[GipperGal]

One other thought I've been mulling over recently (in re: National Review's decline) -- perhaps Ann Coulter was right about them in her criticism of the NR editors back in September 2001 when they canned her for her infamous "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity" column post-9/11. She basically accused them of trying to be "respectable" conservatives (in the same mold as "respectable" --read: in name only--republicans) rather than real conservatives. She said they do this every so often by firing real conservative writers. In fact, in Ann's latest book she's included an article that she wrote for NR on "feminist legal theory" but which was rejected by the editors. What a pack of fools. The article was great.

Also, did anyone notice Wm. F. Buckley's final assessment of the Schiavo case? He sounded like Derbyshire. I'm not old enough to remember the glory days of NR under WFB's leadership, and to be honest I'm not as familiar with his earlier work as I should be. But I keep asking myself if he somehow got less conservative over the years. Is this the same guy who was a protege of Whittaker Chambers?

[Mr. Jazzy]

Please remember the WFB himself was, and as far as I understand, still in favor of compulsory community service for all citizens after their 18th birthday, and the complete legalization of drugs.

[TradicalRC]

I'm not old enough to remember the glory days of NR under WFB's leadership, and to be honest I'm not as familiar with his earlier work as I should be. But I keep asking myself if he somehow got less conservative over the years. Is this the same guy who was a protege of Whittaker Chambers?

His earlier stuff is still interesting. Some of it is relevant, some of it is merely historical arcana. Chambers stopped writing for NR for the same reason that I stopped subscribing. Buckley who was quite capable of sublime thought seemed bewildered by Chambers' resignation. Chambers' reasoning was that Buckley was a conservative while Chambers considered himself a "man of the right". IOW, NR and Buckley would always be conservative within a liberal paradigm, while Chambers considered Christianity as essential to a true traditional stance. A difference WFB once described as a difference between the status quo and the status quo ante. Neocons are status quo hence their compromising positions with liberalism while the paleocons are principle based and often appear as take no prisoners to the middle of the road conservatives.

Still one has to ask from time to time; What exactly are you conserving?

[1L]

The problem with a lot of media, including conservative media, is they get the desire to be invited to those stupid parties hosted by other, virtually all liberal, media members. Essentially, they want to be liked rather than to be right, and if they have to take a position to do that, some are all too willing.

David Brock is an example of a VERY extreme case of this.

[ken5050]

Just a brief personal trip down memory lane, hopefully for your enjoyment..While in HS, I cut my teeth in politics handing out literature for Goldwater's campaign..which at NYC subways stations, wasn't the easiest thing to do. I worked a lot on WFB's campaign for Mayor of NYC against Lindsay. It was a blast..I was at the presser when Buckley delivered what I maintain is the absolute best one-liner ever in politics. When asked by a reporter, if he were elected mayor, what would be the first thing he would do? "Demand a recount!" was the instant response..