Christopher Buckley quits National Review over Obama endorsement

posted at 4:05 pm on October 14, 2008 by Allahpundit

It’s hard to second-guess Lowry and Fowler without knowing how much fallout NR had absorbed from Buckley’s endorsement, but instinctively I hate this. It’d be one thing if his politics had changed, but they haven’t. Or so he says. From the endorsement column:

I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves.

Maybe he’s being naive about that and maybe he isn’t (smart bet: he is), but either way he hasn’t repudiated conservatism, in which case what’s the argument for keeping him out of NR? His opinion was worthy enough to qualify for a weekly column and now suddenly it isn’t because on the binary choice of Obama versus McCain he’s gone the wrong way?

From today’s piece:

Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal…

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

The gratuitous sneer about ideological diversity, as if The Nation or Salon was any better, makes me think his political leanings are a tad more nuanced than he’s letting on, but if that’s the case then he probably shouldn’t have been given a column to begin with. Exit question: If NR’s going to do business this way, why have regular columnists at all? I’ve always thought the point of publishing someone regularly was because you so esteem their viewpoint that you’re willing to hear them out even when you disagree. That’s certainly my approach with someone like, say, Mark Steyn. If Buckley didn’t meet that standard, why not cancel him earlier and turn the back page over to reader submissions that toe the appropriate ideological line? Follow-up exit question: If Michelle makes good on her threat not to vote for McCain because she simply can’t bear to pull the lever for an amnesty shill — which is what he is, I hasten to remind you — are our readers going to desert us, too? Define the terms of the litmus test, please.

Update: Here’s Lowry’s reply at the Corner. Steyn will be back on the back page in the next issue, so there’s a silver lining.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

from the NRO piece by Rich Lowry:

UPDATE: The Daily Beast headline has been changed to “Buckley Bows Out of National Review.”

So, just like a good lefty, he writes a hysterical post fabricating events (700-1) then when challenged, quietly changes his headline–but not before all the MSM/lefties got a good look at that “FIRED” part and have run with it and will express shock and outrage at the gestapo NRO.

How any conservative could possibly endorse Obama is so beyond logic but his paragraph:

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

tells me good riddance and the upside: MORE MARK STEYN!

Renwaa on October 14, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Arianna is hideous. Always has been.

Kenno on October 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM

Reminds me of a guy in Key West in drag pretending to be Zsa Zsa Gabor.

CC – BHO: “my Muslim faith”

CapedConservative on October 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM

Sorry. I voted for Romney. Just looking out for my pocketbook.

wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 11:22 PM

Take a look at Mike next election. If there is a next election. Scary times ahead.

apacalyps on October 14, 2008 at 11:30 PM

Alla, does anyone other than you really care? It’s no big deal. The guy is basically a nobody living off his dad’s name. There are a hell of a lot more things to be concerned about right now. To hell with this jerk.

devere252 on October 14, 2008 at 11:41 PM

apacalyps on October 14, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Because quoting Bible verse is always such a great way to make a point.

Not helping.

WisCon on October 14, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Because quoting Bible verse is always such a great way to make a point. Not helping.

WisCon on October 14, 2008 at 11:46 PM

If you only knew how wrong you are. One day you’ll realize though. One day soon.

apacalyps on October 14, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Fixed that for you….

CC – BHO: “my Muslim faith”

CapedConservative on October 14, 2008 at 10:11 PM

It isn’t really a fix, unless you believe that you can identify a conservative majority in a national election that doesn’t include those writers. Rush or a Hannity can motivate the 30% or so that have been the core base, but the GOP needs avenues to get beyond that in order to keep Obama out of office or limited to one term.

dedalus on October 14, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Ummmmmmmmm…………… Chirstopher,

What if Obama didn’t write ‘Dreams from My Father’?

…….. would that have changed your mind? Maybe not. Have fun with your new friends.

Seven Percent Solution on October 14, 2008 at 11:56 PM

With Palin? They basically reach into the misogyny pit of “dumb woman” and “church lady” — nothing tangible. And that line enrages a lot of us Hillary PUMAs and women/gays in general.

McCain would not be better off with a Romney VP.

lansing quaker on October 14, 2008 at 10:25 PM

I hope you are right and the PUMA vote puts McCain in office by pulling OH, PA, VA, FL. The polls I’ve seen haven’t been encouraging. I don’t disagree that Romney would have had his own set of problems–too rich, too Mormon. I think Mitt’s executive experience would have been more credible than Palin’s and his private equity experience at Bain would have enabled him to speak for the ticket with Paulson and Bernanke, and saved McCain the campaign suspension.

Though if Palin can move the women’s vote a few points, she’ll have done more than Mitt could have. I’m hoping despite little evidence that she will.

dedalus on October 15, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Is it me or is the country going through a sort of Mitosis prior to some kind of painful division? It’s like were picking teams.

ronsfi on October 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Arianna is hideous. Always has been.

Kenno on October 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM

There was a point when I think I may have had a notion that maybe possibly she was hot.

Will that get me banned?

12thMonkey on October 15, 2008 at 12:07 AM

12thMonkey, no it won’t, though it should :)

Entelechy on October 15, 2008 at 1:09 AM

Alla, does anyone other than you really care?

Posted on page 5 of the comments.

Jim Treacher on October 15, 2008 at 1:51 AM

I hasten to remind you — are our readers going to desert us, too? Define the terms of the litmus test, please.

I would have deserted Hot Air long time ago but am sticking around simply because there’s no other conservative site with easy access to news, video and other stuff.

Allah, you call your attitude pessimism and say its habitual but it reminds me of Andrew Sullivan. No, you haven’t sunk to the depravity of asking for the proof of baby Trig’s parentage yet but “I’m just questioning, it’s my job” attitude comes real close. It’s good to show some spirit and pump up your fellow conservatives once in a while who are regularly beaten up by MSM as it is.

promachus on October 15, 2008 at 1:53 AM

I like Buckley as an author. I’ve never really cared what his politics were; he’s just a funny writer.

I consider the back page of NR to be Steyn’s column. He’s been occupied lately with that Canadian kangaroo court unpleasantness, and I thought Buckley made a good backup…but that page is Steyn’s.

the GOP is a big tent in that you can vote for a Democrat and not lose your party membership. Funny thing is, John Derbyshire has been consistently, loudly, and even at times eloquently at odds with the NR staff for the sake of his preferred candidate, Ron Paul. there was no consensus among the NR folks in the primaries; Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Fred!, Paul, each had their NR boosters.

I’d sooner eviscerate myself with a fountain pen than vote for Obama. I’m not that impressed with Buckley’s reasons for doing so, but hey, that’s just me. Won’t stop me from reading him, unless he goes the Sullivan route and becomes an intolerant, unfunny, self-righteous hack.

I can’t blame Buckley for not being a fan of McCain. I think it’s BS that McCain has somehow changed from Hipster McMaverick to Grumpy McSenile (he’s ALWAYS been Gaffy McGrudgington); I think it’s hilarious that the only reason many of us have for supporting the guy (Palin) is the one thing so many “principled” conservatives use as the basis of their support for Obama. Poppycock.

sulla on October 15, 2008 at 2:46 AM

So, Lowry more or less call’s Buckley a liar:

He was not fired.
He was only filling in for Steyn while he was gone.
There was no deluge of emails.
No excessive cancellation of subscriptions.
Buckley insulted NR readers.

And yet, there is no change of opinion by AP. AP either thinks Lowry is lying or he doesn’t care that Buckley was. I believe it was the latter. Like Buckley, why would he pass up an opportunity to take a shot at conservatives?

Blake on October 15, 2008 at 3:44 AM

Buckley is a moron. Despite his parentage.

dogsoldier on October 15, 2008 at 6:13 AM

The guy is basically a nobody living off his dad’s name. There are a hell of a lot more things to be concerned about right now. To hell with this jerk.

devere252 on October 14, 2008 at 11:41 PM

+10000

He’s the new media whore of Babylon.

twoarmman on October 15, 2008 at 6:45 AM

Where are all the socialist/Marxist/communist/’s for McCain? I just love the “”””””conservatives””””””” for Obama…..

twoarmman on October 15, 2008 at 6:49 AM

My father in his day endorsed a number of liberal Democrats for high office, including Allard K. Lowenstein and Joe Lieberman. One of his closest friends on earth was John Kenneth Galbraith. In 1969, Pup wrote a widely-remarked upon column saying that it was time America had a black president. (I hasten to aver here that I did not endorse Senator Obama because he is black. Surely voting for someone on that basis is as racist as not voting for him for the same reason.)

Chris Buckley with Legs Matthews:

“I sense in this guy a first class mind, who just might do smart things.
I’m putting it all on black, as I guess they would say in the casinos.”

Bill Buckley from the grave:

I’d rather keep the fate of a great nation away from the Roulette table, wouldn’t you?

silverfox on October 15, 2008 at 7:04 AM

Chris Buckley : Bill Buckley as Austin Powers : 007 (Sean Connery)

silverfox on October 15, 2008 at 7:08 AM

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! MOM! People disagree with me, Snif!

Today I’m going to post a pro-McCain diary at DKos… we’ll let Lil’ Buckley compare the “outrage” and venom…

BadBrad on October 15, 2008 at 7:09 AM

My theory is that Buckley and Kmiec and the like are suffering a little man-love for Obama, and its clouding their judgement. Blonde is blonde.

JAW on October 15, 2008 at 7:42 AM

Exit question: If NR’s going to do business this way, why have regular columnists at all? I’ve always thought the point of publishing someone regularly was because you so esteem their viewpoint that you’re willing to hear them out even when you disagree.

This is not new. I dropped my subscription to National Review back about 1962 because Bill Buckley dropped one of my favorite columnists.

burt on October 15, 2008 at 7:45 AM

J.R. Dunn at American Thinker has a great article up called “Buckley’s Apostasy.” It makes a great follow-up to his piece a few weeks ago about the northeast corrider “conservatives.”

BigD on October 15, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Christopher Buckley is not his father. As often as naught, sons of ultra-famous men have all the gifts of their father’s intellect, wealth and opportunity, including the drive to make their own niche in the world. And that drive for “distinction” often results in the detraction of the father. So it goes with NR. Whatever “letting go” of Christopher, there’s always more that led to it, and more that was asked of Christopher than he was able or willing to accomplish. The sign made public is merely that and no more or less.

Allah, referencing MALKIN: What’s the use of decapitating the dragon if the knight’s page persists in saying that the dragon lives? AMNESTY IS DEAD. Should it ever reincarnate, WE will again kill it GIVEN OUR VOICE.

Without a conservative win this election, we lose our voice.

Defy the blaring opposition in all of its subtle/obvious nuances. Today there is reason for faith in the acceptability of the conservative “movement” as Canadian ballots just joined the conservative political victories of France, Germany and Italy. Whatever “acceptability” factor that the news expounds requiring more socialism for American international alliance success is a lie. And whatever “in” factor that socialism is supposed to generate socially is another lie. So whatever “popularity” power motivation for sabotaging the conservative effort to win this election will only sabotage the insider saboteur via exposure.

Allahpundit, don’t side with Jonathan Martin vs. Ace of Spades by taking Eeyore to Mordor. When you’re in a poker game, what you let on determines the win. Exposing your achilles heel is foolish during hand to hand mortal combat. Deal with the purging of a thorn appropriately according to the rules of war and survival. Timing and place matter as much as numbers in battle. Don’t bare yourself to oblivion under fire because there’s a sticker on your ass. Win your survival, and then pull out the damned thorn.

maverick muse on October 15, 2008 at 8:18 AM

good riddance to bad rubbish

bill30097 on October 15, 2008 at 8:36 AM

BigD: thanks for the note.

For all those numbskulls still whining about “amnesty”, get your heads on straight.

Son Christopher Buckley just yesterday announced he is leaving the magazine his father founded. He forgets, along with all the “conservatives’ now crowding the exits, is that when you pull the lever, you’re not just voting for a man, or even a party, you’re voting for a worldview.

The Obama worldview accepts and condones Bill Ayers, ACORN, Rashid Khalidi, Jeremiah Wright, and Raila Odinga, to mention only a few out of the menagerie that Obama has presented us. (Isn’t strange how liberal leaders always seem to be leading around a carnival sideshow? Think of FDR’s crew -= Howe, Hopkins, White, Tugwell, Stettinius, Hiss, Wallace, to mention only a few. Then move onto the Carter clan. Then Bill Clinton’s admiration society. And we’re supposed to disdain Sarah Plain?) When you pull that lever, you’re also pulling it for them — there’s no way to deny it, the entanglement is simply too great.

And you’re pulling it for something else as well.

Over the past fifty years, something on the order of a half-million Americans — that is to say 500,000 of our friends and neighbors — have been killed by liberal policies. This is not hyperbole, this is not exaggeration; it is a cold statement of fact.

J.R. Dunn

AMNESTY TO TERRORISTS IS WORSE AND MORE REAL NOW than the defeated comprehensive immigration reform deal referencing amnesty for illegal aliens that already lost.

Again, a critic wrote for me to “get real” and I respond likewise.

maverick muse on October 15, 2008 at 8:36 AM

Posted on page 5 of the comments.
Jim Treacher on October 15, 2008 at 1:51 AM

The number of comments in irrelevant to the statement.

wise_man on October 15, 2008 at 8:55 AM

“I’d sooner eviscerate myself with a fountain pen than vote for Obama. I’m not that impressed with Buckley’s reasons for doing so….”
sulla on October 15, 2008

I can actually understand, although I don’t agree.
For some people, it’s all about their “team” and it doesn’t matter who the candidate is or what the consequences are of said candidate being elected. For others, it’s all about reality….who is better for the country right now (it sure aint Obama) and maybe Buckley truely believes that Obama is the smarter, more practical person to get the job done.

Hey, I STILL don’t like McCain. You can actually point to the day in this campaign when he became “one of us”, but I,m not really buying it.

Damn I wish Fred would have shown more interet in running!

Goodeye_Closed on October 15, 2008 at 8:59 AM

For example. Look up.
devere252 on October 14, 2008 at 11:41 PM
twoarmman on October 15, 2008 at 6:45 AM
Both comments go to his point, not yours. Ask them if they care about chrissy and what he thinks about Obama. Do you want to count them on all five pages and then tell us how many people care, and how many people don’t care?

wise_man on October 15, 2008 at 9:00 AM

I have no where else to post this, but can anyone point to any analysis on how good/bad Europe has been doing with all thier highly socialized countries?

How has becoming so socialized hurt them?

Thune on October 15, 2008 at 9:14 AM

William F. vs. Christopher Buckley

In the past, urban conservatives served to analyze and interpret such events for the benefit of the rest of us. That no longer appears to be the case. But we’ll manage somehow.–J.R. Dunn

So long as the urban conservatives held the power to lead, they were satisfied to be “conservative” though what all that meant applied as much to class envy as anything since the haves always cut the line to the come-uppance educated have-nots, whether the haves are conservatives or liberals or whatever. That’s simply human nature, selfishness/greed, political expediency, and it applies to everyone in one degree or another. To deny that is a vain, futile moronic exercise.

The same destruction of the come-uppant educated population (whether “Western” or from the broadly “lower economic class”) occurs from liberalism. That very hypocrisy eliminates the excuse of any “need” for socialism. EDUCATION remains for the masses the traditional 19th Century Romantic Ideal as in yearning for the UNATTAINABLE. To the extent that people are literate with knowledge of critical thought and historical record, people reject socialism. Just as unions have outlived their purpose, so has the Progressive Socialist movement. Socialism has become the Goliath, the uncircumcized Philistine champion of pagan hording armies.

And the only force at odds with the tsunami of socialism is what remains of conservatism–the first principles that established our Constitution and our balance of powers.

It is NO SURPRISE that the elitists (regardless of any faux distinctions per race, creed, party, or economic bracket) attack Sarah Palin, and no surprise that their searing attacks are mere hyperbole without substance, based only upon vicious animosity for a white western heterosexual Christian woman married with children with a state university education and successful career overcoming the very corruption that pads elitists’ bank accounts.

GO SARAH!

maverick muse on October 15, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Thune

http://www.economist.com/

maverick muse on October 15, 2008 at 9:31 AM

I have a question: How many other writers whose work appears in National Review are voting Obama, and when will we know? And when will they stop writing for the magazine?

1) Kathleen Parker
2) Charles Krauthammer
3)
4)

BigD on October 15, 2008 at 9:38 AM

There’s an old saying, “From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.” What it means is that a man builds an empire, the son lacking the abilities of the father loses all the father built, and the grandson must go back to rolling up his sleeves and create new wealth.

Not to judge a father’s work but no child is serviced by making life easier for their children. He was raised in oppulence and unfortunately absorbed the self-importance of a liberal.

Give me a man who suffers like McCain or a person raised in the normal life of an average American like Palin. I respect their decisions far more than the pampered life of an aristocrat.

itsspideyman on October 15, 2008 at 10:08 AM

I have a question: How many other writers whose work appears in National Review are voting Obama, and when will we know? And when will they stop writing for the magazine?

1) Kathleen Parker
2) Charles Krauthammer
3)
4)

BigD on October 15, 2008 at 9:38 AM

I’ll defend Krauthammer. I agree with O’Sullivan’s law, the pivot point is that I think Krauthammer is not so much pro-Obama rather he is anti-McCain. If I want anyone kicked off the Island its Frum, Kristol, and the big government compassionate conservatives who pushed so hard for McCain in the first place. The NYT endorsed McCain because they knew he had no chance of winning a general election. Like attempting brain surgery with a butter knife, McCain is useful to a limited extent (bona fide war hero) but ultimately dull and ineffective. If this election goes as poorly as it appears (and I am hoping for the best, while expecting the worst to motivate me) the folks who brought us McCain, the Main Street moderates should politely step down and leave the future of the party to us extremists. We’ll do the heavy lifting, that McCain and his merry band of moderates are unwilling to do.

The nation is still center right, we SHOULD NOT be losing to a guy with a record as liberal as Obama. McCain and his team will pay if he loses.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Give me a man who suffers like McCain or a person raised in the normal life of an average American like Palin. I respect their decisions far more than the pampered life of an aristocrat.

I can’t help but go to the main page and look at that photograph of Christopher Buckley after reading those words.

wise_man on October 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Give me a man who suffers like McCain or a person raised in the normal life of an average American like Palin. I respect their decisions far more than the pampered life of an aristocrat.

itsspideyman on October 15, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Aren’t we supposed to leave the class envy and populism to the liberals? I recall Ross Perot, the last guy to run with ears as big as Obama’s, chose a war hero, General Stockdale as his running mate. Great man, lousy politician. Certainly character is a factor but it is not the only factor. Character is the only measure of a man, but it is not a prerequisite for a politician. There is no other way to explain Ted Kennedy.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Pardon me, I believe Stockdale was an Admiral.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM

While it is true that Ronald Reagan believed in a “Big Tent Party”, I don’t see how Christopher Buckley’s willingness to vote for an apparent Socialist makes him somehow broadminded. Rather, it makes him one of two things: A Liberal, or a hopeful idiot.

Buckley seems to think that if a person sounds intellectual they can be trusted to “Do the right thing” which holds no bearing to the actual reality of Senator Obama’s record.

Just as I suspect that people would be shocked if Ted Kennedy came out to vote for a true Conservative, it seems pretty remarkable that anyone would find it strange that people would remark about the son of one of the “Godfathers” of Conservatism lauding America’s first Marxist Presidential candidate.

I suspect that Mr. Buckley has been shaped via some time in very Liberal inner circles. In other words, they got to him.

Ideologically Mr Obama is unpalatable to any true Conservative, and probably quite a few Conservative Democrats. To vote for him is to totally renounce as over the era of Conservatism, which I think is what Buckley is saying.

If Buckley even considers himself a Conservative, I would think he would put forth a very straightforward argument of the reasons why Obama should become President.

The problem is, he would be very hard pressed to do so.

darkmetal on October 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Geez, Allah, when do you disagree with Mark Steyn?

Califemme on October 14, 2008 at 4:10 PM

The longer I stay on this site, the squishier Allah appears to be.

pseudonominus on October 15, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Plain and simple. Reagans “big tent” did not include liberals.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM

For all those numbskulls still whining about “amnesty”, get your heads on straight.

AMNESTY TO TERRORISTS IS WORSE AND MORE REAL NOW than the defeated comprehensive immigration reform deal referencing amnesty for illegal aliens that already lost.

maverick muse on October 15, 2008 at 8:36 AM

Yep. The McShamnesty drones are like passengers in a rowboat trying to kill roaches in the bottom with sledgehammers. Leaks now abound and the thing is listing badly and the hammerers have no mirror to help them understand why.

It’d be comical if I weren’t in the boat with them.

SlimyBill on October 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Plain and simple. Reagans “big tent” did not include liberals.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Oh yes it did. The difference between Reagan and today’s GOP is that when he reached across the aisle and got bitten, he strode across the aisle and bit back.

“Ouch” was not an acceptable word in his dojo.

SlimyBill on October 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Not to judge a father’s work but no child is serviced by making life easier for their children. He was raised in oppulence and unfortunately absorbed the self-importance of a liberal.

Give me a man who suffers like McCain or a person raised in the normal life of an average American like Palin. I respect their decisions far more than the pampered life of an aristocrat.

WFB was probably raised in greater wealth the Christopher. Though that is what made WFB unusual since most of his fellow Yalies were apologists for big government expansion.

dedalus on October 15, 2008 at 11:14 AM

We have too many chatterboxes in this country. Some like Frum, Buckley, Brooks, flap aways and get paid; the rest of us do it pro bono. Mind you, it’s a pleasant pastime. In chatterbox land ideas have no consequences; it’s not like your ideas will make anything happen. They’re just like little pebbles tossed into a little pond that make a little ripple and then vanish. The trouble is that out there beyond the Pentagon’s skirts, sterner, harder and fundamentally more intelligent men than Buckley are hefting rocks of a whole other weight.

But that’s tomorrow. Today let’s all vote for this well spoken fellow who writes such pretty books. So: “Chatterboxes for the Chatterbox in Chief!”

dhimwit on October 15, 2008 at 11:21 AM

I’m 42 and old enough to know Reagan. Thanks. I don’t think we disagree. Reagan staked out ideological grounds, (yes I believe the argument in favor of small government is ideological) and brought folks like Moynahan over to the minority Republican side to make a majority. He reached across the aisle to bring liberals over to the conservative side. He often staked out unpopular positions (calling Russia the “evil empire,” SDI, and James Watt “trees pollute” at the EPA), so that he could speak over politicians to communicate directly to the people. He changed peoples minds and hearts. He was not a compromiser, but a game changer.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 11:41 AM

I’m 42 and old enough to know Reagan. Thanks. I don’t think we disagree. Reagan staked out ideological grounds, (yes I believe the argument in favor of small government is ideological) and brought folks like Moynahan over to the minority Republican side to make a majority. He reached across the aisle to bring liberals over to the conservative side. He often staked out unpopular positions (calling Russia the “evil empire,” SDI, and James Watt “trees pollute” at the EPA), so that he could speak over politicians to communicate directly to the people. He changed peoples minds and hearts. He was not a compromiser, but a game changer.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Agreed, sir, and didn’t intend to be condescending.

This whole election bagshoot has me in a surly mood!

SlimyBill on October 15, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Agreed, sir, and didn’t intend to be condescending.

This whole election bagshoot has me in a surly mood!

SlimyBill on October 15, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Good. Now lets start changing hearts and minds. Lots of work to do.

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM

I am old enough to have voted for Reagan two times. He did not reach out across the aisle to include liberals. He submitted his arguments to the public and some liberals found they agreed on some points.

However Reagan had one outstanding quality. He never attacked individuals, only systems. That was based upon his innate, biblically based decency.

Reagan denounced the evil empire. He never denounced Gorbachev and thus maintained a relationship with the leader of the evil empire.

It is worth reading Reagan’s writings and speeches. He did not seek to find the good part of liberalism because the definition of liberalism to Reagan meant the antithesis of liberty.

McCain does share to a great degree Reagan’s aversion to attacking people. I wish he had more of Reagan’s willingness to attack the ideas and systems proposed by his opponents as bad, evil, or stupid. That is the missing part of the equation

Palin fills out that part, and she has a lot of the Reagan style, despite the howling of libs to the contrary. In terms of Ayers, he is a terrorist, unrepentant, involved in bombing the Pentagon. Reagan would not have trivialized that connection.

What is the difference between a terrorist who bombs the Pentagon and a KGB agent working to destabilize our system?

KGB agents were employees of the Soviet system, not traitors to their fellow Americans willing to murder living human beings at the Pentagon to alter the politics of a nation

entagor on October 15, 2008 at 12:05 PM

The bigger point in all of this is that Buckley and those like him are real, old-school conservatives who can’t bring themselves to support a Republican party that has become a caricature of itself. The conservative movement begun by WFB and Sen. Goldwater is dead and gone, taken over by religious fundamentalists and authoritarian populists. Ironically, McCain was once a true conservative who sold his soul in order to win the nomination. Malkin, Hannity, Bush 43, Limbaugh, Steyn (pompous ass), etc….none of these people are true conservatives. Far right extremists to be sure, but in no way are they “small c” conservatives. Most of the posters around here fall into the same category.

dakine on October 15, 2008 at 12:23 PM

dakine on October 15, 2008 at 12:23 PM

And I suppose you think Obama is an old school democrat like JFK.

kongzilla on October 15, 2008 at 1:02 PM

[Christopher Buckley's]… opinion was worthy enough to qualify for a weekly column and now suddenly it isn’t because on the binary choice of Obama versus McCain he’s gone the wrong way?

Allahpundit

Here we see Allahpundit full of concern and in a tearful defense of Christopher Buckley who is so far left that he’s actually stated he will vote for Obama. This is what Allah does, he defends lefties and uses his position here at HotAir to constantly demonize real conservatives.

Buckley… who will vote for Obama, is Allah’s kind of conservative. All this while real conservatives like Jerome Corsi are labeled by Allah as a Truther for simply doing an interview on the Alex Jones show.

Allah doesn’t seem to like Ann Coulter either and here is his treatment of Tom Tancredo. I could link lots of examples of Allah defending liberals and mocking conservatives but if you have been reading HotAir for long I don’t need to, you already know it. Allah is a closet liberal, he has nothing but contempt for real conservatives and this includes all readers here at HotAir. He shows us that sneering contempt everyday. Just so you know.

Maxx on October 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Maxx on October 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM

AP isn’t a closet liberal; his predilections are pretty clear to people here. He’s kind of a Christopher Hitchens wanna be, which, again, is okay as long as you know understand where he’s coming from.

But I don’t understand why he thinks Buckley should have been allowed to continue at National Review. Plenty of people get fired or leave when they no longer want or agree to toe the company line. Not that NR’s company line is all that clear sometimes ……

BigD on October 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM

But I don’t understand why he thinks Buckley should have been allowed to continue at National Review. Plenty of people get fired or leave when they no longer want or agree to toe the company line. Not that NR’s company line is all that clear sometimes ……

BigD on October 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM

You’ve been here a long time, I’m surprised at your response. Haven’t you found it odd that Allah never seems to miss a Palin hit piece to post for us? Has he missed a single discouraging poll? When there is truly good news for conservatives, does he ever fail to marginalize it by calling it an “obligatory” post? It’s not just me…. BigD, in fact crr6 (one of our trolls) said yesterday that HotAir has become more vitriolic of Palin than the lefty sites. And he’s right, we have, and we have Allah to thank for that.

this blog has been trending left in its content. Especially with Palin, there’s more vitriol towards her here then at some lefty sites. Sometimes I can come here and the content is indistinguishable from DKos.

crr6 on October 14, 2008 at 7:21 PM

You know, HotAir is suppose to be a rightwing blog, its not the place to constantly deride conservatives.

Maxx on October 15, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Maxx, you’ve effectively made the case as to why AP is a true conservative in the Goldwater/Reagan/WFB mold. Malkin, Palin, Bush 43, etc. are in no way true conservatives. Far right wing ideologues with religious fundamentalist and/or authoritarian populist tendencies. Guessing you fit right in.

dakine on October 15, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Far right wing ideologues with religious fundamentalist and/or authoritarian populist tendencies. Guessing you fit right in.

dakine on October 15, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Yep, that’s me, except for the authoritarian populist tendencies, which is just a mantra of the left against conservatives.

Maxx on October 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Sorry, Maxx. It’s the mantra of true conservatives against whatever it is that you are.

dakine on October 15, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Maxx, I’m with you. Specifically with regard to Corsi. Is there something I’m missing or is there some reason why nobody posts to Atlas Shrugs, Pam Gellar, and the Obama-Odinga-Kenya-Sharia law story.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/kenya-smoking-g.html

Seems that if a candidate for US President had a cousin who was running for the highest office in Kenya and campaigned for him. This would be news. It should be news. It wasn’t for whatever reason, racism, Islamophobia, etc. Of course, if it turned out that the Kenyan candidate was a self-avowed Marxist who wanted to impose Sharia law in Kenya, perhaps then the story is ripe for the MSM? Nope. What if the Kenyan candidate inspired the slaugher of more than 1,000 of his political opponents? Still the U.S. media ignores the story. Why?

Maybe AP knows. We sure don’t blog much about radical Islam anymore. Has the threat gone away? If not then why is the Obama Odinga connection story untouchable?

Angry Dumbo on October 15, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Maxx on October 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I guess I never really thought of HotAir as a right-wing blog per se apart from the fact that Michelle Malkin is the owner. This is probably because because AP is not conservative and Ed Morrissey is, kind of, but in a very FP (Meyers Briggs lingo) way. Which is to say, he’s a bleeding heart.

Having said that, there is no media outlet or blog I know of that is as conservative as its readers. They all want to be liked by someone close to the MSM.

Rush Limbaugh is an exception, and that is because he is his own man, brand and show.

BigD on October 15, 2008 at 3:33 PM

If you only knew how wrong you are. One day you’ll realize though. One day soon.

apacalyps on October 14, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Perhaps OT, but I’d like to note that is usually said by:

A) Someone polishing a Death Ray
B) Someone with a handlebar mustache and/or monocle

TheUnrepentantGeek on October 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM

In what way has AP shown himself to be anything other than a conservative? On what issues does he differ from the conservative mainstream? Please use specifics.

Time and time again he has called the readers here that disagree with him on minor issues “Truthers.” Is that specific enough for you? And that’s without any research.

Capitalist Infidel on October 15, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Time and time again he has called the readers here that disagree with him on minor issues “Truthers.” Is that specific enough for you? And that’s without any research.

Capitalist Infidel on October 15, 2008 at 6:04 PM

In a word, no. Also, not evidence that he isn’t a conservative. Try harder.

Name calling, annoying though it may be, is not an indicator of an absence of conservative ideals. If you can show me where he’s embraced leftist ideals – links please – then we’ll talk.

TheUnrepentantGeek on October 15, 2008 at 7:58 PM

whats a yurt

malkinmania on October 15, 2008 at 8:19 PM

TheUnrepentantGeek on October 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM

I was referring to this UnrepentantGeek.

apacalyps on October 16, 2008 at 3:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5