Christopher Buckley Explains Obama Endorsement and Axing From National Review

Kim, you didn't address my point that what Buckley wrote did not make sense, and that he then lied about the events that transpired after he wrote it.

Ricorun is right. GW Bush lost the race for the House when he ran as a spoiled, failed businessman and ex alchoholic-- but turned it around when he bought a ranch, a pick-up and put his cowboy boots on.

Fred Thompson- ex lobbyist also drove around with a pick-up and sought to be a man of the people instead of someone who rubbed shoulders with Hollywood types and well-heeled financiers.

Reagan would not have won as a second-rate actor -- but as a California rancher who rode horseback-- he won over the masses.

The GOP doesn't want a real person--who may just happen to be well-educated and smart-- like Obama. No, they want John Wayne.

DS: If someone is a fiscal conservative, there is no one to vote for in this election. If someone wants to limit immigration, there is no one to vote for in this election. If someone wants limited government, there is no one to vote for in this election.

When was there? Seriously, what GOP candidate in the last 50 years satisfies your criteria? Even Reagan comes up a little short -- particularly on the immigration issue.

My previous comment was intended to be tongue in cheek, though with a kernel of truth. If you think about it the irony is, Buckley is your kind of conservative (except perhaps on immigration -- he was in McCain's corner on that). But apparently he's unacceptable because he's also an "elitist" as the term is currently defined. Then again, so are many of the other big-wigs in the Republican party. I offer GW Bush as exhibit A in that regard -- and McCain as exhibit B. In McCain's case both his father and grandfather were admirals. He went to a private prep school, attended Annapolis, and eventually married an heiress. Granted, he didn't excel in school (which I guess is considered an advantage in some circles). Plus, he has combat experience, not to mention POW status. That's a huge bonus. Exhibit A (Bush) is even more of an elitist. My goodness, the guy went to private boarding schools, then to Yale, then to Harvard (although he too didn't excel). His dad and/or his dad's friends got him essentially every job he ever had. You can't get much more elitist than that. However, he also flew fighter jets for a while, owns a ranch and has a drawl -- and he's a born again Christian.

And that brings me back to the point I was trying to make: being an "elitist" is actually okay if you manage to find a way to rough up the edges and at least pose as a Joe Six Pack type. These days, in order to get anywhere in the GOP you gotta have a little bit of that God, guns, and religion sort of thing going for you. In a way, you pointed that out by way of your explanation of why you felt Mitt and Rudy were unacceptable.

IMO, the problem with the GOP is that the three legs of the stool (fiscal, security and social conservatism) which are in many ways antithetical to each other to begin with, are getting increasingly intolerant of each other. At least the schism between fiscal conservatives on the one hand, and social and security conservatives on the other are getting larger. But even with regard to the latter, the Palin pick has succeeded in putting a monkeywrench in that part of the coalition too. And it's likely to fracture altogether as concern shifts from a predominant focus on Islamic radicalism to other issues like the rise of Russia and China.

That's my opinion anyway. Obviously, you don't have to agree. But I have spent some time ruminating on how the GOP finds a way forward. One element in that consideration was the ruminations, particularly on David Cameron's thoughts, that David Brooks offered in a NYT op-ed several months ago. You might think that's a form of "Dem-lite", or you might not. Either way, what do you think? I have a few more on the subject from different authors, too.

The bottom line as I see it is that while I believe the "elitist" meme used against Obama is more show than substance, the same meme has been in effect for several presidential cycles now. Gore was an "elitist". Kerry was an "elitist". And now Obama is an "elitist". It's become a staple of GOP campaigns. Each time it's used it means something different. But each time it's used it also takes on at least some of the baggage from the time before. This time around I think it's gotten rather toxic, because when you percolate it down it's hard to define it as anything but "smart". And when a party starts eliminating anyone on that basis, they have a real problem.

CS- Buckley owns 1/7 of the NR, and his last name will always open doors for him. Plus he's an intelligent independent analytic thinker--- who is, of course, seen by the right now as a traitor to the cause.

He wrote something risky that ended up getting a lot of demands for his head. Doesn't that mean he's the same kind of maverick as John McCain?

SD- You are right- I forgot Jackson, but I disagree that there were no better picks than Palin. Why didn't McCain pick Texas Sen Kay Bailey Hutchinson? A conservative woman who has the right kind of experience?

And what, exactly did Hughes accomplish?

"What we have less tolerance for though is those like Chris Buckley who seem to be speaking out against the Republican ticket more because of expediency for their own careers and social calendars than for principle. "

That's pretty laughable. Chris Buckley is already an accomplished author (Thank You For Smoking, Little Green Men, No Way to Treat a First Lady, etc, etc, etc), columnist, and playwright. What more do you think he's trying to accomplish? What possible professional benefit is going to come his way that he did not already have at his fingertips? By all accounts, he's perfectly happy being Christopher Buckley, Author.

In my opinion, it just seems that republicans can't stand to think that the son of one of the last, great conservatives has endorsed the "other team". It has nothing to do with Buckley's "social calendar" (what the hell is that supposed to mean, anyway - he's going to have more friends now than he would have if he toed the party line?). And the idea that he's done this to advance his career....hmmm....perhaps you didn't notice that it isn't doing him any favors to have endorsed Obama.

Rambie,

As I have pointed out before, McCain was too stupid that McCain-Feingold would not achieve what was intended and would hurt conservatives. McCain was also too stupid to understand that illegal immigration amnesty would create millions of voters who would automatically vote Democratic. McCain is also too stupid to understand the long term consequences of his economic policies just like Bush's advisers were too stupid to understand.

I believe that the problems faced by many Repulbicans voters is that the leadership of the Republican Party is too stupid to lead. That said, turing into the Democratic-lite party is an even bigger mistake.

If someone is a fiscal conservative, there is no one to vote for in this election. If someone wants to limit immigration, there is no one to vote for in this election. If someone wants limited government, there is no one to vote for in this election. However, there is just not enough voters interested in smaller government or fiscal sanity to affect the outcome of elections anymore.

SD, you're just proving the point that the modern GOP leadership, if not the party as a whole, is intolerant of any decent within their own ranks. Your party quickly jumps on anyone who had a differing view and quickly label them a traitor, lair, terrorist, or worse in a fit of cooked-up "outrage". CB's endorsement was his to give as this is still a free country.

Agents of intolerance indeed.

Most conservatives I know respect the pundits and opinionators who speak their mind even when they're critical of fellow conservatives. What we have less tolerance for though is those like Chris Buckley who seem to be speaking out against the Republican ticket more because of expediency for their own careers and social calendars than for principle. I say this about CB because his column explaining his decision to support Obama is illogical, his representation of his situation with National Review is false according to Rich Lowry (and I'm happy to admit that this is a 'he said/he said' situation, but there are facts which are readily verifiable that support Lowry's version over CB's), and he seems way too eager to go on the circuit to complain about the mistreatment he's suffered.

kritt,

As you point out, that is why the Republicans need to avoid quota hires and quota candidates at all costs. You also forgot to mention Alphonse Jackson at HUD as a horrible quota appointment. The quota hires is one of the reaons that many conservatieves that Bush as been a failure. However, I would leave karen Hughes off the list.

Palin was a horrible pick but there were no good picks. Anyone associated with Bush had to be avoided.

also, McCain suffers from havign a 20 year track record of stabbing Republicans in the back. He could not come out with reasonable conservatie positions on issues because he has opposed so many of them in the past.

RememberNovember, Rumsfled is a Princeton Alum. Cheney attended Yale but is an alum of the University of Wyoming. Paulson went to Dartmouth. Gates went to William and Mary, Chertoff is a Harvard man.

SD- CB didn't strike me that way at all. He seemed like he was comfortable enough in his own skin to avoid taking the party line, and honestly say what he thinks. He's still a small government conservative- so has some reservations about Obama.

I think there are a lot of Cons who are afraid to admit that McCain blew it when he picked Palin.

Palin is barely qualified to be Governor of Alaska-- and the issues, culure and populace up there are in no way similar to what she'd face here in DC. She'd be eaten alive inside the beltway-- and the cons would have to constantly carry her water as they did with GW. In doing so, the GOP would lose more voters and credibility in a downward death spiral.

Its interesting how the GOP opposes affirmative action, yet picks unqualified females and minorities for its highest positions-- to show that they are diversified. Rice was a terrrible pick for NSA, and has been a mediocre Sec State, Karen Hughes was a disaster,Gonzales was a disaster, Palin is a disaster, Harriet Miers would have been a disaster on the SCOTUS, and Clarence Thomas can only follow Scalia---never asking questions of his own. Why? Because he wasn't ready for the SCOTUS.

Giuliani's problem was his personal life. No one on his third wife has much of a chance in politics at the national level. That is why Jim Webb was probably not picked as VP and the reason that Russ Feingold cannot ever run for President.

Giuliani's problem is Judy Nathan, not so much that she's #3.
And that's just one of his issues. That man needs to be as far away from national policy as possible.

Romney's Mormonism makes him even more of an outsider. Never mind that the Mormon business ethic makes a Scotsman look like a spendthrift.

Bush jr., Rumsfeld, GWHB; all Yale grads. Skull n Bones to the core.

Ricorun,

W is over 60 years old. Does anyone think that there are 30 somethings with that resume who are Republicans.

Giuliani's problem was his personal life. No one on his third wife has much of a chance in politics at the national level. That is why Jim Webb was probably not picked as VP and the reason that Russ Feingold cannot ever run for President.

Romney will probably never be able to overcome the Mormon problem. Evangelicals are never going to trust a Mormon.

Does anyone really believe that there are any Republicans attended Portsmouth Abbey School, Buckley, graduated from Yale University and lives in Manhatten with a country house in Connecticut. That is a demographics that has been lost to the Republicans forever.

Actually, except for the living in Manhattan part, it sounds very much like GW Bush's biography. Perhaps all Buckley has to do is switch his fedora for a cowboy hat and develop a drawl -- or perhaps a Fargo twang. Or get a barbecue grille. Arguably, that was Mitt Romney's and Rudy Giuliani's big mistake as well: they failed to develop the small town, Joe six pack affectation, however faux.

Kritt11,

I suspect that what is really killing the Republicans is the inability to think about the long term results of their actions. If the Republicans could have the illegal immigration amnesty passed by Reagan back in 1980's, they would. They failed to consider the long term effects of demographics on the situaiton.

CB is the type who will say what it takes to impress his elite, progressive friends. CB would probably be most comfortable in a Gerald Ford type Repulbican party where the Republicans has zero say in policy. In the long run, CB is probably going to get his wish because the Reppublicans will soon have zero affect on policy.

The GOP is dying out due to the right wing's own intolerance. CB is witty and intelligent like his dad. It is definitely NR's loss.

Does anyone really believe that there are any Republicans attended Portsmouth Abbey School, Buckley, graduated from Yale University and lives in Manhatten with a country house in Connecticut. That is a demographics that has been lost to the Republicans forever.