Had to bring this up. Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley and columnist at the National Review, is endorsing Obama, essentially because Obama is smarter, more cool-headed, and has run a cleaner campaign than John McCain. He doesn't agree with Obama's overall philosophy, obviously, but he's basically saying that he trusts him not to screw things up too badly, and he doesn't trust McCain. Here's the link:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/

 

Not the same as if WFB himself were saying it, but still pretty incredible. I guess it's part of an anti-anti-intellectual backlash from the right, with smart conservatives tired of pretending being smart is anti-American. After 8 years of GWB and the very real prospect of President Sarah Palin, I guess it's just too much. As David Brooks said recently, "William F. Buckley famously said he’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. But he didn’t believe those were the only two options."

Edited October 11, 200817 yr by Sisyphus

That was really interesting. His reasoning is very familiar to me, particularly the Palin-as-embarrassment angle, and the phrase "Right Wing Sanhedrin" was amusing. He's right on target talking about how McCain should have been a perfectly good candidate -- the champion of moderate conservatives. Even moderate liberals supported the guy -- how many times did we hear the phrase "he's the only Republican I could ever vote for"? But the far right just would not let the guy alone, and let's face it, he's caved in to their will.

 

I think I'll pass that along to a few of my conservative friends. Thanks.

UPDATE: To mitigate the outrage directed at the National Review, Buckley offered his resignation, and it was accepted. Here's his follow-up post at the Daily Beast:

 

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

 

Some choice bits:

 

My point, simply, is that William F. Buckley held to rigorous standards, and if those were met by members of the other side rather than by his own camp, he said as much. [...]

 

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

 

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

 

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

And the fundamentalist conservative whackjobs prove again that their unidimensional approach of mob rule works.

I agree with the above -- he got fatwah'd, as he put it. Which is a real shame, because National Review represents the waning intelligentsia of fiscal conservatism, which is clearly no longer welcome in the current environment. NR represented the opponents of neoconservatism, for example. But recently it's been accused of taking a more pandering, popularist position, so perhaps it's not too much of a surprise. Someone (I forget where) recently described NR as having become "the thinking man's Bill O'Reilly", which struck me as amusing and insulting at the same time (though to whom I wasn't exactly sure).

William F. Buckley's views, like Goldwater's, are not representative of the modern day Republican party

I agree.

It's absolutely batshit crazy how someone can be essentially pushed into resignation for openly declaring which political candidate they support. I mean, it's not like Obama is a cannibal or convicted child molestor or something, nor did Buckley work for either campaign or party. It's outrageous, and silly.

No kidding, it's not like the moderate conservative movement isn't strong. They're competing for leverage previously monopolized by the liberal agenda.

 

Obviously, the republicans are in an identity crisis. While I understand Buckley's position, I also understand the need for republicans to stay philosophically polarized to the democrats. And no, I'm not talking about partisanship, I'm talking about ideology. If they're going to be hybrid democrat-republicans, then they should call themselves that and have their own party. I have a feeling this is about retaining the traditional right wing mantra while exorcising the hybrids.

 

Ah, what the hell do I know...

 

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

 

Maybe he could team up with Dr. Paul since he effectively shares the same predicament.

No kidding, it's not like the moderate conservative movement isn't strong. They're competing for leverage previously monopolized by the liberal agenda.

 

Obviously, the republicans are in an identity crisis. While I understand Buckley's position, I also understand the need for republicans to stay philosophically polarized to the democrats. And no, I'm not talking about partisanship, I'm talking about ideology. If they're going to be hybrid democrat-republicans, then they should call themselves that and have their own party. I have a feeling this is about retaining the traditional right wing mantra while exorcising the hybrids.

 

Ah, what the hell do I know...

 

I've noticed this too. The neocons claim to believe one way and act completely differently when they get into office. There support of these bailouts show that.

 

 

Maybe he could team up with Dr. Paul since he effectively shares the same predicament.

ftw!