[plain talk]

Buckley says "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. … So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable"

I've never had any use for Buckley. I find his demeanor haughty, pretentious and distracting. I find his statements confusing. I have no idea what his point was above for example.

Great Presidents make ambitious statements like Reagan's "Tear down this Wall". Was Reagan too ambitious? Clearly now even the MSM agrees there is an Axis of Evil consisting of Iran, NK and Iraq. Apparently Buckley finds stating the obvious to be "ambitious"? Its too early to judge Bush's legacy but whatever it is it will be tied to the Axis of Evil.

[spatso]

I read all the posts on this thread fairly carefully. I found most of them to be very thoughtful. Clearly people are reflecting seriously on Mr Buckley's comments. I twice watched the CBS interview of Mr. Buckley with Thalia Assures.
First, I think the summary transcript reads far more critically of the President than does the full interview. I am a great fan of Mr Buckley. I deeply admire George Will. I also strongly support the President, although, I disagree with him in some areas such as stem cell research and on expenditure policy.
In the full interview Mr Buckley said the President's popularity would probably be in the 60% range if it were not for Iraq. All of Mr. Buckley's comments assumed that the President's administration had become "engulfed" by Iraq and events in the mid east. I don't think he said anything particularly inflammatory. For those of you who commented on his intellectual diminution due to aging, he sounded pretty much the same to me as he did forty years ago.

[Democratshavenobrains]

The Daily Kos losers are ejaculating over this guy.

[Sprite518]

What is he just figuring this out now? LOL!

[Liberty Valance]

[eeevil conservative]

Well it is nice to see the FREEPers falling for the stunt CBS has pulled by even doing this interview- let alone printing it.

Why on earth would they interview Buckley? I LOVE Buckley- great guy- so he disagrees with Bush on some things... big deal.

We ALL disagree with Bush on something or other.

This is just a pathetic attempt by CBS to try and exploit the conservative base against Bush.

Let's not fall for the tricks and start beating up each other.

[zook]

Looks like all the little tinky winky posters over at NR's "The Corner" are afraid to talk about Buckley's latest foot-in-mouth episode.

[counterpunch]

Buckley has proved himself too stoned and senile to be held as competent.

He's fallen into the oldest leftwing media trap there is and allowed CBS to use him as a tool against the President and his party. That was CBS's only interest in interviewing him, and he most certainly should have know that. Any other conservative with functional facilities would have recognized that from a mile away.

If National Review wants to survive and keep their readership they need to retire this old babbling fool and hide him far away from the public eye.

[DungeonMaster]

I think that nation building is a very non-conservative thing to do in general. Limited government has got to mean limited regarding building other governments too.

[slowhand520]

Buckley states that Bush is not a conservative. I think Buckley means Bush is not his kind of conservative. I think Bush is a progressive. Not in the liberal sense but he is an innovative guy. He never changed. We all knew what we were getting when he campaigned on a compassionate conservative platform. To all our displeasure he was always empathetic towards immigration(being a border state Governor and all). We might not agree with him on all his ambitious endeavors but he is very progressive. Pre-Emptive war & radically changing social security are issues that underscore his progressiveness. I think many of his policy initiatives have irked many people (both right and left) the wrong way. Reason being: he is an unconventional politician. Always looking to alter the landscape. Take the situation in Lebanon. Conventional wisdom would have been send the sec of state. call for cease fire then status quo. The President at this point is gambling on splintering Syria and other Arab nations from Iran while at the same time allowing Israel to destroy Hezbollah. Will it work? Who knows? Only history will tell us if Bush was an effective leader.

[Old Professer]

Buckley is an icon, a faded icon, but an icon still; when his focus was on the campus he was the first to warn us of the indoctination and insularity among the intelligensia and a few of us listened, but now, when that battle has been largely abandoned, we have no need of hermit pundits nor their sage advice.

The Vietnamization of Irag continues apace and come election day, we will see a massive move to withdraw "with grace."

[meandog]

Bush not a conservative...who'd a thunk it? In all seriousness, however, comparing Bush to a great leader like Ronald Reagan (WHO DID HAPPEN TO BE A CONSERVATIVE) is like comparing a mighty great oak to a tiny little SHRUB!

[beeler]

Buckley's just now figuring this out? Bush has never been a conservative.

[dirtboy]

"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.

Like Tony Blair did?

Gawd, Buckley makes a grandiose, sweeping statement that it entirely at odds with the reality in Iraq.

[pissant]

Barry Goldwater syndrome.

[Veto!]

he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress,

Yeah, well, I changed my screen name when Bush was inaugurated in 2000 hoping to see some very snazzy Vetos forthcoming. You know, the kind that limit spending. Yeah well, yeah well, yeah well.....

[Prost1]

Buckley is old.

[daybreakcoming]

home is a tranquil place that allows Buckley to think and write, and spend time with his canine companion, Sebastian.

"You can say any fool thing to a dog, and the dog will give you this look that says, `By God, you're RIGHT! I NEVER would've thought of that!"...Dave Barry, I believe.

How sad this guy ends up bitter in his old age. No one pays enough attention anymore, I guess. Must be tough.

[TradicalRC]

Ping

[x]

Probably not, but I don't know that we can hold on to or recapture what conservatism meant in the postwar period.

On the one hand, in those years you could be as vocally anti-government or anti-modernity as you wanted to be. On the other hand, the demands of the Cold War meant that one would have to put up with a lot of government and a lot of modernity.

With the end of the Cold War, things have gotten more confused. Nowadays, the anti-government and the activist foreign policy communities and messages are split. One can't talk both languages at the same time.

Nixon could be a "big government conservative," because other conservatives agreed that he'd made all the right enemies. Bush is more or less a BGC as Nixon was, but you don't have that clear polarity of choices that existed in the Cold War years -- capitalism vs. communism, and free markets vs. socialism.

Instead, the "cut government at home" and the "spread freedom around the world" camps and messages are in conflict, so it's harder to place Bush as securely as Nixon as a conservative or honorary conservative.