46 Comments

1. Peter G:

Rich Lowry comments at The Corner:

A Word on Christopher Buckley [Rich Lowry]
Chris is up with a post at The Daily Beast, “Sorry, Dad, I Was Fired.” I’d like to clarify this “firing” business. Over the weekend, Chris wrote us a jaunty e-mail with the subject line “A Sincere Offer,” in which he offered to resign his column on NR’s back page and said that if we accepted, there “would be no hard feelings, only warmest regards and understanding.” We took the offer sincerely. Chris had done us the favor of writing the column beginning seven issues ago on a “trial basis” (his words), while our regular back-page columnist, Mark Steyn, was on hiatus. Now, Mark is back to writing again, and—I’m delighted to say—will be on NR’s back-page in the new issue.

Just one other point: Chris says that his Obama endorsement has generated a “tsunami,” that e-mail at NRO has been running “oh, 700-to-1″ against him, and that there’s a debate about whether to boil him in oil or shoot him. Chris is either misinformed or exercising poetic license. We have gotten about 100 e-mails, if that (a tiny amount compared to our usual volume), and threats of cancellations in the single digits (we never like to lose any readers, but circulation is way up this year). No doubt part of what upset these readers was the dim view Chris expressed of them in his first Daily Beast post. So it goes. It’s an intense election season and emotions are running high. We continue to have the highest regard for Chris’s talent and wit, and extend to him warmest regards and understanding.

UPDATE: The Daily Beast headline has been changed to “Buckley Bows Out of National Review.”
10/14 03:40 PM

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:07 pm 2. Jim B:

It’s one thing for a nominal Republican to endorse and/or vote for Obama; however, it’s quite another thing for a “conservative” to do so. There’s absolutely nothing conservative about Obama: even if we knew nothing about Ayers, Wright, Davis, Farrakhan, etc., there would still be the voting record that National Journal calls the “Most Liberal” in the entire Senate.

He can claim the “party left him” all he wants: but I don’t remember ANY TIME in history that the Republican party EVER endorsed the “Most Liberal” candidate. If the National Review were a Republican publication, I can see your claims to apostasy. But it’s not. It’s a CONSERVATIVE magazine which usually supports Republicans because there is no serious alternative if you’re a conservative.

Buckley, in short, is a liar. His father would NEVER have endorsed Obama in a million years. To claim shock or surprise that his employers or readers would be outraged at such an action is disingenuous at best. My guess is that he’s trying to position himself a la Andrew Sullivan or David Brooks – folks who CLAIM they’re conservative, but obviously haven’t the first clue what it really means. I’m betting that he’s angling for a TV Talking Head gig with MSNBC. They can claim that they have “conservative” balance on their panels while knowing that they just hired another liberal.

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:11 pm 3. David Thomson:

Christopher Buckley is a shallow man. The man, at best, has a superficial appreciation of the National Review. I see no evidence whatsoever indicating that he ever throughly reads the publication. Does Buckley even peruse it for five minutes each issue? His defense of Barack Obama fails to even minimally deal with the tough questions concerning the “Messiah’s” campaign. The younger Buckley, alas, seems to enjoy the adulation of the “elite” class. Being perceived as “hip and with it” is perhaps his highest priority in life.

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:13 pm 4. Barry Dauphin:

Well the way Rich Lowry put it, Buckley’s column was supposed to be temporary, while Mark Steyn was away. Steyn is back. Now I’d find it strange that they would sack him on this basis. To me it’s not clear that they have “sacked him” as he seemed to be begging out.

I think Buckley’s arguments for voting for Obama are pretty weak. Moreover, he makes it sound as if no one of principle is disagreeing with him, only the “kooks”. There are plenty of kooks on the right and on the left. But I find the idea that McCain is no longer being honorable or has become mean, …well…really. That seems kooky to me.

His trashing of McCain and endorsement of Obama was glib and cutesy, not really the work of serious writing. It sure sounds like he wants to run away from Dad’s legacy as fast as possible. It’s hard to believe he couldn’t write for NR if he wished. Controversy sells, after all.

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:14 pm 5. davidingeorgia:

I don’t know…perhaps it’s required now that Obama supporters like Buckley be just as untruthful as the guy they’re supporting is? iow, Buckley is full of it. Mr. Simon, I’m a bit disappointed you didn’t check this out a bit more thoroughly before passing on Buckley’s BS.

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:20 pm 6. David Thomson:

“It sure sounds like he wants to run away from Dad’s legacy as fast as possible.”

Christopher Buckley was likely never a conservative. He took his father’s life work with a huge grain of salt. Buckley probably cannot even begin to hold his own when discussing the typical article published in the National Review. The stuff is way over his head—and bores him to death.

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:28 pm 7. Webutante:

I think David is right. It’s unlikely Chris ever really embraced or understood the basic principles of conservative politics. His “falling away” to me indicates he was never really there in the first place. I’m not wild about McCain either, but he comes the closest, by a country mile, to those principles. And it’s the principles I’m voting for, even if Bush trashed a lot of them.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, or do they?

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:43 pm 8. jedrury:

How did diversity ever raise its head in Buckley’s post?

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:49 pm 9. jedrury:

Jim B:

I almost gag when the purported conservative voices like Sullivan and Brooks come on the tube. It is all part of the liberal schtick to wreath their heads in laurels and bow
when they call for the election of Obama or Palin “a cancer”
on the GOP.

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:56 pm 10. Roger L Simon:

“Mr. Simon, I’m a bit disappointed you didn’t check this out a bit more thoroughly before passing on Buckley’s BS.”

davidingeorgia, I wrote “(in Chris’ words)” for a reason. I thought that was clear enough. I have no first hand knowledge of the ins and outs of this. My point was simply that Buckley was being absurd in implying all (or most) of the hostility comes from the right. Not on this planet.

Oct 14, 2008 - 1:58 pm 11. Christopher Buckley Leaves National Review After Firestorm Over Obama Endorsement:

[...] –Pajamas Media’s Roger Simon: would certainly agree that no one should be sacked for such an action. If the parties are big tents, they should be able to “contain” (in the psychoanalytic sense) internal disagreement. So I support Buckley the Younger in his complaint – and his indignation at being assaulted by former comrades. [...]

Oct 14, 2008 - 2:48 pm 12. Charlie (Colorado):

You know, when I interviewed Silver Salazar at the Democrat Convention, he told me about several folks he knew, life-long Democrats, who were saying they finally felt free to vote Republican because their parents had passed away and they wouldn’t have to face them.

Sounds like Buckley has had much the same experience.

Oct 14, 2008 - 2:49 pm 13. Judith:

Credit to Buckley for resigning. National Review was destined to lose readers & credibility as a conservative magazine/website if Buckley remained as the representative,key back of the magazine columnist. Given the plethora of conservative web sites where National Review does not have a monopoly on the dissemination of conservative ideas, there is no reason to chose NR if it gets muddied & muddled w/ Pro-Obama rhetoric…if I wanted to waste my time reading that pseudo-elitist muck I’d turn to the NY Times. The marketplace of ideas decides which readers it attracts & discerning NR Corner readers don’t want to waste their time reading Buckley if he is dumb enough to be enamored by a fraud like Obama.

Oct 14, 2008 - 4:32 pm 14. Barry Dauphin:

The saddest part is that Buckley misrepresented the whole business. He could have explained his philosophical change or given a “my party left me” spiel. But he speaks untruths instead. The sinking ship is being abandoned, but there’s no need for fabrication to hop onto the other one.

Today David Brooks’ column about how the GOP is losing all the smart people was truly insufferable. His evidence is campaign donations. Writing for the NY Times seems to turn people into dolts. Although Kerry carried those with graduate degrees by something like a 54-46 margin, that is hardly worlds apart. Bush carried college grads by something like a 56-44 margin. Kerry carried those without a high school degree by a similar margin. (I’m going from my memory on the spreads and they may differ by a couple percent here or there) I guess actual voting means nothing to folks like Brooks.

Oct 14, 2008 - 5:01 pm 15. Mitch:

This was not a recent or sudden conversion by Buckley fils, as witness this. If he could not bring himself to choose between Bush and Kerry, then he was really not thinking clearly. We face a similar choice between McCain and Obama. There is a difference between bad and disastrous, and an adult should be capable of making the distinction.

McCain is an admirable person but a deeply flawed candidate for president. If the Democrats had put up a halfway credible candidate, I would not be voting Republican this year. If either party had nominated someone who was willing to stay out of my hair for the next four years, I would be actively campaigning on his behalf.

As far as the Big Tent idea goes, I wish him luck with his momentary new friends. He can ask Sen. Lieberman about the capacity of his new lodgings, but he will probably find he has to put most of his furniture in storage.

Oct 14, 2008 - 5:04 pm 16. Captain Hate:

Good riddance. NRO is still overloaded with snotty twits that consider Sarah Palin beneath them. To hell with the Vichy conservatives; an STD on the body of clear thinking.

Oct 14, 2008 - 5:07 pm 17. WorkinStiff:

Great video on massive fraud & intimidation by obamanauts against Hillary supporters in the primaries & caucasses…Go to YOUTUBE and type in “We Will Not be Silenced” a 4part video….There are at least two videos by that name at YouTube…Make sure you get the one on voting fraud not the one o Bush…

Oct 14, 2008 - 5:42 pm 18. Minerva:

– As noted last week, WFB spanked Ron Reagan, Jr. not long before WFB died for joining MSNationalBarack*C to trash conservatives. Bill would weep now…

*which is always to say “Rama” (after all, he is a god).

Oct 14, 2008 - 5:47 pm 19. Standing in the Shadows:

” If the parties are big tents, they should be able to “contain” (in the psychoanalytic sense) internal disagreement.”

I have to wonder, since when did the National Review become the Republican party? I always thought that it was a conservative leaning magazine.

Oct 14, 2008 - 7:19 pm 20. belle:

Or as any parent of a teen-ager knows: it’s the peer pressure. Tina Brown has started a new blog, and he does not want to be left out. Shallow? NR was right to cut him loose.

Oct 14, 2008 - 7:22 pm 21. Walt:

Are Kathleen Parker and Christopher Hitchens politicos non grata, too?

Oct 14, 2008 - 8:56 pm 22. Rob:

This is the same guy who said conservatives should just shut up and support McCain toward the end of the primaries.

Oct 14, 2008 - 9:58 pm 23. Jay:

“The Democratic Party that put Joe Lieberman in the dumper for being a Scoop Jackson liberal is about as small a tent as you can imagine.”

So, you’re against primaries now? Were Joe so confident in his positions, he should’ve come out and defended them with daily vigor, instead of complaining about “purges.” With less whining, he would’ve won more respect from voters, and probably the primary.

I’m an Iraq War supporter, and I can make a better case-the Hitchensian “inevitability” argument-than Joe can. The man is as inspiring as a post.

Oct 14, 2008 - 10:25 pm 24. Ralph Woods:

I have always considered the National Review as one of the last bastions for conservative thought against the liberal tide that engulfed the old news media. I truly missed Mark Steyn while he was off fighting with the inquistion in Canada. What’s next the Olbermann/Limbaugh show on AM radio. After all it is only fair that Rush share his wealth of ratings with Kieth’s poor ratings.

Oct 15, 2008 - 5:44 am 25. HardHeadedWoman:

I’ve never gotten the impression that Christopher Buckley was conservative–maybe a little bit libertarian but never conservative. He’s always seemed to be just a little too clever by half, in my opinion, and really too sophisticated and oh-so-smart to be either a Republican or conservative. His parents made the mistake of sending him to those posh prep schools and an Ivy League college and, unlike his father, Christopher didn’t have the intelligence or discernment or guts to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff and let himself become just another too-cool-for-school liberal.

He’s just another silly, little light-weight who will end up in the corner with Ron and Patti Reagan, et al, talking amongst themselves because no one else will.

J.R. Dunn, at American Thinker, has written an excellent article about Buckley and other elitist conservatives.

Oct 15, 2008 - 7:07 am 26. rbnyc:

Here is Mark Steyn at The Corner on Buckley:

Here, for example, is a lively column from The New York Times at the height of primary season telling us rightwing blowhards to suck it up and stand by McCain:

It may strike some conservatives today as odd, if not absurd, to see John McCain being subjected to an auto-da-fé conducted by such Torquemadas of the right as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity. The other day, he even endured jeers at a conservative gathering in Washington, by otherwise well-behaved exemplars of conservatism…

In response, let me offer a thoughtful, considered, carefully worded comment: Would you all please just…shut…up? (I’d insert an intensifier, but this is a family newspaper.)

The author? One Christopher Buckley.

Oct 15, 2008 - 7:18 am 27. Captain Hate:

With less whining, he would’ve won more respect from voters, and probably the primary.

Lost the primary but won the general; where’s the problem with respect from voters? Or does your constant need for Roger’s attention blind you to that?

Oct 15, 2008 - 7:19 am 28. Markus:

If you want a conservative mag that tolerates and even embraces diversity and dissent, you should read The American Conservative, which in their 2004 election issue had articles by various conservatives supporting Bush, Kerry, Nader, as well as the libertarian and constitution party candidates.

Oct 15, 2008 - 7:29 am 29. MarkO:

Doesn’t the NYT have conservative columnists? Even if young Buckley offered to resign, how can anyone have accepted it. The thought police at NRO. No wonder the conservatives are losing this election. Rich Lowrey should resign. He’s certainly no WFB.

If this is the future of conservative thought, it is doomed. Maybe with the death of WFB, it has already passed. Where would a good JFK Democrat go these days?

Oct 15, 2008 - 7:44 am 30. pst314:

“If the parties are big tents, they should be able to contain internal disagreement.”

A conservative tent so big as to contain socialism???

Besides, William F. Buckley did not kick out the anti-semites and white racists only for his successors to welcome enthusiastic allies of black racists and afro-fascists.

Oct 15, 2008 - 7:49 am 31. Judith:

So let me understand this….buckley, writing for a conservative magazine that prides itself on well-thought-out arguments to support its views, decides to vote for obama based on his argument that obama will not do what he has done and his platform says he will do? Is that the jist of his argument? HE’ll VOTE FOR SOMEONE IN THE HOPES THAT PERSON WILL NOT DO WHAT HE SAYS HE WILL DO?

Oct 15, 2008 - 8:08 am 32. LSD:

Sorry that Chris’ comments about the GOP seem to be produced by (or revealed by) this silly business. Being the son of the great Bill Buckley, I guess one would get tired of people’s presumptions and expectations. Too bad.

Oct 15, 2008 - 8:28 am 33. David Thomson:

“Besides, William F. Buckley did not kick out the anti-semites and white racists only for his successors to welcome enthusiastic allies of black racists and afro-fascists.”

That’s an excellent point. This shows the extent of race guilt within pseudo-conservative circles. May God help the country. We are living in very dangerous times. I can easily predict the growth of Nazi type political groups in the next few years. The disgusting David Duke will greatly benefit from a Barack Obama presidency.

Oct 15, 2008 - 8:42 am 34. steveaz:

Hi Roger,
I took several hours last week ‘fisking” Buckley’s piece, but after chronicling the ease with which he expropriated his Dad’s mantel, without which, his opinion would simply not matter, I gave up in disgust.

The single conclusion I did take away from his piece is cynical. Buckley’s piece is a preemptive public relations stunt designed to guarantee that his pennings will find a market in the Left’s media organizations in the event that Obama wins next month.

Without the “conservative” writers’ prior dissents to touch on, and lacking his father’s good name to lend notoriety to his piece, a reader would find no intellectual underpinnings for Buckley’s written opinion. Zip. Nada.

It’s all, he-said and she-said, so I-say…underpinned by, I’m my daddy’s son. Which leads me to conclude that the guy is a foppish git. He’ll be right at home on Madison Avenue.

Oct 15, 2008 - 8:54 am 35. Eric:

Christopher Buckley has always seemed far, far smaller than his father, and this stunt just makes him seem smaller still.

Has anyone noticed that the “conservatives” who hate McCain in part because of Palin (Heather Mac Donald, David Frum, Buckley the Younger, etc.) have no strong religious commitments? I think that her evangelical Christianity, along with her appeal to “downscale” voters, are the keys to understanding their rejection.

Oct 15, 2008 - 9:16 am 36. Jay:

“Lost the primary but won the general; where’s the problem with respect from voters? Or does your constant need for Roger’s attention blind you to that?”

You’re a joke, Captain, and probably the most aptly named commenter on this site. Clearly, no one here will call the blogger out on his yawning double standards, so any such efforts are confused with a constant need for his attention. He implies that the Democratic candidate for president is a left-wing religious nut while counting himself as a member, in all but name, of a party whose religious nuts actually influence policy. He breaks into flop sweat at the mention of the same candidate’s “associations,” while conveniently overlooking both the fact that the fishmerman Stanlet Kurtz is a partisan ideologue in a partisan magazine speaking to people already likely to believe him, and that the downside of McCain’s long career in Washington is that a long career not only breeds valuable experience, it also leaves one vulnerable to run-ins with equally shady people. Finally, the blogger constantly holds up Lieberman’s loss as an example of what is wrong with the Democratic party (i.e. there are no foreign policy “hawks” left) when even a quick glance reveals there are plenty of influential hawks in its ranks, from Biden to Bob Kerrey to Sam Nunn and David Boren. What this pining about the “absence” of hawks also reveals, though, is the sense that hawks cannot honestly disagree about the War in Iraq. Biden championed liberal interventionism throughout the ’90s, with the difference being that the shakiness of the Iraq effort made him change his mind in the Iraq case. Foreign policy is situational, and so, the need for intervention should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is the posture many Democrats have come to adopt. Contra Roger, this does not make them dogmatic doves.

Joe Lieberman was not driven out of the party. He kept his committee assignments. He kept his chairmanship. He has, however, red-baited Obama, suggested he is not a Christian, and implied the senator is a traitor to his country. That is the stuff of a Kos commenter, not someone who deserves to be a member in good standing of any major political party.

Oct 15, 2008 - 9:31 am 37. Eric:

Who is “fishmerman Stanlet Kurtz”? He sounds like an interesting guy, based on what you say about him. Is he a professional fishmerman? Is he married to a fishmermaid?

Oct 15, 2008 - 9:56 am 38. Peter G:

Jay said, “the blogger constantly holds up Lieberman’s loss as an example of what is wrong with the Democratic party (i.e. there are no foreign policy “hawks” left) when even a quick glance reveals there are plenty of influential hawks in its ranks, from Biden to Bob Kerrey to Sam Nunn and David Boren.”
B. Kerry, Nunn, and Boren are all retired, and I wouldn’t exactly call Biden a hawk. More of a parrot, I’d say.

Oct 15, 2008 - 10:03 am 39. steveaz:

Whoa!

Where’d all that come from?

Oct 15, 2008 - 10:06 am 40. Captain Hate:

You’re a joke, Captain, and probably the most aptly named commenter on this site.

Catching flak like that lets me know I was directly above the target.

Biden championed liberal interventionism throughout the ’90s, with the difference being that the shakiness of the Iraq effort made him change his mind in the Iraq case.

So what was the “shakiness” of the effort that made the man that fantasized about the US and France kicking Hezzzzzzzzbolla out of Lebanon and replacing them with UN observers, change his mind? Because there’s a very good strategic argument to be made that a surge-level initial force would have prevented the troops from being mobile enough and, more importantly, gaining the Iraqis’ trust and ultimately turning against al-qaeda. Eventually the history of the war will be written in terms of what was the optimum strategy and I’m fairly confident that Rumsfeld will come out looking better than the current wisdom dictates. And we didn’t even blow up the Chinese embassy.

Oct 15, 2008 - 12:21 pm 41. I, Claudius:

Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.

Oct 15, 2008 - 12:35 pm 42. Annabel:

That’s been my thinking too, Captain Hate. I’m no military expert, that’s for sure. But it seems almost common sense to me that the Iraq war would need more than one, probably several consecutive strategies. Going in small, like Rumsfeld advocated, was smart and avoided massive unnecessary casualties on both sides. The insurgency was probably inevitable anyway, and in some ways necessary, to flush out the enemies of a free and unified Iraq and to allow the Iraqis to come together and fight for (and take psychological ownership) of their new, free country. I don’t understand why people think that wars are static events, with one way to win. To me they seem more like an illness, in which different treatments are required for different symptoms, at different times until, hopefully, a full cure is effected.

Oct 15, 2008 - 1:12 pm 43. Jay:

Stanley Kurtz, meet Murray Waas:

http://tinyurl.com/4qg2u7

Pick your poison, indeed.

Oct 15, 2008 - 1:18 pm 44. AlanC:

CH & Annabel have it right in my estimation. As several people have showed me over the years, when dealing with intractable opposition you have to wait for the teachable moment.

Iraq was no where near ready right after the main operation which took what 3 months or was it weeks? The reason the Germans and Japanese acquiesed and learned after WWII was that their societies had been totally and utterly destroyed. They had had all resistance beaten from them for all intents and purposes. Short of the same kind of destruction Iraq was NOT ready.

Oct 15, 2008 - 2:31 pm 45. Mike_K:

“Biden championed liberal interventionism throughout the ’90s, with the difference being that the shakiness of the Iraq effort made him change his mind in the Iraq case. ”

Say that again ? Biden opposed the first Gulf War. He wanted to pay Iran 200 billion after 9/11. Biden is a clown, even without the plagiarism.

Oct 16, 2008 - 2:31 pm 46. California Dreamer:

“Because there’s a very good strategic argument to be made that a surge-level initial force would have prevented the troops from being mobile enough and, more importantly, gaining the Iraqis’ trust and ultimately turning against al-qaeda.”

This is a sound argument that will be analyzed in due time. I would add to it that if we wanted to go in with a more massive force, it would have taken even longer to assemble–a key failing in the execution of the war as it was. Furthermore, it would not have allowed the ultimate benefit to occur. That benefit is the “fill the swamp before you drain the swamp” turn of events. While I cannot credit either Rumsfeld or any of the military command for planning such a turn of events, it was fortuitous.

Oct 18, 2008 - 12:44 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: