Conservatives crumble a little bit more

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hughb, Oct 15, 2008.

  1. hughb

    hughb

    Buckley leaves National Review after Obama endorsement
    Posted: 09:30 PM ET

    From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


    Buckley has resigned his post from the National Review.
    (CNN) — Christopher Buckley, the son of conservative icon William F. Buckley, said Tuesday he's resigned from the conservative National Review days after endorsing Barack Obama's White House bid, among the most powerful symbols yet of the conservative discontent expressed this election cycle.

    In an online column, Buckley said he had decided to offer his resignation from the magazine his father founded after hundreds of readers and some National Review colleagues expressed outrage he was backing the Illinois senator.

    "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," Buckley wrote.

    "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," he also wrote.

    The resignation comes four days after Buckley formally endorsed Obama on the Web site The Daily Beast, writing the presidential campaign had made John McCain "inauthentic," and Obama appeared to have a "first-class temperament and first-class intellect."

    In a statement posted on the publication's Web site Tuesday, National Review editor Rich Lowry noted Buckley was writing for the magazine on a trial basis, and took his offer to resign with the "warmest regards and understanding" sincerely. Lowry also took issue with Buckley's contention the magazine had been flooded with angry mail over Buckley's endorsement, saying it had received a relatively small 100 e-mails expressing disapproval.

    "It's an intense election season and emotions are running high," Lowry said.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Filed under: Barack Obama • Christopher Buckley • John McCain
     
  2. hughb

    hughb

    Someone here stated that the Republican party is sinking into oblivion in another thread. I think that's close, but not exaclty right.

    I wonder if we are seeing the stage being set for a viable third party. The Republican party has been fractured by this President and his neocon staff. Even the term neocon is a misnomer, because for the most part, none of them have conservative political values. On spending they liberal, debt they are liberal, immigration they are radically liberal, on government bureacracy they are the most liberal in our history. So could the Republican party fracture into two disctinct parties? One group the neocons of today and another with conservative political values? I don't know - it will depend on what happens after Bush is out of office. If the Republican party can wash it's hands of the neocons when Bush is gone, then they can make a comeback. A lot of Republicans in congress gave up their seats rather than turn against President Bush, even while his approval ratings were dropping. They are a party in flux right now.
     
  3. hughb

    hughb

    And I must say - I am very impressed with Buckley's integrity. He has nothing to gain by endorsing Obama.
     
  4. McCain is not a conservative.

    I would never expect a Buckley to endorse a McCain.
     
  5. kut2k2

    kut2k2

    You made a lot of sense until this part. Republicans have been spending and going into debt like drunken sailors since forever, long before anybody ever the word 'neocon'. The last two presidents to balance the budget were both Democrats: Clinton and Johnson.

    Can we please stop the ridiculous lie that Republicans are for small government? They never have been and they never will be. They're just for a very different type of big government than Democrats. The uber-bureaucracy of Homeland Security is all the evidence you need of that.
     
  6. Mentioning LBJ is disingenuous. I would certainly hope with a 70% top Federal income tax bracket he was able to balance the budget. Also, instead of the 40% of present wage earners paying nothing back in LBJ's day only 16% of Americans paid no taxes.
     
  7. kut2k2

    kut2k2

    Bull. Nixon never balanced the budget, and he came immediately after Johnson. Nixon got elected on the lie of a "secret plan" to end the war, a "plan" that didn't even get started until his second term.
     

  8. Bull? You stupid fuck. You spew more inaccurate brain dead stuff than any other person on this board. LBJ only produced ONE balanced budget and Nixon NEVER presided over a deficit larger than LBJ's 25bil in 1968.

    http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/Issues/FEDEL/FEDERAL.html

    As far as the war: WTF are you talking about? "Didn't get started until his second term? The war for all intents and purposes was OVER by the start of his second term.

    U.S. troop levels:
    1963 16,300

    1964 23,300

    1965 184,300

    1966 385,300

    1967 485,600

    1968 536,100

    1969 475,200 (Nixon becomes Prez 1/20/69)

    1970 334,600

    1971 156,800

    1972 24,200


    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/U.S._Troop_levels_in_Vietnam_War
     
  9. You're right -- crazy pointless wars give massive debt.
     
  10. Without doubt. I'm a VEHEMENT isolationist. Although even without Iraq the deficits of the past few years would be huge. We're actually spending about half of GDP less on "defense"-I use that term loosely-than any time post WWll. Entitlements are eating us up. 2,600,000 workers are employed directly by the Federal government.

    A recent column by Pat Buchanan on military committments.

    http://boards.prudentbear.com/bbs_r...746480&fid=1&start=1&sr=1&sb=1&snsa=A#M746480
     
    #10     Oct 15, 2008