Analysis, or professional cheerleading?

I went over to NRO thinking of getting some half-intelligent analysis of the debate. Under the huge headline, “ROMNEY’S BIG NIGHT,” NRO lists its contributors’ contributions:

These people are an embarrassment. Of course, we already knew that. It’s just that they keep becoming more of an embarrassment.

I went to NRO, because I was curious to read what people who are competent as the conservative-tilting baseball announcers of politics (while on all larger political and cultural issues they’re a disaster) had to say about the debate. But the effusive, breathless partisanship of those article titles stifled any desire I had to read the articles.

- end of initial entry -

Jessica K. writes:

“I went over to NRO thinking of getting some half-intelligent analysis.”

Well, there’s your problem.

LA writes:

By the way, what regular NRO contributor is missing from the list of transported-by-joy contributors? Andrew McCarthy. NRO’s only intellectual adult.

LA writes:

Ok, I gave in and read some of the items, which were entries at the Corner. They were more balanced and objective than the collection of titles led me to believe. Yes, they are saying the debate was a win for Romney, and they are encouraged by this positive turn in his fortunes, but, for the most part, they’re not going overboard about it, which was the impression I got from NRO’s main page.

October 4

Eric writes:

I agree with some of your critiques of National Review’s shallowness, but, as I mentioned, the idea that Romney won decisively seems to be the conventional wisdom right now. Liberals are not happy.

Doesn’t mean the race is over of course.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 03, 2012 11:37 PM | Send