- ‹ previous
- 1647 of 2011
- next ›
"William F. Buckley's Son Says He Is Pro-Obama."
"WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY'S SON SAYS HE IS PRO-OBAMA"....Christopher Buckley explains why he's not writing his endorsement of Barack Obama in his usual column at the back of National Review, the magazine his father founded:
My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call "the bleeding obvious": namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She's not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin "a cancer on the Republican Party."As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that's quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen's mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There's Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, "You know, I've spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks." Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don't have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he's no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you're reading it here first.
The modern GOP is the party of Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. It's not just off the rails. It doesn't even know where the rails are anymore.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
So, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too?
Put it in your own magazine, Coward!
Yet the MSM still seems to be committed to being "balanced" and doing he-said/ she-said "journalism." And bitching that a plane smells bad. See A. Cooper's dismissal of Gergen's comments on the hate McPalin is spewing.
It's not just off the rails. It doesn't even know where the rails are anymore.
Maybe something more like:
It's not just off the rails. It denies that there are rails, or that there ever were rails.
I was just going to make a similar "not knowing where the rails are" comment on your previous post. You beat me to it. Looks like the adults will just have to pack their bags and start up another party.
That being said, that leaves all the psychotics to run the old GOP, and I am still a bit anxious of what these crazies can foment.
Which goes to show -- there are still some sane conservatives out there. They're just afraid to voice their opinions in the usual conservative media.
"It's not just off the rails."
It's not even on the same planet. We can only hope that there will be some kind of Apollo 13 rescue mission, and that John comes home safely.
Back in college in the late 80's early 90's I used to consider myself Republican. Then I realized that it was being over-run with white male "evangelicals" from the South and I decided that I wasn't. I grew up surrounded by these guys in LA, MS, and AL and just cannot respect much of what they say they believe. More importantly, I couldn't and can't understand or agree with how they approach politics and what they call policy.
wussy. if he wanted to really make a statement, he would have put it in the magazine to see which readers were kooks and which were intellectuals. he's blown a tremendous opportunity.
I think the evidence clearly points towards them doing rails.
The Republicans have gone from the party of Lincoln to the party of George Lincoln Rockwell.
This is just too good. And I think criticism of Buckley for not writing it in the magazine is misplaced. That he can't publish it in his father's magazine just makes this BETTER.
And I'll just state the obvious: most of The Corner contributors are hereby exposed as dishonest cretins.
And they are contributing in a significant way to the hate-mongering.
And they are silent on the ugly scenes at Republican rallies.
It will be interesting to see how they handle this statement from their founder's son.
Silence is my guess. It's too embarrassing.
Just savor it.
...very dishy Kathleen Parker
Wow, he needs to get out more. Anyway, I think McCain is losing Parker of all people too. First, she writes the column about Palin being out of her league and today she writes that McCain needs to dial back the hate at these rallies. And this from the woman that wrote that horrendous screed about Obama's bloodline not being American enough.
"Silence is my guess. It's too embarrassing."
Naw. After reviewing Beverly Hills Chihuahua, Jonah Goldberg made a point of defending McCain's "honor" by defending McCain's off-the-rails campaign.
I wouldn't celebrate his endorsement just yet.
He makes very clear that he doesn't agree with any of Obama's policies and his endorsement is contingent upon his belief that Obama is intelligent enough to see that conservative policies are wiser.
"The modern GOP is the party of Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Sarah Palin."
The modern GOP is the party of those who call themselves Republicans.
We, quite rightly, consider those who Americans who continued to be members of the communist party after the rise of Stalin to be evil, witless, or both. The same holds just as true for the current members, ALL of them, of the current GOP, the party of war, torture, plutocracy, and incompetence.
Why does Christopher Buckley hate America?
This reminds me of the first rule of paramilitary politics: terror is first and foremost an instrument of internal discipline. Wider violence is just a way of keeping the conversation alive.
As Krugman says, the next few years are going to be tough.
I remember William F. Buckley as mostly an educated stupid guy. You can educate some people and still, they never have any common sense.
Carl Sagan was talking about the "Day After" film, that nuclear winter would result after a nuclear attack. Buckley didn't like Sagan's science at all. Ted Koppel put Buckley in his place real quick.
But that was back before Ted Koppel became a cheap lobbyist for China, back when Koppel actual did journalism for a living unlike today. Times sure have change and some people got so cheap that they aren't worth listening too anymore, Dan Balz, the WaPo editorial board, and Ted Koppel - and of course Buckley was always a windbag.
Sigh. Kevin, you are so full of it.
The vitriol which the Left emits from their keyboards is just as bad and there are many examples out there.
It is a characteristic of unintelligent tribal partisanship and it has nothing to do with ideological alignment.
Your laughable pretense that this is uniquely some Republican thing is due to your unintelligent tribal partisanship.
Why not just say the obvious, that it's the Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter Party?
It is so radical - it is completely unreal.
"Sigh. Kevin, you are so full of it.
The vitriol which the Left emits from their keyboards is just as bad and there are many examples out there.
It is a characteristic of unintelligent tribal partisanship and it has nothing to do with ideological alignment.
Your laughable pretense that this is uniquely some Republican thing is due to your unintelligent tribal partisanship."
Actually, a, things are NOT symmetric on this front. Go read the work of Jonathan Haidt on 5-foundation morality, and the fact that the US right-wing considers intra-group loyalty a moral issue, unlike the left. This explains the discrepancies in both the volume and the nuttiness of vitriol from the left as compared with the right.
(Or you could just go work at a newspaper, spend your day publishing "he-said, she-said stories, ignore any science published since 1970, and pretend to yourself that you are usefully advancing the debate.)
a,
The vitriol which the Left emits from their keyboards is just as bad and there are many examples out there.
Proof by imaginary counter-example, my favourite!
I am watching Washington Weekly and McCain is recanting that Obama wouldn't be that bad of a president if elected. McCain went overboard has gotten into trouble for his hate doctrines - should be in the transcript on Monday.
Thank you Glenn Greenwald for being a lawyer that cared, and the only one of your kind. One man can make a difference.
Off-topic, but related to National Review: I was reading Douthat's apology (traditional sense) for Palin in the NR published in the aftermath of the pick. Ol' Ross seemed utterly confused how it could be that the first viable female & African-American (since Obie's father is from Africa; otherwise, Afro-American, yes) candidate for the no. 1 position would arise from the left-wing party. He offered that it was expected that the first female should be a conservative, like Thatcher or Merkel ("Das Madchen" (best political nickname)) -- clearly, the GOP blindspot for brown faces extends to Corazon Aquino ("people power"), Violeta Chamorro ("post-partisan"), & Michelle Bachelet ("socialist") -- while the first black would be from a Clarence Thomas mode, conservative as well. I think what he fails to realize is the women of the Republican Party, due party orthodoxy that reinforces (as best as can be done with women who work outside the home, as elective office entails) traditional gender roles, leaves few women in real leadership position. As to a Clarence Thomas or Condoleeza Rice ascending to the presidency, I think RD fails to recognize that their inescapable blackness, dark chocolate complexion, would end up being too much distinction from the 43 white-skinned men who have held the office. Barack Obama, meanwhile, is black, but not a son of slavery (at least, not on his African father's side), & more important, part white. This multiracial heritage is less threatening to the unconscious racialists in the voting roll. So, yes, the first black president will emerge from the left.
As to an Afro-American President -- it seems just a bit less off in the future than a Mormon, Muslim, or Atheist president.
Idi Amin's Last Meal: On the contrary: What could be more revolting to a die hard racist than miscegenation. . .far worse and more sexually evil than procreating with your own kind. Wasn't that even the line in the old South Pacific musical. . .stick to your own kind!