In the New York Sun, Ira Stoll writes about National Review’s anti-Trump issue:
Donald Trump is not exactly my cup of tea.
But the arguments marshaled against him by National Review and its contributors in the magazine’s special issue aimed at derailing his presidential candidacy are so pathetically weak — “philosophically unmoored,” to use the language with which the magazine’s own editorial describes Mr. Trump — that it’s enough to make me think that Mr. Trump is actually exactly the right leader for any political movement of which this magazine is the intellectual flagship.
In all the pages of reasons to supposedly oppose Mr. Trump, oddly missing from the kitchen sink list was his debate statement in support of the idea that vaccines cause autism, a claim with no scientific basis. I don’t expect that I will be voting for Mr. Trump. But as much as he makes me cringe, so too does National Review’s treatment of him. In its own illogical, inconsistent, ad hominem attacks, perhaps National Review is precisely the foe Mr. Trump deserves.
Read the whole thing.