Got Us Another One

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
http://www.thedailybeast.com/b...rvative-case-for-obama
Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama
by Christopher Buckley
October 10, 2008 | 7:33am
The son of William F. Buckley has decided?shock!?to vote for a Democrat.

Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It?s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They?d cut off my allowance.

Or would they? But let?s get that part out of the way. The only reason my vote would be of any interest to anyone is that my last name happens to be Buckley?a name I inherited. So in the event anyone notices or cares, the headline will be: ?William F. Buckley?s Son Says He Is Pro-Obama.? I know, I know: It lacks the throw-weight of ?Ron Reagan Jr. to Address Democratic Convention,? but it?ll have to do.

Dear Pup once said to me, ?You know, I?ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.?

I am?drum roll, please, cue trumpets?making this announcement in the cyberpages of The Daily Beast (what joy to be writing for a publication so named!) rather than in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column. For a reason: 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.

As to the particulars, assuming anyone gives a fig, here goes:

I have known John McCain personally since 1982. I wrote a well-received speech for him. Earlier this year, I wrote in The New York Times...a highly favorable Op-Ed about McCain, taking Rush Limbaugh and the others in the Right Wing Sanhedrin to task for going after McCain for being insufficiently conservative. I don?t?still?doubt that McCain?s instincts remain fundamentally conservative. But the problem is otherwise.

McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power. He told the media they were ?jerks? (a sure sign of authenticity, to say nothing of good taste; we are jerks). He was real. He was unconventional. He embraced former anti-war leaders. He brought resolution to the awful missing-POW business. He brought about normalization with Vietnam?his former torturers! Yes, he erred in accepting plane rides and vacations from Charles Keating, but then, having been cleared on technicalities, groveled in apology before the nation. He told me across a lunch table, ?The Keating business was much worse than my five and a half years in Hanoi, because I at least walked away from that with my honor.? Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.

A year ago, when everyone, including the man I?m about to endorse, was caterwauling to get out of Iraq on the next available flight, John McCain, practically alone, said no, no?bad move. Surge. It seemed a suicidal position to take, an act of political bravery of the kind you don?t see a whole lot of anymore.

But that was?sigh?then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, ?We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.? This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget ?by the end of my first term.? Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain?who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust.

As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a ?first-class temperament,? pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.?s famous comment about FDR. As for his intellect, well, he?s a Harvard man, though that?s sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days. Vietnam was brought to you by Harvard and (one or two) Yale men. As for our current adventure in Mesopotamia, consider this lustrous alumni roster. Bush 43: Yale. Rumsfeld: Princeton. Paul Bremer: Yale and Harvard. What do they all have in common? Andover! The best and the brightest.

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. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

Obama has in him?I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy ?We are the people we have been waiting for? silly rhetoric?the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I?ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.

URL: http://www.thedailybeast.com/b...tive-case-for-obama/p/
Copyright 2008 The Daily Beast

He acknowledges the only reason this is noteworthy is because of his name, but I disagree. He's another life-long conservative, who has lived in the shadow of perhaps the greatest conservative mind of the century and been subject to and witness to all the cogent arguments and positions that accompany such a relationship. He has fundamentally different political goals and positions than Obama. He was, until recently, a strong proponent, admirer, and defender of John McCain. Yet even he can see what needs doing at this moment in history.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Yeah, this is one of those elections where traditional Republican conservatives can't stand the stench of their own parties candidate.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
He acknowledges the only reason this is noteworthy is because of his name

right... so why should I care what some guy with a famous dad thinks?
Actually you should only care what you think.

 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
Too bad his state is already going blue.. go and register in a tossup state and then it's worth a story.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
He acknowledges the only reason this is noteworthy is because of his name

right... so why should I care what some guy with a famous dad thinks?

You don't have to. But if I lived in a house for decades with one of the most intelligent conservative minds in the world, wrote a column for the most conservative publication in the country, had a lifelong committment to conservative values, personally knew the republican candidate for over 25 years and liked him a lot, and still came out for the other guy, well I think that's worth noting.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
William F. Buckley had already rejected neo-conservatism and the Bush family cronies. It's good to see his son following in those footsteps. I guarantee we will see a different Republican party come 2012, as the failures of the party glare and beg for change. Conservatism is not a bad philosophy, and there are many great values within the traditions of it, but Republicans today would by and large disgust such historical giants as Eisenhower.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
He acknowledges the only reason this is noteworthy is because of his name

right... so why should I care what some guy with a famous dad thinks?

Christopher Buckley is well established in conservative politics in his own right.
He is also just the latest conservative/libertarian to back Obama. But hey, I was an early adopter on this bandwagon.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,538
6,704
126
You mean the idiot isn't going to vote third party? He believes in small government and all that libertarian rant and is going to vote for an intelligent liberal in the hope that only an intelligent liberal can possibly bring change. I'll be F*cked.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Could you imagine William F Buckleys reaction to Sarah Palin?

could you imagine Sarah Palin's reaction to William F Buckley?

she'd shoot Zombie Buckley right between the eyes and skin him like a moose :p
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Christopher Buckley comes from good stock. I didn't always agree with William F. Buckley, but he was one of the real brains in the conservative movement... the TRUE conservatives who believed in upholding the Constitution and a well considered, conservative use of our financial resources and structures, not the current crop of traitors, murderers, torturers and Wall Street pirates who have shattered our nation's structure to the core for the last eight years.

Looking at the options of John McCain, a manic whackdoodle who has sold out every principle he has ever espoused and Sarah Palin, an ethically challenged lipstick dipstick in search of a brain, I think his dad would agree that, in this election, sanity trumps party loyalty.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
William F. Buckley had already rejected neo-conservatism and the Bush family cronies. It's good to see his son following in those footsteps. I guarantee we will see a different Republican party come 2012, as the failures of the party glare and beg for change. Conservatism is not a bad philosophy, and there are many great values within the traditions of it, but Republicans today would by and large disgust such historical giants as Eisenhower.

You won't see a change in the group of the most wealthy and the corporatists who have co-opted the Republican party. They'll still be looking for the party to ride to power.

The question will be, will the Republicans finally start to break free of them now that they're unable to cobble together the redneck/religious right/libertarian/etc. coalition enough to win elections? No doubt the wealthy/corporatists (we need a catchier name for them) will be looking hard at the new political power, the democrats, and how much they can expand the wing already under their control, against the progressives.

The Republicans might actually become a respectable 'opposition' party, maybe.

We all want to fight in favor of the progressives against the corporatist wing of the Democratic party IMO. I'm still not sure which wing Obama will be in.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
William F. Buckley had already rejected neo-conservatism and the Bush family cronies. It's good to see his son following in those footsteps. I guarantee we will see a different Republican party come 2012, as the failures of the party glare and beg for change. Conservatism is not a bad philosophy, and there are many great values within the traditions of it, but Republicans today would by and large disgust such historical giants as Eisenhower.
They need to purge themselves of Moral Interventionist and the Ridiculous..err..Religious Right.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Arkaign
William F. Buckley had already rejected neo-conservatism and the Bush family cronies. It's good to see his son following in those footsteps. I guarantee we will see a different Republican party come 2012, as the failures of the party glare and beg for change. Conservatism is not a bad philosophy, and there are many great values within the traditions of it, but Republicans today would by and large disgust such historical giants as Eisenhower.
They need to purge themselves of Moral Interventionist and the Ridiculous..err..Religious Right.

I believe the word you are searching for is Religulous.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Arkaign
William F. Buckley had already rejected neo-conservatism and the Bush family cronies. It's good to see his son following in those footsteps. I guarantee we will see a different Republican party come 2012, as the failures of the party glare and beg for change. Conservatism is not a bad philosophy, and there are many great values within the traditions of it, but Republicans today would by and large disgust such historical giants as Eisenhower.
They need to purge themselves of Moral Interventionist and the Ridiculous..err..Religious Right.

And stop winning elections? There's a reason they made the alliance in the first place.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: Craig234

They need to purge themselves of Moral Interventionist and the Ridiculous..err..Religious Right.

And stop winning elections? There's a reason they made the alliance in the first place.[/quote]

That's exactly what I meant when I said his dad would agree that, in this election, sanity trumps party loyalty.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
He acknowledges the only reason this is noteworthy is because of his name

right... so why should I care what some guy with a famous dad thinks?

LOL, Loki. He's very well known in his own right. He lunches with McCain! He wrote one of his speeches!

-Robert
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,805
10,457
147
Originally posted by: loki8481
He acknowledges the only reason this is noteworthy is because of his name

right... so why should I care what some guy with a famous dad thinks?

Why bring still President Bush into this? :Q

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Arkaign
William F. Buckley had already rejected neo-conservatism and the Bush family cronies. It's good to see his son following in those footsteps. I guarantee we will see a different Republican party come 2012, as the failures of the party glare and beg for change. Conservatism is not a bad philosophy, and there are many great values within the traditions of it, but Republicans today would by and large disgust such historical giants as Eisenhower.
They need to purge themselves of Moral Interventionist and the Ridiculous..err..Religious Right.

And stop winning elections? There's a reason they made the alliance in the first place.
There are a lot of us who aren't that enamored with the Democrats but the Republicans being in bed with those asshole Fund A Metal Cases is enough to keep us away from the Republicans

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
The "Conservative Right" has been taken over by Idiots from Top to Bottom. The former Intellectuals have all died(with a few exceptions) and have been ignored for many years anyway, so being alive seems to have no bearing on the Present. Rush, Hannity, various Religious "leaders", and other nonsensical loud mouths have taken over the movement. They all certainly garner a lot of attention, but when people take a few minutes to actually think about what those Movement Leaders are saying, they find nothing of substance.

The "Conservative Right" needs to return to Intellectualism and to well thought out arguments that can stand the test of Scientific/Mathematic scrutiny.