Posted on 05/17/2007 7:36:55 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
William F. Buckley once said something to the effect that he didn't want the most conservative nominee as presidential candidate for the GOP, he wanted the most conservative candidate that could win the election as the GOP's nominee. In light of this sentiment, I am wondering if the lion of old line conservatism has decided that Mitt Romney just might be the "conservative enough" candidate for the GOP in 2008?
Last week, Buckley offered for our consideration a column mentioning Mitt Romney's conversion from abortion advocate to his new found status of anti-abortion believer -- a stance that puts him just in time to offer himself as the GOP candidate for the 2008 GOP nomination -- and how so many are rightfully skeptical of this new stance.
In Romney's Moral Thought Buckley mentions that Romney's sudden conversion is acclaimed as that born of "studied reflection" on the issue, just as Romney claims. Of course, Buckley seems to conveniently ignore the fact that Romney was still advocating his pro-abortion ideas not too long ago as Governor of Massachusetts making it a bit hard to believe that Mitt spent much time agonizing over this change.
Buckley, though, seems to accept Romney's claims at face value based on the fact that America has changed its prevailing moral opinion in the past. I find his reasoning less than convincing, especially when he cites Thomas Jefferson's acceptance of slavery at the same time he was writing about freedom and liberty in the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson, it is true, did own slaves as he was propounding for American freedom, but he never thought of slavery as a moral good. He always thought of it as a bad thing that should go away. He just had no idea about how to go about getting rid of it. Additionally, Jefferson never imagined the issue of slavery was one not to be reconsidered for future Americans. He even attempted to start a society that might help repatriate African slaves back to Africa, called the American Colonization Society.
So, to use Jefferson as some sort of example of an embargoing of a moral issue or moral evolution in comparison with Mitt Romney's is not really a legitimate one.
I will admit that Buckley doesn't come right out and state plainly that he believes Mitt's conversion. And, the other point Buckley makes, that of scolding the pro-abortioners for never seeming to give the issue much thought and just taking their own belief without question, is a good one. But, I find his smoothing of the waves for Romney a bit disturbing and seems to speak to the conservative stalwart's sizing Romney up favorably for the nomination.
In Romney we have a candidate that just can't be believed on some of the most important conservative issues; guns and abortion. With his late lie on his "lifetime" as a hunter and his only recently advocating for a pro-abortion position, Romney seems almost like a candidate who will say just anything to get the nomination. His claim of deep moral thought on the issue after which he emerged a newly minted anti-abortionist is just too convenient to be accepted.
In any case, it seems plain that Bill Buckley doesn't want to shut the door on Mitt Romney with this little op ed of his. I cannot say, however, that he is standing upright with this consideration. Buckley's bending over backwards to give Romney the benefit of the doubt makes me marvel that a man of his advanced age is flexible enough for the effort.
Doesn't this characterize both Rudi and Mitt, though? Has Mitt said he'll cut off funding, or has Rudy? On this issue, I don't see the difference between them. Didn't both back financial support for abortion when they had the chance? Neither has said anything about keeping government out of it. Frankly, I would have thought that Buckley's position on abortion is a stance both of them would have adopted by now.
I disagree with McCain's comments on this issue and believe it is irrational and unreasonable to believe that there is NEVER an occasion when torture is a moral option. Furthermore, If we as a nation come to believe so, we might as well pack it up.
Defending against foreign enemies is the most basic and primary functions of government, and such a defense may include on infrequent occasions, torture. No one is suggesting we adopt the barbaric practices of brutal physical torture routinely used by terrorists, the Viet Cong, Nazi's or anyone of hundreds of oppressive, tyrannical regimes.
But using for instance, the technique of water boarding when it may save many or even one life held in a painful, hostile situation, is justifiable. Unlike other forms of physical torture, it is quick (most give up in less than a minute), and leaves no lingering physical or even psychological damage. This in anyone's book, should be a small price for a vicious enemy of the United States to endure, something you GWB, are plenty bright enough to understand.
Furthermore, because of the overall nature of the technique, it is not a form of torture which would increase or inspire retaliation by our enemy against American troops situated in hostile territory.
Seconds or minutes of discomfort administered to a vicious enemy with no lasting side effects, or one to thousands of lives lost forever. Pick one.
You are absolutely right. It is a no brainer. See my post above.
Me either. A police officer abusing a suspect or a parent abusing a child is one thing, but an interrogator using enhanced interrrogtion techniques to stop a nuclear attack is completely something else.
By definition, our terrorist enemies and their state supporters have declared themselves enemies of the civilized order and its humanitarian rules. In fighting them, we must of course hold ourselves to our own high moral standards without, however, succumbing to the utopian illusion that we can prevail while immaculately observing every precept of the Sermon on the Mount.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html
‘NR’s recent cover story on Mitt that was as good as an endorsement.’
I didn’t find the article was an ‘endorsement’ at all. I learned a lot about the man I didn’t know, but it was hardly an ‘endorsement’ any more than Bloomberg being on TWS’s cover was two weeks ago.
‘Bill Buckley speaks - we all (at least) have to listen.’
Most of us don’t have the time, or the thesaurus, required to figure out what the hell he’s trying to say, bro....(chuckle)
He’s the only man on the planet that requires ten minutes, three ‘asides’ and a witty one liner to ask for a glass of ice water from a waiter. I subscribe to NR, but avoid his contributions for those rare evenings when I can’t fall asleep.
Works every time.
OH man - that’s funny - and 100% true.
I have my moments....(chuckle)
I like the guy, he just bores me. He’s the ‘anti Dr Williams’.
Williams boors me when he guest hosts for Rush, but I love his columns.
Conversely, I can listen to Buckley all day long...but he’s the Stephen King of political discourse. Takes four hundred pages to get to the point....and then another 700 pages to pound the point home.
funny
Wait til we run across somebody I really don’t like...(chuckle)
have a good evening.
If it wasn’t an endorsement, it was as close as anyone could come to it. The cover could have been produced a dozen different ways but the magazine’s reference to Mitt being an “executive” (what we don’t have now) couldn’t be missed.
"Chuckle," indeed. Apropos your remarks: why I believe you are accusing Mr. Buckley of unmitigated affective sesquipedalianism. The concatenary effects of your doubtless humorously intended riposte, taken pari passu, might possibly lead one to accuse you of lèse majesté.
The wretched state of your dormitory habit is certainly no concern of ours. Suggest a flagon of the old aqua vitae, instead of aiming this denigrating charge of gongorism at the doyen of conservative thought in America.
I for one, find his writings, although preternaturally clad in penumbral classical allusion, to be succinct: indeed, to the point. Finest writer since Pliny the Elder, or was it Pliny the Younger? Brevitas anima scientiae, verbum sat sapientes, plus que ça change, plus que c'est la même chose
.... are you asleep yet?
LOL great reply. Are you Warner Todd Huston?
In answer to your questions:
lie #1:
“Romney was still advocating his pro-abortion ideas not too long ago as Governor of Massachusetts”
lie #2:
“In Romney we have a candidate that just can’t be believed on some of the most important conservative issues; guns and abortion”
lie #3:
“With his late lie on his “lifetime” as a hunter”
comments:
-romney never advocated any pro abortion ideas as governor
-romney’s actions as governor were praised by the NRA
-romney converted to prolife halfway through his term as governor
-romney has been a hunter of small game all his life
And as for the position that Jefferson took knowing that it was morally wrong even Warner Todd Huston figured out: slavery
Also, this smearing of Buckley is just wrong:
“Buckley’s bending over backwards”, “man of his advanced age”
Great day to you too
Um....how about free the ones chained to your plantation. Lame,LAME, line. The author should be embarrassed.
“No mention of nukes. Zero.”
ok. Tancredo answered with something along the lines that he would call jack bauer to find the nukes so I assumed nukes was in the question. It doesn’t change anything.
I don’t get your point here. Are you saying the the terrorist apprehended should be entitled to due process, lawyers, etc.. while another terrorist attack is in the works?
Romney never backed government funding of abortion. Rudy julie did as late as last month. Now he apparently supports the so called hyde amendment that bars federal funding of abortion. But don’t expect anyone to call him a flip flopper for the changing of positions.
My response stands with or without nukes or WMD’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.