Posted on 02/23/2009 2:47:57 PM PST by pissant
Agreed. I wish all these people slamming him would read a dozen of his columns in NR first. He is a paleo-conservative of the first water. I cannot think of another public intellectual at a respectable journal that is less politically correct.
He was perhaps the originator of whack-a-mole war theory for fighting terrorists. Don’t invade, conquer and rebuild them when they piss you off. Just destroy their society and leave. Destroyed societies are no threat to anybody.
I believe the short motto is "more rubble, less trouble."
Derb comes from the British equivalent of poor white trash and is quite proud of it. I do not place him in the same category as some of the other country club Republicans at NR.
Also, you have no idea just how sophisticated the guy actually is. He has written two best-selling books about graduate-level mathematics. I have a physics degree and could barely follow them.
-ccm
Who is John Galt?
This is really rich, coming from a guy who used to work for William F. Buckley. WFB virtually ANNOINTED Rush Limbaugh as his successor as leader of the conservative movement.
Limbaugh spent a lot of time with WFB, and when WFB would come on the air with Rush, he would adulate Rush to the point where it was almost out of character.
So, now that WFB has gone on to his eternal reward, Derbyshire decides to take potshots at Rush? WFB is probably rolling in his grave.
Now is the time to cancel your subscription to National Review, if you were gullible enough to have ever subscribed.
That last line, How did we allow Carny Barkers to run away with the Right (I’m paraphrasing) is the equivalent of Kathleen Parker’s snide comment about Christians once being relegated to standing on crates and screaming at crowds - neither analogy works but both are all puffed up on arrogance.
As for elitism, it does need to go. But not the concept of an elite, which Rush Limbaugh belongs to and John Derbyshire does not, after all, Mr. Limbaugh never makes his point by looking down on people. Mr. Limbaugh is the big thinker, Mr. Derbyshire (great name - I think from a town in England famous for shoe making in the middle ages) is the big poser.
For all of the extolling of William F. Buckley, remember that Mr. Buckley never won an election for the Republicans and please don’t credit Reagan’s victory to NR.
Please cancel your subscription to National Review, it makes no sense at all to give your ever shrinking discretionary spending budget to people who, in their heart of hearts, hate you.
Just like Mr. Derbyshire, Jonah Goldberg hates us and only uses us, SO PLEASE cancel your subscription.
Any magazine that mocks your core beliefs is not a magazine that you should spend one single dime on.
I don’t subscribe. Nat. Review is not completely worthless. Levin hangs out there, as does Steyn.
You’re absolutely right, we ran John McCain - isn’t he middlebrow enough for that pantywaist Derbyshire?
Yes, it’s not completely worthless, which really is what makes it such poison.
Please cancel your subscription to National Review.
NO! In fact I may renew my subscription.
I guess if you enjoy having your intelligence insulted at every turn while that magazine pretends to be on your side, it’s your money.
You know what they say about a fool and his money right? They are soon parted. Only in this example, not only will you be parted from your money but you’ll be parted from your constitutional freedoms.
If you disagree with me, I say go to DU or Huffpo where you belong.
National Review fans should "go to DU or Huffpo where [they] belong"?
You're a fool, and aren't fit to kiss William F. Buckley's shoes. He was a great leader in the conservative movement; you've never done anything for it.
Just what kind of shoes did William F. Buckley wear? Since he presented himself as a sartorial gentleman, so I’m guessing at least Alden and maybe some bespoke English shoe.
As for WFB, he was pretty good in his early years (pre-1994) but later on became (perhaps due to advancing age and declining health) less astute and possibly even exploited by people who never cared for anything the conservatives believe in (which is, when you examine it carefully, exactly how NR is today!)
So, take your time and review the facts, once you do that you will certainly agree with me.
I generally agreed with him even in his later years. Yes, he veared off in a more libertarian direction, but he was still anything but a liberal.
WFB was never a liberal, I didn’t want to give the impression that he became one - of course, once the Republicans won in 1994 and continued to win who could have ever seen their total betrayal of conservative ideals?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.