Author Topic: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama  (Read 7167 times)

Sergeant Bob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,861
Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« on: October 14, 2008, 08:12:42 PM »
Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama


The National Review immediately accepted the resignation of columnist Christopher Buckley last week, shortly after the humorist and editor -- son of the conservative bi-weekly's late founder, William F. Buckley Jr. -- endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Mr. Buckley revealed Tuesday.

Mr. Buckley issued his endorsement on Oct. 5 at the Daily Beast, a Web site owned by Barry Diller's IAC/InteractiveCorp and run by former New Yorker editor Tina Brown. Mr. Buckley said he didn't publish the endorsement in the National Review in hopes that a new venue would soften the reaction from the magazine's arch-conservative readership. It did not.

Readers were outraged by the apostasy. In a dramatic gesture, Mr. Buckley offered his resignation and editor Rich Lowry and publisher Jack Fowler accepted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

He sure didn't waste any time spitting on his father's grave



Personally, I do not understand how a bunch of people demanding a bigger govt can call themselves anarchist.
I meet lots of folks like this, claim to be anarchist but really they're just liberals with pierced genitals. - gunsmith

I already have canned butter, buying more. Canned blueberries, some pancake making dry goods and the end of the world is gonna be delicious.  -French G

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2008, 08:14:04 PM »
wtf?

lee n. field

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,629
  • tinpot megalomaniac, Paulbot, hardware goon
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2008, 09:03:41 PM »
Good thing Buckley, William F. did not live to see this.
In thy presence is fulness of joy.
At thy right hand pleasures for evermore.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2008, 09:53:27 PM »
I am reminded of the statistical term, "regression to the mean" when I think of  Christopher Buckley.

A buddy of mine said, "I think he is suffering from brie poisoning."

Too bad, he is a pretty funny and witty author, if not quite the talent his father was.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote something about the phenomenon:



http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/jumping-ship/

This is becoming a very strange campaign. On CNN this evening both David Gergen and Ed Rollins echoed the current mantra that the “old” noble McCain is gone, and a “new” nastier one has emerged, largely because of his attacks on Ayers, perhaps his planned future ads on Wright, and a few unhinged people shouting at his campaign stops. Recently Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, likewise lamenting the loss of the old noble McCain. NY Times columnist David Brooks dubbed Palin a “cancer,” and he suggested that Obama’s instant recall of Niehbuhr sent a tingle up his leg as Obama once did to Chris Matthews as well.

A couple of thoughts: the George Bush, Sr. / Willie Horton campaign was far tougher; so were the Bush 2000/2004 efforts. If anything, McCain’s campaign is subdued in comparison to what we’ve seen on both sides in past years. Indeed, McCain as a vicious campaigner is a complete fabrication, but, again, a brilliant subterfuge on the part of Team Obama that, in fact, has run, via appendages, the far more vicious race. Obama and his surrogates have repeatedly engaged in racial politics (as Bill Clinton lamented when in fury he denounced the “race card”); when there was never evidence that McCain was using race as a wedge issue, it was clear Obama most surely was–preemptively, on at least two occasions, warning Americans he would soon be the victim of opposition racial stereotyping. His surrogates like Biden and those in the Senate continue to link legitimate worries about OBama’s past with racism.

Second, for about 3 months all we’ve heard are references to McCain’s age, with adjectives and phrases like confused, can’t remember any more, disturbed, lost his bearings, etc. Moreover, so far, McCain supporters have not broken into Biden’s email, or accused Biden of being a Nazi, or accused anyone of not bearing one of their own children, or photo-shopped grotesque pictures of Obama on the Internet (as in the Atlantic magazine case). I don’t think deranged McCain supporters in Hollywood or television almost daily are quoted as damning Obama in unusually crude terms. Nor are white racist ministers calling McCain a ‘messiah’ or McCain operatives fraudulently swarming voter registration centers. And on and on.

Instead I think what we are seeing again is an interesting phenomenon of the old nice/now mean McCain. A great many moderates and conservatives are  worn out and tired of Bush and Bush hatred, the European furor, serial charges of racism and illiberalism, and finally, in their weariness, think that Obama will, in a variety of ways, just make all the ickiness go away–as if he will make all of us be liked abroad and end racial and red/blue fighting at home.  They should ask themselves whether Jimmy Carter restored American popularity with his human rights campaigns, praise of left-wing dictators, dialogue during the hostage crisis (cf. “The Great Satan”), boasts of no more inordinate fear of communism, etc., or whether Obama, in his Trinity/Acorn/Pfleger years, brought racial healing and understanding to Chicago

Second, with Obama now with an 6-8 point lead, some in the DC/NY corridor these last three weeks figure it’s time now to jump on, or at least sort of jump, since the train they think is leaving the station and there might be still be some space at the dinner table on the caboose. They also believe as intellectuals that the similarly astute Obamians may on occasion inspire, or admire them as the like-minded who cultivate the life of the mind–in contrast to the “cancer” Sarah Palin, who, with her husband Todd, could hardly discuss Proust with them or could offer little if any sophisticated table-talk other than the chokes on shotguns or optimum RPMs on snow-machines.

And third, a lot of moderates who would not vote for McCain liked him when he was a sophisticated, ironic maverick loser scoring points against the simplistic Bush and other cardboard-cut-out conservatives. Now he has the onus of winning a campaign and can’t be a noble, tragic loser;so it is easy to say he is no good since he is less than perfect. The sure iconoclastic loser has an attraction that the mainstream conservative possible winner does not.

Obama, as I have said ad nauseam, has brilliantly prepped the battlefield to such a degree that a Farrakhan endorsement or surrogates calling Palin a quasi-Nazi or a bimbo, or smearing McCain as near senile is irrelevant; yet one screamer in a crowd of tens of thousands is proof of McCain’s and Palin’s racism and hatred.

Again, most conservatives know this paradox, but for some, being outraged as the conservative voice of reason,  at McCain’s supposed low road ensures a CNN spot, or some future rehabilitation during the expected Obama regnum of the next eight years. I think should I write a column praising Obama’s wit, taste in books, and metrosexuality  I would be dubbed principled rather than cynical, ‘even-handed’ rather than self-serving, and a maverick rather than toadish.

Yet for a self-acclaimed conservative to vote Obama would mean that higher taxes, larger government, more entitlements, more of a UN-centered foreign policy, dialogue with an Iran, less coal,oil, and nuclear energy production at home, more “oppression” studies and “reparations”, leftish Supreme Court judges, open borders (I could go on) were the truly conservative positions, or perhaps suddenly truly the ‘right’ positions.

And as far as ethics goes, in fact, a cursory review of the past Obama campaigns would reveal a ruthlessness never seen in any of McCain’s efforts. Obama’s record is far more left than McCain’s is far right. Obama the healer has proven to be the most partisan in the Senate, McCain one of the most bipartisan.

But to believe that truth would be–if we remember that scene in Tolkien’s Two Towers–to trust the grating harsh voice of Gandalf detailing the dangers of Saruman rather than the mellifluous charm of the latter who in soothing tones outlines his own victimhood.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2008, 10:14:26 PM »
When I first saw the thread title, I thought the MSM was saying that Bill Buckley was supporting Obama....

...well, Obama IS from Chicago... ;)
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2008, 10:55:12 PM »
I never had much respect for any of the Buckleys.  I am now confirmed in my feelings.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2008, 12:22:39 AM »
Spit on Dad's grave.

But not on his trust fund.

There's a whole class of intellectual wankers who think they are going to be insulated from the rough tide that is going to sweep over America under Obama.  How wrong they are.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2008, 12:37:20 AM »
Remember, his Dad lead the tide to purge the conservative movement of anybody he found insufficiently 'moderate' and 'acceptable'.

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2008, 02:06:47 AM »
Well, that apple not only fell far from the tree, it rolled down the hill to a very low place indeed.

Charming.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2008, 09:00:14 AM »
Remember, his Dad lead the tide to purge the conservative movement of anybody he found insufficiently 'moderate' and 'acceptable'.

You meant to write 'nutty' and 'antisemitic,' didn't you?
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2008, 09:35:10 AM »
You meant to write 'nutty' and 'antisemitic,' didn't you?

No.  He got it right the first time.  Buckley stabbed conservatism in the back numerous times - he was the McCain of his day.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2008, 09:55:39 AM »
No.  He got it right the first time.  Buckley stabbed conservatism in the back numerous times - he was the McCain of his day.

Do please name names.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2008, 11:54:14 AM »
You meant to write 'nutty' and 'antisemitic,' didn't you?

Do please name names.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,927
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2008, 12:30:28 PM »
He wrote "Thank you for smoking".  It was funny in parts.  However, it was pretty nasty in its satire of the NRA. 

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2008, 01:13:59 PM »
Do please name names.

I have no problem outing the nutty & antisemetic, so here goes a few:

John Burke Society & Robert W. Welch Jr.: nutty, but avowedly not anti-semetic
* Conspiracy-minded ; called Eisenhower a communist
* More conspiracy-theorist nuttiness with a fixation on the Illuminati

Ayn Rand: nutty
* Utopian philosopher who was overtly sexually incontinet
* Just plain not a conservative under any definition, given her philosophy

Post-Mencken The American Mercury series of owners and contributors J. Russell Maguire, Gordon Winrod, etc.: antisemetic
* Just.  Too.  Freakily.  Jew-baiting.


Those are off the top of my head.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2008, 01:29:50 PM »
Quote
Ayn Rand:

Ayn Rand was sexually incontinent? Ayn Rand actually had sex?

Well,  I exaggerate, but Rand had sex with precisely two people in her entire life. Their names are recorded in history.

Also, I would think Norman Podhoretz is far less of a conservative than Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was specifically for free markets, hating the communists, and a belief in the existence of objective moral values, which is the key thing that unites libertarians and conservatives in the first place.

Quote
John Burke Society & Robert W. Welch Jr.: nutty, but avowedly not anti-semetic

Don't know who they are; no comment.

Quote
list of various maniacs

Yes, there are crazy lunatics that think Hitler was a 'perfect gentleman'. That does not however justify the NR's outright attack on paleoconservatism and libertarianism in the 1980's and up to today, wherein anybody who said anything about aid to Israel or Israeli-American relations was stepped upon as an anti-semite, and people like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran were run out on a rail.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,514
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2008, 01:32:59 PM »
I think he meant John Birch Society, but we're not supposed to talk about that.   :police:
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2008, 02:35:34 PM »
No.  He got it right the first time.  Buckley stabbed conservatism in the back numerous times - he was the McCain of his day.

...except Buckley is more electable...even today....
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2008, 02:57:51 PM »
Ayn Rand was sexually incontinent? Ayn Rand actually had sex?

Well,  I exaggerate, but Rand had sex with precisely two people in her entire life. Their names are recorded in history.

Also, I would think Norman Podhoretz is far less of a conservative than Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was specifically for free markets, hating the communists, and a belief in the existence of objective moral values, which is the key thing that unites libertarians and conservatives in the first place.

Rand was self-disqualifying.  She was:
a. Utopian while conservatism is anti-utopian.  Hence WFB's (borrowed from Vogelin) motto: "Don't immanentize the eschaton"
b. The center of a cult of personality.
c. Had no use for the wisdom & traditions of the society & culture.  Hence, her deliberately overt affair with her then protoge while still married.  Stalin was correct about quantity having a certain quality, but the quality of Rand's relationships showed an alienation from the culture that was impossible to ignore.

Rand just plain was not a conservative, which is not defined solely by free markets and anti-communism.  Add to that her fundamental alienation from American culture and she has no business in the conservative movement.

What N Podhoretz lacks in the limited gov't department, he makes up in his cultural conservatism.  Plus, he wasn't a wacky cult leader.

Don't discount the "wacky" as a motivation.  The Dems mostly work to disavow the 9/11 Truthers, too.


Don't know who they are; no comment.
fistful added the necessary corrective.  JBS=John Birch Society.  Edmund Burke is still in good standing with American conservatism.

Yes, there are crazy lunatics that think Hitler was a 'perfect gentleman'. That does not however justify the NR's outright attack on paleoconservatism and libertarianism in the 1980's and up to today, wherein anybody who said anything about aid to Israel or Israeli-American relations was stepped upon as an anti-semite, and people like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran were run out on a rail.
Not all anti-semites on the right are pro-Nazi.  They can be merely anti-semetic.  Blood libel, etc.

WFB and NR did not run libertarianism out on a rail, but were responsible for the fusion of the two in opposition to the collectivist, pro-communist establishment in the US and in opposition to aggressive communism outside the US.

Thing is, the key term there is "fusion."  They brought together two similar but philosophically different strains of American political thought.  When the greatest reason for that fusion went into the dustbin of history, the glue that fused together the two movements was weakened.  The fission of the two movements has been by mutual consent, not just a kick in the pants by WFB.

Which also applies to some extent with the paleo-conservatives.  As long as the USSR and its evil empire existed, differences between paleo-, neo-, and no-prefix-required-conservatism were papered over.  Recall that Buchanan wrote speeches for Nixon, the most liberal/statist Republican in the last 50 years (though GWB recently is giving him a run for his money).

I am on board with your views on Buchanan and Sobran, with more sympathy given to Buchanan due to my familiarity with him.  I do not consider criticism of Israeli policy or Israeli influence in the US political process to be illegitimate or anti-semetic in and of themselves.

Pat Buchanan, especially, has exhibited no hostility towards Jews that I have ever read.  I could not make such a judgment (anti-semetism) on Buchanan without some anti-Jewish verbiage by him to back it up.  IMO, Abe Foxman sees anti-semites under every bed and is awfully free & easy with his accusations.  

PB went off the reservation when he played patty-cake with Lenora Fulani in 2004, though.  



So, I don't think WFB was perfect or that his every judgment was correct.  I do think that, on the balance, he was mostly correct when wielding the conserva-bat.



I would not mind a stronger libertarian streak in contemporary conservatism.  

Or, I could easily turn it around and desire less cultural alienation from the movement libertarians, who have surrendered much of their American-ness in slavish service to their utopian ideology.




Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2008, 04:35:47 PM »
Quote
   a. Utopian while conservatism is anti-utopian.  

Burkian conservatism is anti-utopian. Creedal conservatism, not necessarily so. As a matter of fact, I would argue the admiration for Burke is part of the reason for conservatism's fall.


Quote
JBS=John Birch Society.

I understand they can't be discussed on this forum? Or is this a joke? If indeed true, perhaps you may want to elaborate via PM. Suffice to say here I read the New American on a regular basis.

Quote
 I do think that, on the balance, he was mostly correct when wielding the conserva-bat.

Then we do not disagree on the statement that Buckley 'evicted' many who shouldn't have been evicted.

My beef with conservatism is not so much the disagreement that I have with some movement conservatives on stuff like sex, drugs, and so forth. My beef with conservatism and especially neo-conservatism is its denial of the need to attack the establishment.

Let me use a term leftoids are very fond of – 'The Man'. Paleocons refer to The Man as the therapeutic-managerial state – in essence, the notion that what we have in our society is far removed from the free, republican (and in America, Constitutional) structure we as conservatives/libertarians/United We Stand With Our Big Floppy Ears Hanging Out wish to have. It's not a tyranny like the USSR or even 18th-century France, but it's not what Jefferson and Hamilton wanted, either. There is a variety of subgroups – the 'Big Media', bureaucrats,  professional politicians and companies with good access to them – who have disproportionate political and cultural power in our society.

Ayn Rand or Pat Buchanan may be strange people with strange personal habits, but that still doesn't mean they're not on our side. In the meanwhile, Norman Podhoretz and Irvin Kristol are definitely not on our side. They have no principled opposition to big government, gun bans, or censorship, and the only difference between them and the people who run the Democratic party is that they want to use the big government stick not just on corporations and gun owners, but also on pornographers and prostitutes.

The difference between what we have and what we want is a revolutionary-grade change (naturally I don't mean a literal violent revolution, but one of a political and cultural nature). To pursue revolutionary goals while clinging to denial of their revolutionary nature is self-destructive. To keep neoconservatives, who actually outright want to serve 'The Man' and to drive out anybody who wants to throw him out is destructive of conservatism's key goals. The final result of such a policy is John Sidney McCain.

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,514
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2008, 04:57:45 PM »

Quote
John Birch Society.

I understand they can't be discussed on this forum? Or is this a joke? If indeed true, perhaps you may want to elaborate via PM. Suffice to say here I read the New American on a regular basis. 

I was half-joking.  A while ago, I started a thread, asking if anyone on the forum was a Bircher.  Got a few answers, (in the negative), then Gewehr shut it down, accusing me of having some sinister purpose.  He wouldn't tell me what that was supposed to be.  I have no idea.  All I know about them is anti-communism/anti-UNism.  And they were mentioned in that song. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2008, 05:28:50 PM »
Ah, well I have no serious problem with the Society. I can't afford a subscription to the New American, though.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

TexasRifleman

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2008, 10:23:27 PM »
Quote
Suffice to say here I read the New American on a regular basis.

Been a subscriber for quite a while now.  News to me they are "nutty".

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2008, 12:34:12 AM »
Been a subscriber for quite a while now.  News to me they are "nutty".

Accusing Pres Eisenhower of being a commie agent is not gonna get you far on the road to Normalsville.

Same thing with serious talk about the Illuminati and their control of this & that.

Maybe they have left the loopiness behind, but they sure were goofy back in the day.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

ArmedBear

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
Re: Buckley Resigns From National Review After Endorsing Obama
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2008, 12:36:28 AM »
WFB wasn't necessarily a "conservative movement" guy. He was William F. Buckley.

His contribution to Reaganism was no greater than Rand's, though these contributions came about differently.

He was religious. She was anti-religious. Seems that there's more conflict between people who think in similar ways, but have one or two glaring differences, than between people who are different in most ways. This goes double if they're both somewhat full of themselves.