Another Conservative Endorses Obama

rayboyusmc

Senior Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,015
341
48
Florida
And Pays the Price:

Buckley Is Out at National Review After Obama Endorsement

The son of conservative icon William F. Buckley has parted ways with the magazine his father founded for committing a heretical act by National Review magazine standards: endorsing Barack Obama.


In a column today entitled “Sorry, Dad, I was Sacked”on www.TheDailyBeast.com, Christopher Buckley, a well-known author who also who wrote the back page column for National Review magazine, writes that the uproar over his endorsement last week of Obama over Republican John McCain prompted so much backlash that he offered his resignation—and the magazine accepted.

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Buckley Is Out at National Review After Obama Endorsement
 
Don't know if this has been posted yet, Buckley's reply:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired

Christopher Buckley, in an exclusive for The Daily Beast, explains why he left The National Review, the magazine his father founded.

I seem to have picked an apt title for my Daily Beast column, or blog, or whatever it’s called: “What Fresh Hell.” My last posting (if that’s what it’s called) in which I endorsed Obama, has brought about a very heaping helping of fresh hell. In fact, I think it could accurately be called a tsunami.

The mail (as we used to call it in pre-cyber times) at the Beast has been running I’d say at about 7-to-1 in favor. This would seem to indicate that you (the Beast reader) are largely pro-Obama.

As for the mail flooding into National Review Online—that’s been running about, oh, 700-to-1 against. In fact, the only thing the Right can’t quite decide is whether I should be boiled in oil or just put up against the wall and shot. Lethal injection would be too painless.

I had gone out of my way in my Beast endorsement to say that I was not doing it in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column, because of the experience of my colleague, the lovely Kathleen Parker. Kathleen had written in NRO that she felt Sarah Palin was an embarrassment. (Hardly an alarmist view.) This brought 12,000 livid emails, among them a real charmer suggesting that Kathleen’s mother ought to have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a dumpster. I didn’t want to put NR in an awkward position.

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.
 
I figured all of you liberal minded, Buckley friends would want to be kept up-to-date:

The Audacity of Nope - The Daily Beast

The Audacity of Nope
by Christopher Buckley

One feels almost unpatriotic, entertaining negative thoughts about Obama’s grand plan. But it is far from clear that spending oceanic sums of money is the right corrective.
That was, as Tom Lehrer would say, the week that was. President Barack Obama gave his first State of the Union speech. Governor Bobby Jindal gave his first and possibly last Republican response. The president presented a $3.6 trillion budget, and announced that we are getting out of Iraq but not really. And Rush Limbaugh gave—as he put it, fun intended—his first nationally televised address to the nation.

Just remember the apothegm that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.

Hold on—there’s a typo in that paragraph. “$3.6 trillion budget” can’t be right.The entire national debt is—what—about $11 trillion? He can’t actually be proposing to spend nearly one-third of that in one year, surely. Let me check. Hmm. He did. The Wall Street Journal notes that federal outlays in fiscal 2009 will rise to almost 30 percent of the gross national product. In language that even an innumerate English major such as myself can understand: The US government is now spending annually about one-third of what the entire US economy produces. As George Will would say, “Well.”...
 
I wouldn't call that article an endorsement per say. it wasn't an excoriation so I guess in a Dimocrat's mind it's an endorsement.
 
Of course, because he thought Obama was the better choice for president, he MUST agree with everything he does, eh?

I'm not quite certain what the point is other than he thinks we're spending too much money.
 
You have to remember folks conservatism is a form of psychosis and as such requires patience and care of the person who is coming around to see the light. Just the other day a fourteen year spoke at CPAC demonstrating the symptomatic identity of brain washing in his constant repetition of slogans. Nazi youth, communist youths and Maoist youth all go through similar transformative episodes and most come back to the world of girls, music, cars, fun, hunting, games, and sports. Please recall, Buckley grew up in an atmosphere of total control and it will take time to clear his head of all the slogans. Humans often fall back into fantasy and easy cliches until they are able to build up a rational and inquisitive personality. Let's wish him luck on his journey to reason.
 
And Pays the Price:

Buckley Is Out at National Review After Obama Endorsement

The son of conservative icon William F. Buckley has parted ways with the magazine his father founded for committing a heretical act by National Review magazine standards: endorsing Barack Obama.


In a column today entitled “Sorry, Dad, I was Sacked”on The Daily Beast, Christopher Buckley, a well-known author who also who wrote the back page column for National Review magazine, writes that the uproar over his endorsement last week of Obama over Republican John McCain prompted so much backlash that he offered his resignation—and the magazine accepted.

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Buckley Is Out at National Review After Obama Endorsement

Yeah, look what happened to Lieberman. In other words, shut up. Pot calling the kettle black.
 
And Pays the Price:

Buckley Is Out at National Review After Obama Endorsement

The son of conservative icon William F. Buckley has parted ways with the magazine his father founded for committing a heretical act by National Review magazine standards: endorsing Barack Obama.


In a column today entitled “Sorry, Dad, I was Sacked”on www.TheDailyBeast.com, Christopher Buckley, a well-known author who also who wrote the back page column for National Review magazine, writes that the uproar over his endorsement last week of Obama over Republican John McCain prompted so much backlash that he offered his resignation—and the magazine accepted.

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Buckley Is Out at National Review After Obama Endorsement

I think the following is rather telling about the mindset of the NEO-CONS:


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,”

Neo-Cons, act much like totalitarians of every age - it's my way or the highway.

What nitwits ALWAYS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND is that one benefits from having and listening to the opposition.

A vocal opposition is the check and balance of the rational mind.

Free speech isn't merely a nice idea for those hoping to do well, it's crucial for a vibrant society to allow unwelcomed ideas to come to the forum of ideas.

Failure to honestly evaluate the critcism of the opposition is foolish and counterproductive.

Why?

Sometimes we are just wrong!

Sometimes, we cannot see the forest for the trees.

Sometimes we are blinded by the synophants which rally around us simply because we are in power.

Truly great leaders listen to their detractors. They listen and consider their critiques even more closely than they listen to those telling them they they are on the right path.

Fools, dicatators and tryrants never understand that managment skill.

That is why, when leadership become totalitarian, that leadership has doomed itself.

If the only voices you are willing to listen to are those who agree with you, then GROUPTHINK will make you deaf to the warning rumbles of discontent that will be brewing beyond your range of hearing.

Honorable men can disagree honorably.

Only tyrants cannot stand honest criticism.

And a deaf leader cripples himself by denying himself one of his most valuable tools to help him manage.
 
I dont see how any republican could ever agree with Obama.

Obama is so liberal I cant imagine a conservative and bi-partisan even co-existing on the senate floor. I can see some dems working with some republicans but nothing direct to the president.
 
You have to remember folks conservatism is a form of psychosis and as such requires patience and care of the person who is coming around to see the light.

And just what do you call 'liberalism" that consistently and to an ever increasing degree restricts our freedoms?

Just the other day a fourteen year spoke at CPAC demonstrating the symptomatic identity of brain washing in his constant repetition of slogans. Nazi youth, communist youths and Maoist youth all go through similar transformative episodes and most come back to the world of girls, music, cars, fun, hunting, games, and sports.

You mean the conditioning of young minds like this?

[youtube]cdPSqL9_mfM[/youtube]

Please recall, Buckley grew up in an atmosphere of total control and it will take time to clear his head of all the slogans. Humans often fall back into fantasy and easy cliches until they are able to build up a rational and inquisitive personality. Let's wish him luck on his journey to reason.

And you were there when Buckley grew up???

"Liberals" under the guise of protecting one's freedoms ,that is protecting people from themselves, seeking the ability to obtain and exercise more power over the very actions that define person's liberty is a "healthy" rather than a psychotic state of mind.

And herein lies the snobbery and elitism of liberals. The people certainly are not capable of thinking and acting in their own best interests so "we", the royal we in this case, will tell you how to think and act and enforce that edict with the power of the state.

And that is not psychotic?
 
Neo-Cons, act much like totalitarians of every age - it's my way or the highway.

What nitwits ALWAYS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND is that one benefits from having and listening to the opposition.

A vocal opposition is the check and balance of the rational mind.

Free speech isn't merely a nice idea for those hoping to do well, it's crucial for a vibrant society to allow unwelcomed ideas to come to the forum of ideas.

Failure to honestly evaluate the critcism of the opposition is foolish and counterproductive.

Why?

Sometimes we are just wrong!

Sometimes, we cannot see the forest for the trees.

Sometimes we are blinded by the sycophants which rally around us simply because we are in power.

Truly great leaders listen to their detractors. They listen and consider their critiques even more closely than they listen to those telling them they they are on the right path.

Fools, dicatators and tryrants never understand that managment skill.

That is why, when leadership become totalitarian, that leadership has doomed itself.

If the only voices you are willing to listen to are those who agree with you, then GROUPTHINK will make you deaf to the warning rumbles of discontent that will be brewing beyond your range of hearing.

Honorable men can disagree honorably.

Only tyrants cannot stand honest criticism.

And a deaf leader cripples himself by denying himself one of his most valuable tools to help him manage.


Obama is guilty of what I've bolded. Why is he just listening to those economists who agree with him when there are many, many who believe he is making huge mistakes? Why is he pushing these things through with lightening speed? He is not a stupid man, so why is he acting like one? I don't believe he has a clue as to what to actually do about the economy, he certainly isn't listening to both sides, so he is throwing money at it and 'hoping' . . . but more importantly I don't think he cares. His words are meaningless . . . his actions are not . . . and his agenda goes well beyond trying to fix the economy. That's the prize he has his eyes on.
 
Anyway, if you're done ranting, if Buckley supports Obama, he's not a conservative.

Plain and simple.
 
Skull Pilot, you take some my poking fun at your ideology too seriously. Freedom is an abstraction, we still have 'freedom' in this land and the only loss of that 'freedom' has been because of Bush and the conservative republicans after 911. Many conservatives cheered that loss as necessary and condoned it through a kind of apologetic nonsense.

Take notice of the youtube you posted and you may learn a bit on where we differ. For the children the focus was on them and on what they could and can do, individual freedom in other words, a key liberal tenet. The Nazi youth sang the praises of the fuhrer, they worshiped what was greater than themselves, this is a tenet of conservatism and fascism is an obvious right wing phenomenon. See item three and one below from one of your primary spokesmen.

I did grow up knowing Buckley's world, his father was a favorite of mine, we libs love a challenge and he was the most articulate you guys have ever had even though he was mostly wrong.

items here
The Kirk Center - Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
 

Forum List

Back
Top