Christopher Buckley endorses Barack Obama:
Little late to the party on this but it's still worth noting. Christopher Buckley, son of the late conservative writer William F. Buckley Jr. has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama.
With typical Buckleyan wit, the former Esquire editor and White House speech writer (Bush 41) makes clear he hasn't jumped ship and become a liberal. Instead his decision springs more from his disappointment with Sen. John McCain than any embrace of Obama's guiding political philosophy or agenda.
Here's an excerpt from the Daily Beast:
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.
Of Obama, he says:
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.
Cue the harpsichord.
Observer,
You crack me up. For some one can't ever provide documentation for your own points, you sure do request it alot from others!
I guess it doesn't matter anyway. Last time you posted, you said that McCain was controlled by lobbyists for Fannie Mae, even though McCain consistently against bills that Fannie Mae was promoting.
Then you defended Barack Obama even though he supported all of Fannie Mae's initiatives and had Fannie senior exectives on his campaign (not mouthpieces for the organization, but the actual people setting Fannie's policies!).
Heck, I bet you're still figuring out a way to believe that Obama's uncle liberated Auschwitz (how do we KNOW that American troops didn't liberate it--maybe they were just wearing Soviet uniforms?!?)
But for your edification, here's the documentation on my point that Obama was interfereing with the constitutional duties of the presidency-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-sought-to-sway-iraqis-on-bush-deal/
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
Obama tried to secretly subvert US foreign policy in a discussion with the leaders of Iraq for his own personal gain.
He was willing to put American lives at risk to advance his campaign.
What more needs to be said?
Posted by: Anthony at October 10, 2008 2:08 PMChristopher Buckley endorses Barack Obama:
Little late to the party on this but it's still worth noting. Christopher Buckley, son of the late conservative writer William F. Buckley Jr. has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama.
With typical Buckleyan wit, the former Esquire editor and White House speech writer (Bush 41) makes clear he hasn't jumped ship and become a liberal. Instead his decision springs more from his disappointment with Sen. John McCain than any embrace of Obama's guiding political philosophy or agenda.
Here's an excerpt from the Daily Beast:
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.
Of Obama, he says:
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.
Cue the harpsichord.
Posted by: BlueBeard at October 11, 2008 8:41 AMAnthony,
"What more needs to be said?"
Oh, I don't know. How about a link to a reputable news source, not some right wing escapist fantasy, which explains your foolish claim that BO is subverting US foreign policy and putting American lives at risk. Or is that just blog code to attack anyone trying to fulfill the desires of a majority of the American people who are tired of this Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush neo-con fiasco and want to end it?
Posted by: observer at October 11, 2008 11:10 AMLouis Farrakhan has strongly endorsed Obama,referring to him as a "messiah".
Posted by: joe bernstein at October 11, 2008 12:44 PMLouis Farrakhan is a hatemonger and he doesn't tend to support anyone who is not on the same page he is.Does he know something about Obama that we don't?The MSM is not putting this story out.How far in the tank can they go?I am amazed the Acorn story is in the news.It was too big to kill,I guess.
Obama can"repudiate"Farrakhan all he wants-if that man supports him,I think it speaks volumes on its face.
I posted a similar message to Ari Savitzky on PDD-naturally he chose not to answer.He still has to look in the mirror and ask himself how fervently he can support a candidate who draws the admiration of a man who hates White people in general,and Jews in particular.(Even though there are many nonwhite Jews).
The church obama attended for 20 years obviously had a lot of admiration for Farrakhan,what with giving him a life achievement award.
I think a lot of White liberals are so full of guilt for things they never did,that they can give hatred a pass to "atone".What a bunch of nitwits!!
There's a ton of vicious hatemongering on both sides-- perpetrated mostly by people OUTSIDE bothe McCain and Obama camps. (Both camps are being negative, butthe harshest stuff on right & left is OUTSIDE the candidates reach & control!
Posted by: bluebeard at October 11, 2008 2:57 PMI support Obama abd I grew up in Chicago 1962-1975... before Obama and Farrakhan. I oppose Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers-- and Barack Obama does too. He hates being endorsed by Farrakhan. Farrakhan is a RACIST just the the KKK and Obama knows this. Just because someone endorses YOU doesn't mean that you accept their support! Obama is an anti-Farrakhan blacl leader. Obama's faith is deeply Christian and non-Marxist.
Hey, it is just the McCain camp deciding to try to change the conversation from how we are going to save out investments, pension & mortgages to crazyyy talk about irrelevant radicals from 40 years ago and crazy Muslim hate-preachers. I hate HATE. You guys hear it 24/7 on Talk Radio- irrational fear and hate of "socialism". Remember "The Paranoid Style of American Politics" fueled by fear. It makes voters do stupid things.
President Obama and Senator Mccai9n in January will wo9rk together to straighten out the mess. McCain is good for help in the Senate & bipartisan leadership there!
Bluebeard, please abandon the habit of posting the same response multiple times under different threads. It's just annoying. Not any more effective than posting it once at the most appropriate place.
Posted by: observer at October 11, 2008 6:03 PMObserver,
You crack me up. For some one can't ever provide documentation for your own points, you sure do request it alot from others!
I guess it doesn't matter anyway. Last time you posted, you said that McCain was controlled by lobbyists for Fannie Mae, even though McCain consistently against bills that Fannie Mae was promoting.
Then you defended Barack Obama even though he supported all of Fannie Mae's initiatives and had Fannie senior exectives on his campaign (not mouthpieces for the organization, but the actual people setting Fannie's policies!).
Heck, I bet you're still figuring out a way to believe that Obama's uncle liberated Auschwitz (how do we KNOW that American troops didn't liberate it--maybe they were just wearing Soviet uniforms?!?)
But for your edification, here's the documentation on my point that Obama was interfereing with the constitutional duties of the presidency-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-sought-to-sway-iraqis-on-bush-deal/
Posted by: Anthony at October 12, 2008 2:19 AMFirst of all, let me take this opportunity to wish all the paisans on this board a happy Columbus Day!
Anthony, thanks for the Washington Times link. Of course it doesn't remotely support your allegation that BO was trying to undermine the troops and US foreign policy, but you're entitled to your own interpretation.
As far as asking for documentation, I'm not aware that I ever do that, with the one exception when I challenged your assertion that BO's grandma was a Bank of Hawaii VP. You were right about that and I apologized to you. You were not right in the underlying assertion that he had grown up in a luxurious situation, they were very much middle class. But other than that exception, I don't think I've ever challenged someone to prove a point they made. It's silly anyway, in the internet age, there is so much misinformation and propaganda masquerading as fact that anyone can "prove"just about anything.
Posted by: observer at October 12, 2008 9:51 PM