Has William F. Buckley Chosen Romney for '08?

Men's News Daily ^ | 5/17/07 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

William F. Buckley once said something to the effect that he didn't want the most conservative nominee as presidential candidate for the GOP, he wanted the most conservative candidate that could win the election as the GOP's nominee. In light of this sentiment, I am wondering if the lion of old line conservatism has decided that Mitt Romney just might be the "conservative enough" candidate for the GOP in 2008?

Last week, Buckley offered for our consideration a column mentioning Mitt Romney's conversion from abortion advocate to his new found status of anti-abortion believer -- a stance that puts him just in time to offer himself as the GOP candidate for the 2008 GOP nomination -- and how so many are rightfully skeptical of this new stance.

In Romney's Moral Thought Buckley mentions that Romney's sudden conversion is acclaimed as that born of "studied reflection" on the issue, just as Romney claims. Of course, Buckley seems to conveniently ignore the fact that Romney was still advocating his pro-abortion ideas not too long ago as Governor of Massachusetts making it a bit hard to believe that Mitt spent much time agonizing over this change.

Buckley, though, seems to accept Romney's claims at face value based on the fact that America has changed its prevailing moral opinion in the past. I find his reasoning less than convincing, especially when he cites Thomas Jefferson's acceptance of slavery at the same time he was writing about freedom and liberty in the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson, it is true, did own slaves as he was propounding for American freedom, but he never thought of slavery as a moral good. He always thought of it as a bad thing that should go away. He just had no idea about how to go about getting rid of it. Additionally, Jefferson never imagined the issue of slavery was one not to be reconsidered for future Americans. He even attempted to start a society that might help repatriate African slaves back to Africa, called the American Colonization Society.

So, to use Jefferson as some sort of example of an embargoing of a moral issue or moral evolution in comparison with Mitt Romney's is not really a legitimate one.

I will admit that Buckley doesn't come right out and state plainly that he believes Mitt's conversion. And, the other point Buckley makes, that of scolding the pro-abortioners for never seeming to give the issue much thought and just taking their own belief without question, is a good one. But, I find his smoothing of the waves for Romney a bit disturbing and seems to speak to the conservative stalwart's sizing Romney up favorably for the nomination.

In Romney we have a candidate that just can't be believed on some of the most important conservative issues; guns and abortion. With his late lie on his "lifetime" as a hunter and his only recently advocating for a pro-abortion position, Romney seems almost like a candidate who will say just anything to get the nomination. His claim of deep moral thought on the issue after which he emerged a newly minted anti-abortionist is just too convenient to be accepted.

In any case, it seems plain that Bill Buckley doesn't want to shut the door on Mitt Romney with this little op ed of his. I cannot say, however, that he is standing upright with this consideration. Buckley's bending over backwards to give Romney the benefit of the doubt makes me marvel that a man of his advanced age is flexible enough for the effort.

[George W. Bush]

I note you refuse to answer as to which term should be applied if these techniques were to be applied to Americans.

Sleep tight, Torquemada.

[Badeye]

‘If it wasn’t an endorsement, it was as close as anyone could come to it.’

I think you are reading way to much into it. There will be another candidate on the cover within two weeks, watch and see, to debunk any notion its an ‘endorsement’ if nothing else.

[Badeye]

.... are you asleep yet?

Zzzzzzzzzz...huh? What? Who goes there!

(chuckle)

[TAdams8591]

Thank you. I had and exceptional night's sleep. : )

"Seconds or minutes of discomfort administered to a vicious enemy with no lasting side effects, or one to thousands of lives lost forever. Pick one."

Back in post #22, I asked you to pick one. You picked, "or one to thousands of lives lost forever." Thank you for outing yourself as a total loon. Even your fellow Libertarian, Dennis Miller, gets that one right.

Ex-Catholic perhaps? They're always the worst. If I am a Catholic torturer, YOU are a Baptist murderer. I will leave you to your irrationality and your bigotry. At any rate, I got your number.

[George W. Bush]

Back in post #22, I asked you to pick one.

An incredibly lame post. I wouldn't be that proud of it.

You picked, "or one to thousands of lives lost forever."

Where did I pick any of your false choices based on false premises?

Even your fellow Libertarian, Dennis Miller, gets that one right.

I'm not a Libertarian. I think Miller calls himself a Republican these days but I could care less what that flake thinks in any given political year.

Ex-Catholic perhaps? They're always the worst. If I am a Catholic torturer, YOU are a Baptist murderer. I will leave you to your irrationality and your bigotry. At any rate, I got your number.

You are the torture-lover, not me.

Since Baptists have always resisted any state church and its civil power, we haven't murdered anyone. Or tortured them either. We were the ones on the receiving end. And when offered to us, we refused to become a state church, unique in Christian history. And we also are responsible for America having separation of church and state.

Return to your pouting that someone would object to your giddy delight that the United States has moved a large step closer to being a country that uses administrative torture, following the methods of Torquemada and the Inquisition. Of course, only a moron would believe this Jack Baueresque fantasy that the FNC scenario would ever actually come about in real life. As long as you get your little torture justifications, all is well in God's kingdom.

[restornu]

There is all kinds of torture some is more effective than others.

Some kinds of torture can make you cough up your cookies meaning you will

[George W. Bush]

I’ll leave that to the fans of totalitarian police states and theocratic religions.

[restornu]

I don’t know what you are talking about if we need to get answers to save lives than it is the right thing to do!

It is better that one man parish if necessary, than a whole nation!

[George W. Bush]

I don’t know what you are talking about if we need to get answers to save lives than it is the right thing to do!

But what if they're tough and hold out? Will you torture their puppy? How about one of their children? Would you waterboard one of Achmed's babies to make him talk? Since waterboarding is such a harmless sport, surely there could be nothing wrong with waterboarding his baby to make Daddy Achmed tell you where the bomb is.

[restornu]

I think your are taking this to extremes.

You don’t need to use waterboarding on anyone else accept the person who has the knowledge, that method works very well on the subject!

[George W. Bush]

Inflicting administrative torture is already extreme.

You can characterize my opposition to it as "extreme" but that doesn't make it so.

You might keep in mind General Petraeus' public commitment and his own directive which condemns its use.

Unlike some of you armchair generals, I actually listen to professional military men and tortured veterans like McCain when they all say exactly the same thing: torture is bad for our military morale and esprit de corps. It weakens the scant protection our soldiers have under the Geneva Convention. It's rarely as effective as is popularly imagined.

The dramatic scenarios, like FNC proposed, virtually never happen and, in fact, I don't think you can cite a single instance where they ever did happen during the entire Cold War. That's just not how the real world works, no matter how many episodes of 24 you watch or how exciting it is to watch Jack Bauer torturing some raghead terrorist on your little television programs.

[restornu]

I don’t watch “24”, nor Jericho etc.