From the comments section:
qz65m0 July 13th, 2007 5:46 pm
"...First, let me say that I am a Dennis Kucinich progressive.Nonetheless,William Buckley is assuredly one of the most brilliant minds that ever discussed politics. You don’t have to agree with him (and I often don’t) to see that he has an uncanny ability to make a point.Try reading some of his stuff.Oh, and by the way,many thoughtful Republicans didn’t support the Iraq invasion….Pat Buchanan, Bill Buckley,etc.Don’t take this as an apology for the lunatic right wing now in power; I’m only sayingthat not all conservative thought is poisonous nonsense.John from Portland OR
ChristIsntComingBack July 13th, 2007 6:00 pm
“not all conservative thought is poisonous nonsense.”
That’s right John, but ALL neo-conservative talk IS nonsense."
ol wobbly July 14th, 2007 3:41 pm
Folks, it’s all very simple. They’re not another breed, another species of animal. They are simply animals, protecting their animal rights. In one simple word — greed. They know nothing except what their greed-soaked minds want them to know. As the old Marines used to say — Semper Fi, Mac — meaning, I got mine and f–k you. I use dashes in this word because I am new to this blog and don’t want to offend the offendable.
Franklin Carter July 15th, 2007 1:15 pm
Johann Hari’s account of his sea voyage with 500 subscribers to The National Review is quite entertaining. But if you booked a cruise on another ship for 500 subscribers to The Nation and sent along a conservative journalist to record the conversation, I’m sure the resulting story would be filled with ridiculous left-wing quips and similar examples of groupthink. / People can dismiss The National Review as the mouthpiece of America’s ruling class; they can dismiss the journalists’ opinions as partisan or misleading. But they cannot honestly dismiss The National Review as the product of illiterate or uneducated people. It is a well-written and well-edited journal. After reading Johann Hari’s story, I think the real mystery is why so many subscribers to The National Review talk like unsophisticated high school drop-outs. Don’t they actually read the magazine?