Posted on 10/22/2016 2:41:18 AM PDT by Rummyfan
A few years before he became president, Ronald Reagan appeared on Firing Line. The topic of the January 13, 1978, episode of William F. Buckley Jr.’s long-running debate show were the treaties by which the United States relinquished the Panama Canal to its host country.
Reagan had been against the treaties for years, using them to catch up to President Ford during the 1976 GOP primary. And Buckley had been against them, too, until a visit to Panama changed his mind. What might first appear as a trivial issue at a time of economic stagflation and diminishing American power was in fact incredibly meaningful to large numbers of voters, especially conservative ones. “Certainly it was of major consequence in my own career as a conservative,” Buckley wrote later. “I received much disparaging mail for having deserted first principles, and the stand I took is still here and there cited as evidence of my unreliability as a conservative.”
The debate was between two teams of four. Reagan led the opposition. Alongside him were journalist and presidential aide Patrick J. Buchanan, Latin America specialist Roger Fontaine, and Admiral John McCain Jr. Buckley argued pro. His teammates were National Review senior editor James Burnham, syndicated columnist George F. Will, and Admiral Elmo Zumwalt. Former senator Sam Ervin was the judge.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Is it time for a Buckley re evaluation?
The Adoration of the Cucks now paralleling the way Trigglypuff feels about Frida Kahlo.
Thanks for posting!
“ideological STDs”
Me likey long time!!!
Precisely.
Shouldn’t the title be “Crisis of the Cuckservative Intellectual”?
Kristol vetted well the eventual breeder of his daughter.
/barf
What they fear the most. That about which they wake up in the middle of the night with their pillows drenched in sweat is those former adoring acolytes of their BS finally coming to the conclusion that they don’t need these “Principled Conservatives” to do their thinking for them. It means IRRELEVANCY to them and scares the willies out of them.
“the establishment Republicans really refused to feel the heartbeat of the public - and did not vocalise the public’s concerns nor mount a major fight to the usurping of power by Himself in the White House.”
They were afraid of being called racist for daring to oppose anything put forward by the first colored president.
One big long whine by Bill Kristol’s son-in-law and Neocon NeverTrumper, Matthew Continenti.
The Neocons have been trying to gaslight people on the right into believing that open-borders mass third-world immigration and hundreds-billion dollar trade deficits with tens of thousands of factories leaving the USA for Mexico, China and elsewhere is “conservatism.”
It’s not. And neither is arming jihadi radicals to topple Qaddafi or Assad or supporting the Muslim Brotherhood to bring down Mubarak. And then insisting that if we don’t allow the resulting millions of Muslim refugees into the USA and Western Europe we are “discriminating against religion.”
People like Kristol and Continetti have no love for the USA, for our people, our history, our traditions and our culture.
They see us as simply a geographic consumer market within a globalized trading regime and a useful source of military forces to carry out their stupid and dangerous nation-building schemes.
I saw that too (the “concessions” at the end of the article.) If one is going to so concede, they are no conservative at all.
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.