Please note I was not a Wallace supporter and a case could be made that he (Wallace) represented a substantial danger to Nixon as he could siphon off Conservative or disenchanted Democrats votes. Granted. But NR spent ALL of its time attacking Wallace and little, or none, doing the same with Humphrey.
It became quite clear NR is nothing more than an extension of the Establishment, both Republican and Democrat, which dominates our politics. It talks a great talk but doesn't really do the walk. I haven't trusted it since.
Agreed. National Review is utter garbage.
Thanks very much for your information. I was young and didn’t read NR back then.
“National Review has NEVER been trustworthy, not even under WFB. I used to subscribe to it but noticed that during the 1968 Presidential contest NR was devoting all of its energies to criticizing George Wallace but not Humphrey.”
You’re quite right. Last night I happened to watch an old Firing Line featuring George Wallace as the guest. Buckley could not have come across as more of Northeastern Elitist if he had worked at it. Buckley even admitted that Wallace was making him sound like a liberal- which is certainly how Buckley came across.
I used to watch Firing Line but I didn’t recall this one and I was startled to see how much of a snobbish Establishment character Buckley displayed in his contemptuous dismissal of Wallace. Firing Line often featured Leftists as the guest and I’d never seen Buckley as rude to a guest as he was here. In retrospect you can see how much the GOP feared Wallace would run a populist campaign and siphon votes from Nixon; Buckley was being a good little waterboy to try to prevent it.