Interesting conjecture?
IMO, Buckley is pointing out the need to allow for changes in views on things like Abortion. I suspect that Mr. Buckley thinks that chaining the entirety of the Presidential nominating race in the Republican party to that issue is unwise.
I also get the idea that Buckley fnd pro abortion people (Rudy) less then mentally vigorous....:)
Even at his advanced age, I wouldn’t sell Bill Buckley short.
Ping!
Buckley appears convinced of Governor Romney's conversion. Yet, this article seems to cast some doubt as to the authenticity of the conversion and ignores all of the pro-life and pro-family actions taken by Romney while governor which confirm the conversion is quite real and sincere. (click to review)
In any event, it makes sense for Buckley to support Romney since he wanted the most conservative candidate that could win the election as the GOP's nominee.
The thing is, how many times does Romney have to explain these things. I have heard him explain his reasons, actions and chnage of heart ad nauseum. I was considering Romney for a long time, but couldn’t bring myself to full fledged support based on his pro-choice advocacy and his 2nd Amendment issues.
Then I heard him explain it over and over and over again, and I relaized the guy has changed. He has had a change of heart. I believe he was always personally pro-life but fell in the pro-choice category as far as government was concerned, and then changed his mind about government. How do I know this? Because I had a very similar experience. I felt the same way Romney did. I was personally opposed to abortion, but felt the government shouldn’t impose on a woman’s right to choose. I was wrong and so was Romney. But we have both changed our minds. Our hearts were always in the right place-pro-life.
The only thing he has done as far as guns go was he didn’t oppose the Assault Weapons Ban. He explained that for his state he felt that it should continue unopposed. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have had similar outlooks. Bush II said he would sign the AWB if Congress presented the bill, they never did, so the ban expired.
I believe whole heartedly that Romney, as President will not put forth any restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights. I also believe whole-heartedly he will put strict constructionist judges on the bench in the vein of Roberts and Alito.
That being said, I also believe he will manage the office of the executive of the federal government with the same effiency and skill as he ran his own two businesses. That sounds pretty good. Compare that to the other viable candidates out there, and we have a pretty strong, conservative candidate who can appeal to all Americans, not just the conservative ones.
One criticism I keep hearing about him is that if he was elected in liberal Massachussetts, he must have done something wrong. But I see it as, if he was elected in that state, he did something right. He governed conservatively (see UNmarked Pachage’s home page for the details), and did the best he could with 85% liberal legislature breathing down his neck.
I’m done waiting for Fred. Romney is our candidate. He can win the primary and he can most assuredly win the general.
I have no problem with people looking at evaluating all of the candidates. That is what we should do, but we also shouldn’t bash the candidates, but simply point out why we like our candidate. Whenever I see someone bashing a republican candidate, I feel it’s a little disheartening. If you want me to consider someone other than Romney, tell me the good things baout your candidate, don’t bash mine, that gets us nowhere.
Bill Buckley speaks - we all (at least) have to listen.
A person can have an epiphany in a New York Minute and change their view on something. Pointing out that Mitt’s change seems to be sudden or recent doesn’t automatically mean it isn’t genuine.
He believes (or so at least he wrote some time ago) that the state has no role in abortion; that it is a Church matter for those who belong to the Church, and a "Personal Medical matter" for those who do not. Therefore, he opined, the best law on abortion is no law. His rationale as I understood it: THe church or similar organization, has a perfect right to forbid the procedure to its members, it even has a perfect right to attempt to persuade others who are not among its members, but in a democracy they have no right to make their views binding on everyone
In other words, WFB is philosophically akin to both Rudy and Romney. On this issue, working within the Buckleian Logic, both Rudy and Romney would be "conservative enough."
This “Warner Todd Huston” sounds like an idiot with an agenda. He is obviously doing some other candidates’ bidding here and this article is laced with subtle lies to lead people astray.
The comparison between Romney and Thomas Jefferson is actually very accurate. Both had to take positions that they thought were morally wrong but were necessary in order to win and achieve the greater good.
This “Warner Todd Huston” is a dwarf compared to William F. Buckley. I just hope that after giving this whole lecture on morality and defying one of the great thinkers of our age it doesn’t turn out that he is a rudy julie supporter.
Um....how about free the ones chained to your plantation. Lame,LAME, line. The author should be embarrassed.