Mainstream Media Manhandles Buckley Quotes
William F. Buckley Jr., the longtime conservative writer and leader, said that while a strong Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential race has yet to emerge, the Democrats have in Senator Hillary Clinton a true contender to become the first woman elected U.S. president.
"I don't find a commanding presence sort of knocking on the door'' for the next presidential campaign, Buckley said in an interview broadcast today on Bloomberg Television.
Clinton, of New York, is "a very consequential woman with an extraordinary background,'' he said. "Her thought is kind of woozy left, not in my judgment threatening.''
She is "a phenomenon, a woman candidate who might easily be president,'' Buckley said.
Buckley had his words parsed and sparsed by the media, cut to pieces, quite frankly. Reports on his comments have been taken so far out of context that we expect the volley back by Buckley should be entertaining.
Buckley's humor and subtle jabs are missed entirely in a mainstream media that carves each political turkey down to a few seconds.
Take a closer look at how Buckley framed his argument:
Note the facetious "might easily be" and the knock on Republicans. He is trying to wake up a lot of people, noting that there is a void in American politics -- and that Ms. Clinton may step into that void if we're not careful.
Buckley also just ravaged McCain. He just stuck a fork in him.
Without reading the next comment, we knew where Buckey was head.
Arizona Senator John McCain, the most widely known of the potential Republican candidates, is "a remarkable human being,'' Buckley said. "I don't think that his name comes to mind automatically as somebody who over a period of years has addressed problems with fruitful thinking, let alone with consistent thinking.''
McCain is "remarkable" and Clinton is "consequential" by Buckley's standard, which is his way of telling readers that neither wake him from the nap.
If Hillary is from the "woozy left" and not "threatening" in Buckley's respected opinion, it's his polite way of saying that most of the Republican pack is inconsequential.
Indeed.
He is also saying that we need something more than the "remarkable" cult of personalities that America has wrapped their arms around politically for the past 54 years.
The media had misquoted and taken out of context Buckley's remarks, though it is a shame that he had to dig such a harsh knife into plenty of people. Perhaps the political establishments have it coming though we're now humored that the mainstream media did not run farther with Buckley's comments.
Maybe this explains why Pataki so abruptly is closing up shop with his 2008 White House delusion? He can read too -- and certainly between the lines. This is toxic stuff for the wrong candidate and we can't wait for Buckley's next column.
---
"Donors would seem to have been responding generously to the Hillary campaign, but there are complaints from loyalists. If you spent the night in the White House in the Lincoln Bedroom when Bill Clinton was president, what do you owe to Mrs. Clinton when she runs for president? When Bill was still president and Hillary entered politics, 40 percent of sleepovers in the White House contributed to her campaign. But only 20 percent of the sleepovers have contributed to Hillary’s current campaign. On this disparity University of Virginia political scholar Larry Sabato has commented. “FOBs,” he informs us — Friends of Bill — “are not necessarily FOHs.” He adds, “Think of the two of them — who’s the one who collects friends? Bill.”"
Buckley makes a more serious point in that column about the double-standard within campaign finance regulations.
"A few years ago we attempted financial reform, and more or less gave up, on the grounds that reform was inconsistent with individual liberties. Chevy Chase could be held down to $4,200, but George Soros, observing one or two traffic lights, can’t be held down at all. It all conduces to a queasy suspicion that the democratic ideal is up for sale."
Buckley made the same observation in the interview carried by Bloomberg.
Buckley also said he found the business community's contribution to society during most of the period from the 1950s to 1970s "disappointing'' because of "their refusal to encourage an intellectual light. Now, that has changed.''
"There are a number of foundations and colleges that take seriously the teaching of liberalism and libertarian life'' with the assistance of business leaders, he said. "But I don't think a historian looking back on the last 50 years of the 20th century will have any reason to speak with convincing pride about the role of the American businessmen in public policy.''
A further call to arms?
Recent Comments