William Buckley on Bush

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/wfbuckley/2006/06/23/202570.html

Some of you more close-minded individuals will reject this out-of-hand. God forbid someone actually try to reason with you. But it is an interesting essay.

 

So William F. Buckley says Bush isn't as stupid as Slate says? Fine. Not really much of an "essay," as much of a commentary. But I do like the pre-emptive liberal bashing, hondo. That's a new one.

Edit: By the way, we're "narrow-minded," not "close-minded." I'd point out the irony of you using that bastard term in a post defending Bush's intelligence as regards to his verbal skills, but then I'd have to explain irony, and I'm sure you're not ready for that.

 

Since logical thought is a concept that apparently eludes hondo (as well as some liberals, mind you), my dislike of the Shrub has nothing to do with his education. On that level, I couldn't care less. It's his stance on abortion, homeland security, individual privacy rights, governmental grants to religious groups, the war in Iraq and several other issues that has me steaming.

So hondo, if you want to take issue with "closed-minded" liberal stances, that's fine, but you're being close-minded yourself if you think the Shrub's education (or apparent lack of) is issue No. 1.

 

I'm staying out of the political fray but I just wanted to say that this was not a very good piece by Buckley.

Maybe Buckley is still sensitive to how people do in debates after being ripped apart by Gore Vidal in verbal battle over 30 years ago.

The central thesis of the article was lacking in support as others have pointed out.

 

Having watched it in real time, I can say with certainity that Vidal/Buckley was pretty much a draw in over the course of their several debates that covered both the 1968 RNC and DNC. The one people remember is the one where Buckley blew his cool completely although, to be fair, it was an extraordinarily weird night, and Vidal did call Buckley a "crypto-fascist," which meant a whole different thing to WWII vets. In addiition, these were two brilliant men at the top of their powers, a pretty far piece from the organized monkeyhouses that pass for political "debate" shows every night on cable.
This piece?
Eh.
A very lukewarm, halfhearted defense by someone who's more than once wondered publicly whether Fredo and the lads have taken conservatism off the rails.

 

Old enough as well to have seen it when it was broadcast.

Wqtching these two guys debate was like watching two prize fighters go at it.

Used to be a huge fan of Wm. Buckley's stuff.

And Fredo and his gang have completely bastardized any concept of "conservatism".

 

Don't give Bush too much credit for his re-election. If there were no Karl Rove, there'd be no Fredo.
Not to mention the rest of Daddy's friends.

 

Bill always was a slick, facile debator, but as a long-time NR subscriber, I can tell you his finest hour was as a voice in the
wilderness against Lyndon and his mid-60s clown show.

This column is faint praise for #43 . . . and damning, as that.

 

"The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bullshit."

The late Lars-Erik Nelson, the last real political columnist.

 

. . . and I'm no Kerry guy, but anyone with respect for truth in debate who thinks that Bush broke even or better in the '04 debates
is off his or her nut.