Whatever your supposed credentials are, they're tagging their figurehead, Buckley, as a "conservative libertarian."
I'm sorry but that's absurd. I don't care who you are.
I'm sorry but that's absurd. I don't care who you are.
But, but, but . .
WFB himself admitted to being a "libertarian journalist" on the cover of one of his many books.
He also wrote about toking up in the middle of the Atlantic (where he was out of reach of the DEA--at that time) which we all know is the only thing Libertarians care about, legalizing pot. Proof positive.
</sarc>
In retrospect, having been a subscriber for many years to National Review and often enjoying Buckley's "Notes and Asides" a bit more than the rest of his occasionally dull magazine, it would be quite a challenge to peg WFB on either the libertarian or conservative map, as his political compass wandered considerably over the years.
Most recently, just a year before his death, Buckley wrote a column that expressed his disillusionment with both the way the war in Iraq was being conducted and, to a degree, the Bush/Cheney rationale for the 2003 invasion. In the same article, he forecast a Republican defeat if things were not turned around. That was in 2007, and of course we know 0bama could not have known WFB's campaign advice since he doesn't read National Review
Like other members of wealthy east coast families, his elitism often distinguished his views from Middle America. Though a devout Catholic and fiercely anti-abortion, it was not beneath him to support a pro-choice Democrat (Lieberman) over a RINO (Weicker). That would not play in Peoria, or Pascagoula for that matter.
The final chapter hasn't been written on the Buckleys, and won't be until probably son Christopher begins drawing Social Security payments. I'd like to know, but won't live long enough.