cnbc-debate-night-kathryn-jean-lopez">she published a longer reaction to last night's debate</a>, informed by a night of careful consideration. "These candidates aren’t half bad," she declares. "I do wish Santorum would have his moment," she sighs, wistfully, imagining herself chastely holding hands with the former senator on a lovely spring day as they block the entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/national_review_contributor_declares_taylor_swift_winner_of_gop_debate/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/national_review_contributor_declares_taylor_swift_winner_of_gop_debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Record number of deportations still not enough for anti-immigration zealots</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/record_number_of_deportations_still_not_enough_for_anti_immigration_zealots/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/record_number_of_deportations_still_not_enough_for_anti_immigration_zealots/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frontline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10127402</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration kicked out 400,000 people this year, satisfying no one and winning no support for reform]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Obama administration deported a record number of immigrants in fiscal year 2011. Nearly 400,000 people kicked out of America. That must thrill the anti-immigration crowd, right? Eh, not so much. Mark Krikorian, one of the National Review's resident anti-immigration zealots, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280585/hollow-deportation-boast-mark-krikorian">says the record number of deportations doesn't count</a>, because there will never, ever be enough deportations for this crowd.</p><p>"But when you look at history, the 'largest number' is only about 1,700 more than two years ago," Krikorian says. So most deportations ever, but <em>not by a large enough margin.</em></p><p>If Obama <em>really</em> cared, see, he'd deport a zillion people:</p><blockquote><p>Nor is the stagnation in the deportation numbers due to a temporary diversion of resources, as after 9/11: The Obama administration, as a matter of policy, refuses to even <em>ask</em> Congress for the resources needed to deport any more than 400,000 people. Now, 400,000 deportations (of illegal aliens, of course, but also of <em>legal</em> aliens who made themselves deportable because of crimes) is a lot, but it can easily be doubled; I remember one of the top people at INS in the Clinton years telling me that the 114,000 removed in 1997 was a really, really big number and sufficient proof of their seriousness about immigration enforcement.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/record_number_of_deportations_still_not_enough_for_anti_immigration_zealots/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/record_number_of_deportations_still_not_enough_for_anti_immigration_zealots/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Professional &#8220;voter fraud&#8221; troll now preemptively predicting fake voter fraud</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/12/hans_fraud_weprin/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/12/hans_fraud_weprin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Acorn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. House of Representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/09/12/hans_fraud_weprin</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A former Bush lawyer with a history of hyping up phony fraud threats sounds the alarm on tomorrow's NY-9 election]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hans A. von Spakovsky wants you to know that if Democrat David Weprin pulls it out and wins the special election tomorrow for the congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner, Weprin will have won this longtime Democratic district through voter fraud. So, you know, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/276915/watch-out-voter-fraud-new-york-ninth-hans-von-spakovsky">just be prepared!</a></p><p>Polls show Republican Bob Turner slightly leading, so obviously any result other than a Turner victory means ACORN paid homeless people to vote 100 times under false names. "Will [close polls] tempt some locals to resort to the kind of voter fraud that Kings County and Brooklyn are infamous for?" asks former Fulton County, Georgia Republican Party head Hans A. von Spakovsky, who is apparently unaware that "Kings County and Brooklyn" is redundant.</p><p>Spakovsky suspects imminent voter fraud because some people listed on the registration rolls have moved or died:</p><blockquote>
<p>A source within the Turner camp tells me the campaign sent a letter and campaign literature to all the voters on the permanent list maintained by the Board of Elections who are automatically mailed absentee ballots. They have received hundreds of pieces of returned mail marked &#8220;address unknown&#8221; or &#8220;return to sender&#8221; and at least five marked &#8220;deceased.&#8221;</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/12/hans_fraud_weprin/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/12/hans_fraud_weprin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What did the GOP elite think of last night&#8217;s debate?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/08/elite_debate_review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/08/elite_debate_review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 21:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Perry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/09/08/elite_debate_review</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rove, Cheney and influential pundits still divided on Rick Perry's electability, though no one much loves Romney]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One contest in the GOP nominating process that is much more important than the Ames Straw Poll is the unofficial Republican Party elite primary. This is waged in the pages of the Wall Street Journal opinion section and at various "Beltway cocktail parties" or whatever it is party elites do when they're socializing with one another. These gentlemen don't hand-select the nominee (well, most of the time -- every now and then there's a George W. Bush) but they have veto power (sorry, Ron Paul). What did they think of last night's candidate debate?</p><p>The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been hating on Romney with great intensity for some time now, and while they'd like to see a Mitch Daniels onstage (to the point where they've even flirted with Obama-loving pseudo-moderate Jon Huntsman), they seem to be getting comfortable with Rick Perry. Here's longtime WSJ fixture James Taranto <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904836104576558422839279558.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion">praising Perry's lust for capital punishment</a> and <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904836104576558622023470508.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond">Carl Kelm noting Perry's "authenticity and boldness."</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/08/elite_debate_review/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/08/elite_debate_review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guy who wants Obama to read less fiction not as concerned about Cheney&#8217;s reading list</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/06/cheney_books/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/06/cheney_books/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 22:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dick Cheney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/09/06/cheney_books</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tevi Troy says the former Vice President may not have read much nonfiction, but he did meet with guys who write]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember Tevi Troy, the Republican "former senior White House aide" who criticized Barack Obama at the National Review Online <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/23/obama_fiction/index.html">for reading well-reviewed novels</a> instead of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and other conservative book club selections? He's back with <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/276400/reading-cheneys-reading-tevi-troy">another of his wonderful posts about the reading habits</a> of prominent politicians. This time, he's talking Dick Cheney.</p><p>Dick Cheney's memoir apparently mentions a lot of books he read and enjoyed. Mostly books about wars and frontier settlers and so on. Good Republican books. But the Washington Post's nonfiction book editor <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/dick-cheneys-reading-list/2011/08/26/gIQAuIywgJ_print.html">notes that Cheney doesn't mention reading anything while actually in office as vice president:</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/06/cheney_books/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/06/cheney_books/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>National Review asks why Obama reads critically acclaimed fiction instead of Jonah Goldberg</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/23/obama_fiction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/23/obama_fiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mysteries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/08/23/obama_fiction</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conservative "intellectuals" examine the president's vacation book list -- and become concerned]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barack Obama is reading gritty rural neo-noir by an acknowledged master of the crime fiction genre, and the National Review <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275264/what-s-obama-reading-tevi-troy#">is not happy with him</a>. The president bought Daniel Woodrell's "Bayou Trilogy," along with a number of other novels, at a Martha's Vineyard bookstore, and Tevi Troy, a "senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former senior White House aide" ("senior fellow at the Hudson Institute" means "minor Republican apparatchik in need of a paycheck while his party's out of power") <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275264/what-s-obama-reading-tevi-troy#">is analyzing the president's reading list for you.</a></p><blockquote>
<p>The reports are in about the books President Obama is looking at on his annual trip to Martha&#8217;s Vineyard. According to reports from the Los Angeles Times and the AP, Obama purchased five books on his trip to the Vineyard bookseller Bunch of Grapes: Marianna Baer&#8217;s Frost, Aldous Huxley&#8217;s Brave New World, Daniel Woodrell&#8217;s Bayou Trilogy, Emma Donoghue&#8217;s Room, and Ward Just&#8217;s Rodin&#8217;s Debutante.</p>
<p>The second wave came when, according to Alexis Simendinger, White House aides listed for reporters the three books Obama brought with him to the Vineyard: two more novels &#8212; Abraham Verghese&#8217;s Cutting for Stone and David Grossman&#8217;s To the End of the Land &#8212; and one nonfiction work &#8212; Isabel Wilkerson&#8217;s The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America&#8217;s Great Migration.</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/23/obama_fiction/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/23/obama_fiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>160</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The National Review wants you to get pregnant</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/02/birth_control_corner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/02/birth_control_corner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birth Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/08/02/birth_control_corner</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The kids at The Corner launch multiple attacks on the new mandate requiring health insurance contraception coverage]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Department of Health and Human Services, acting on recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/01/us_free_birth_control">will require health insurance companies</a> to fully cover a wide array of preventative health measures for women, beginning next year. You know, breast pumps, physicals, birth control, that sort of thing. Who could have a problem with this? The National Review, of course!</p><p>Kathryn Jean Lopez says <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273389/obamacare-strikes-again-violating-conscience-rights-kathryn-jean-lopez">"Obamacare strikes again"</a> (when did it strike last time?) and then writes some lies about how now Obama will force Catholics to give prostitutes abortions, or something. I dunno. The Catholic church's prohibition against contraception is pretty medieval and stupid, I don't have a lot of sympathy for her argument. The Archbishop of Galveston-Houston threatens to shut down every single Catholic hospital, school, and charity in America if they don't get an exemption from the rule. Why does every minority want Special Rights?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/02/birth_control_corner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/02/birth_control_corner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Planned Parenthood firebombed, right wing silent</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A potential incident of domestic terrorism this week got a yawn from most of the press -- and the political right]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone <a href="http://jezebel.com/5825438/texas-planned-parenthood-attacked-with-molotov-cocktail">firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic</a> in McKinney, Texas, late Tuesday night. Because it was so late, no one was hurt. The clinic <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/07/28/a_mckinney_tx_planned_parenthood_that_doesn_t_provide_abortions_.html">doesn't provide abortions,</a> but there had been protesters there <a href="http://americanindependent.com/195910/north-texas-planned-parenthood-clinic-attacked-overnight-with-molotov-cocktail">earlier that day anyway.</a> You might've read about the news on Twitter or on a liberal blog. Probably not in a newspaper or on a cable new channel. Definitely not at any right-wing blogs. Which is a bit odd, actually, considering how much attention terrorist attacks generally get in this country.</p><p>Oh, sorry, how much attention possible <em>Islamic</em> terrorist attacks get.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>110</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

