National Review (N.R.), founded by William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955, was once regarded as the main outlet of American conservatives.  Decades later, Rush Limbaugh triumphed on the radio, Fox News won audiences on TV, and Breitbart won the internet, yet N.R. had a special place in the hearts of conservatives.

Some of that changed in 2015, when Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign.  Trump was not a traditional conservative, but he supported all the conservative ideas that the National Review claims to stand for all these decades. 

Yet their attitude toward Trump was particularly caustic.

Now that Trump announced his new presidential bid, N.R.'s fangs are out again

The editorial board of N.R. rejected Trump as a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2024 in an article entitled "No."

They begin by pretending to appear to be fair.

They give Trump credit for ending the Clinton dynasty in 2016, three Supreme Court constitutionalist justices, reforming taxes, pushing deregulation, protecting the border, significantly degrading ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and bringing about normalization deals between Israel and the Gulf states.

Unsurprisingly, there is no gratitude for ending the Bush dynasty, which should give readers a clue about the motivations behind this piece.

The N.R. then pivots to the attack.

They claim that "the Trump administration was chaotic even on its best days because of his erratic nature and lack of seriousness."  They claim he "repeatedly had to be talked out of disastrous ideas by his advisers and Republican elected officials."  They claim that Trump "had a limited understanding of our constitutional system, and at the end of the day, little respect for it."  Obviously, they mention Trump's mean tweets.

All of these are the usual unsubstantiated allegations made by the liberal media-based leaks from "sources."  How shameful that a "conservative" outlet is following along and repeating them!

N.R. forgot that Trump's achievement deserves higher praise because it was done during the relentless Democrat campaigns to unseat him via the Russia collusion hoax and two bogus impeachments. 

Next, N.R. sticks to the Democrat narratives of the "insurrection" and claims that Trump incited a mob to storm the Capitol.

There is no mention of Ray Epps.  There is no mention of the FBI's refusal to comment if its informers were part of the mob.  There is no mention of Trump urging his supporters to protest peacefully and patriotically.

There is no mention of how COVID-19 was an excuse to alter time-honored the electoral practices.  There is no mention of Big Tech suppressing and discrediting anti-Biden stories and one in five Americans saying that "truthful" coverage would have changed the 2020 election outcome.

N.R. doesn't mention Mark Zuckerberg donating nearly $419 million to left-wing activists to lobby for universal mail-in voting and to infiltrate sacrosanct election infrastructure.

N.R. doesn't mention that sixty-nine percent of voters nationwide cast their ballot nontraditionally — i.e., by mail on or before Election Day.

N.R. is perhaps from the school of thought that Republicans should always be gracious — i.e., concede defeat even before a contest has begun and compromise on their conservative principles if they win.

N.R. doesn't mention the Stalinist January 6 kangaroo court trial, which was illegal and unfair.

N.R. finally blames Trump for the midterm losses, despite the fact that his endorsements had a 95-percent success rate.  They also blame Trump for the loss of seats in the House and Senate and reducing of GOP governors across the nation since 2015.

N.R. obviously doesn't blame Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who attacked MAGA candidates and withdrew funds in a key Senate race, or Ronna Romney McDaniel for being a docile bystander or Kevin McCarthy for being overconfident.

N.R. urges GOP voters to "give up on the idea that Trump is a winner."  They cite the fact that Trump did not exceed 47 percent in either of his campaigns to imply a very narrow electoral path.  They also claim that "with all that's transpired since 2020, Trump is weaker than in his first two races."

N.R. claims Democrats are pining to run against Trump again in 2024 so they can replicate this experience on a much larger scale. 

If that were the case, the Democrats would not have placed so many impediments before Trump via the myriad probes.  The Biden DOJ and FBI wouldn't have conducted a raid on Trump's home.  The Democrat P.R. wing that masquerades as the media would have promoted Trump. 

The reason there is a focused campaign against Trump proves that they still know he is a force to reckon with in his party and beyond.

N.R. concedes that "Trump is a magnetic political figure who has managed to bond countless millions of Republicans to him.  Many GOP voters appreciate his combativeness and hate his enemies, who so often engaged in excesses in pursuit of him."

However, they add that the primaries will present voters with other Republicans who are not "monumentally selfish or morally and electorally compromised."

They also add that Trump will be 78 years old if elected and ineligible to serve two terms.

Overall, N.R.'s piece sounded identical to the various pieces in the NYT and the pieces in The WaPo.  N.R. even had phrases identical to MSNBC.

In other words, N.R. sounded like Democrat mouthpieces who slammed and dismissed.  N.R. attempted to second-guess voters in primary contests.

How did N.R. react when Trump launched his campaign in 2015?

They slammed Trump, calling him "wrong for the GOP."  They claimed that Trump was an affront to those devoted to N.R.'s founder, Buckley.  They called Trump an "Anti-Constitutional Authoritarian," they called him a con man, and they called him divisive.

N.R. probably prefers the Bushes, the McCains, and the Romneys, who seldom stand for conservative principles and who willingly accept their position of being second-class citizens in D.C. and the muck pelted at them by the left. 

Romney marched in a BLM rally.  Romney, Bush, and McCain condemned Trump and MAGA Republicans.

All through the Trump presidency, N.R. seldom stood by Trump; on occasion, they remained spectators and even attacked Trump with left-wing talking points.

N.R.'s recent article rejecting Trump is consistent with their overall attitude in recent years.

For seven years, various media outlets dedicated news space to claim that Trump is finished as a political force.  As they predict his irrelevance, they use Trump's name and photos to draw consumers.

It has to be remembered that those who are truly finished will never, ever receive mention in any of these outlets.  Jeb Bush and John Kasich have never, ever been written or spoken about in the news media because they are truly obsolete.  The only way they can get some coverage is to attack Trump.

In the end, no media outlet, not the NYT or the WaPo or N.R. or the Murdoch media, can decide the relevance of Trump. 

That remains strictly the right of the voters during the primaries and the general election.

Trump's journey to the White House in 2024 won't be easy, but neither has it ever been before.