Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm just saying you have to give credit where credit is due. If you lump ALL Republicans in with the extremist nuts, then there's little reason for any GOP member to speak out against ugly tactics or to try and make distinctions.
Originally Posted By chickendumpling Republicans are not a monolith. Unfortunately, opposing the Party and supporting Obama cost Buckley his job. I do wonder why he did it. Why didn't he just write an article pointing out the problems he saw with McCain and leave it at that? Or, like other conservatives have done, just explained why they're not voting this year? He knew it would hit the fan hard so why did he feel he needed to make this particular statement not just opposing McCain but SUPPORTING Obama? It just makes me wonder. ACORN musta slipped something in his morning coffee.
Originally Posted By chickendumpling FYI: An update and an explanation from Buckley - <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired/" target="_blank">http://www.thedailybeast.com/b...s-fired/</a> "Since my Obama endorsement, Kathleen and I have become BFFs and now trade incoming hate-mails. No one has yet suggested my dear old Mum should have aborted me, but it’s pretty darned angry out there in Right Wing Land. One editor at National Review—a friend of 30 years—emailed me that he thought my opinions “cretinous.” One thoughtful correspondent, who feels that I have “betrayed”—the b-word has been much used in all this—my father and the conservative movement generally, said he plans to devote the rest of his life to getting people to cancel their subscriptions to National Review. But there was one bright spot: To those who wrote me to demand, “Cancel my subscription,” I was able to quote the title of my father’s last book, a delicious compendium of his NR “Notes and Asides”: Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription." [LOL! I really enjoy the way this guy writes.] He goes on: "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. "My father in his day endorsed a number of liberal Democrats for high office, including Allard K. Lowenstein and Joe Lieberman. One of his closest friends on earth was John Kenneth Galbraith. In 1969, Pup wrote a widely-remarked upon column saying that it was time America had a black president. (I hasten to aver here that I did not endorse Senator Obama because he is black. Surely voting for someone on that basis is as racist as not voting for him for the same reason.) "My point, simply, is that William F. Buckley held to rigorous standards, and if those were met by members of the other side rather than by his own camp, he said as much. My father was also unpredictable, which tends to keep things fresh and lively and on-their-feet. He came out for legalization of drugs once he decided that the war on drugs was largely counterproductive. Hardly a conservative position. Finally, and hardly least, he was fun. God, he was fun. He liked to mix it up. "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." [Ouch.] "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. " And so there you have it. <<But if they did it, if they were able to reinvent the GOP, I think they'd get a good chunk of moderate Democrats to cross party lines.>> I agree. <<I think this country is crying out for a truly moderate, sensible third party OR for one of the two parties to morph into that.>> I agree again. But, I don't think third parties have a chance as long as we have a winner take all system. I am starting to think that we're witnessing the beginning of a metamorphosis. It's just too early to tell who is morphing into what. Fascinating time though.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I can believe it - I've been watching this crowd for a long time. >> Why didn't he just write an article pointing out the problems he saw with McCain and leave it at that? << After the eloquent job that he did in laying out his case against McCain and for Obama, declaring an endorsement has been implied at least, so might as well jump in with both feet - that's what elections are all about. And it's not like his decision is far-fetched. Between the two candidates and their campaigns, it's a proverbial 'no-brainer'. But what it illustrates nicely is that "republican" has come to mean that lockstep is required, and that party interests come before national interests. Waaay before. I think he should count himself lucky to have been dismissed in such a public and high profile way. This way he's absolved of all the upcoming shameless and disreputable actions by the GOP going forward. He walks away without a scratch.
Originally Posted By nemopoppins I used to love reading William F. Buckley even though I didn't side with his politics. He was a true intellectual and apparently so is his son. I was wondering when intelligent Republicans would come out against the fundamentalists and the outrageous tactics used to "win" elections, culminating in the selection of Sarah Palin for VP. In fact I thought for sure that the ridiculous VP selection was so hard even for Republicans to swallow there had to be a backlash. If there is, it's slow in coming, but my hat's off to Christopher Buckley! I hope that some day Christopher and other rational Republicans can give the country a reasonable party to consider even though I'm sure I could never support them (I'm way too left).
Originally Posted By gadzuux The 'backlash' is definitely there. In addition to buckley, william kristol also unloaded on McCain and his campaign, saying fire everybody. And today's NYTimes had a conservative columnist who jumped on the Obama bandwagon too. But these party elites never liked McCain anyway. They still don't, but even so they're expected to toe the party line quietly. What for? It's pretty apparent that McCain is going to lose, so why not jump ship now? They'll be plenty of sour grapes to around after the election is over. Then the rest of them will come out and say McCain was the wrong candidate, that the Palin choice removed any doubts, and that it's all bush's fault anyway. And they'll be right.
Originally Posted By nemopoppins True, disapproval of Bush does give Obama a boost, but I'll hate to hear any interpretation of McCain's loss being anyone's fault but his own.
Originally Posted By chickendumpling <<But these party elites never liked McCain anyway. *** so why not jump ship now? >> But they don't like McCain because he's too liberal. That's why it doesn't make any sense to me that they would "jump ship" to someone MORE liberal than McCain. That's why I keep saying it's something more than not wanting to be on the losing side. I just don't believe that these conservatives are political whores. I'll say it again - I think we're witnessing a real change here, a party realignment maybe? Something. I don't know. Then again, it's late, DH has been gone for two days (fishing trip) and I haven't slept well without him. lol.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I used to love reading William F. Buckley even though I didn't side with his politics. He was a true intellectual and apparently so is his son. > That's true. He was always a good read, and his magazine was too, while he was still alive. At one point I subscribed simultaneously to the National Review and The Nation. They usually arrived a little apart, but it was always a kick, somehow, when they were in the mailbox on the same day.
