[Rummyfan]

...those "experts" who gave us endless, ill-conceived wars; deindustrialization; dependence on communist China; thousands of war casualties; intelligence failure after intelligence failure; the First World's worst immigration laws; exploding debt; the export of millions of working class jobs; welfare programs which financially reward social pathologies like illegitimacy; government-created recessions; botched coup attempts; illegal spying; open corruption, and a hundred other failures. They all raise legitimate, if uncomfortable, questions about the value of whatever we might choose to call America's actual system of government these past thirty years. (Swampocracy?).

So depressing..... What did William Buckley say about whom he would prefer to be governed by?

[MacNaughton]

4 So depressing..... What did William Buckley say about whom he would prefer to be governed by?

Conservative author and commentator William F. Buckley (1925-2008) was asked, in 1967, whom he would support in 1968 for U.S. president. Buckley responded with what would late be called the ‘Buckley Rule” for primary voting: “The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win. If you could convince me that Barry Goldwater could win, I’d vote for him.”

The term “Buckley Rule” wouldn’t be popularly used until the 2000s, but the language “rightward-most viable candidate” (not the exact words) has been often repeated. The word “viable”—a candidate who is the most likely to win the general election—adds an element of pragmatism to the conservative philosophy.

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh disagreed with the “Buckley Rule” and established a new “Limbaugh Rule” on September 14, 2010. Limbaugh said that it requires clairvoyance to determine who will win the general election, so one should just simply vote for the most conservative candidate.