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 »
…
How do you even respond to this….?
HYTEAndy on October 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
As I’ve mentioned before, Allah, you’re very fortunate that you’ve got Ed writing for this site.
Otherwise, why should I bother with it.
Vyce on October 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
It was completely obvious that she’d tank even before he picked her – at least to anyone not firmly planted within the conservative echo chamber.
Big S on October 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
And what happens when the bounce happens before the convention? What do you call it then, especially when it squelshes his opposition’s convention bounce?
Esthier on October 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Class.
saint kansas on October 14, 2008 at 4:55 PM
The best time that a protest vote was made, it was people who were upset with Bush senior’s ‘no new taxes’ broken promise. A lot of them voted for Perot to send a message. And what was the outcome of this cunning plan?
Bill Clinton won, was re-elected, ignored Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 happened 9 months after he left office. And Bush’s son was elected. Twice. Awesome. Reallyawesome message, huh?
If Bush was the lesser of two evils, then maybe we should have dumped him for 04 and let John Kerry win. What would Iraq look like now? A killing field, thanks to Kerry removing all troops. And before that, Maybe we should have not voted for the lesser of two evils Bush in the first place and let Al Gore become president. What would our nation look like then?
What benefit is there when we want to send a message that the lesser of two evils are preferred, and the greater of tow evils is victorious beacuse of our actions?
Seriously.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Jesus Christ! How the hell COULD you endorse Obama and still call yourself a Conservative? The ONLY reason I see for something like that is that an Obama presidency would destroy this nation so utterly that Conservatives will look great by comparison, even to the most casual of observers.
In any case, there’s one positive effect to his candidacy: the word “racist” is being used so frequently and for such stupid reasons that the word’s becoming diluted of its meaning. Soon being called a racist will be slightly less stinging than being called a silly goose. Maybe THEN some of these Repubelickans will man up a little.
Spanglemaker on October 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Indeed. This post (Allah’s) is one of his worst ever. “Hey look at me the pesky iconoclast, pissing off my readers … by totally fumbling the facts of the story to fit my own gadfly POV!”
Again: BUCKLEY RESIGNED.
Cuffy Meigs on October 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Here’s the pertinent term: don’t vote for a Marxist.
baldilocks on October 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM
McCain’s numbers went UP after he picked Palin. They didn’t start going down until the economic $hit hit the fan. You are conflating the two to support your argument, but it doesn’t work.
thirteen28 on October 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Personally its pathetic. For Buckley to imaginably take the “high road” he is basically telling McCain voters and his base that we are no longer the conservative base of the Reagan era. Its as insulting as it is comical. He denigrates Palin as being a joke being played on the people and can’t he tell me that Palin isnt the epitomy of Conservatism.
Exit Questions: Rich Lowery says that he was only there a few weeks while Steyn was gone on hiatus. Did Buckley NOT HAVE these feelings before he took the job? Did he take it fully knowing to use the highly trafficked site to become the useful idiot that he is for the left? How long until he shows up on CNN and MSNBC trying with all his might to speak smoothly like his father used to.
As far as MM.com and Hotair, I want a website during an election that is going to fight for my candidate. If I want independent observations I can go to CNN and click on their political ticker blog. I realize that I dont pay your paychecks so if I want to go you would probably say good riddance and that is fine.
Based on the comments from co-bloggers and commenters at other sites like Aces there are many who have already left youre 2 great sites.
broker1 on October 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Go ahead and tell me all about it………
………….but give me a minute, I have to get a cold one and move some tracks. I just finished recording a new song for my CD.
Old Hippie Vet on October 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM
I have my concerns about Palin, but Rasmussens still has her favorables pretty high, and when I see those crowds turning out to see her…I just can’t imagine them turning out that way for Romney. Not to diss Romney, but I think it is kind of a wash. The Troopergate thing does not help her but then again it does not hurt her with the people most likely to support her anyway.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Everybody knew the economy was going to suck by the end of August, but McCain chose not to address the economic concerns of the average American. He doubled down on “maverick” and “small town values”, looking to fight the culture war again. The ideological middle in this country is sick of the culture war, and is concerned about the economy. Bad move on McCain’s part.
Big S on October 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Yes. It’s like loony Tuesday. Down is up, Up is down, ‘I’m voting for Obama and I’m shocked that people would accuse me of not being a conservative’ … this is really in-sane.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Thats not true either and her pick was a strategic one. She had to pick as many female voters as possible, to enforce the anti-Washington and anti_Bush GOP ticket.
And now for the sake of the imagination. Who do you think was better suited than her to be McCain’s vp choise in the current enviorement?
clemycali on October 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Obama is so smart, yet wrong on every single issue. How do you square that Allah?
echosyst on October 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM
This has to be the dumbest statement I have ever heard.
Just because someone has (allegedly) a first class intellect doesn’t prevent them from being completely blind when comes to ideology.
There are plenty of “first class intellects” on the left, but they still push solutions that have failed every time they have been implemented.
The problem comes when first class egos convince the first class intellects, that they will be able to over come the problems that have thwarted everyone else.
1) Outside his book, (which may have been ghost written) I have seen no other evidence to support the claim that Obama has a first class intellect. Certainly his performance whenever he isn’t in front of a teleprompter gives no hint of such intellectual prowess.
2) Everything I have seen and heard leads me to believe that Obama is deeply committed to his hard left ideology. Certainly his wife is.
3) Obama gives every indication of having a first class ego, regardless of the status his intellect.
For Buckley to make this endorsement based on such slim evidence gives every indication that Buckley, like Obama suffers from a first class ego tied to a third class intellect.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Hey, as long as we’re talking about running mates, that Joe Biden sure is a winner, huh?
Y-not on October 14, 2008 at 5:02 PM
BAM!
SlimyBill on October 14, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Ditto that. And I would add, nor do his scholarly accomplishments while on the faculty at the U of C.
Y-not on October 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Where a growl incites argument, a sneer invites distrust.
Michele, Derb et al. growl. Even the elder Buckley had gotten to growling pretty fiercely at Bush’s big government “conservatism.”
Frum, C. Buckley, Katleen[sic] Parker et al. sneer.
I cannot enjoy reading a column written by someone that holds me in contempt. Normally, I would skip such a column unless I thought it necessary to read it. Readers of NR and NRO aren’t asking for party purity. They’re asking for respect from the authors and columnists that they’re paying to read.
spmat on October 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM
And right on friggin cue Buckley is about to be on Hardball.
Color me friggin shocked. Or as Michelle would say:
SNORT
broker1 on October 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Based on Rich Lowry’s comment it seems that Mr. Buckley’s idea that he was fired may have been the result of an over active ego. It seems that, with the return of Mark Steyn, his time was up.
That said, would a firing have been appropriate? Maybe.I don’t think that his opposition to Sen. McCain, per se, would have justified his termination…most of the readers of this site, National Review and generally anyone not a RINO had Sen. McCain as their last choice as nominee (leaving aside Ron Paul, of course).
The real problem in Mr. Buckley’s column, in my view, was his reason for opposing Sen. McCain. It wasn’t because of his policies, or because he had abandoned the conservative base of the Republican Party; it was that Sen. McCain had had the temerity to actually fight the election. To show some partisanship, if you will. His criticism of the McCain/Palin campaign was arrogant, condescending and intellectually shallow. It was a tribute to his own ego…nothing more.
But even that, alone, may not have been enough to terminate him. The final nail is what I think of as the Pelosi/Biden thing. Both Pelosi and Biden claim to be Catholics, yet they are strong abortion supporters. The line I draw for them, and other Catholic politicians is between a personal opinion on abortion (which I am prepared to tolerate) and the taking of active steps to sabotage efforts taken by Catholics and non-Catholics alike to save the lives of unborn babies. This latter, where they campaign against pro-life efforts possibly leads to conversion of people to the pro-abortion side. This, to me justifies denial of the sacraments and excommunication.
So too with Christopher Buckley…on a smaller scale. If he has doubts about Sen. McCain…even if he plans to vote for Sen. Obama…fine. But it is the loud, vocal effort to defeat Sen. McCain that goes too far. It’s a free country, and he’s entitled to his views. But he is not required to evangelize on behalf of Sen. Obama. If he does, then he goes over the line and maybe has to accept the consequences.
That’s fair I think.
Blaise on October 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Wow. He hated his father that much? Truly, I wonder why?
JiangxiDad on October 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Big S:
One of the few states in this country that can boast a surplus and a balanced budget is Alaska. You can turn your nose up at Palin and assume that if McCain had picked some rich white guy or whatever for a running mate the whole economy issue would go better for him..but I doubt it.
Obama is ahead and he has no experience, he has never balanced a budget or managed an economy..so obviously the economic issue is playing to certain generic advantages the Democrats have in this area. It has nothing to do with what McCain did or did not do.
And McCain was ahead until the collapse. Until then he managed to carry a small lead.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Christopher Buckley is another super-rich elitist, who can afford to behave and say whatever he wants. Some of us don’t have any choice but to be Conservatives. Some of us don’t have any choice but to work to defeat Obama. Our own economic survival is at stake.
Buckley + Obama = snob squared
Spassvogel on October 14, 2008 at 5:06 PM
It’d be one thing if his politics had changed, but they haven’t. Or so he says
What Republican let alone Conservative in their right mind (pun intended) would ever in a million years pull the lever for obamassiah. He needed to leave and not let the door hit him in the ass.
lisalj on October 14, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Yeah, it pretty much has gone downhill since VENT was dropped.
If McCain loses, I’m moving to Alaska so Sarah can be my leader. And then I’ll just have one comment to post here, over and over again:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
platypus on October 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I’m not abandoning my beliefs to a party that doesn’t give a damn about them.
If you’re so pro-party, why wholeheartedly back a candidate that has banked his bid for POTUS on the fact that he has a history for stabbing his own party in the back?
Seriously.
leetpriest on October 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM
And right on friggin cue Buckley is about to be on Hardball.
What a traitor. Good riddence.
lisalj on October 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Refusing to vote for McCain because of amnesty strikes me as the worst sort of spiteful idealism.
Some form of amnesty is GOING to get passed, because, ultimately, it has to. We’ve got tens of millions of illegals here, and something needs to be done about them, and the answer isn’t “round them up and ship them home”, because such a thing isn’t even remotely feasible. Understand that reality first.
Once that is accomplished, the logical solution is to vote for McCain, as despite claims to the contary, he can be forced to side with Republicans on this issue, at least more so than Obama, and work to ensure that any immigration reform legislation has the sort of provisions that conservatives want (such as more enforcement, etc.)
Because I guarantee you, there will be nothing of the sort from an Obama presidency, with a (sizable) majority Democrat Congress. Unless you buy his B.S. about being bipartisan.
In other words, if you care about the immigration issue: amnesty is going to happen. One candidate can get you at least something of what you want; the other will make the situation even worse than it is now. McCain is the former, not the latter.
Vyce on October 14, 2008 at 5:08 PM
I’m afraid Bill Buckley’s boy sounds like a spoiled child. Sorry if that reflects on the father, may he rest in peace.
But seriously, if Lowry is to be believed (and I’ve been doing that for awhile now) Christopher is making things up.
I would think that if you have a job on trial, you should prehaps be more circumspect in your anaylisis if want to keep that job.
I frankly don’t care who he votes for. But it is totally illogical to think that conservative principles will be better of under Obama… so staying home would have been the more consistent choice. Campaigning against McCain makes no sense.
petunia on October 14, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Now don’t you go all bitter on us like that.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:08 PM
The good part, SlimyBill, is that now and for eternity:
Associations don’t matter.
Experience doesn’t matter (legislative or executive.)
politicians no longer have to detail any policy (I own three small businesses and have never had a capital gains tax on any of them.)
The amount of money politicians received from corrupt companies don’t matter.
Hell, your wife doesn’t even have to like the country!
Awilson on October 14, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Well said.
Look on the bright side, since McCain has failed to pick up the vaunted indies and moderates, perhaps no one else will be so hasty to try this strategy in the near future.
Spirit of 1776 on October 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM
You can’t support a neo-Marxist and be a Conservative Allah.
At long last, are there no core beliefs that matter?
Kasper Hauser on October 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Personally, I have yet to see any evidence that Obama IS a first-class intellect. He never bothered to publish anything in his days at the Harvard Law Review,he has never strayed (in any non-rhetorical way) from traditional leftist policy prescriptions, he’s stubborn, evasive and vague (the surge, Ayers/Wright/Acorn, and his economic plan respectively).
Even if he’s right about The One’s intellect, Mr Buckley is assuming that he’ll will have the ‘nads to stand up to the New Dealers in the house & senate, and keep them from mplementing “traditional left-policies”. His record thus far, give no indication that he’ll do any such thing.
landshark on October 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM
How insanely great. You’re saying conservatism gives dignity and promise to the lives of the common ordinary man.
I think that is not only true, but worth shouting from the rooftops.
I hope JOHN MCCAIN is listening. He ought to explain how conservatism ennobles man during his debate, and how socialism debases him…if he knows.
JiangxiDad on October 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Some say that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. But if the tree is on top of a mountain, the apple can roll a long way downhill. Such is the case with Buckley Jr. It has happened before–Ronald Reagan Jr. is a liberal embarrassment to his father’s reputation.
Christopher Buckley was seduced by a “first-class intellect” who lacks common sense, or more accurately, a glib poker-faced talker who never DID anything. Remember the nuclear submarine commander who was supposed to be such a military genius? Jimmuh Carter, who turned Iran from an ally into an enemy who still threatens us 29 years later, and ruined our economy to boot. Remember the great Rhodes scholar with the genius IQ? Bill Clinton–well, he DID moderate, only because GOP majorities in Congress dragged him kicking and screaming to the middle. Obama, if elected, will NOT moderate–anyone with half a brain knows that Pelosi and Reid will push him further left.
Then there was that dumb cowboy from Bedtime for Bonzo, who made America into the shining city on the hill, and won the Cold War without firing a shot. A mere trifle for young Buckley–Reagan didn’t have an Ivy League degree.
For the National Review, Lowry made the right call, and good riddance! Hope Christopher Buckley got his golden parachute–he’ll need it when Obama leads him over a cliff!
Steve Z on October 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I am? I just gave you a history lesson. I am not ”pro-party’ as much as anobserver of fact, and don’t want to see disastrous history being revisited on us all. It’s called being selfish. Not being pro-party. I want what is the best for us. And I want to avoid what will be the worst. What do you think – given all that we know about Obama, his ego, his associations and the current state of blue balls with every single democrat in the US?
Huh? You riddle me that. What do you think is going to happen if Obama wins.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Obviously, you both do since you keep bringing it up. And as to your childish analogy, I never ever stated or implied I would leave HotAir. Dream on, witchy.
Blake on October 14, 2008 at 5:12 PM
I’m a conservative because I’m a little guy. I fear socialism’s ability to minimize me.
JiangxiDad on October 14, 2008 at 5:13 PM
leetpriest:
It is not about being proparty, it is about not being stupid and self destructive.Now if you really do not care about conservative issues and really don’t care who wins, then fine..but to complain that McCain has not been loyal enough while at the same time you are complaining about someone else being proparty seems odd to me.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM
James Taggart.
JiangxiDad on October 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM
SOrry Allah, but if Michelle can’t “pull the lever” for MCCAIN instead of OBAMA, she’s not a conservative either.
This is binary. A or B. You don’t get to fritter away with Bob Barr or the Constitution party because McCain makes us fussy one 3 issues. You vote for him, because without him, there is a SUPERMAJORITY liberal congress, president, and supreme court.
Voting for anyone OTHER than McCain is a vote for liberalism. That’s an indisputable fact.
Now, if 2016 rolls around and it’s Huckabee vs. Harold Ford or Jon Tester, I will vote Democratic 10 times a day.
But not this year, and not this time. “Conservatism” relies on getting McCain in, no matter how weird that is.
And frankly, Michelle’s amnesty rants seem a bit goofy compared with the “O” alternative….
battleoflepanto1571 on October 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM
I used to have a bumper sticker that read: “I used to be cynical – now I’m just amused.” Trust me, the only bitter part of me is my clinging.
platypus on October 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Oh I hope we aren’t assuming our democracy will look anything like true democracy after Obama has been in. Remember ACORN, Ayers, and Rezko are how Obama made his name and became the nominee.
Why would he leave anything close to a level playing feild when he leaves office. Obama knows how to cheat and steal to win. Democrats will soon have enough experience at faking wins that we will never have a free election again.
petunia on October 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Maybe he needs to just start quoting Ron Reagan instead of the Great Ronald. I wonder if he’s already stopped being Catholic?
kirkill on October 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM
If Chrissie Boy thinks Bush’s presidency is what constitutes true conservatism then I’m absolutely convinced Bill Buckley must have dropped him once when he was an infant. Maybe twice.
What a schmuck-a-ding.
Lincoln on October 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM
There you go.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM
HOME RUN
+1
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 14, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Right, cause calling a woman a witch isn’t at all childish.
I tried being reasonable with you, and now I’m done. For fun, I think of you as Baldwin, calling Allah a “fat pig.”
Though, the more you start ranting, the more I picture you as Sean Penn, and it makes me laugh.
Esthier on October 14, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Did he hit his head real hard or something? That’s the only thing I can think of.
Either way.. Later Chris.. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
RobertCSampson on October 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Now, now. You need to play nice with others or you won’t get your dessert.
platypus on October 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Spirit:
McCain has a lot better chance of winning than someone like Newt Gingrich. That is just true. In fact if not for the fact that McCain is considered center right rather than far right he would not even have a shot.
That was something Reagan was able to do, connect with ordinary people. If he had been strictly partisan he would not have been nearly so successful.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 5:19 PM
There are 2 main candidates for POTUS. One is a serious candidate and one is seriously under vetted and under reported by the MSM. For someone to defend Buckley’s son by using the terms “different, reasoned conclusion” in choosing to support Buckley’s decision to vote for the latter is incredible to me. One cannot make a reasoned conclusion without facts/information, only guesses. The last 43 years has shown us that the democrat party will raise taxes, increase spending, reduce the effectiveness of our military, strive for a “cradle to grave nanny state”, reduce the moral standards of society and enslave portions of our society with promises of free money/benefits curtesy of Uncle Sam. Add that history to what we do know of the 2nd candidate – 1 billion in earmarks in 3 yrs; most liberal voting record over that time; questionable (at best) relationships during his adult life — and then having a self described republican and conservative write that he thinks voting for the latter choice for POTUS is making a decision in the best interests of this Republic is so convoluted and contorted in its logic that it boggles the mind.
People have the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. BUT, when they spew gobbledygook as their reason(s) for doing so, others have the right to contest their assertions.
Gohawgs on October 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM
This election has been utterly facinating. The lessons are going to be so clear to all conservatives who have been paying close attention with open eyes, often times with mouth equally gaping.
Here is lesson number one: Abandoning conservative principles in the hopes of winning an election accomplishes nothing but a chasm down the center of the party between those who love power and those who are loyal to their beliefs.
Lesson number two: The way to build a strong, loyal, sizeable, winning coalition is not to tell centerists that you are one of them but to catch their ear and attempt to explain to them why authentic conservatism is synonamous with the vision of our founding fathers and why it is in their best interest to become one of us.
Lesson number three: Do not nominate the Republican endorsed by the NY Times during the primary process.
Lesson number four: Take back the damn party so that someday it will actually mean something to be a Republican again.
Zetterson on October 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM
TO: “S” 4:30pm
Regarding Ayers writing Obama’s books:
I read this at American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html
but there’s plenty of other speculation (google four words: obama ayers dreams autobiography)
I hope this helps.
Lockstein13 on October 14, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Proof that CB didn’t understand his father’s life work or that he’s merely shilling. I’d say it’s the latter.
baldilocks on October 14, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Am I correct in assuming that Buckley the Lesser is just doing this to help Michelle’s kids?
Right?
platypus on October 14, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Chris’ rationale for his endorsement was a specific rejection of a key tenet of WFB’s politics: preferring the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book to govern rather than the faculty of Harvard. Chris endorsed the self anointed elite conventional wisdom. That’s not what conservatism is about. It’s not anti-intellectual, it’s a rejection of technocracy and the idea of omni-competency thanks to the mastery of post-colonial literary theory or it’s equivalent.
Virginia Postrel highlighted the issues behind the technocratic approach of Liberalism/Progressivism, while Joanh Goldberg plumbed the depths that liberal technocracy can extend itself to. Imperial Chinese bureaucracy was a horrific model, and the foundations of its insularity and stagnation rested on its reliance on a credentialed technocracy to administer the Middle Kingdom. Similar issues cropped up in the Dark/Middle Ages thanks to clerical dominance.
North American conservatism isn’t the snooty country that High Toryism and certain continental strains are. Class warfare in the defence of entrenched privilege is the reason why people crossed oceans and went to the frontier. Unfortunately too pundits and businesspeople are seduced into this alien tradition as a way of defending their own interests and finding an acceptable position for cocktail parties. Actually defending dynamism and free markets at a cocktail party or wedding is hard if you require acceptance and reinforcement. The limousine liberals look at you as a skunk and think you’re mean, evil, or racist (despite everyone in the discussion being blindingly white and having identical backgrounds). After a while the weaker minds can’t handle being treated like an outcast.
Thankfully there are a few who relish the combat and enjoy making others uncomfortable. Jonah does it in the media (though even he is getting wetter as he ages) and I absolutely adore it in my personal life. Embracing your inherent evilness and robbing people of their taunts discomfits them and forces them to realize that they have no basis for their opinions or arguments, that they’re just a pose to fit into their environment. “Yes I’m an evil bastard, so what? I’m still right, and I don’t care what you think of me or call me.” Try it, and get people in the media whom you like to adopt it! You might lose some dates, but then you’d lose them anyways, and one or two nights with a cute leftist is not that big a loss (plus you sometimes get their attention for a few hate sessions, so it’s a wash).
libertarianuberalles on October 14, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Don’t let the door hitcha! As long as you know how many a$$es you are gonna have to kiss and how many years it is going to take to make your way back.
Bicyea on October 14, 2008 at 5:25 PM
You have no clue as to who McCain is and what he is about.
The republicans who voted for John McCain did so of their own free will and had nothing to do with what the New York Times did.
And I’ll give you a lesson for yourself:
Stop b*tching about the outcome of the republican primary because the people spoke. They decided on who our candidate would be. If you don’t like the outcome, then invent a time machine soyou can go back and change it so your candidate won with more votes. Until then, you sound like a whining little boy who can’t accept the fact that things don’t go your way and you are going to stand in the middle of the store and shriek as all the others look on at you in a mixture of pity and disgust.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Will someone please explain what the litmus test is for when you can, without insults from either side, choose not to vote for either candidate?
At what point and how many position disagreements does it take for a candidate to be so far removed from a voter’s own positions that it is publicly acceptable not to support that candidate?
Because if I don’t agree with McCain’s Healthcare reform, his Global Warming Carbon Cap lunacy, his Amnesty position, or his tax policy is that enough that some McCain backer in hiding won’t decide that I must be tarred and feathered for not blindly supporting a party?
I always love this all or nothing mentality that won’t allow someone NOT to support a party in part, but requires complete devotion or else. I don’t support Obomba because he is beyond socialist, but McCain is hardly what I would define as conservative, but I am sure many subscribe to the new defition of conservative that allows McCain to be called one.
I don’t abandon my principles or positions simply because it is expedient to getting someone elected that doesn’t support at least some of those principles or positions in order to support a given party.
woodythesingingcowboy on October 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Permit me to finish that for him…
CC
CapedConservative on October 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Zetterson:
I don’t think it is about abandoning conservative principles.
Sometimes I think that even conservatives have forgotten 9/11. That was the single most important event in Bush’s presidency, it shaped everything that came after..including spending.
A real conservative would still have had to deal with that. And don’t forget that the Republican Congress that was voted out in 2006 had been there longer than Bush.
I think that people have overlooked all that. They think there was someway to pursue some pure idelogical mindset in recent years that would have been seperated from the events. I just do not see that.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM
I really think that the thread could end there. That post hits the nail on the head with a million pound hammer!
And if I hear one more person tell me that they are not going to vote for McCain to send some messgae to the “Republican” party I am going to scream. The bottom line is that with a wussy idiot like Obama at the helm it may not matter anymore because we might all end up as glow-in-the-dark dust at the hands of Iran. I mean, if nuking the country with the Apostate as President is not the right thing to do in their minds then what is? And you tell me you are going to cop out over amnesty… that is lame!! Yes I think that McCain’s position on immigration sucks, so do most of us. But I am not going to lose sight of just about everything else on Earth over that stupid issue. Grow up! Guns, abortion, judges, national defense and the military, budget issues- these are the things that can and do define the conservative party. McCain is right on ALL OF THEM! We will never get another Ronnie Ray-Gun so why sit around and mope about it. If we can get Palin in the White House next time we will be pretty close to it though… at least she loves this country, which is more than you can say for the other ticket.
Oh and BTW- Buckly Jr. is an Idiot
virology76 on October 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM
I said it in the headlines, and will repeat it here. That comment not only insults Reagan, it also insults the intelligence of the reader.
Vashta.Nerada on October 14, 2008 at 5:27 PM
I can’t see how he’s helped anyone else’s kids.
Esthier on October 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM
OMG! I beg your permission to adopt this line. Pleeeeze???
platypus on October 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM
You gave me a subjective tirade, spitting out useless facts that I already knew.
Maybe that’s what your problem is, you, like the talking heads *think* you know what’s best for everyone. Unless you heard a different debate than I did last week, both of those jackasses want the socialism that the bailout will bring, it’s just that they have different ways of implementing it.
So what do I think will happen if Obama is elected? We’ll have an unchecked Liberal Trifecta in all 3 branches of government (once he gets comfy and appoints Ayers as a SC Justice). This will go on for about 2 years, nothing will get passed due to a filibuster, and the inaction of all 3 branches will leave an even more sour taste in the mouths of all Americans; even worse than what Bush has done. Republicans will have hopefully learned from their mistake of choosing John McCain, and return to conservative roots. We’ll then be able to put up and sell a true conservative.
What happens if McCain wins? That’s 12 full years (counting Bush years) of disaster, people will never even remember how terrible it is to have a real Liberal in charge, and we may be stuck with someone even worse than Obama, this time for far more than 4 years, maybe even long enough to leave the nation in a state that is simply unrecoverable.
That’s what I think, guy. History has a way of repeating itself. It took a Carter to bring a Regan. Regardless of who’s chosen, we’re screwed. Grab the lube and bend over, sweetheart.
leetpriest on October 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Exactly. The more conservative the nominee, the less likely that he (after 8 years of Bush) would have a shot of being elected. Someone like Newt would lose in a landslide. And while Obama claims to be a voice for all Americans, he has never reached across the isle to make legislation that he thought was in the best interests of all of us. For Obama it is Obama first. And we know McCain’s campaign message. Only nixon can go to china. And only a person like McCain who is mostly a conservative and votes with us 80% of the time but puts his country first can beat Obama. In my opinion.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM
woodythesingingcowboy:
I am not naive enough to think that any candidate is going to be exactly what I want. I assume that human nature being what it is, we will disagree on some issues.
I don’t agree with McCain on everything, but I disagree with Obama a helluva lot more.
If I wait for someone to come along who will agree with me on everything, I will have a long wait. Because that person would probably never win the nomination in the first place.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Nope. I observe. I come to a conclusion. I speak my mind, just like you. I can be wrong, but from my perspective, I suspect that I am correct. For me. Don’t know about you. You don’t like that. That’s just too bad.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:31 PM
wise_man:
Obama bothers me. He just does.
McCain does not. I respect him and his service even when I don’t agree with him. I think he loves this country.
I am not sure what or who Obama loves.
As for Newt, he could not get past 5% in his own party. That might change someday, but for right now it is the reality.
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 5:32 PM
leetpriest:
Since you have already decided that McCain will be a disaster I would say that you *think* you know what is best for everyone. Who are you to tell the rest of us who to vote for?
Terrye on October 14, 2008 at 5:34 PM
If I were a conservative (and I make no bones about not being one) should I really be disappointed at the prospect of not having John McCain in the White House for one and possibly two terms? Does the idea of “Anybody but Obama” justify 4 years of someone who at heart really doesn’t support a conservative agenda – only to be challenged and possibly beaten in ‘12 by someone who definitely doesn’t support a conservative agenda?
The only way McCain makes sense to me as a conservative is if he pledges to serve only one term, allowing Palin to run in ‘12 (assuming you believe Palin supports and can execute a conservative agenda). Palin’s only shot, in my opinion, at the presidency is as an incumbent veep. Otherwise, your’re gambling that after potentially 8 years of McCain – 16 years of Republican rule, the country is going to say, yeah, let’s go for 20.
sanguine4 on October 14, 2008 at 5:35 PM
The real reason this little pi$$ing match is going on is that the rank-and-file Repubs FAILED to build the hierarchy of the party so that the selected candidate would match the party platform.
The only way that McCain won the primary is that everyone was voting for a person, rather than a platform in a person.
This country was never designed to have elections based on popularity alone (or primarily). Look at RWR – he was a walking talking PLATFORM and merely needed to be elected to have it function as the government.
McCain is better than BHO but he doesn’t have a platform and BHO is trying desperately to hide his platform (Marxism).
platypus on October 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM
And all I see is Buckley charmed by his own prose.
Some of this is also an ever-popular PR move for his new book that’s being released.
eanax on October 14, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Hi Terrye, I would suggest to you that are discussing two different things: ideology and ability to connect.
Reagan was more to the far right then McCain but had a greater ability to connect with voters then McCain does. McCain’s ideological mavrickrisity has not withstood the draw of a far leftist in Obama. Though I grant that Obama has draw on conservative principles (lower taxes for one) that are to the right of McCain to appeal to moderates. Unfortunately McCain hasn’t explained the inherent flaws in Obama’s pitch to the middle class.
Regardless, Palin, for example, has a larger base of appeal then JM. To his credit, JM recognizes and isn’t threatened by this. But she is to his ideological right (easily). That fact alone makes me conclude your hypothesis is wrong.
Gingrich, right or wrong, isn’t troubled electorally by his ideology. His ability to communicate renders that moot. It’s his past that haunts him.
Spirit of 1776 on October 14, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I get a content warning on this “enraged conservative”s blog. Anyone want to check him out and let me know who this guy is. Not that I see any red flags from your comments that brings up my spidey sense on this one or anything like that. Just curious.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Big S, unfortunately it is your very type of “moderate conservative” that put us where we are. McCain was hurting before the Palin pick. Remember, he needed a “game changer” before the pick was ever made? He was 10 pts down nationally and fading fast. When he picked Palin his numbers jumped because people thought they got what they wanted, a real life, authentic conservative. The electorate liked what they saw when she made her very conservative convention speech and McCain got a bounce following the convention. Then things went down hill from there once the media began tearing the woman apart by the seams. She was horrific during the Couric interview, and that was all it took. She may someday be a polished politician but she isn’t there yet. Not after two weeks on the national stage anyways. The media vultures knew this and took full advantage as they should be doing for both sides of the political spectrum. Bottom line is she definitely needs more time than what the McCain team and the media afforded her and her downfall was not her political leanings but, more accurately, her lack of experience as a politician. She’s obviously a qualified executive and it would have been nice to see the Couric interview more centered around the work she has done in Alaska and then have the opportunity to explain why the work she has been doing is relevant to the job of POTUS. If the electorate was as satisfied with her political skills as they were with her initial description as the “real deal” conservative McCain would be winning right now despite his own best efforts.
Zetterson on October 14, 2008 at 5:42 PM
One pretty good argument would be that he offered to resign.
Accepting somebody’s resignation is a bad business practice?
Well, if she offered to resign over it and gave us the choice, I don’t see how she could complain about the result.
Jim Treacher on October 14, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Sorry, but as a Conservative if you think that even “in balance” a candidate as liberal as Obama, especially considering liberal control of the legislature, is somehow more safe than John McCain, you should be in a mental ward attempting to put together a 20 piece jigsaw puzzle, not writing opinion pieces in a respectable conservative publication.
Verbal Abuse on October 14, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Here’s a quiz:
William F. is to Christopher as Ronald is to…
If you can’t hack it riding your father’s coattails, sometimes it pays to light them on fire and laugh with his enemies.
spmat on October 14, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Bingo.
Cuffy Meigs on October 14, 2008 at 5:44 PM
When I read his piece, I thought he was joking because it was completely nonsensical. I’m surprised he was serious. Talk about the epitome of an elitist. Obama can (ghost)write a good book and make smooth speeches so I’m going to vote for him even though he believes in everything I supposedly don’t? Chris should have been canned because of horrible logic more than because he endorsed a Democrat. Add to this that he lied about the facts regarding his leaving NR and it paints a picture of a callow dilettante with the depth of a drop of water. His father would be disappointed. As for conservatives being unable to take substantive criticism, show where he made any and I’ll debate his points. I saw nothing of the kind.
jnelchef on October 14, 2008 at 5:45 PM
I’m confused as to why you believe 9/11 made it an impossibilty to pursue a conservative agenda. If you’ll remember, the term “compassionate conservative” was first uttered long before 9/11 actually happened. President Bush never intended to pursue a conservative agenda and now, here we are. Lesson learned? Why am I worried that it hasn’t been learned?
Zetterson on October 14, 2008 at 5:46 PM
HAR.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM
So a conservative who endorses a liberal — an uber-liberal — is still a conservative because his decision is affected by many considerations, even though the effect of that decision could mean electing a candidate who goes against his beliefs, except he doesn’t really have those beliefs, but he’s still a conservative. Am I getting all that?
Jim Treacher on October 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM
You’re going to do what you’re going to do, I have no intention of stopping you. Remember, you attacked me for my opinion, not the other way around. I call it like I see it. If you don’t like hearing my opinion that you asked to hear, stop asking.
No friend, you vote for whomever you want to. I told you why I don’t like McCain. Does this assist in your efforts to be less confused about text written in plain English?
You get a content warning because some people consider the term “homosexual” to be offensive.
Out of curiosity, if you didn’t like my opinion earlier, what makes you think you’ll find anything of value in my blog?
leetpriest on October 14, 2008 at 5:51 PM
I attacked you? Wow. Someone should call 911.
wise_man on October 14, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Agreed. If you don’t have the stomach to be called an ignorant, racist, xenophobe, you should not enter the marketplace of political thought calling yourself a conservative. I don’t think this is going to help Chris Buckley sell more books, but it might get him a teaching gig at Harvard.
Angry Dumbo on October 14, 2008 at 5:55 PM
LOL. Great flow chart! Please send that to MM. She has a good sense of humor.
JiangxiDad on October 14, 2008 at 5:55 PM
At first, I thought this was straight from the Onion.
Anyway, good riddance to “libertarian” benchwarmers who think this election is all about gay marriage. If he was a diehard libertarian, a respectable position, he would never stand behind an anti-private property, anti-2nd Ammendment apparatchik like Barry Hussein. Puh-leeze! Just admit you’re a liberal at heart and be done with it. Buckley yaps about the GOP not being the big tent he thought it was? Since when is National Review an arm of the GOP or beholden to the GOP, which has lurched leftward for years? NRO is one of the best sources for conservative thought on planet earth, and Buckley can go fly a kite, which under Fauxbama he’ll have to obtain a federal and state license to own and operate. NOT KIDDING.
So buh-bye to you, mister affected-speaking perennial blue-blood. Let’s see how runing into the arms of Bill Mar and Mikhail Moore works for you, you approval-starved buffoon.
Western_Civ on October 14, 2008 at 5:55 PM
If
In two years, this is the dumbest comment you’ve ever made here. Being a pagan is one thing; you being as dumb as a troll is a whole nother thing……..
exit answer: he was a LIB posing as a ‘libertarian conservative’. Does the name Andrew Sullivan rings any pagan bells?
Janos Hunyadi on October 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM
He was given a column because of who his father was. Isn’t it obvious? You think he’d have a column if his name was Joe Blow? Bwahaha! That’s a good one!
TheBigOldDog on October 14, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »