who the sam hill was this harridan before this elction?
a wart with a laptop.
a comely wart to be fair..alas
Ok, I read the first sentence. Please put me in the KOOK column with Sarah,Rush,Ann Coulter,and the rest.
Endorsing Barack Obama is a very strange way to advance conservatism. I have to wonder what is really going on in the minds of people like Buckley and Parker.
Buckley: “My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama
Parker: “Christopher Buckley, ever the swashbuckling heir to his father’s defiant spirit”
EGADS!!! Get a room already!
Are Kathleen and Peggy Noonan close friends?
Parker is utterly confused.
Since this controversy has much to do with Palin ( “The well-fed Right now cultivates ignorance as a political strategy....” ) it should be pointed out that Palin is the type of conservative that she describes WFB as admiring. The radical. The outsider. The one who has the mettle and the record to go after the “well-fed Right”.
Parker, C. Buckley, Noonan, and Brooks seem to cast themselves as the well-fed right, when, although they accurately criticize the failings of the conservative movement of recent years, they fail to recognize Palin’s obvious antipathy and non-membership in those aberrations.
So, one can only conclude that it is Palin’s colloquialism, her style, her what?....her ineloquence that turns them off. Her inability to cite supreme court cases she disagrees with, when she’s actually been spending her time accomplishing things and reforming government for her constituents who overwhelmingly approve of her efforts?....and not studying arcane historical minutiae to impress the intelligentsia and the media gotchya gamers?
I think WFB would recognize the true conservativism in Palin, the radicalism and activism that she represents and inspires, and his congenial and kind nature would have embraced her despite the regional, educational, and intellectual differences. Perhaps, he would have strove to befriend her and influence her, rather than jump ship. WFB would have never endorsed Obama. Never. Give me a break.
We are gradually seeing a political realignment along the lines of elitists vs. populists.
This column would have some legitimacy if she & Buckley were throwing their support to somebody like Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin as a protest because “the GOP deserves to lose this one” due to having abandoned conservatism. But instead, they’re actively giving support to the most openly Marxist candidate ever.
Contrary to Parker's praise of National Review’s supposed radicalism and eclecticism in Bill Buckley's heyday, no one at National Review endorsed Humphrey over Nixon, McGovern over Nixon, Carter over Ford, or Mondale over Bush, or Gore over Bush.
Although National Review relentlessly pointed out deviations from conservatism by Republican candidates and administrations, at election time, practical politics dictated their choices. This year, McCain is the only sensible choice for conservatives.
Some of us know the difference between Conservatives and Republicans. Many of us don’t. If you support a Republican because you think he (or she) is necessarily a Conservative, you will be sadly mistaken.
lol...but a Republican voting for the farthest leftwing wacko in U.S. history is being "attentive to [conservative] principles?"
It comes down to this: If Parker and Buckley's spoiled kid were ever conservatives (which I seriously doubt), they were on shaky ground, at best. And they've both evidently fallen for B-HO's style/personality, not his principles. Iow, they're emotional cripples.
What an utterly absurd column. How does CB’s endorsement of Obama exemplify the “radical conservativism” of WFB? What, exactly, does Obama stand for that retains the heart Republican party that supposedly has left Parker and CB? Of course, she does not say. There is not the slightest shred of actual argument in the column to support her blanket condemnations of the right wing of the party other than to tout the supposed brilliance of CB (and, by implication, broadcasting her own intellectual prowess). In other words, “the Republican party left me; why you ask? Because we said so and we’re smarter than you, that’s why.” How on earth did someone so arrogant ever take over the NR? In fact, she exemplifies exactly the sort of elitist mentality that the great Buckley ridiculed.
It is not simply a matter of disagreement over the Palin pick, or the Bush administration or any specific collection of policy debates (all of which are and should be debated by conservatives). It’s the utter arrogance and blithe dismissal of any disagreement as being simply the result of what she thinks is a dumbing down of the party. Beyond that, however, I once again point to the fact that she makes no attempt whatsoever to explain how supporting Obama in any way furthers any principle of conservativism (in any rational sense of the word). She doesn’t do so because she can’t, because CB’s endorsement of Obama is exactly what it appears to be—an admission that CB himself is not a conservative, irrespective of what he or she thinks has happened to the Republican party. In other words, the alleged critique of the Republican party is nothing more than a paper-thin veil covering a move that is decidedly not conservative in any way, shape or form.
Republicans are not short on brainpower — or pride — but they have strayed off course. They do not, in fact, deserve to win this time, and someone had to remind them why.So Kathleen Parker believes that because of the personal shortcomings of some Republicans that the country therefore deserves socialism and a far-left supermajority, the death of the conservative agenda for a generation, and the destruction of all that it has achieved since WFB stood up to champion it?
Pretty soon, Kathleen will be writing for the Huffington Post.
That Bill Buckley's son has quit his father's "baby" and is going to vote for the most clear anti-thesis of his father's belief system clearly indicates that Little Buckley has not been a true conservative for a while and an opportunist at best.
Strike three against Parker. First last year she said Hillary Clinton was “well qualified” to be president. Then she slammed Sarah Palin a few weeks ago. Now she calls conservative Republicans yahoos (that’s me folks) and tacitly endorses Obama. Parker has just written herself out of the conservative camp joining Buckley and Powell. So long Kate, it’s been nice to not know you.