My First Memory of William F. Buckley, Jr.

It's been a week since the death of William F. Buckley, Jr.

As a conservative, I would be remiss if I did not write something in his memory. This is a week late simply because I've been so busy with other matters.

In the intervening week, many media sources, especially mainstream print and network, have produced and aired/printed exhaustive treatments of Mr. Buckley's full and amazing life and influence on modern, post-WWII American politics.

Thus, I'll make my own small contribution a personal one.

Growing up in downstate Illinois about the time Mr. Buckley founded National Review, I, of course, had little knowledge of him in my pre-school years. However, as a late pre-teen, I was treated to live coverage of the Democratic National Convention being held just upstate from us, in Chicago, in 1968.

My very first awareness of Mr. Buckley came from his stint as the conservative half of the original 'Hannity & Colmes' team during that convention. ABC hired Buckley and Gore Vidal to represent conservative and liberal views, moderated, if you can call it that, by then-news anchor Howard K. Smith.

Originally, for this post, I expected to write about the exchange still etched in my memory. Then, I thought....YouTube!

And, what do you know, but to my wondering eyes appeared the clip of the very 3 minutes or so of my first memory of the late Mr. Buckley in action. Good thing, too, because I was off in my memory by four years. I thought this interaction occurred in 1964. But the content is just as I recalled.

So, without further introduction....

Buckley v. Gore at the 1968 Democratic National Convention on ABC



Note the era of conservative suits and somewhat restrained manners. Until, that is, Gore calls Buckley a 'crypto-Nazi.' Then Buckley lets loose on the live feed with words for which, today, he'd probably be called on to recant.

Ah, for the simpler times of old.....

As a further tribute to Mr. Buckley, here is a clip of him espousing his views on the necessary qualifications for the Oval Office occupant circa 1968. I think Buckley is still on target today, as well.

Additionally, this clip portrays Buckley behaving quintessentially. The verbiage, mannerisms and delivery are just classic.

Like Reagan, he'd been gone from the public scene for a while before his death. Never the less, I'll still miss him, as well.

Buckley on Presidential Qualifications for 1968





Still makes sense, doesn't it?

McCain, The NY Times, & Campaign Funding

Last week's news was full of the ill-advised, largely-unsourced New York Times smear...or, as a liberal would call it, 'story-' regarding John McCain and a female lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee back when the Republicans were in the majority.

At least one of my liberal Democratic friends avers that the Times is 'the national paper of record,' and 'unbiased,' so if it prints a story, then it's true.

Honestly, this is one problem in our country today. Liberals are so far left that they can't even see how slanted and liberal the three broadcast networks and the Times have been for at least two decades.

There is effectively no 'moderate' newspaper anymore. Most of the daily print media is liberal, while the Wall Street Journal editorial page tends conservative. Its news pages are a toss up.

Among television networks, the ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN are all solidly liberal, while Fox is news-neutral, and even issue analysis-neutral, but editorially largely conservative.

The fact that the McCain story elicited as much furor against the Times as it did questions of McCain's conduct, which is generally considered above reproach, tells you what you need to know about the Times smear piece.

However, as the Wall Street Journal noted last week, the Times story obscured the real McCain story in this campaign season. That story involves how his campaign is twisting itself into a pretzel in order to try to raise funds while conforming with campaign finance laws co-authored by....John McCain.

I have to say that I am actually pleased to see this. Maybe now McCain will stop being so sanctimonious and 'holier than thou' about campaign funding legislation.

From the passage of McCain-Feingold, I felt that both co-sponsors should be summarily disqualified from running for President on the bases of idiocy and attempting to deprive the American voter of his/her freedom of speech. And, in fact, portions of the ill-advised law have been struck down precisely for first amendment violations.

McCain is currently involved in sleights of hand such as filing an intent to request public funding in the general election, in order to use that intent as collateral to borrow money now. But he's not actually, according to his campaign, declaring to use public funds.

Earlier in the race, he pledged his donor lists as collateral for a loan.

Of course, if McCain had used the common sense with which he evidently wasn't born, he would have not only not sponsored his campaign finance 'reform' bill, but repealed the existing laws. And, then, passed a simple bill allowing any candidate to take any amount of money from anyone, provided the candidate publishes, within two days of the donation, in two venues- online and in print- the name, address, phone contact number of the donor and amount of the donation.

That's all you really need. If the Chinese army wanted to fund Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign, so be it. I'd rather just know it, than know that Slick Willie lied about it and covered up the contributions.

So now McCain is caught in his own web of complex, silly campaign finance regulations. It serves him right.

Too bad the Times didn't print that story. Easily sourced, important, and relevant.

Guess that disqualified it from a Times cover piece, eh?

Weak-Willed Boehner Loses His Way

Today's Wall Street Journal carried a brief editorial piece on House Minority Leader John Boehner's backsliding on a key Republican objective- to be seen as regaining the party's sense of fiscal restraint. The link may, or may not work after today. In case it doesn't, the entire text of the editorial, "GOP Flake Out," appears below in italics.

"House Republicans have been taunting Democrats for turning down their offer to eliminate spending earmarks, and Democrats reply that the GOP isn't serious. The Republicans seem intent on proving that Democrats are right, as GOP leaders showed last week in denying Arizona's Jeff Flake a seat on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Flake is the scourge of earmarks and the last person Members of either party want on Congress's main spending committee. He would have been a whistle-blower for taxpayers, in particular against the powerful Democrats who get the most earmarks now that they are in the majority, such as Pennsylvania's Jack Murtha. But Republican spenders couldn't tolerate someone who would call out their pork too.

House Minority Leader John Boehner has been warning his party that it won't take back Congress until it swears off earmarking, so he must be getting comfortable with his minority status. He handed the Appropriations seat to Alabama's Jo Bonner, who had less seniority than Mr. Flake (three terms to four) and also votes routinely for spending that Mr. Flake opposes. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group, compared voting records and found that of 50 amendments on the House floor to strike specific earmarked projects, Mr. Flake voted for all of them.

Mr. Bonner voted against 49 of the 50. He voted to save, among other national priorities, the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service ($200,000) at City College of New York, a fake prison in Kansas ($100,000), and $150,000 for the American Ballet Theater in New York City. He'll fit right in at Appropriations."

I consider myself to be a conservative-leaning independent, not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.

Thus, I want to point out to the 3-4 people who read this blog on an average day that I am an equal-opportunity critic of both parties.

In this case, it's clear that the GOP should put Jeff Flake on the Appropriations Committee. Let's review the situation. Flake hails from Arizona, as does...oh, yes, that's right, the GOP's Presidential candidate come November, John McCain. And McCain has just fired a volley at the two Democratic contenders for their party's nomination, Hillary and Obama, over earmarks.

And the sitting Republican President, George Bush, made a major issue of earmarks in his State of the Union speech, as well.

Doesn't it make perfect sense for the Republicans to adopt a "zero earmark" strategy and stance? Install Jeff Flake on Charlie Rangell's corrupt, overspending Appropriations Committee, and bird-dog the profligate spender to his eternal distraction?

Of course it does! Think of the great headlines all during the months leading up the the first Tuesday in November of this year.

Instead, Boehner plumped for a conventional spender, GOP-style, Jo Bonner.

There goes a perfect chance for McCain to link up with fellow Senators and his own state's Representative, Flake, who would be his inside guy on the House Appropriations Committee.

Is it too much to ask, or expect, that the Republicans, now in the minority in both Houses, and in a tough, some would say uphill, fight to keep the White House, all sit down and align their objectives, methods and actions?

So long as hacks like Boehner wilt under party pressure, cave in to conventional spending temptations, and name fellow-hacks like Bonner, instead of Flake, to Rangell's committee, the GOP will truly deserve to remain in the minority.

It's a shame. I grew up living in Bob Michel's district in Illinois. Just across the river from Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen's home in Pekin. Michel was the amiable, harmless lapdog of whatever Democratic House Speaker, in those days, Mike Mansfield, happened to be in office at the time.

It took a changing of the guard, with Gingrich and Armey in the lead, to finally bring down the corrupt Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas, publish the Contract with America, and send the Democrats into the minority for a decade.

Now, with memories of hack Denny Hastert being fresher than those of Gingrich, I guess Boehner's settling into the Minority Leaders offices.

Maybe he even has an old picture of Bob Michel on his wall, dug out of some musty old Congressional storage room.

Hillary, Bill and The Puerto Rican "Terror Pardons"

The Wall Street Journal published a superb editorial on Tuesday of this week. Penned by Debra Burlingame, sister of "Chic" Burlingame, the pilot of AA Flt77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, it is entitled "The Clintons' Terror Pardons."

For any voter in this year's Presidential election, it's eye-opening, "must" reading.

Because of the length of the piece- nearly a full page in the WSJ- I won't attempt to quote extensively from it. Tempting though that is.

Instead, I'll just provide a very brief summary.

As Hillary began her run for a New York Senate seat, her husband, Bill, arranged unrequested pardons for several participants in the Puerto Rican terrorist bombings of several building in NYC on New Year's Eve, 1982.

Ms. Burlingame's editorial details how Slick Willie evaded various Constitutional checks and balanaces by doing a favor for his wife's election campaign. He wasn't guilty of directly benefiting from the pardons. His wife was. She even admitted to several enraged Puerto Rican politicians, who were angry that some special arrangements which embarrassed the FALN terrorists had to be made, because the terrorists did not intend to comply with the usual conditions of their pardons.

The bottom line is that Slick Willie pardoned 16 FALN terrorists in order to get his wife elected to her Senate seat. So badly was this handled that, according to Burlingame, even the NY Times disclosed it in a piece entitled "Bill's Little Gift." Hillary had to backpedal from supporting the pardons when the whole mess became public and drew the ire of the general populace, because both civilians and law enforcement officers had been killed and/or seriously injured in the attacks.

As Burlingame points out, as Bill was talking tough against the Middle East terrorists, he gave unrequested pardons to the FALN in order to secure the New York Hispanic vote for his wife.

How despicable is that? Sadly, how typical of the Billary? He commits a smarmy, sleazy act. She initially accepts it. Then, upon being confronted with it publicly, feigns horror and shock. But, in the end, it has its desired effect and Hillary accepts the gift.

Remember this as you watch the home stretch of the Democratic Presidential primary race. The Clintons will do whatever it takes to win, no matter what principles are shredded, who is maligned, or, probably, what damage it does to their own party.

Democrats Lawyer Up

No, I'm not referring to the looming court battles between Hillary and Obama over the Floridian delegates.

Instead, I'm noting that all three original front-running Democratic Presidential candidates were lawyers- Obama, Hillary and John Edwards.

In this respect, the Democrats are quite distinct from the Republicans in the nature of the vocations of their Presidential aspirants.


Romney was a consultant, governor and Olympic troubleshooter/manager.


Giuliani was a lawyer, but not for the plaintiff's bar. Rather, he was a Federal prosecutor, then NYC mayor, and now a consultant.



Fred Thompson, too, was originally a lawyer. And a Senator. But he was, and probably will again be, an actor.

Isn't it interesting that for a job that involves leading the country forward to solve both known and potential problems, the Democrats fielded sophists. That is, those whose calling is to argue either side of any issue.

This alone should tell you how prepared the Democrats are to apply relevant skills that will actually lead the country and solve problems. You can't give what you don't have, and Hillary and Obama only have legal training to guide them.

Come to think of it, Bill (Clinton) was a lawyer, too. And look at the mess he left George Bush (non-lawyer, business school graduate) to clean up.

Hillary's Mortgage Default Moratorium Becomes Moot AND Unwanted!

Friday's Wall Street Journal carried a fascinating editorial by Nicole Gelinas entitled "The Rise of the Mortgage 'Walkers.'"

Essentially, Ms. Gelinas reports that mortgages have an embedded "put," allowing borrowers to simply mail the keys back to the lender, and default. She writes,

"The apparent willingness of borrowers to 'walk away' from mortgage debt," the analysts noted, "has contributed to extraordinary high levels of early default" on loans issued during the 18 months before the mortgage bubble burst. It expects losses to reach 21% of initial loan balances for subprime mortgages issued in 2006 and 26% for those issued in early 2007.

Such behavior, where not precipitated by willful fraud, shows that American homebuyers supposedly duped by their lenders aren't so dumb. They're perfectly capable of acting rationally without political interference.

While mortgage fraud has abounded in recent years, voluntary foreclosures are not by themselves evidence of a newfound irresponsibility on Americans' part. To be sure, until recently, mass-scale voluntary foreclosures were unthinkable. But markets have changed, and people are changing their behavior in response."

Ms. Gelinas notes that, as banks allowed home purchases with as little as no, or 5% down, at the housing market's peak, it was not surprising that, at some point, price declines would trigger this behavior. Note that these borrowers want to have foreclosure proceedings begun.

She further observes,

"In most cases, once a homebuyer splits, the mortgage-securities investors are stuck with the loss. In some states, including California and Arizona, this provision is the letter of the law. In others, the bank forgives the balance of the loan -- a common practice that's unlikely to change now, given the criminal and civil investigations banks are already sweating through.

Essentially, mortgage-bond investors, seemingly unwittingly, sold homebuyers a put option, without properly pricing it, and now homeowners are exercising that option. Moreover, prime borrowers in many markets face the same incentives.

Borrowers acted rationally in response to market forces and incentives during the bubble: Buy a house because prices always go up; you can't lose. Many are acting rationally now: Mail the keys back and un-borrow the money, because prices are sinking fast while the debt isn't. When the house was purchased not as a first home but as a rental investment, the decision is even easier. Politicians keep saying that Americans need protection from their big, bad lenders -- but that protection is already there.

Of course, there's a price. Mortgage "walkers" will take a hit to their personal credit rating. Yet this once-forbidding punishment may be discounted. That's because, just as when markets change their behavior, people change, when people change their behavior, markets change also.

If hundreds of thousands of people with decent work histories are going to have less-than-stellar credit because of foreclosures this year and next, they won't suffer so much as in the past. Many walkers are going to want to buy houses again some day; and when they do, lenders are going to want to make money lending them money to do so (hopefully requiring a good down payment). Investors searching for yield likely won't bypass what could be a large pool of borrowers."

Note the belief that, when markets turn around and lenders want to lend for housing, they'll overlook or adjust their credit processes for these borrowers who behaved rationally.

Ms. Gelinas sums up the situation thusly,

"Nobody is going to debtors' prison. Nobody is going to have to toil for 30 years and sacrifice their kids' future to pay off burdensome loans that they're stuck with forever because they overreached. (Even if banks and mortgage administrators pursue judgments for post-foreclosure loan balances, there's always bankruptcy as a last resort.)

As for Sen. Hillary Clinton and her proposed "moratorium on foreclosures": She may soon find that borrowers, not just lenders, are screaming to let them act within their contractual rights."

Sorry, Hill'. Guess that moratorium could get you into more trouble than just keeping your mouth shut on this issue. The specter of families in jail due to mortgage foreclosures isn't even remotely true.

I guess this goes to show what happens when a political poobah gets into her/his head to begin preaching on "solutions" to issues about which they clearly know very little. Creating more problems when a new solution isn't even necessary.

And you say you want this woman to be our next President?

Harold Ford, Jr.'s Disingenuousness & Other Super Tuesday Topics

First, the ironic topic.

Only a few weeks ago, after the Republican Michigan primary, Democratic pundits chortled that the GOP couldn't produce a winner, and was hopelessly fractured. At that point, Hickabee, Romney and McCain had each won one primary/caucus.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Hillary and Obama are locked in a dead heat, and are expected to remain so until their convention. Thanks to Robert Novak's superb reporting on Fox News the other day, it is clear why. Long ago, in the McGovern era of the party, the Democrats became embarrassed by 'winner take all' primaries, and eliminated them. So proportional are they, Novak explained, that it takes a win of over 60% for a candidate to be awarded more than only half of the delegates in a two-person contest.

Thanks to this typically-populist move, the Democrats have assured that Obama can't get swept out of the race by one or two large-state wins by Hillary.

As Novak put it, by now, Hillary's campaign had planned to announce their victory, and begin Republican-bashing in full force.

Instead, they are in the fight of their lives.

The way I figure it, if she muscles the so-called super delegates to vote for her, Obama and his black/young following will feel they were jobbed. Many of these newly-registered voters could well sit home, rather than vote for the Evil Queen.

Further, if she wins, and Obama believes she will lose the general election, he will want to protect his newly-won base. If so, will he whole-heartedly embrace Hillary and support her? Only to have the Kos and his newfound supporters desert him for being so, well, predictable and conventional?

It's not a pretty picture the Democrats have facing them, no matter who wins.

Meanwhile, Fox News hired Harold Ford, Jr., late a Tennessee Democrat Representative, failed Senatorial candidate, and current chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, Bubba's old outfit.

As a paid commentator, Ford was opining on the Hillary-Obama battle last night with Chris Wallace.

Every time Wallace tried to engage Ford on the importance of the black vote to Obama throughout the south, Ford kept alleging, to paraphrase him,

'...remember, Obama won in Iowa. And Iowa doesn't have many african americans. So race didn't matter.'

Nice try, Harold. But Iowa is uber-liberal to begin with. They'd be the most likely to embrace a neophyte black candidate. Especially one from literally next door- Illinois. And, Obama employed a tactic of asking college supporters to flood into Iowa at every opportunity, including to vote. Iowa may not be a state with a large black population, but that doesn't mean the black vote isn't important to Obama.

And, by the way, Ford said this, smiling slyly, trying to appear uncommited. But he's clearly backing Obama, based upon his continuing attempt to deflect the race issue and implicitly campaign for Obama's electability.

Then Wallace asked Ford if Obama's strong showing in red states was immaterial, because those would go Republican anyway. Again, Ford danced quickly, alleging, totally illogically, to paraphrase,

'I don't think so, Chris. The turnout on the Democratic side was high, so I think he'll do well in those states in a general election.'

Again, a non sequitor. The Democratic turnout has no bearing on whether a state's electorate, in general, will suddenly switch to blue from red.

With logic and reasoning like this, maybe it's easier to understand why Ford lost his Senate campaign.

Meanwhile, it borders on hysterical to watch the Democratic pundits recoil in horror, as the condition they so joyously celebrated among their Republican foes, a deadlock, has now been visited upon them until their convention.