Perhaps someone can explain this to me

Right after the 9/11 attacks, Ann Coulter wrote an over the top column that called for vigorous action against the terrorists and their supporters. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

That was too much for National Review and the magazine eventually stopped running Coulter's column.

In Coulter's defense, her rant was written in the immediate aftermath of an atrocity and Coulter lost friends in the attack.

Nonetheless, Naional Review felt compelled to distance itself from Coulter for her insulting attacks on Muslims. Perfectly defensible.

Now, fast forward seven years. There is no terrorist attack, but the Republicans lose a hard fought election. One Kathleen Parker writes a series of columns attacking social conservatives and Evangelical Christians.

Somehow, Parker remains in good standing with National Review. They still run her column despite its bigotry towards the very conservatives that NR presumes to lead.