Christopher Buckley quits National Review over Obama endorsement
posted at 4:05 pm on October 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Oh, and this also makes him too politically inept to be a conservative. Conservatives know things.
Maxx on October 14, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Christopher Buckley and Heather MacDonald should mate, but have Michelle Obama offer to be the surrogate mother. Then Barack Obama can raise the child as if it were his own. They’ll name him John, in honor of Kerry, and in 30 years we’ll be blessed with the Perfect Snob.
watchmen on October 14, 2008 at 4:28 PM
LMFAO!
upinak on October 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I’d love to see that established.
When it was earlier established, however, and about which Obama eventually admitted, that his books contained “falsehoods” (that means, he’s lied in those books) and “distortions” (more lies), I lost any ability I may have had to at least regard Obama as an author worth reading, if author at all.
The idea that one can author an autobiography that is later proven to contain “falsehoods” and “distortions” just exhausts any credibilty an author could have as to any so-called “autobiography” (which is, by it’s nature, a truthful statement about oneself).
It goes along with Obama’s “other” “falsehoods” about other (what should be) facts: like defining “welfare” as “tax cuts” and all his other, ongoing, uhhh, “distortions.”
Guy can’t even write an autobiography and get it straight. How much more a doofus can anyone actually BE?
S on October 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
There’s something sad about famous men who have adult sons who want to dress-up and BE famous for copying their daddy and nothing else. There’s got to be a “complex” or something.
Marcus on October 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Will I desert you Allah? Why would I? Will you still want a RINO like me if I do the unthinkable, and vote for McCain?
I have not read much of anything MM wrote since she lost her wits over the Dubai incident. That just seemed so hysterical to me. And while I did not support expanding the S-CHIP program and did support the President’s veto of it, I found the idea of Malkin doing drive bys of the Frost family home after their son supported that program on a radio spot to be somewhat bizarre.
I came here, because Ed came here.
If MM refuses to vote for McCain it will convince me of what I already believe about her: She is a my way or the highway type of person.
Obama is more liberal on the issue of immigration than McCain {certainly not less} but MM simply can not accept the fact that her view was not shared by enough Americans to keep someone like McCain from getting the nomination.
I think if the problem was not immigration it would probably be something else.
After all MM is a pundit, a talker, she sells books and makes money by creating controversy. I think she might be thinking that a liberal in the White House would be profitable and controversial.
As for Buckley, he knew who he was writing for. If he thought he could support Obama and keep writing for NRO then he is not half as smart as he keeps telling us he is.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Am I supposed to care?
lorien1973 on October 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Did I miss the time when HotAir had an open-borders site manager working w/ Allah & CPT Ed?
In an ideological organization, personnel is policy. Or do you think HotAir would be the same website if John Cole came on as a contributor? Buckley’s column linked above ends up sounding identical to Cole back when he was still pushing the Last True Conservative line.
Buckley can claim he’s addressing the election from a conservative perspective, but he makes no effort to make a conservative case. He didn’t make a conservative case for Obama, he made a stylistic case for Obama.
pmm on October 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Buckley finally quit the magazine when it was expedient for him to do so. So much like Obama.
He is not a conservative by any means. Obama is a socialist and wants bigger government and more of our money. I am not rich and I don’t want a jerk to lead me into debt.
Christopher Buckley is part of the elitist group that thinks writing a book well means you are an intellect and will lead by smarts. WRONG.
Obama’s history of the scum of the earth associations and supporting government interventions on every aspect of life is downright dangerous for this country.
Buckley must stop trying to find attention and popularity among the Hollyweird.
jencab on October 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I also mentioned “conservative-leaning moderates”. You can’t win an election in this country with just true conservatives (whatever that means – defintions seem to change rapidly). Scaring away the left third of the Republican coalition in the name of ideological purity is no way to win an election.
Big S on October 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
This guy’s writing sucked and he was never funny. I don’t get the people who thought he was humorous.
It’s just too rich that CB throws in the Reagan quote at the end of his hissy fit – even though HE endorsed Obama. Give me a break.
I don’t know how many else canceled subscriptions to NR, but I wrote KLo and Lowry to tell them that I wasn’t renewing as long as this jerk was associated with the magazine. I’m glad to know that I won’t miss any issues of NR because of him.
dhawbake on October 14, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I’m just gonna spam this till i turn blue in the face.
HE RESIGNED. You can’t claim to be fored if you QUIT!!!!!
YellowDawg on October 14, 2008 at 4:31 PM
The endorsement is just so vapid. “He writes his own books! He stands for everything I don’t stand for, but I’m hoping he doesn’t pull through on any of that!!”
Buckley is voting for a man who stands against everything he allegedly supports, banking on the idea that Obama is a liar and a fraud. I can think of many things Obama has lied about, but I somehow doubt his promise of big-government liberalism is one of them.
Lehosh on October 14, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Isn’t that precisely what some of the right has done with Palin. She can give an awesome stump speech. And regurgitate talking points at a debate after cramming for a week, but I think a lot of our community overlooks her obvious flaws because she has the same beliefs.
Just because she has the right values/beliefs, doesn’t mean she has the skill set to do this job.
As far as Buckley is concerned, I don’t think he should be fired just because he’s voting for Obama. On the other hand, you can’t send someone your resignation then cry when they accept it. If he wasn’t ready to accept the consequences, he shouldn’t have put it on the table. Now if this was a forced resignation, then that’s another story…
Trent1289 on October 14, 2008 at 4:32 PM
If all he did was vote for Obama, it wouldn’t have mattered that much. Instead, he took up the cudgels for Obama with great relish and bashed his ostensible brethren in the conservative movement.
And if Obama does win, it will become quite clear that Buckley’s view was not only mistaken, but gravely wrong. And he will be party to the damage that Obama would cause.
Lowry called his bluff and I’m glad he did. My guess is that after a year or two, the enormity of the mistake will become quite clear to Buckley fils and he’ll probably come back to NR as a prodigal son, much abashed but wiser.
Mr. D on October 14, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Steyn’s column is about the only thing in that magazine worth a read anyway.
brak on October 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Of course! I now suspect this was personal, and has very little to do with politics. That’s why his reasons don’t add up. And he is a twit to play out his unresolved Oedipus complex publicly, and at his age!
JiangxiDad on October 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM
How arrogant it is to believe that because Governor Palin is not the choice of the beltway chatterers, she is an “ill-informed choice”.
When they insult her, they insult middle America. And guess what? They need us.
capitalist piglet on October 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM
This seems odd coming from you. You say all the time that if we don’t like what you write that we’re free to leave. I even compared Blake to Alec Baldwin to help him understand the sentiment.
It’s no secret that we come here because you advance conservative causes. If Michelle abstains from voting because McCain’s too liberal, she’s still, in her own way, attempting to advance conservative.
But Buckley, claiming the Republican Party left him, is advancing socialism by supporting a candidate with the thinnest of reasons: “he wrote two books, seems calm, and I hope he really doesn’t mean the things he says.”
I said in the headline that I’d never heard of him before (his father yes, but him, no), and that I’ve only read his last two articles. It’s likely very unfair for me to judge him based on those articles, but if it isn’t, I’d say this is no loss to anyone. He’s either woefully ignorant or intentionally dishonest.
It would be one thing if Buckley gave an intelligent reason for supporting Obama, but there’s just nothing there, other than disdain for Palin (which also seems superficial), belief that McCain’s gone crazy, and Obama’s supposedly awesome books.
I’ve heard better reasons from HuffPo and Kos.
Besides, if he was, as Lowry claims, only there on a trial basis, then he should have expected his resignation to be taken seriously. That’s the whole point of a trial basis, to make sure it’s a good fit.
Here’s the litmus test: If you, Ed, or Michelle decide to do a 180 and vote Democrat but can’t come up with an argument for doing so that isn’t completely superficial. At that point, yes, you’ll lose our respect and loyalty. If you’re going to try and help the Democrat win by actually endorsing him (especially knowing how your endorsement will be used, as proof the Right is breaking apart), at least show us the respect of giving us a valid reason.
Esthier on October 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Reagan did. It’s all about making the case for conservatism.
Carter’s failure was a big help but I wish our candidate would run against Bush not because he disagreed with him on minor issues but because Bush is a fiscal liberal.
lodge on October 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM
so this buckley isn’t as religious as his dad I take it, no wonder he’s seeking the Obamamessiah
jp on October 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Allah says:
Dude. BUCKLEY RESIGNED. NR did not “keep him out, “do business” or “cancel him.”
Cuffy Meigs on October 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Ha, yeah, it puts his ready attraction to Obama in a realistic light, doesn’t it? Shared values.
S on October 14, 2008 at 4:34 PM
You’re growing rather tedious.
doubleplusundead on October 14, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I’d add that the newsworthiness of Buckley’s endorsement was due to both his name and the magazine he wrote for. So what’s the appropriate response if not accepting his resignation?
pmm on October 14, 2008 at 4:34 PM
And how can anyone who calls themselves a conservative stand by and let someone like Barack Obama win the White House without standing against that? It just stuns me.
McCain may not be Newt Gingrich, but Obama sure as hell is not Ronald Reagan either, he is a typical liberal Democrat and he is spouting the same crap liberal Democrats have been pushing for decades…only he left out the bear any burden, pay any price to advance the cause of liberty part.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 4:34 PM
anyone think he’s pissed his dad didn’t make him Editor?
jp on October 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Lets see, the son of a famous conservative who, upon even casual inspection, writes and sounds like a lib, and eventually cuts his ties with Dad’s group, giving them the finger on the way out. Ron Reagan Jr, anybody?
james23 on October 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Not everyone who voted for Reagan was a “true conservative”. Not everyone who votes for Obama will be a “true liberal”.
Big S on October 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM
AP:
Obama is not remotely centrist, he is far-left. Claiming to be conservative and ENDORSING Obama (which is not the same as merely voting for him) is like claiming to be a communist and joining the German Army when it invaded the USSR, or claiming to be a Christian and then firebombing churches.
This guy went far beyond disagreement, Buckley started fighting for the other side, using a ridiculous argument that he was still a conservative. No, he is an economic conservative and social liberal, the definition of a libertatian, who supports Obama wholeheartedly on social issues, and happens to believe that Obama won’t follow through on his economic platform. That may be naive, but it isn’t conservative.
Any conservative worth listening to or reading could not counsel voting for Obama. Period. This isn’t thought crime, it is simply ensuring that a CONSERVATIVE magazine offering CONSERVATIVE to a CONSERVATIVE audience employs, you know, CONSERVATIVES. Where is the crime in that?
Libertarians are not necessarily conservative. Some are moderately conservative, some are moderately liberal. None of them are Reagan conservatives, and all of them are to the left of even moderates like John McCain.
kaltes on October 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Buckley: No opinion
Steyn: Yay!
aero on October 14, 2008 at 4:36 PM
People pimping their blogs have grown rather tedious, little man.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Who in their right mind thinks Obama is better for this country?
Socialism über alles!!!
The sheep will pick the wolves who’ll eat the sheep. Much deserved!
Entelechy on October 14, 2008 at 4:36 PM
No, it only ended up driving away a few snooty east coast pundits. If anything, it’s done a lot to bring his coalition together by convincing many to vote for him who otherwise would have sat this one out.
Your “analysis” as usual, is 180 degrees from reality.
thirteen28 on October 14, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Allah, if Lowery’s reply is an accurate recounting of what happened between NRO and Christopher, then instead of making it seem like Buckley was hounded out of NRO, is seems more like he was affronted by the mere idea that anyone would be angry about his Obama endorsement and would reply to the magazine.
That’s not suppression of a diversity of opinion, that’s having the same type of thin skin that causes Obama supporters to recoil (and cry racism) at the reaction to any criticism of their candidate. If you do something you know is going to invite criticism and you then inflate those numbers to prove your point, it sounds like a preemptive effort by Buckley to spin t he situation to his advantage.
jon1979 on October 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Disingenuous. Reagan probably wouldn’t have much use for a gay marriage, abortion supporting, Obama voting, atheist, libertarian, but Buckely would have us believe they’re on the same side.
This guy is truly screwed up in his head with some kind of persecution syndrome. He wasn’t even fired, he quit.
JiangxiDad on October 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Anyone who believes that Obama, the little ACORN marxist, has a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, is no conservative. So good riddance.
Michelle’s free to vote for whomever she wants to. However, if she choose not to vote for McCain, readers of HotAir are also free decide if they should continue visiting this site after Nov 4.
Terms of litmus test? As bad as amnesty is, maxism is much worst.
RMR on October 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM
There is no way in hell that a person can claim to be a conservative and support Obama. I can see a conservative not supporting McCain, but to support the antithesis of all that is Reagan-esque and good, nope. Temperment and Intellect are not the foundation of conservatism. How you apply those two determine whether or not you a conservative or a flaming liberal.
Drill_Thrawl on October 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Indeed the apple does fall far from the tree.
While I agree that McCain is no Regan, likewise, Obama is no FDR and definitely no Kennedy.
leetpriest on October 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM
His father was a brilliant man. What happened to sonny boy? He’s got the brain of a chicken.
UnEasyRider on October 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM
watchmen — Typical black family …. LOL
tarpon on October 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
P.S. to Allah
What Buckley doesn’t acknowledge is that he’s not just electing Obama: he’s electing a unified Democratic government. He wants to pretend that this election is just about high-minded Obama and icky icky Palin, and hope against hope that Obama doesn’t follow through on his promises. The truth is that the election is about complete control of government at this point, and Obama is a small part.
I don’t think he’s dumb enough not to get this level of nuance. I think he doesn’t care.
Lehosh on October 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Maybe the young Buckley will be visited by 3 American Spirits tonight…
ocbrat on October 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Why DO people go their separate ways? I’d like to hear from:
Ian
Bryan
Patterico
Robert Spencer
RushBaby on October 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
his own words condemn him…
“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”
Republican politicians doesn’t mean conservative. If he doesn’t understand that, how smart can he really be? And has far as Terry’s case, its the courts that were obscene, what ever happened to the concept of “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? This is the essence of what it means to be conservative.
Conservative Voice on October 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Did you come over with Captain Ed too?
Valiant on October 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
This is what happens when you are born into a wealthy family and assume you are entitled.
Some should be so lucky.
upinak on October 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
McCain’s numbers have gone down since he picked Palin. He may have convinced a few far-right refuseniks to vote for him, but he drove away a lot more moderates. The coalition is shrinking, and even a few of its most respected voices have either jumped ship or are backed up against the railings. Palin’s got a negative fav./unfav. rating, a large majority thinks she’s unqualified, and the media theme is that she’s corrupt and dumb. It’s not exactly a combination that flatters the McCain campaign.
Big S on October 14, 2008 at 4:41 PM
RushBaby on October 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Left out seedub.
Entelechy on October 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM
This is what this election has taught me the most. What little conservative mdeia we now have is just being polluted with this.
If these guys really are middle of the road poltically why don’t they go write for middle of the road pubs like newsweek and Mens Health and World report.
They are conservatives or play one on TV for career purposes only. They will be just as comfrotable with an Obama admin as a Mccain.
I have a lot more respect for someone who just comes out and says hey I’m a moderate then someone who deceives.
kangjie on October 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM
With any luck, they’ll slap him in the face a few times. Maybe even billo could lend a helping hand.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Translation: I’m a conservative who’s going to vote for a Marxist because I think he’ll give up Marxism once he’s POTUS.
The validity of Buckley’s reasoning has been proven repeatedly by girls who marry drunks in the hope that they’ll change after the wedding.
Cicero43 on October 14, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Allah, I’d think you could do a bit better than “Here’s Lowry’s reply at the Corner”, considering that Lowry actually contests two major points of Buckley’s column.
First, Buckley says that, “Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands”. Lowry, says the magazine received about 100 e-mails and less than ten cancellation requests. That’s a “serious problem”? Hardly.
Buckley also says that he was “effectively fatwahed…by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me”. Neither of these contentions are true either. According to both Buckley and Lorwy, he is the one who tendered his resignation. Lowry and Fowler accepted it without recrimination and in good faith. No one at NRO has “fatwahed” Buckley. In fact, the criticisms of his column on NRO have been ridiculously civil considering some of the eggs he laid in his endorsement.
Unless Lowry lied, Buckley is exaggerating quite a bit in his post. There was no real pressure for him to resign. His actions, both in the endorsement and his resignation, took National Review by surprise. The parting, at least on NR’s part was amicable. The one with the sour grapes appears to be Buckley and, from what I can see, he has no reason at all to have made the accusations he has.
Jimmie on October 14, 2008 at 4:43 PM
The modern conservative movement stands for the same thing the not-so-modern conservative movement stood for: limited government, law and order, and fiscal responsibility, among other things.
And no, Chris, we have not just had eight years of “conservative” government — we have had eight years of George W. Bush’s government — which, with its big-spending, big-government, amnesty-pushing policies, has had little if anything to do with conservatism, modern or otherwise.
And with all due respect to AP, I see nothing “well-reasoned” about a person deciding to endorse Obama because he hopes and prays that upon stepping across the White House threshhold, Obama will somehow be transformed from the far-left, big-government, big-taxing, big-spending, weak-on-defense, race-pandering, amnesty-and-affirmative-action-supporting corrupt politician he’s always been and magically become a champion of the conservative cause for the good of the nation.
AZCoyote on October 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Christopher Buckley clearly stated reasons why someone like him would, under normal circumstances, refuse to vote for someone like Obama (bracketed comments mine): “He is … 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 [Obama is not, unless I missed him echoing Clinton the First on budget-balancing]. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian [Based on his vocal objection to the Born Alive Infants Act equivalent in Illinois, Obama is to the left of NARAL, denying postnatal survivors of abortion attempts life-saving medical care; he supports "civil unions," but is in full-throat support of the type of judicial activists that have used sleight of hand to grant same-sex couples marriage rights by saying ‘Civil union rights are essentially the same, so the titular difference is discriminatory’]. I believe … that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away [Obama not only promises to deliver such an ever-expanding monstrosity, his entire agenda is dependent on his ability to create it].”
But: Buckley’s flush-cheeked admiration for Obama’s intellect, “first-class temperament,” and writing skills overcome his own objections (verbatim):
After shaking my head at the notion of a secular prayer (uh, to whom, Chris?) I pondered how Obama’s aesthetic appeal has conquered both his and Kathleen Parker’s heretofore principled fight to halt the freedom-eating virus called socialism. It reminded me of a famous episode of Seinfeld titled “The Couch.”
A primer to the relevant part: Jerry Seinfeld and his former-lover-now-good-friend Elaine Benes are dining at an Italian restaurant. The subject of take-out pizza came up, and Elaine, who is pro-choice, says she would never order a pizza from the “Paccino’s” chain, which is owned by a man who donates millions to pro-life organizations (for real-life background, Google “Tom Monaghan”). Jerry asks Elaine what she would do if the owner of the restaurant in which they were awaiting dinner felt the same way. She replies that she would leave. Jerry – with mischievous delight — motions the owner over, and asks how he feels about abortion. The restaurateur’s face grimaces as he rants that no intelligent person could be in favor of it. This causes an ugly scene in the place, with some patrons shouting their pro-life support and others getting up and leaving in disgust.
Later in the episode, Elaine has a date with a hunky moving man that goes extremely well. The next day, she shows up at Jerry’s apartment with the status report:
This, however, is not a perfect parallel to the situation with young Mr. Buckley. Elaine (played by the magnificent – and very liberal – Julia Louis-Dreyfus) summons the courage to possibly ruin her illusion by testing her new man. She feigns being upset about a non-existent female friend who “got impregnated by her troglodytic half-brother, and decided to have an abortion.” Not suspecting she might think differently, the bf’s sympathetic response was: “You know, someday … we’re going to get enough people in the Supreme Court to change that law.” Elaine frowns and sobs.
In real life, however, unlike the fictional Ms. Benes, Mr. Buckley and Ms. Parker refuse to let their better judgment dissuade them from hastily diving headlong into a whirlwind relationship they may regret in leisure — at least four years, maybe eight. In their lavishing praise on Mr. Obama’s smarts, they seem not to have considered the possibility that the Senator’s genius towers over theirs so completely, he may have (in The One’s own words) “hoodwinked” them into buying into a philosophy that is the antithesis of all they held dear – that is, until all they held dear became him.
L.N. Smithee on October 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Has he left entirely? I thought he still did the occasional post here…?
RushBaby on October 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Big S:
I am not going to argue about whether or not Palin was the right choice. I think Romney or Pawlenty would have been good choices, but there is no way they would have inspired the kind of interest, good and bad, that Palin did.
But this is just Buckley being a rat deserting what he thinks is a sinking ship. After all there are dinner parties to go to and the like. It is just too much to have to defend an ordinary American running for office.
Not top drawer doncha know. Buckley might have held his nose and tolerated the insult to his class, but he probably thinks Obama is going to win so he is sucking up.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM
this is the same NR that published that piece by kathleen parker that was so critical of Palin. They’ve become more of a RINO publication…so they must have been hammered by their readers pretty hard….
they did have frum on their staff too…shows how far they have fallen from Burnham and Chambers.
right4life on October 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I’ve been a reader of this site since it was first linked on a mostly liberal news aggregator site just about the time hotair was launched. Looked forward to watching vent every day, didn’t get the ability to comment (and didn’t see the need to do so) until recently. Since you asked.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Not really, at least not in my case. My reasons for supporting Palin have to do with her accomplishments, governing style, and ideology, not with her intelligence. I think she’s demonstrated that she is smart enough to govern at an executive level, but what her IQ is or where he degrees are from are not of fundamental importance to me. That’s vastly different than the Obama supporters who seem to think he’s entitled to hold high office because he was editor at the Harvard Law Review… or for Buckley to endorse him because he has a first-class intellect. (How Buckley arrived at that conclusion escapes me, but that’s a separate issue.)
You said: “Just because she has the right values/beliefs, doesn’t mean she has the skill set to do this job.” I would counter with what’s so exciting about Palin is that she has the right values/beliefs AND she has the skill set to do the job of VP.
Y-not on October 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM
At HuffPo, maybe.
Mark Steyn’s the best conservative writer working today. Maybe Chris could read a couple of columns and get his bearings back.
saint kansas on October 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I’m sure the Huffington Post (that retirement place for conservatives who aren’t) probably has a very good column inch or two for him to fill.
Good luck, Mr. Buckley — we’ll all need it if your candidate gets elected.
unclesmrgol on October 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Here is the sum and substance of what Allah calls “reasoned analysis”:
Buckley: “I’ve read Obama’s books. I disagree with the worldview expressed in them, but I like the fact that he wrote them himself. I think Obama’s smart and has a good temperment. He is a leftist and I am a conservative. But I’m endorsing him because I hope that he will repudiate the very leftism expressed in his book and which forms the basis and foundation of his candidacy.”
That’s neither reasoned nor analytical.
angler on October 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM
And I told you both to suck it. I’m not leaving. HotAir pretends to be something it is not. And I will continue to point out the more than obvious bias it has for Obama.
Blake on October 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM
His new job left him in a position where he didn’t feel it appropriate to post partisan views on blogs.
Spirit of 1776 on October 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM
His father never put anyone down because they were not “from the right breeding”. Reading this little spoiled creep gives me the feeling that he is more interested in what is “in” then what is right.
His father was an intellect a real intellect, that would have appreciated McCain/Palin for what they are. Not the “attorney, ivy-league bred, pseudo intellectuals”.
Good riddance, he was an embarrassment to his family name. Choosing Obama pretty much say he left the Republican party, and joined the socialist party. Sorry the Republicans can’t tax and spend to the level he expects.
His dad would have held his nose at McCain’s liberal views, but embraced the conservative ones.
Obama has no, none, nada, conservative views…
right2bright on October 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM
No one would give a foxtrot if C. Buckley wouldn’t have done this. Now, he’s ‘famous’ for a few days/months/years, then into high class oblivion. No one will care.
RB, don’t recall seeing in a long time. Not sure.
Entelechy on October 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Where does all this tripe about a “first class intellect” come from. I’ve heard this from Krauthammer, too. I wanted top wash his mouth out with soap. There is nothing that indicates that Obama is anything more than an opportunist. His time at Columbia and Harvard are sealed from scrutiny. If he was so damned intelligent, why aren’t we treated to allof his great writings over the years? BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE. His books are trash. He is an empty suit. I think it is an abomination that Buckley endorsed him. I am guessing that you could light up half the world with the spinning that’s going on in Willaim F. Buckley’s grave.
Awilson on October 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Oh please AP. Endorsing Obama != not voting for McCain and don’t pretend you don’t see the difference.
There is no justifiable reason for an ideological conservative to endorse Obama. None. His ideas are in diametric opposition to ours. Buckley can claim the label all he wants, but unless he wants us to think him incapable of good judgment or a blithering idiot (neither of which are exactly beneficial in a columnist), he’s not a conservative. As you say, the sneers prove it. What’s more, NR may not have known everything there is to know about his political leanings. Perhaps he’s had a change recently.
If a contributor to a Buddhist magazine suddenly converted to Islam, would it be appropriate to keep that contributor on staff?
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Wow. Obama truly is a divisive person – he’s tearing the “conservative movement” to shreds.
This is like a big battle royale – a conservative version of Survivor. Don’t play by the rules – get kicked off the island.
cornfedbubba on October 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
I’m marrying him so he’ll stop cheating.
Spirit of 1776 on October 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
So NR accepted his resignation. So what? They didn’t fire him. He quit. Good. Now Mark Steyn can come back and write his Happy Warrior column again.
It’s bigger than one issue, too, wise_man. Michelle can do what she wants, but if it boils down to one issue with her, well, I thought she was better than that.
Anyone who believed Bush was a conservative was mistaken from the start — but would Al Gore or John Kerry have been better? I don’t think so. (I might also add that the deficits under Reagan were enormous.) Absolute perfection and ideological purity would certainly be nice, but where on this planet can that be found?
cheeflo on October 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
The more I read of the Buckley Brouhaha, the more irrelevant it seems.
It’s an oh-so-polite spitting contest between a bunch of so-called conservatives who are content to discuss theories while America burns and will take on the most ludicrous, contorted positions — e.g. endorsing Osama Obama despite their supposed conservative leanings to demonstrate their “fairness.”
I have no “litmus test” for HA, AP, so long as people are free to comment and take positions.
But if you’re so concerned about what was “done” to poor whiny snob “Christo,” AP, why not go set up a blog with him? Somewhere else, I mean.
If I had been in Lowry’s position, I would have accepted Buckley’s resignation far more “briskly!”
MrScribbler on October 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Actually its not true. His numbers jumped up after he had picked Palin. And he was leading in the polls before the whole Wall Street meltdown.
On the other hand, Michelle Malkin can do whatever she wants but if somebody thinks that Obama is going to be more strict on emigration issues than McCain that person is delusional. And to clear the air:I came here when Captain Ed came.
So. McCain might not be the perfect conservative (actually he is a far cry from it) he is much more in the middle than Obama. Thats all. We have to choose between a moderate centrist and a marxist. And staying at home its not an option.
clemycali on October 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Please…if you can support the most far-left candidate probably ever, you can’t at the same time say your politics haven’t changed. He’s an OK humorist who got his column because of who his daddy is, so it’s no loss.
blue13326 on October 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Big S:
No, McCain’s numbers did not go down after he picked Palin. He did not get a clear lead over Obama until he picked Palin.
The thing that hurt McCain’s numbers was the financial meltdown and all the angst that goes with Republicans and the economy. That was when McCain’s numbers went down.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Hold on a minute…..I have to check my last can of “DO I GIVE A SH*T” ……………………………..
………….never mind, it’s empty.
LOL
Old Hippie Vet on October 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Judas!
So what Buckley is saying that everything he was taught and everything he believed was a sham to appease his father — who is still a God in the eyes of many of us old school conservatives.
It is one thing to list problems with McCain or even decide to sit out an election. But to swing to the extreme far left and endorse Obama — who STILL has not demonstrated one iota of leadership shows that Buckley is a mental case. Off the reservation — trying to be what his dad was 40+ years ago but this time for the socialists.
Spineless dick.
grdred944 on October 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Exactly.
The Boss would be voting against amnesty, not for socialism.
Honestly, AP, what’s with you lately?
HYTEAndy on October 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Christopher Buckley, are you even aware that Obama did not write his first book?
Obama supporters comprise racists, crackpots, and the easily duped. Christophers Buckley and Hitchens fall into the “easily duped” category.
indythinker on October 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM
I agree with those pointing out that he resigned and was not fired.
I agree he is incredibly naive to think Obama’s intellect, forged in ultra liberal society, will lead him to conservative enlightenment.
I am sad though, because of who he is, who his father is and his description of himself:
That’s me too, and I’m worried I’m rather alone politically as it is. *sigh*
Dash on October 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Thanks. I quite missed that.
RushBaby on October 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Obviously neither one of us cares, Alec.
Esthier on October 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Famous with the people who share his new found position in the political world. He should be so very proud to join that exclusive club whose most recent inductee has been Scott McLellan. Maybe We’ll see a posting of him being interviewed by Keith Olbermann or that stunning beauty, Doctor Maddow.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM
FAlse, false, false and who cares? Next time, bring ammo.
james23 on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
It’s called a convention bounce. Perhaps you’ve heard of them.
Big S on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
If it bother you so much, see about getting him on board here.
On second thought, don’t. Although it might be a hoot watching him try to reconcile his conservative soul with his Obama endorsement when the programs really start to kick in.
angelat0763 on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Sort of like the guy who is married with kids, but still likes to have sex with a man. Why isn’t he straight?
Blake on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Who is really responsible here, Obama or McCain.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
<blockquoteHowever, if she choose not to vote for McCain, readers of HotAir are also free decide if they should continue visiting this site after Nov 4.
Michelle could vote for Barr. Michelle could also decide simply not to vote. Being that candidates for president are simply horrible this year, and that the political lean only allows for left to moderate, I see no problem with someone deciding not to vote in this election.
We’re voting for someone to represent us. If neither candidates represent our stance as conservatives, why should we elect the “lesser evil” and send the message to the Republican party that putting up a candidate that does not represent the party’s issues in the manner that the party would like them represented is acceptable?
leetpriest on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Old hippie vet, do you know 7%?
Entelechy on October 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
I think it is generally bad for everyone when someone surrenders their soapbox due to a cacophony resulting from a simple statement of opinion. It’s a shame and it harms societies that strive for more than mere mob rule.
Having said that, Buckley sez:
I hate to be indecorous in reply, but:
**** you, Chris.
SlimyBill on October 14, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I believe there’s an old addage about not letting a door hit one on the posterior.
Sorry. I’m not going to cry for you, Chris.
Vyce on October 14, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Instead of being outraged at the landslide of undeserved negative press Palin has received, you seem to hold her responsible for it. Unbelievable.
Who should McCain have chosen, in your mind? What do you imagine the press would have done to that person?
McCain himself has to take some responsibility for his position in the polls. Mr. Straight Talk had better start talking, and soon, and stop leaving it all to his VP pick.
capitalist piglet on October 14, 2008 at 4:52 PM
cheeflo:
Bush always called himself a compassionate conservative, he did not pretend to be something else.
But it seems to me that a lot of people left and right are ignoring the events of recent years.
If not for 9/11 and a series of natural disasters and a complete failure of our intelligence community to know what the hell is going on in the world together with some left over social engineering from the Clinton years…I doubt if we would be looking at these deficits.
Even if Bush had vetoed more highway bills or whatever, the Congress would have just over ridden them like they did the farm bill he vetoed. But all in all, conservatives forget that sometimes events play a part in history..not just ideology.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Obviously.
Mr. Buckley, I do know that we have NOT had 8 years of conservatism as you suggest. And I also know that electing an eloquent radical Marxist is not the way to advance the cause. It’s suicide. Good riddance to you, and Kristol, and McCain, and for that matter GWB. The hell with reaching across the aisle.
Where has it gotten us?
Until we recognize the enemy as the enemy, we will continue to be defeated.
edgehead on October 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM
You’re ignoring the er, elephant in the room (ten bucks says purposefully, because you’re a RINO), which would be the financial collapse, and what that means. Much of McCain’s boost came from white blue collar type Democrats that are economically liberal and culturally conservative. McCain’s success with those voters has relied on the Obama’s cultural leftism would driving those voters towards McCain. The financial crisis has sent them back to the Democrat plantation.
doubleplusundead on October 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Whomever McCain picked was destined to be an extra target for the punditry, just another wall onto which thrown mud could stick.
Hucakbee, Romney, Giuliani, they’d all have been pilloried.
SlimyBill on October 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM
BigS:
Palin is a Governor. And she is not corrupt. Far from it. Even if you believe the abuse of power thing, that is not about corruption. That is about going too far. If you believe it.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »