Christophers for Obama: Buckley and Hitchens

This is how bad it has gotten for John McCain.

Even the defenders of the Iraq War are deserting the Republican nominee who once thought he might "surge" into the Oval Office.

Yes, he has lost the Christophers.

In recent days, he has lost both Christopher Buckley and, now, Christopher Hitchens. Both have announced their plans to vote for man who opposed launching the Iraq War: Democrat Barack Obama.

First, Buckley, the apple-did-not-fall-from-the-tree son of William F., writes a column titled, "Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama," in which he writes:

I have known John McCain personally since 1982. I wrote a well-received speech for him. Earlier this year, I wrote in The New York Times--I'm beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without saying, "As I warned the world in my last column..." -- a highly favorable Op-Ed about McCain, taking Rush Limbaugh and the others in the Right Wing Sanhedrin to task for going after McCain for being insufficiently conservative. I don't--still--doubt that McCain's instincts remain fundamentally conservative. But the problem is otherwise.

McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power. He told the media they were "jerks" (a sure sign of authenticity, to say nothing of good taste; we are jerks). He was real. He was unconventional. He embraced former anti-war leaders. He brought resolution to the awful missing-POW business. He brought about normalization with Vietnam--his former torturers! Yes, he erred in accepting plane rides and vacations from Charles Keating, but then, having been cleared on technicalities, groveled in apology before the nation. He told me across a lunch table, "The Keating business was much worse than my five and a half years in Hanoi, because I at least walked away from that with my honor." Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.

A year ago, when everyone, including the man I'm about to endorse, was caterwauling to get out of Iraq on the next available flight, John McCain, practically alone, said no, no--bad move. Surge. It seemed a suicidal position to take, an act of political bravery of the kind you don't see a whole lot of anymore.

But that was--sigh--then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, "We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us." This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget "by the end of my first term." Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

Then, Christopher Hitchens, erstwhile former Nation columnist turned Iraq warrior, writes a column headlined: "Vote for Obama: McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace."

Like Buckley, Hitchens is embarrassed by McCain as a candidate and as the man who has attempted to put Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from the presidency:

Hitch argues deliciously that:

McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.

I suppose it could be said, as Michael Gerson has alleged, that the Obama campaign's choice of the word erratic to describe McCain is also an insinuation. But really, it's only a euphemism. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear had to feel sorry for the old lion on his last outing and wish that he could be taken somewhere soothing and restful before the night was out. The train-wreck sentences, the whistlings in the pipes, the alarming and bewildered handhold phrases--"My friends"--to get him through the next 10 seconds. I haven't felt such pity for anyone since the late Adm. James Stockdale humiliated himself as Ross Perot's running mate. And I am sorry to have to say it, but Stockdale had also distinguished himself in America's most disastrous and shameful war, and it didn't qualify him then and it doesn't qualify McCain now.

The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her--her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations--were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.

These are important statements, especially as expressions of concern about McCain's dwindling capacity and their dismissals of Palin.

They form the intellectual underpinnings for a rational rejection of the Republican ticket by mainstream Republicans and independents--and with it the prospect (though not the certainty) of an Obama victory sufficient to allow him to actually govern.

Buckley actually provides the language for those who may not ever be Obama enthusiasts, but who may be Obama voters:

"Obama has in him -- I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy "We are the people we have been waiting for" silly rhetoric -- the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

"So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I'll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America."

Comments (36)

1. It looks like Rove's "electoral strategy" of changing McCain into "I'll say anything to win" Republican and Palin's "whip up the base of right wing nuts" is turning off mainstream Republicans and independents.

   I always thought Karl Rove was grossly over-rated as a political strategist, and seemed to have only one trick in his bag that he learned for Lee Atwater - divide and distract and hope no one notices that this is what you are doing. Such an approach can hardly be thought of as "political strategy", and even as an electoral strategy it appears to be unsustainable as voters wise up to your efforts to distract them from the kitchen table issues they really care about.

   Posted by Metteyya at 10/13/2008 @ 4:10pm

2. Oh, it can get worse, Mr Nichols...

   McCain attended an ACORN!!!!!!! event in 2006.

   http://www.politico.com /blogs/bensmith/1008/ Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html?showall

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 4:13pm

3. BTW, it's going to be funny (and predictable)...

   all the right-wing posters who are going to say "So what? Big surprise! Hitchens is an avowed socialist so OF COURSE he's going to support Obama!!!!"

   and completely forget they used to cite him as their favorite socialist on the Iraq War!

   LOL

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 4:21pm

4. The righties posting here excpet Darin who will sometimes admit to the failings of the right, the economic situation for instance, will always find a way to excuse their parties actions no matter how ridiculously they have to contort to do it.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/13/2008 @ 5:05pm

5. ". . . .Buckley, erstwhile son of William F. . . ." Formerly his son? Does Christopher cease being the son of William F. Buckley now that Daddy is dead? Christopher wrote a breezy but nonetheless moving eulogy about his father ("Captain Crunch"--so named because of his proclivity to ram the dock): "He was -- inarguably -- a great man. This is, from a son's perspective, a mixed blessing, because it means having to share him with the wide world. It was often a very mixed blessing when you were out sailing with him. Great men always have too much canvas up. And great men set out from port in conditions that keep lesser men -- such as myself -- safe and snug on shore. " I think Christopher would like to continue being considered his son.

   Posted by Rafaelo at 10/13/2008 @ 5:27pm

6. I hope that everyone has an umbrella because after reading this, I'm convinced that it's going to rain frogs.

   Posted by edwriter at 10/13/2008 @ 5:27pm

7. So with even old staunch conservative repub types (non-new con dic'tatorship followers), it looks increasingly possible that Obama/Biden will break the 400 EV!

   http://www.pollster.com/

   Cool.

   Talk about a mandate.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2008 @ 5:59pm

8. What conclusion am I supposed to reach that conservatives are rallying to Obama? Is it that McCain is that bad of a "conservative"? Everyone just likes a winner - see any one of the legions of Ronald Reagan and Bush sycophants? Or is it that on many of the things that matter - such as foreign policy and corporate welfare - there isn't that much difference?

   I'll grant that Obama is a marginally better choice than McCain. But, it is a shame that the field running for President is offering so little choice on major issues - and that many of the so-called "third party" alternatives are packed with kooks. If you think Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr are bad, just wait until you see who the Greens and Libertarians are running for your local offices.

   Nut jobs. They can't even convince me, and I'm looking for a reason to vote for them. Why are there so many people of rank incompetence running for political office?

   Posted by srjenkins at 10/13/2008 @ 7:20pm

9. These are the kind of American Conservatives that use to get my vote. Let me throw another name out there George Wills. This present day crowd is really nuts. There are exceptions like Snow and Collins but they are rare.

   Posted by lachatte at 10/13/2008 @ 7:30pm

10. srjenkins-Are you going to run for any political office or do you feel that it's better just to whine about everyone who does?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/13/2008 @ 10:12pm

11. As to young Mr. Buckley, I believe that his dad would have eagerly debated the "logic" of his son's decision.---------Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/13/2008 @ 7:22pm

    Hmmm? Really?

    "General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can't see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, "I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort."

    The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma."---- April 28, 2007 10:45 AM

    The Waning of the GOP By William F. Buckley Jr.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 10:58pm

12. Charlie don't surf and rednecks don't read, Hitchens/Buckley that is.

    They do blast Limbaugh in their ever more expensive to use cars and trucks, and during the workday in their jobs with decreasing pay, and Limbaugh, OReilly, Savage, Boortz will spin the bejeasies outa this.

    The left has NO equivalent, and neocons never ask how all this has come to pass: "private equity"

    ergo, Ohioans might go red again.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/13/2008 @ 10:58pm

13. Obama's a super patriot.

    Obama will victoriously hand Iraq back to Iraq.

    Obama will lead the world in nuclear disarmament.

    Obama will help shore up the middle class, through a combination of keys, growing middle class jobs and instituting Medicare style health care for all.

    Obama will tolerate neocon idiots, not eavesdrop on their phone calls, or giveaway their tax dollars to no-bid Halliburton types.

    Articulate, ethical, brilliant, decisive, a friend of business and Joe six pack and Palestine and Israel and the great American military services.

    Obama's a super bipartisan.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/13/2008 @ 11:16pm

14. slow down, now, winyahn....

    aim low, you won't be disappointed :+⁄

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2008 @ 11:34pm

15. I sure hope you are home right now winy. from the condition of those last two posts it is clear you are in no condition to drive. Go to bed your meds are kicking in.

    Posted by bascaville at 10/13/2008 @ 11:49pm

16. They all jumping ship on John Mccain, even Bill Kristol and many more conservatives, neomorons and just plain old republicans, they starting to see him as a sad old man, this John McCain is different

    It's called false advertisement, bait and switch McCain, the republicans are toast

    wanna see the real obama, go here

    http://www.barackobamacans.blogspot.com/

    Posted by obama2008 at 10/14/2008 @ 03:18am

17. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/14/2008 @ 08:59am

    And once again, Darin sees the mote in his neighbor's eye, but not the beam in a Republican to be found!

    Go to "Ballot Box" forum on Slate's "The Fray", Darin.

    Righties there (and yes, REAL righties, not "liberal posing as Righties to embarass or smear the Right")...

    are using the N-word for Obama.

    (Hint-Again, here's where you say "Oh, I'm not saying both sides don't do it...only liberals are worse"...and then we post some right-wing posts and you say "Okay, BOTH sides do it...I'm just saying it's bad" and act like you never posted "Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/14/2008 @ 08:59am"....your playbook is getting a little thin, DTT))

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/14/2008 @ 09:04am

18. Posted by bascaville at 10/13/2008 @ 11:49pm

    You betcha basca. And secessionists put country first!

    Posted by winyahn at 10/14/2008 @ 09:20am

19. it was palin that drove the buckleys away.

    bad bad bad idea, flippy mac...

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/14/2008 @ 09:45am

20. RCP has Obama with 313 safe electoral votes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I

    Posted by mikecope at 10/14/2008 @ 10:31am

21. The endorsements coming from the traditional "educated" right are encouraging and although there are not many days to election ... there are far too many days to count chickens.

    I do remember thinking once that McCain was not a bad republican choice. But as many have seen clearly during the past few weeks, McCain has struggled to make sense of his bid, stay on message and manage his campaign. Most importantly his lack of ability to manage HIS campaign is the most telling.

    McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate was possibly the most odd move in modern politics (makes Quale look like a PHD, not by much though) and sent serious judgment questions out like a firework display. This was and should have been the death nail for many of his own party.

    Just as we are worrying about the "Bradley Effect" possibly causing problems for Obama ... I believe there will be a "Palin Effect" as well.

    Concerned, educated and sound of mind traditional Republicans that separate church and state, those old school Republicans may pull the lever for Obama in good conscience in November.

    Palin's prize? ... Alaska voters will send her back to the tundra to shoot rodents, if not before, certainly after her term is over. We will hear little from her again.

    McCain ... will never be the same again and ride off into the Sedona sunset.

    Posted by Hoot at 10/14/2008 @ 10:54am

22. Wow, Obama leading by 13% nationally:

    http://tinyurl.com/53o2e5

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2008 @ 11:21am

23. darin-Actually,Huckabee would have given McCain the evangelical vote as well as experience when it comes to economic matters.Romney would have given McCain economic experience and appeals to moderates.He picked a far right fringe VP choice that only the fringe is happy about.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/14/2008 @ 11:39am

24. What the fuck are you babbling about? Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/14/2008 @ 11:08am

    He is talking about how you say that liberals are being derisive while ignoring the fact that your fellow right wingers are you using racial slurs to talk about Obama and spitting just as much if not more venom and hatred.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/14/2008 @ 12:00pm

25. What the fuck are you babbling about? Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/14/2008 @ 11:08am

    Also he is pointing out how you are willing to categorically ignore every wrong doing of your fellow party members in order to make stupid assertions about Democrats.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/14/2008 @ 12:02pm

26. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/14/2008 @ 12:00pm

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/14/2008 @ 12:02pm

    Darin knows all that, CCC.

    He's just trying to score some lame point that was scored against him on one of his rambling tirades.

    And he knows that my "(Hint-"...is his SOP. He makes a charge against "liberals" or "Democrats"...

    then it turns out Republicans are even worse....so he says "Of COURSE, BOTH sides do it!" or "I'M JUST SAYING, it's bad when it happens"...

    and pretends he's being all "bipartisan", when his little attacks blow up in his face.

    And he never changes it. He does it all the time, because it's what he hears on right-wing radio.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/14/2008 @ 12:12pm

27. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/13/2008 @ 10:12pm

    "Are you going to run for any political office or do you feel that it's better just to whine about everyone who does?"

    I am not running for political office nor am I ever likely to do so.

    I'm also not going have any children, but I can still recognize when other people's children are behaving like spoiled brats. I don't feel any special need to demonstrate I could do a better job as a parent, simply to make that point. Extend the argument to politics.

    And even if I were elected to my local school board, recorder of deeds, water commissioner or what not and in the process demonstrate that I can do a better job in that particular office than 90% of the people that seek it, how exactly does that help me to make a better, general argument about the sad state of our electoral politics and the general unworthiness of the vast majority of our politicans? It doesn't.

    So, you have anything better than offering clever little ad hominem arguments couched in a false dichotomy? Or does the limit of your argument amount to - if I give it a charitable reading: you are either part of the solution or your part of the problem?

    Here's one of a dozen counter-arguments someone could offer. Maybe there's structural reasons in our electoral process that discourage qualified, competent candidates from ever appearing on the ballot. Certainly, it fits the facts. Certainly, such an argument would seem to show it's a little more complicated than your implied assertion that we can just join in and fix it.

    "Whining" highlights a problem. It's useful. Whereas pretending the so-called "pragmatic" solution is just getting people involved, isn't useful. In fact, it may even worsen the problem it pretends to fix.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/14/2008 @ 12:47pm

28. Gufdog, you need help dude!

    Posted by Truthman at 10/14/2008 @ 12:52pm

29. Gufdog, what did mom put in that lunch?

    Posted by Truthman at 10/14/2008 @ 1:10pm

30. Posted by Truthman at 10/14/2008 @ 1:10pm

    His "world" is collapsing around him....Conservatism on life-support and "one of THEM" is likely to become President.

    Almost feel sorry for the bastard....almost!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/14/2008 @ 1:25pm

31. srjenkins-So you aren't going to be a parent,but criticize those who are and you aren't going to run for anything,but will criticize those who do.That's fine.Just asking.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/14/2008 @ 1:29pm

32. In reading Gufdogs post about his visit to the zoo, I began to wonder, perhaps there is deeper meaning in his "words of wisdom." It could be a message from the bowels of his twisted mind. 1. The trip to the zoo could represent his own introspection. 2. The various chimps (I don't mean to offend the chimps) represents aspects of his personality. 3. The lazy chimp representing his lack of drive to do something with his existance. 4. The chimps having sex representing something he lacks in his life. 5. The chimp eating fecal matter representing his anger toward his belief that life has made him "eat shit." 6. The chimp hanging from the bars and masterbating representing his angry feeling of being trapped and dealing with it by self gradification. Keep posting Gufdog, we are beginning to know the real you.

    Posted by Truthman at 10/14/2008 @ 1:42pm

33. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/14/2008 @ 1:29pm

    Bad parenting, like bad governance, is as easy to spot as trash on the sidewalk. I don't need to put trash on the sidewalk myself to understand it nor is it my personal responsibility to shovel trash all day because there aren't public garbage cans, my local san man isn't doing his job or because other people cannot be bothered to pick up after themselves.

    It's also a problem that lends itself to a variety of solutions, only one of which is to run for elected office in Streets and Sanitation. In this, it is much like most every other problem we encounter in life.

    One doesn't need to be a cook to recognize bad cooking. Substitute cook and cooking with your noun and verb combination of choice, and in most instances, the premise will be true - which shows the problem in your whole line of argumentation.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/14/2008 @ 2:16pm

34. Washington Post reports;

    "Buckley loses column in National Review"

    He lost his column because of his article about throwing in support, albeit not without remorse, for Obama.

    It is obvious that Buckley had the balls to take a stand and he knew he would be viewed as a traitor. The comments from readers, "hang him", etc. Sound familiar?

    Bottom line; You can not disagree with the Republican Right Wing without risking your career ... and by some of the comments we've heard these nutcakes utter ... possibly your life.

    It took nerve to write a truthful column as Buckley did and speaks volumes. This is from a conservative that comes from a long line of conservatives. He has spoken the truth based on intelligent observation and analysis of McCain's abilities and judgment.

    He has printed what others in that party will not say out loud but no less know is true.

    When asking why Republican leaders sit on the sidellines and not suggest McCain rid himself of Palin or advise against smear tactics in this 11th hour against Obama ....

    Buckley's punishment is but a mild reminder of what can happen to you if you speak the truth

    Posted by Hoot at 10/14/2008 @ 8:51pm

35. Posted by Truthman at 10/14/2008 @ 1:42pm

    Rolling on floor... very funny. And I don't even know who/what post you're psychoanalyzing.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/15/2008 @ 12:04am

36. Rolling on floor... very funny. And I don't even know who/what post you're psychoanalyzing.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/15/2008 @ 12:04am | ignore this person | warn this person Thanks, I enjoyed it. Gupdog posted it and seems to have removed it though. Maskdelta also noted the post. It was about gupdogs raciest soul. He compared Obama's future cabnet to some chimps he saw at the zoo while eating the lunch mom made for him.

    Posted by Truthman at 10/15/2008 @ 08:05am