A sad day.....and a great loss.

[midlifecrisis]

Ive just learned of the death of William F. Buckley and I am truly saddened beyond belief. He is to me, my conservative father. I learned of Conservatism on his show Firing Line. I recall reading my grandpa's old issues of the National Review. I will never forget his slow and eloquent delivery....his vocabulary that sent me to the dictionary and thesarus more than once, and his tremendous grace and elegance. It is truly like losing a member of my family.


It is a sad day for Conservatives, but a reminder of where we came from, and what we need to get back to.

William F. Buckley 1925-2008

[Harleymarleybone]

Originally Posted by midlifecrisis

Ive just learned of the death of William F. Buckley and I am truly saddened beyond belief. He is to me, my conservative father. I learned of Conservatism on his show Firing Line. I recall reading my grandpa's old issues of the National Review. I will never forget his slow and eloquent delivery....his vocabulary that sent me to the dictionary and thesarus more than once, and his tremendous grace and elegance. It is truly like losing a member of my family.


It is a sad day for Conservatives, but a reminder of where we came from, and what we need to get back to.

William F. Buckley 1925-2008

Yes, a very sad day. One of a kind. His legacy will survive a long time.

[Bjaarki]

At the risk of speaking ill of the dead .....

..... William F. Buckley was probably the most overweeningly pretentious man I ever heard speak. He carried his vocabulary, and his Yale education, around like a trophy. MidLife, you profess to detest Northeastern elitist snobs. Well, there was the grandpappy of them all for ya'.

It's funny reading you guys' words. If anything, Buckley favored low taxes, small government, balanced-budgets and no spending on foreign wars. I wonder if you realize that the GOP you support has achieved only the first of those, and has gone waaaaaaay the other way on the other three.

Bjaarki

[midlifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Bjaarki

At the risk of speaking ill of the dead .....

..... William F. Buckley was probably the most overweeningly pretentious man I ever heard speak. He carried his vocabulary, and his Yale education, around like a trophy. MidLife, you profess to detest Northeastern elitist snobs. Well, there was the grandpappy of them all for ya'.

It's funny reading you guys' words. If anything, Buckley favored low taxes, small government, balanced-budgets and no spending on foreign wars. I wonder if you realize that the GOP you support has achieved only the first of those, and has gone waaaaaaay the other way on the other three.

Bjaarki

The GOP that I support? You mean the current administration? How exactly do I support them? I dont know how many different ways I can say that Im disgusted with Bush and this admin in many of thier ways, especially thier wreckless spending. Ive stated my disgust with Bush over and over for his flat out lying about his conservative resume. I said as much in the opening post of this thread that we, as a party, need to get back to the founding principles of conservatism that Buckley preached? Did you not read it? Let me be clear for hopefully the final time.

I am for lower taxes.
I am for smaller government.
I am for less spending and balanced budgets.

On the last issue, I think Mr. Buckley's views of foriegn war spending may have changed had his views evolved during this time in history. What we face today is much different than the cold war.

And to take it a step further, hopefully offering you more clarity, its Northeastern Liberal Elitist snobs I despise....not all of them.

Buckley was a character. He made no apologies for his status, he was born son of an oil baron, and yes, he was quite proud of himself. I see nothing wrong with self confidence and carrying it like a trophy. And yes, he was a bonesman, again, Id be damned proud of that fact too. Wouldnt you?

Nice work though, coming into the thread to spread more partisan vitriole. You know what, Buckley would have had more class than to do that, of that Im certain.

[Harleymarleybone]

Originally Posted by Bjaarki

At the risk of speaking ill of the dead .....

..... William F. Buckley was probably the most overweeningly pretentious man I ever heard speak. He carried his vocabulary, and his Yale education, around like a trophy. MidLife, you profess to detest Northeastern elitist snobs. Well, there was the grandpappy of them all for ya'.

It's funny reading you guys' words. If anything, Buckley favored low taxes, small government, balanced-budgets and no spending on foreign wars. I wonder if you realize that the GOP you support has achieved only the first of those, and has gone waaaaaaay the other way on the other three.

Bjaarki

Generally, conservatives, and most likely Midlife, destest elitists of the stripe who think they know so much that they know better how to spend your money than you do. Buckley did not think that obviously, given his view about taxes.

It' funny, I never found Buckley pretentious. Pretentious has the root word "pretend" and Buckley was the real thing, not a poser. By all accounts of the people who knew him, he was considered very sweet, kind, generous and unpretentious and had many friends of all political stripes including Norman Mailer, and J.K. Galbraith. I think you probably know very little about him.

You are only half right about how his views accord (I hope you don't think I am being pretentious using this word :-) with current conservatives, or I suppose you mean neo-conservatives, since Buckley was a paleo -conservative. Both neocons and paleocons are adverse to taxes, except when it comes to national security, which they view as the primary purpose of the state. And Buckley was not at all opposed to foreign wars. In fact, he thought our policy toward Soviet and Chinese communism was much too timid. In a comment about Goldwater, he wrote "In foreign policy, the Goldwater program is fashioned out of hard steel, and is not distinctively Republican. In fact it happens to be almost identical with the policy of Senator Thomas Dodd, a Democrat who votes on the other side of Goldwater on most domestic issues. . . we must fight, fight hard, at every front, with courage to oppose Soviet advances by the threat of the use of force."

[Ulter]

His views on foreign wars and his views on North Korean and the Soviet are not the same. You're putting the two together and Buckley did not.
His greatest criticism of Bush was Iraq. He also did not support the "let's go get Iran" notion either.


In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," Buckley says.

Asked if the Bush administration has been distracted by Iraq, Buckley says "I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq... The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."

Despite evidence that Iran is supplying weapons and expertise to Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel, Buckley rejects neo-conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy, including a pre-emptive air strike against Iran and its nuclear facilities.

"If we find there is a warhead there that is poised, the range of it is tested, then we have no alternative. But pending that, we have to ask ourselves, 'What would the Iranian population do?'"


"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress," Buckley says. "And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."

[midlifecrisis]

I never got the idea Mr. Buckley was opposed to foreign entanglements. He was opposed to doing anything, including acting militarily, if we didnt consider fiscal responsibilty and those consequences first. Clearly how the Bush admin spent money while allowing Congress carte blanche, cut taxes, all during time of war, was not fiscally responsible, and we will pay the price for it for years to come. Those actions are not in any way conservative principles and its where Bush lost his party, and likely Buckley.

But in any case, no need to reduce the thread to another Bush/Iraq debate. I think we can all agree that it has been a debacle, and that if we could do it over again we would do it differently. Though Bjaarki continues to kick the dead horse, I dont think anyone is denying that. It is important to note that I dont beleive Mr. Buckley was on record as supporting a pullout or surrender in the ME either.

Im just not real sure what the point is of coming into this thread and start pointing out differences between us, Buckley and the Bush admin? Do you guys not have anyone that you greatley admire but disagree with on one or two issues? Or do you only surround yourself with "yes" people and clones of your own ideologies? I swear, I dont get you guys sometimes.

[Ulter]

I think it's great that you can respect and admire a man so much that is completely against your position on the biggest issue of our time. It shows there's hope for the rest of us.

[midlifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Ulter

I think it's great that you can respect and admire a man so much that is completely against your position on the biggest issue of our time. It shows there's hope for the rest of us.

LOL! Always so over the top. I dont think Buckley was some raving anti-Iraq war opponent as you want to make him. You know, I dont think he was going to any protests or waving peace signs. And nor am I nearly the staunch supporter of Bush or Iraq war that you make me out to be. But as always with you guys there is no gray....its all or nothing baby. I get a kick out of that

[get456]

Originally Posted by Bjaarki

If anything, Buckley favored low taxes, small government, balanced-budgets and no spending on foreign wars.

I like that .....

A conservative, conservative... thats a novel concept these days

[Harleymarleybone]

Originally Posted by Ulter

His views on foreign wars and his views on North Korean and the Soviet are not the same. You're putting the two together and Buckley did not.
His greatest criticism of Bush was Iraq. He also did not support the "let's go get Iran" notion either.


In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," Buckley says.

Asked if the Bush administration has been distracted by Iraq, Buckley says "I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq... The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."

Despite evidence that Iran is supplying weapons and expertise to Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel, Buckley rejects neo-conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy, including a pre-emptive air strike against Iran and its nuclear facilities.

"If we find there is a warhead there that is poised, the range of it is tested, then we have no alternative. But pending that, we have to ask ourselves, 'What would the Iranian population do?'"


"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress," Buckley says. "And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."

What does this have to do with my reply to Bjaarki's statement that:

"If anything, Buckley favored low taxes, small government, balanced-budgets and no spending on foreign wars"?

Buckley did not believe we should not spend on foreign wars. He just thought the Iraq war, in particular was not handled well, and that presently a pre-emptive strike against Iran would not be a good idea, unless we know Iran has a missile ready to go. Not exactly a ringing condemnation in principle to foreign wars. If I say I like apple pie, does that mean I have to like every apple pie?

[midlifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Harleymarleybone

What does this have to do with my reply to Bjaarki's statement that:

"If anything, Buckley favored low taxes, small government, balanced-budgets and no spending on foreign wars"?

Buckley did not believe we should not spend on foreign wars. He just thought the Iraq war, in particular was not handled well, and that presently a pre-emptive strike against Iran would not be a good idea, unless we know Iran has a missile ready to go. Not exactly a ringing condemnation in principle to foreign wars. If I say I like apple pie, does that mean I have to like every apple pie?

B actually got it technically right, as he usually does. Buckley didnt favor "spending" on foreign wars. But then again, he didnt favor spending on much of anything

Here is an article from the NR, where Buckley gives his opinion on what we ought do regarding Saddam and his weapons.

William F. Buckley Jr. on War on Hussein on National Review Online

"The approach now should be very different. The word to Saddam Hussein should be: We are coming into Baghdad. We will arrive in force, together with Pakistani and Egyptian and Russian military units. Your aggressive war of l990 and your shelter of terrorist units ever since make you an enemy."


From now on, enemies who are associated with terrorist activity will not cohabit the globe with the United States of America.

[Harleymarleybone]

Originally Posted by Ulter

I think it's great that you can respect and admire a man so much that is completely against your position on the biggest issue of our time. It shows there's hope for the rest of us.

Which issue is that? There are a number of them: 1) Was the war in principle a bad thing? 2) Did Bush make important mistakes? 3) Have we been defeated?

Buckley answered no to 1, since he initially supported it. And yes to 2 and 3.

With respect to 3, as Mark Twain once said about a report of his death: "rumors of my demise, have been greatly exaggerated." - or some such thing.

I don't see why you cannot greatly admire a man, and disagree with his position on 3. Buckley was admired by many people who had very little in common with him intellectually on most issues of the time, like Norman Mailer, and John Kenneth Galbraith.

[Harleymarleybone]

Originally Posted by midlifecrisis

B actually got it technically right, as he usually does. Buckley didnt favor "spending" on foreign wars. But then again, he didnt favor spending on much of anything

Here is an article from the NR, where Buckley gives his opinion on what we ought do regarding Saddam and his weapons.

William F. Buckley Jr. on War on Hussein on National Review Online

"The approach now should be very different. The word to Saddam Hussein should be: We are coming into Baghdad. We will arrive in force, together with Pakistani and Egyptian and Russian military units. Your aggressive war of l990 and your shelter of terrorist units ever since make you an enemy."


From now on, enemies who are associated with terrorist activity will not cohabit the globe with the United States of America.

If the dispute is about "favor" then it is trivial since nobody "favors" spending money on foreign wars. Everyone would prefer it were free.

[Ulter]

Originally Posted by Harleymarleybone

What does this have to do with my reply to Bjaarki's statement that:

"If anything, Buckley favored low taxes, small government, balanced-budgets and no spending on foreign wars"?

Buckley did not believe we should not spend on foreign wars. He just thought the Iraq war, in particular was not handled well, and that presently a pre-emptive strike against Iran would not be a good idea, unless we know Iran has a missile ready to go. Not exactly a ringing condemnation in principle to foreign wars. If I say I like apple pie, does that mean I have to like every apple pie?

I was posting a response to this.

And Buckley was not at all opposed to foreign wars. In fact, he thought our policy toward Soviet and Chinese communism was much too timid.

I've posted quotes of his on a foreign war and a proposed foreign war. I don't see anything there showing he was not opposed to foreign wars. He spoke against them.