Discussion:
Chris Buckley (son of Willaim F.): "Sorry, Dad, I am voting for Obama"
(too old to reply)
Kingo Gondo
2008-10-10 15:43:09 UTC
Permalink
First time ever voting for a Dem.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-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-I'm
beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without
saying, "As I warned the world in my last column..."-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.
--
---------------------------------------------------

"One good thing about music,
when it hits, you feel no pain."
Sue Potters
2008-10-10 16:47:08 UTC
Permalink
What a terrific article. Especially what he says about McCain. It's
a true shame what's happened to him.
guzboyz
2008-10-10 16:50:50 UTC
Permalink
What a terrific article.  Especially what he says about McCain.  It's
a true shame what's happened to him.
Oh.....well then I guess I'll vote for Obama too! After all, I have
always held Chrisy Buckley in VERY high estem.
Zeke
2008-10-10 17:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by guzboyz
Oh.....well then I guess I'll vote for Obama too! After all,
I have always held Chrisy Buckley in VERY high estem.
Hey look, it's Longyard Junior!

=======================================================
George W. Bush not attending the Republican National Convention in
St. Paul was like having a USC convention without OJ Simpson.
Stephen Colbert
Karen Burns
2008-10-11 01:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Potters
What a terrific article. Especially what he says about McCain. It's
a true shame what's happened to him.
Agreed. Thanks for posting the article.
Rufless
2008-10-10 17:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
First time ever voting for a Dem.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-cas
e-for-obama
Always did enjoy Chris Buckley. No Way To Treat A First Lady was
hysterical. And didn't he write Thank You For Not Smoking? Funny guy.
But then so was his dad.
--
http://www.34millionfriends.org/
susan
2008-10-10 18:23:14 UTC
Permalink
thanks for posting this-I'll be forwarding it now to my husband-who
has voted for every Republican presidential candidate since and
including Nixon, and met Christopher Buckley's dad about 30 years ago,
and is also voting for Obama.

I wonder how Buckley Sr. would have voted this November. I think the
Republicans are about to get a resounding and very necessary trouncing
soon.
Post by Kingo Gondo
First time ever voting for a Dem.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conserv...
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.
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-I'm
beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without
saying, "As I warned the world in my last column..."-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.
--
---------------------------------------------------
"One good thing about music,
when it hits, you feel no pain."
Sal Video
2008-10-10 20:04:33 UTC
Permalink
William F. Buckley would have taken an Obama sign and made his son eat it.


"susan" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:68b4080b-cbb2-43b0-ada9-***@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
thanks for posting this-I'll be forwarding it now to my husband-who
has voted for every Republican presidential candidate since and
including Nixon, and met Christopher Buckley's dad about 30 years ago,
and is also voting for Obama.

I wonder how Buckley Sr. would have voted this November. I think the
Republicans are about to get a resounding and very necessary trouncing
soon.
Post by Kingo Gondo
First time ever voting for a Dem.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conserv...
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.
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-I'm
beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without
saying, "As I warned the world in my last column..."-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.
--
---------------------------------------------------
"One good thing about music,
when it hits, you feel no pain."
susan
2008-10-11 01:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sal Video
William F. Buckley would have taken an Obama sign and made his son eat it.
here are some of Buckley's thoughts on Bush a couple years ago. Do
you think he'd find McCain's policies better? What do you think
Buckley would think of Palin? (my guess is he'd be incensed)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml

(in part)

Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he
praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from
true conservative principles in his foreign policy.

In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a
failure.

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've
experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,"
Buckley says.

Asked if the Bush administration has been distracted by Iraq, Buckley
says "I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other
subject interests anybody other than Iraq... The continued tumult in
Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have
entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with
respect to Iran in particular."

Despite evidence that Iran is supplying weapons and expertise to
Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel, Buckley rejects neo-
conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy,
including a pre-emptive air strike against Iran and its nuclear
facilities.

"If we find there is a warhead there that is poised, the range of it
is tested, then we have no alternative. But pending that, we have to
ask ourselves, 'What would the Iranian population do?'"

Buckley does support the administration's approach to the North
Korea's nuclear weapons threat, believing that working with Russia,
China, Japan and South Korea is the best way to get Pyongyang back to
the negotiating table. But that's about where the agreement ends.

"Has Mr. Bush found himself in any different circumstances than any of
the other presidents you've known in terms of these crises?" Assuras
asks.

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as
the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that
he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely
tolerant of excesses by Congress," Buckley says. "And in respect of
foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as
apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."

Asked what President Bush's foreign policy legacy will be to his
successor, Buckley says "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't
believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his
second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore
I think his legacy is indecipherable"

At 81, Mr. Buckley still continues to contribute a regular column to
the National Review, the magazine he started 51 years ago.
Joe
2008-10-11 02:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sal Video
William F. Buckley would have taken an Obama sign and made his son eat it.
A man after my own heart :-)
Dan
2008-10-11 04:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by susan
I wonder how Buckley Sr. would have voted this November. I think the
Republicans are about to get a resounding and very necessary trouncing
soon.
Hate to say it, but the best thing that could happen for the Republican
Party would be to lose this election. Cut themselves off as much as
they can from the Bush years, work on being a strong opposition party
with some new ideas, and regroup with new blood further down the road.
susan
2008-10-11 14:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
I wonder how Buckley Sr. would have voted this November.  I think the
Republicans are about to get a resounding and very necessary trouncing
soon.
Hate to say it, but the best thing that could happen for the Republican
Party would be to lose this election.  Cut themselves off as much as
they can from the Bush years, work on being a strong opposition party
with some new ideas, and regroup with new blood further down the road.
I know there's no success like failure
And that failure's no success at all.

Dylan-totally out of context

I agree Dan, and you don't need to hate to say it. If we're only
going to have two viable parties, they can't become extremist
characatures (sp, wrong, I'm sure).

susan
Dom
2008-10-11 18:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
First time ever voting for a Dem.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conserv...
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.
The McCain-Palen ticket will win if Teddy Roosevelt's Bull-Moose
coalition coalesces during the next three weeks. The pseudo-
conservative establishment of charlatans smeared him in 2000, after he
had won the New Hampshire primary by a huge landslide, and is directly
responsible for the tragedies of the past seven years.

We have witnessed the dramatic collapse of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-
Bush house of cards. Instead of accepting responsibility for the snake
oil that they have been peddling for so many years, the pseudo-
conservative charlatans are now abandoning ship.
A to Z
2008-10-11 19:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dom
The McCain-Palen ticket will win if Teddy Roosevelt's Bull-Moose
coalition coalesces during the next three weeks.
of course, they're all dead now...
s***@aol.comnospam
2008-10-12 02:02:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:43:09 -0400, "Kingo Gondo"
Post by Kingo Gondo
First time ever voting for a Dem.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-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.
That was a powerful and stunning piece. A lot of true
small-government conservatives will end up voting for Obama this time
around under the belief/hope that Obama is of such high intellect that
he really understands that big government liberalism is not the
answer. And many such small-government conservatives have turned
against the current incarnation of the Republican Party because they
believe that "compassionate conservatism" is really nothing but
big-government liberalism re-badged by another name.

In hindsight, it now appears that McCain's selection of Palin was a
mistake, a gambit that didn't work after initially showing such
promise.

But I think that regardless of who McCain selected, that he would
still be swimming upstream against the current and that this would
have been due to both to the financial collapse and his weak response
to it, as well as to a mainstream news media which will just not
tolerate any criticism of Obama.

Back during 2004 campaign, plenty of people at Kerry rallies would
shout that Bush and Cheney were war criminals who stole the election
who went to war to enrich their friends, etc, etc.... Michael Moore
made a movie catering to such people and he was given the red carpet
treatment by prominant Democrats for engaging in such hateful slander.
Of course, the mainstream news media did not report about the ugliness
of some who attended Kerry rallies. Such people were just spirited
supporters.
Dan
2008-10-12 04:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
That was a powerful and stunning piece. A lot of true
small-government conservatives will end up voting for Obama this time
around under the belief/hope that Obama is of such high intellect that
he really understands that big government liberalism is not the
answer. And many such small-government conservatives have turned
against the current incarnation of the Republican Party because they
believe that "compassionate conservatism" is really nothing but
big-government liberalism re-badged by another name.
In hindsight, it now appears that McCain's selection of Palin was a
mistake, a gambit that didn't work after initially showing such
promise.
Come on home, Steve. You used to vote Democratic, so you are capable of
pulling that lever.

There is always room for one more in the big tent.

Come on back home, Steve. Vote for Obama.
Rufless
2008-10-12 20:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
That was a powerful and stunning piece. A lot of true
small-government conservatives will end up voting for Obama this time
around under the belief/hope that Obama is of such high intellect that
he really understands that big government liberalism is not the
answer. And many such small-government conservatives have turned
against the current incarnation of the Republican Party because they
believe that "compassionate conservatism" is really nothing but
big-government liberalism re-badged by another name.
In hindsight, it now appears that McCain's selection of Palin was a
mistake, a gambit that didn't work after initially showing such
promise.
Come on home, Steve. You used to vote Democratic, so you are capable of
pulling that lever.
There is always room for one more in the big tent.
Come on back home, Steve. Vote for Obama.
Steeeviee.. Steeviee....come on every body...cheer that guy back home!
--
http://www.34millionfriends.org/
Greg Weber
2008-10-12 14:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:43:09 -0400, "Kingo Gondo"
Post by Kingo Gondo
First time ever voting for a Dem.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-c
ase-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.
That was a powerful and stunning piece. A lot of true
small-government conservatives will end up voting for Obama this time
around under the belief/hope that Obama is of such high intellect that
he really understands that big government liberalism is not the
answer. And many such small-government conservatives have turned
against the current incarnation of the Republican Party because they
believe that "compassionate conservatism" is really nothing but
big-government liberalism re-badged by another name.
Over at Althouse, Ann's broken her vow of "cruel neutrality" and kinda-sorta
endorsed Obama.

In pertinent part:

"McCain has lost definition. He's stumbling along to the finish line, hoping
to achieve his lifelong ambition, to seize the crown at last. But why? To
show he can get along with Democrats? I worry about what awful innovations
the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at
this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama.

This is not a commitment to vote for Obama, and I'm still going to provide
the service of observing events from my slouchily neutral posture, to which
no vow currently binds me. But you see the trend, and the destination is
almost inevitable."

Decide which candidate worries you more, then vote for the other guy.

FWIW, I'm one of the true-small-government-conservatives who'll
probably--probably--vote for Obama. Like Althouse, I'm more worried about
McCain. No matter how many different ways there are to say "maverick," he
hasn't distanced himself far enough from Bush, etc., to suit me.

--Fr. G.
s***@aol.comnospam
2008-10-12 15:15:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:18:36 GMT, Greg Weber
Post by Greg Weber
FWIW, I'm one of the true-small-government-conservatives who'll
probably--probably--vote for Obama. Like Althouse, I'm more worried about
McCain. No matter how many different ways there are to say "maverick," he
hasn't distanced himself far enough from Bush, etc., to suit me.
If it's obvious to me on Election Day that Obama will win, then I will
probably vote for Obama as well. Intellectually, I think a liberal
president with a Democratic House and Senate would not bode well. On
the other hand, if it's clear that Obama will win, then I want him to
win with as overwhelming a mandate as possible so as to be able to
govern without being undermined by the opposition during these
increasingly problematic and challenging times -- and I would be happy
to have what I intellectually believe about the Dems controlling the
presidency, House and Senate at the same time be proven wrong. But if
that ends up to not bode well for the country, then hopefully a
Republican Party out of power can use the time and regroup so as to
become the party of ideas again.

I think Bush has been a disaster on the domestic spending side and
that he has engaged in expanding liberal social spending more than any
president since Nixon and LBJ. This was an affront to
small-government conservatism, and this is where I think he lost many
small government conservatives, far more so than on Iraq where I think
Bush has been given a bum rap..

Back in 2000 campaign Bush actually ran to the left of Gore regarding
Iraq and he was the most hesitant of any modern Republican candidate
in signing onto the generalized concept of using American power to
intervene abroad so as to promote change. When one examines all the
rhetoric of the late 1990s and 2000, it becomes clear that it was
Democrats in the Clinton Administration and in Congress who were
becoming the most hawkish regarding Iraq and Saddam and they were
definitely moving the country in the direction of confronting Saddam
sooner rather than later. I think it took 9/11 to bring Bush on board
to that mindset. But once onboard, Bush decided he was going to
confront the problem head-on, and not punt the ball down field.
Greg Weber
2008-10-12 17:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:18:36 GMT, Greg Weber
Post by Greg Weber
FWIW, I'm one of the true-small-government-conservatives who'll
probably--probably--vote for Obama. Like Althouse, I'm more worried about
McCain. No matter how many different ways there are to say "maverick," he
hasn't distanced himself far enough from Bush, etc., to suit me.
If it's obvious to me on Election Day that Obama will win, then I will
probably vote for Obama as well. Intellectually, I think a liberal
president with a Democratic House and Senate would not bode well. On
the other hand, if it's clear that Obama will win, then I want him to
win with as overwhelming a mandate as possible so as to be able to
govern without being undermined by the opposition during these
increasingly problematic and challenging times -- and I would be happy
to have what I intellectually believe about the Dems controlling the
presidency, House and Senate at the same time be proven wrong. But if
that ends up to not bode well for the country, then hopefully a
Republican Party out of power can use the time and regroup so as to
become the party of ideas again.
The reconstruction of the Republican Party will be taking place at the same
time as the reconstruction of the American economy. I honestly don't know
how appealing small government fiscal conservatism will be to the average
American over the next 4 years.
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
I think Bush has been a disaster on the domestic spending side and
that he has engaged in expanding liberal social spending more than any
president since Nixon and LBJ. This was an affront to
small-government conservatism, and this is where I think he lost many
small government conservatives, far more so than on Iraq where I think
Bush has been given a bum rap..
We really disagree here. We had a clearly identified and defined mission in
Afghanistan -- get in quickly, find and kill bin Laden and as many of his key
al Qaeda deputies as possible, eviscerate the Taliban as punishment for
aiding bin Laden, and go home. What we didn't have was a military plan for
quick entry, nor a plan to seal the Pakistani border to prevent bin Laden's
escape, nor a commitment of the resources necessary to do the job.

And then Bush decided to press on into Iraq. Madness, splitting our military
resources long before our mission in Afghanistan was completed. If it was
necessary to take action against Iraq, then we simply should've contained
Hussein. Construct a coalition to accomplish that purpose while we finished
our business in Afghanistan.

I don't see how we can simultaneously spend blood and treasure in Iraq while
trying to repair our damaged economy. Better, I think, to disengage from
both Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly and as best we can.

--Fr. G.
Evolution
2008-10-12 17:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:18:36 GMT, Greg Weber
Post by Greg Weber
FWIW, I'm one of the true-small-government-conservatives who'll
probably--probably--vote for Obama. Like Althouse, I'm more worried about
McCain. No matter how many different ways there are to say "maverick," he
hasn't distanced himself far enough from Bush, etc., to suit me.
If it's obvious to me on Election Day that Obama will win, then I will
probably vote for Obama as well. Intellectually, I think a liberal
president with a Democratic House and Senate would not bode well. On
the other hand, if it's clear that Obama will win, then I want him to
win with as overwhelming a mandate as possible so as to be able to
govern without being undermined by the opposition during these
increasingly problematic and challenging times -- and I would be happy
to have what I intellectually believe about the Dems controlling the
presidency, House and Senate at the same time be proven wrong. But if
that ends up to not bode well for the country, then hopefully a
Republican Party out of power can use the time and regroup so as to
become the party of ideas again.
I think it will be interesting to see. The republicans controlling
everything has brought us to financial ruin and a huge debt (so much for
small government!). And didn't Clinton balance the budget in his first
2 years with dems controlling both houses? I think history shows the
dems, at least in recent years, being more fiscally responsible than
republicans.

I noticed that McCain has started saying he will balance the budget by
the end of his term... (not first term, mind you). How on earth can he
do that while continuing to spend $200 billion/year on Iraq and giving
tax cuts to the wealthy? That's a combined deficit of $500 billion.
Even if he cuts all earmarks ($20 billion), where is he going to come up
with the remaining $480 billion to balance the budget? We already know
from the last 8 years, that tax cuts for the wealthy don't stimulate the
economy, so he can't count on the economy reviving for more revenue.

This is fiscally responsible? Trickle down theory has now cost us 3
recessions... 2 in bush's term, 1 after raygun... at least H.W. had the
sense to raise taxes after promising ("read my lips") not to, in order
to get the deficit under control.

Laurie
s***@aol.comnospam
2008-10-12 22:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evolution
And didn't Clinton balance the budget in his first
2 years with dems controlling both houses?
No. The annual deficit was still over 200 billion dollars after
Clinton's first 2 years in office and after his large tax increase.
The surplus didn't appear until 1998 and the forced budgetary
restraint of the Gingrich Congress had a lot to do with that, as well
as the dot.com stock market bubble. In April of 1995, the CBO was
still forecasting annual deficits of 200 billion dollars or more
through 1999.
gumboman
2008-10-13 00:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
Post by Evolution
And didn't Clinton balance the budget in his first
2 years with dems controlling both houses?
No. The annual deficit was still over 200 billion dollars after
Clinton's first 2 years in office and after his large tax increase.
The surplus didn't appear until 1998 and the forced budgetary
restraint of the Gingrich Congress had a lot to do with that, as well
as the dot.com stock market bubble. In April of 1995, the CBO was
still forecasting annual deficits of 200 billion dollars or more
through 1999.
LMAO. Drink, drink, drink that kool aid.
Rufless
2008-10-12 20:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:18:36 GMT, Greg Weber
Post by Greg Weber
FWIW, I'm one of the true-small-government-conservatives who'll
probably--probably--vote for Obama. Like Althouse, I'm more worried about
McCain. No matter how many different ways there are to say "maverick," he
hasn't distanced himself far enough from Bush, etc., to suit me.
If it's obvious to me on Election Day that Obama will win, then I will
probably vote for Obama as well. Intellectually, I think a liberal
president with a Democratic House and Senate would not bode well. On
the other hand, if it's clear that Obama will win, then I want him to
win with as overwhelming a mandate as possible so as to be able to
govern without being undermined by the opposition during these
increasingly problematic and challenging times -- and I would be happy
to have what I intellectually believe about the Dems controlling the
presidency, House and Senate at the same time be proven wrong. But if
that ends up to not bode well for the country, then hopefully a
Republican Party out of power can use the time and regroup so as to
become the party of ideas again.
This is why I keep on reading you. Because you are not an idiot. And
you're not mean spirited. You're wrong a lot, however. ;-)
--
http://www.34millionfriends.org/
gumboman
2008-10-13 00:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
that ends up to not bode well for the country, then hopefully a
Republican Party out of power can use the time and regroup so as to
become the party of ideas again.
LMAO - they've never had a single idea that worked as they said it
would work. If they do lose maybe they should spend the next four
years going back to first grade and learning a little addition and
subtraction.

They should take a about 51% of the population with them. They were
all children left behind.
gumboman
2008-10-13 00:47:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:18:36 GMT, Greg Weber
Post by Greg Weber
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:43:09 -0400, "Kingo Gondo"
Post by Kingo Gondo
First time ever voting for a Dem.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-c
ase-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.
That was a powerful and stunning piece. A lot of true
small-government conservatives will end up voting for Obama this time
around under the belief/hope that Obama is of such high intellect that
he really understands that big government liberalism is not the
answer. And many such small-government conservatives have turned
against the current incarnation of the Republican Party because they
believe that "compassionate conservatism" is really nothing but
big-government liberalism re-badged by another name.
Over at Althouse, Ann's broken her vow of "cruel neutrality" and kinda-sorta
endorsed Obama.
"McCain has lost definition. He's stumbling along to the finish line, hoping
to achieve his lifelong ambition, to seize the crown at last. But why? To
show he can get along with Democrats? I worry about what awful innovations
the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at
this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama.
This is not a commitment to vote for Obama, and I'm still going to provide
the service of observing events from my slouchily neutral posture, to which
no vow currently binds me. But you see the trend, and the destination is
almost inevitable."
Decide which candidate worries you more, then vote for the other guy.
FWIW, I'm one of the true-small-government-conservatives who'll
probably--probably--vote for Obama. Like Althouse, I'm more worried about
McCain. No matter how many different ways there are to say "maverick," he
hasn't distanced himself far enough from Bush, etc., to suit me.
--Fr. G.
Curiosity forces me to ask this these questions.

How is it possible to have small government in a modern technological
society? It's a myth.

If you belive in small government then how can you justify a Defense
Department the size of which we have today whose sole purpose is
interfering in the affairs of foreigners? How can you justify the
public deficits we have accumulated while being governed by so-called
small government conservatives?

It seems to me you can't have it both ways and therein lies the cause
of the current economic crisis.
Dan
2008-10-15 05:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@aol.comnospam
Post by Kingo Gondo
The son of William F. Buckley has decided-shock!-to vote for a Democrat.
That was a powerful and stunning piece. A lot of true
small-government conservatives will end up voting for Obama this time
around under the belief/hope that Obama is of such high intellect that
he really understands that big government liberalism is not the
answer. And many such small-government conservatives have turned
against the current incarnation of the Republican Party because they
believe that "compassionate conservatism" is really nothing but
big-government liberalism re-badged by another name.
A little scoop on Christopher Buckley

By Patrick Beach | Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 11:09 AM

Christopher Buckley, author and son of late conservative icon William F.
Buckley, last week surprised readers of the magazine his father founded,
the National Review: “Sorry, Dad, I’m voting for Obama” was the headline
on The Daily Beast blog.

Tuesday in a phone interview with the Austin American-Statesman he
revealed another surprise: After NR readers raised holy heck over his
perceived betrayal of the right, he offered to resign his column - and
it was accepted.

“It upset a great number of people - a huge number of canceled
subscriptions, apostasy, the whole thing,” he said from Washington.

When he offered his resignation to the magazine’s editors, “I was sort
of hoping for, ‘Well, let’s think about it,’ ” Buckley said. “But to
paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the
Republican Party left me.”

Buckley, the author of numerous humorous political novels, most recently
“Supreme Courtship,” is booked to appear at the Texas Book Festival in
Austin Nov. 1. “It’s too bad,” Buckley said. “I’m not looking to crap
all over NR, but it’s too bad.”
Scotsman
2008-10-15 15:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kingo Gondo
First time ever voting for a Dem.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conserv...
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.
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-I'm
beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without
saying, "As I warned the world in my last column..."-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.
--
---------------------------------------------------
"One good thing about music,
when it hits, you feel no pain."
"So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity
is the
mother of bipartisanship"

If only...

Loading...