Let them fight it out to the death. The strongest will emerge, mate with all the females and produce the fiercest most agressive conservative young to savage the anemic, inbread liberal heard. Oh, it will be glorious.

That second paragraph could be highlighted, copied to the clipboard, and pasted into any discussion thread on the Democratic Underground site, or practically any article in "The Nation," and it would not look the least bit out of place.

That's got to be an indication of something, but I can't quite articulate what it is.

Amos: I just can't beat what you said.

I believe it's referred to as the extremes curling back on themselves, meeting in the middle, and shaking hands.

Think Molotov.
Think Ribbentrop.

Maybe MTV could stage one of those animation wresting matches between Pat Buchanan and Jonah Goldberg.

Except nobody who watches MTV would know who they are.

Is it me or do Paleocons seem like a bunch of
whiny fat old queens? I think NR IS past its
prime and some of the American nationalism
espoused by the paleo's makes sense. But
these guys are not ready for prime time.

To these guys anybody that actually understands
(or cares) how real politics works gets labeled
a neo. Buchanan's vain and frivolous runs for
the presidency symbolize their impotents.

NR is almost completely unreadable at this point and is especially appalling when you compare it to its heyday in the 50s/60s. The American Conservative is infinitely more interesting, even when lunatic, and Pat Buchanan, though I disagree with him on trade, war, and immigration, defends Western Civilization in a way the neocons--largely irreligious--can not..

Fleming rancor is frequently appalling, but Frum's glibness and disingenuousness is equally so. The latter is a lightweight. The idea of him taking over NR is dispressing.

Amen to OJ's comment. I criticized NR in similar terms not long ago, even attracting responses from Ponnuru (perhaps the most impressive NR-man) and Goldberg.

NR's is the irrelevence of the winner.

Orrin:

National Review may have become unreadable for some, but one blog has been peeking now and then. In October and November the Brothers Judd blog linked to five articles from NRO, including one by the reviled David Frum. Not saying you agreed with everything in these articles, but SOMEBODY on this blog read them - or at least the titles.

And it's a surprise to me that National Review is "irreligious." Let's see, pro-life Catholics K-Lo and Rod Dreher and angry Episcopalian John Derbyshire post on religion regularly in the Corner. (Right now Derb is sputtering mad about that gay bishop, as you might expect). Jonah Goldberg recently splattered zillions of words on the Corner about...prayer. We had the Jewish view of prayer, the Catholic view, the Mormon view, the Baptist view. Somehow he missed the Zoroastrians, but he may get around to them yet.

As for defending western civ, Victor Davis Hanson has got that market practically cornered. He makes Buchanan look like a Berkeley poly-sci prof.

Casey:

Must agree with you there. The best columnist in the world is either Peggy Noonan or James Lileks, but if they both were to retire (perish the thought!!!) it would be Jonah Goldberg, John Derbyshire, and Victor Davis Hanson in a three-way photo finish, with Kathryn Jean Lopez and Rich Lowry right on their heels.

Maybe I should clarify. I like Jonah Goldberg's irreverent humor. His latest on that "rocking the vote" debate was a classic, and his Corner entries are usually funny and sharp.

John Derbyshire is a cranky old man who grumbles about homosexuals a lot and can't be bothered to pay attention to real-world politics. I'll pass on all his stuff except his math popularizations, which are terrific, and his non-ideological essyas like the recent remembrance of Bruce Lee.

K-Lo and Dreher often get obsessed with religious issues, especially abortion. I'm pro-choice-until-viability myself, so their one-issue focus grinds on me a little.

But it's hard to see how these folks could turn "unreadable" for Orrin. They agree with him on most everything, and they're all competent stylists.

Writer Fleming can't even spell President Carter's name correctly (Jimmy, not Jimmie).

I'm not sure that I'd trust his judgment.

Casey:

Derbyshire can be cranky and unduly pessimistic, but he's also capable of great eloquence. Read his essay from the morning of 9/11/01, "Steel Fire and Stone" (http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire091101.shtml) and see what I mean.

Ok, I happen to like NR. I happen to find it quite readable, thank you. I love Goldberg and Ponnuru. I miss Florence King, but the Long View is excellent. In terms of content, I'd be hard-pressed to pick between NR and First Things, but to my mind, it beats out Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and the American SortaConservative.

In all honesty, the only time I substantively agree with any vehemence with OJ or Paul is when the NR-riffs begin.

Derbyshire's views on homosexuality seem too much driven by having gone to English schools and experiencing it.

I thought Dreher had left.

Goldberg writes like a fraternity boy, not a serious thinker.

Does Lopez write much besides interviews?

I like Hanson.

Ponnuru is generally excellent.

I can handle reading NR but it seems the obsession
with electoral politics and other political
machinations can be tiresome.

I also think that the inherent urbanness of the
writers tends to grate after a while.

They also dropped the ball on immigration.

I actually like Derbyshire the best. He seems
to truly relish his newfound nationality.

Dreher still hangs out in the Corner, as does K-Lo. Their posts tend to be short, which I like in a blog.

Let's hope Goldberg never develops a severe case of pompous serious-thinkerism.

Still don't like Derbyshire, whatever his school experiences might have been.

Oh, I'm all for Canadian takeovers, but I can't think of anything memorable that Frum has ever written. And I like Orrin's characterization of Goldberg, who, like Steyn, depends on a trendy, frantic sense of urgency to sustain himself (although the quotable lines are many and classic). Profound, memorable long-term thinkers they are not, and they are not heirs to Mr. Buckley.