SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Gore The Bore

THE PLANK MARCH 1, 2008

Gore The Bore

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Amidst all the nice encomiums about Bill Buckley given to the New York Times by both his liberal and conservative interlocutors, there was, predictably, this:

“I was never on his show,” Gore Vidal, with whom Mr. Buckley had a famous feud, said on Thursday. “I don’t like fascism much.”

He added: “I was one of the first people he asked. And, of course, I
refused to be on it. And, of course, he lied about it afterward.”

The "famous feud" in question occured during a live televised debate at the 1968 Democratic National Convention when Buckley called Vidal a "queer," (it ought be noted that Buckley was prompted in this utterance by Vidal's calling him a "crypto-Nazi" first). What was remarkable about the outburst was that it was so utterly uncharacteristic of Buckley, who never evinced such ad hominem hostility in speech or print before or since. It was an outburst that he forever regretted. Sam Tanenhaus, who's writing a biography of Buckley, wrote earlier this week that, "I can reiterate that in all the time I knew him, dating back
to 1990, I never once heard him speak disparagingly of anyone,
including Vidal." I lack Buckley's restraint, and will permit myself to observe that Vidal, true to form, remains a catty old bore.

--James Kirchick

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 60 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

60 comments

2 Gore bores:

Al and Vidal.

- basman

March 1, 2008 at 1:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jamie, some might say this is a catty post, and it is, but- to me, drunk right now, it has kind of a Vidal-esque flavor, and I approve.

Don't go around telling anyone, though.

- boneill

March 1, 2008 at 3:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jamie, dear friend, I just removed The Plank from my Reader.

- bendreyfuss

March 1, 2008 at 3:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jamie, dear friend, I just removed The Plank from my Reader.

- bendreyfuss

March 1, 2008 at 3:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gore Vidal is a great essayist Jamie, one of the best.  He's also many things, but boring has never been one of them.

Why use such a homophobic word to describe him? Because he isn't conservative?  No, even you aren't allowed - its still lazy and bigoted.  Mr. Buckley would frown - find a less boring word next time.

- Wandreycer1

March 1, 2008 at 6:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jamie, what do you do in TNR? Seriously, I'm curious.

- The Ignorant Populist

March 1, 2008 at 7:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

kirchick,

what this suggests is that your fidelity to anti bigotry is arguably fluid. Call someone whose politics you dislike a "queer" on tv and when you croak, Jamie the Generous will give you dispensation. However, if young Jamie doesn't like your politics and you even intimidate a bigoted thought, he's all over your ass.

Situational laddie, situational, and I am not surprised.

- thejauntyboulevardier

March 1, 2008 at 9:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Buckley may have been a nice man, but what about his ideas?  Have they been beneficial for the body politic and for American society?  Does anyone at TNR care to address the substance of Mr. Buckley's thought?

- Mozier

March 1, 2008 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not sure what all the hostility is about here. The incident described was forty years ago. It might have well been the dark ages. In a lifetime of otherwise decent behavior toward others, is Buckley not permitted a single lapse of judgment (that he appears to have regretted, if his biographer is to be believed)?

- BHLnyc

March 1, 2008 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BHL, I'm with you, except for this: Kirchick makes no such exceptions for people whose politics he disagrees with. Bill Buckley was an anti-antisemite, so if he calls someone a queer, that's OK. Charming, even. Gore Vidal is, shall we say, not a committed Zionist, so he is to be condemned for calling Buckley a fascist.

Over in the nuttier realms of the internet right, such as at The Corner, folks are gleefully remembering Buckley chiefly for the time he called on old liberal gassbag a queer and the time he threatened to punch another one in the face. I think Buckley would be aghast to have those moments singled out for celebration on his passing, and I think it tells us a great deal about Kirchick that he is essentially playing me-too with these people and their twisted "celebration" of Buckley's uncharacteristically belligerent moments.

On a serious note, though, it is refreshing to see Kirchick admit to lacking at least one of Buckley's virtues. It would be a useful exercise for him to reflect on the many other Buckley virtues he also lacks.

- rhubarbs

March 1, 2008 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, Rhubarbs. I admit that I was just viewing this incident -- and Kirchick's response to it  -- for what it is, detached from any larger context.

- BHLnyc

March 1, 2008 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I lack Buckley's restraint, and will permit myself to observe that Vidal, true to form, remains a catty old bore."

I love the "permit myself to observe" part, as if Kirchick is allowing himself a rare indulgence.  Is he aware of himself at all?  Doesn't he know that every single one of his posts is filled with the exact same tiring, trivial sniping?

- ejbenjamin

March 1, 2008 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've only been a TNR subscriber for about two years, but I think the place is going down hill, fast.

There's way too much Jamie posts, way too much. He did his secretarial duties well by digging out stuff in the library on Ron Paul but Jesus every post is just the childish ranting of a...I'm not even sure what.

That and the ongoing melodrama that is the Spine, takes up too much web space for TNR's good health. (Although, paradoxically, online live without The Spine would be...difficult.)

And finally, the endless, endless, endless Obamamania just goes on and on, and I'm a big Obama fan! Not to mention the Clinton hatred - I can barely read the Dish anymore with Sullivan's weird Clinton phobia.

There seems to be too much posting on what this writer said about that writer and too much focus on the horse race, instead of policy and approach. Case in point is Buckley. It's all about his style, grace, etc etc. There's nothing about his political philosophy and whether it was good for the country or the world.

Maybe, it's just me. Does anyone else feel the same?

- The Ignorant Populist

March 1, 2008 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Kirchick is an embarrassment and irritation to regular readers of this journal.  How the editors tolerate him is a mystery, but one would hope they would discourage posts like this.  After waiting hours to see my own comments posted here, a delay assumed to be necessary to prevent gratuitous nastiness, it is especially grating to see TNR publish Kirchick's mean-spirited name-calling.  

Neil

- purcellneil

March 1, 2008 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Obama support doesn't bother me, since I really have trouble thinking of anything nice to say about Clinton.  I imagine it's the same with the writers.  It does seem, though, that the TNR website has become exceedingly blog heavy, in that I hardly ever read anything else on the website.  I never even read the Spine, because I can always predict what Marty's gonna say.  I do find Kirchick sort of amusing, because he went to the same college (but a few years behind) as a friend of mine--that means Kirchick must be like 23 or so and yet his opinions are expressed on here like he's a world-worn expert or something.  

Not sure why you bring up Sullivan since his site is unrelated, but yeah, he's got an intense Clinton phobia--but he's always had it, I think, so that doesn't bother me much either.

- zacwbond

March 1, 2008 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iggy:

I've been reading TNR online since before there was a Plank. I'm a bit of a lurker, almost never post, but feel like I'm among family here. This is the first place I come whenever I'm at a computer.

It's certainly safe to say that we've been through ups and downs here, but I don't feel like we're anywhere near the lowest low right now. Look, this primary has got everyone all hot and bothered. I think a lot of the sniping can be attributed to that.

Despite the tone (and occasional flame war), I still come hear and read for the same reason I read anything... the writing is sharp, insightful and engrossing. And I'm just talking about the comments! Don't know what I'd do without the daily thoughts of you, Tep, Yard, Wadrey, Epi, Boneil, etc etc etc.

I love Kirchick's post if for no other reason than the anticipation of pages of juicy comments.

ericp

- epastoral

March 1, 2008 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good question Mozier.

I have another one. No one's mentioned chomsky, not a peep, why is that?

If curious as to why I ask, go here and watch:

youtube.com/watch

- mmathog

March 1, 2008 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It wouldn't be a day on the Plank without a poorly crafted attack by Jamie. How long will this go on before the editors send this guy packing. My magic eightball sees one of those National Review ships in JK's future.

- mpatrickhendri

March 1, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, stop the preciousness!  Vidal was calling Buckley a crypto-Nazi not once but repeatedly, and Buckley finally let loose. not only with the "queer" part but with the threat to punch him out.  Buckley was not a crypto-Nazi, so Vidal was slandering him on national television.  Vidal is here and queer, and, I must say, as evidenced by his churlish elegy to Buckley, still an asshole.  Buckley may have broken decorum, which I know he prized, but he was certainly not out of line.

That Kirchick's comment -- as right as it is -- is viewed by some as blasphemy against St. Vidal is just another reminder that indignation depends on whose ox is being Gored.

- jm_rice

March 1, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ignorant Pop I'm with you about 100%. I think the trick is to avoid the blogs which I've now concluded will be looked back at TNR's disastrous foray into the hip Internet community. There's never ever any news, precious little analysis and worst of all the comments (mine included, probably) which pretty much look like about the same dozen or twenty people yelling at each other, posturing, hurling (or trying to be seen as hurling) the devastating bon mot or withering aside.

And, of course, the ultimate red-convertible for the late middle aged, The Spine. (By the way Marty--on behalf of all Hillary supporters everywhere, I officially apologize for 2000, accept all responsiblity for Gore's inability to win his home state and agree everything was all Bill's fault. Ok? Now, genug already.)

Having said all that, some of the articles are still pretty good (long profiles especially) and many of the reviews are excellent, indeed representing some of the last long reviews around these days. And best of all you can download and print the magazine and thereby avoid the risk of being seen in public actually buying the thing.

- schrek2000

March 1, 2008 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gore Vidal is a great essayist Jamie, one of the best....

Gore is to the essay, what Liberace is to the piano--a minor talent suffused in a lot of flash, impressing readers as discerning as an audience of elderiy ladies with blue hair.

- basman

March 1, 2008 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Kirchuk,

Kudos on getting the most important quote on Mr. Buckley's Demise.  I have been looking for Mr. Vidal's response and wondered if he still held his grudge.  Looks like he does, still calling names even in death.

From my point Buckley was right and Vidal is still worng.  Esquire Magazine's Libel Settlements, point to a similar view from the US Justice System.

Buckley & Vidal are strong talented men with strong views who genuinely hated each other.  Men of excellent academic backgrounds and military service.  Maybe the last great men to argue that we will see in our lifetimes.

A little background into ther episode is interesting.  The term Crypto-Nazi seems to come from a common issue in 1968 of Racism.  The left was accusing anyone who disagreed with their civil rights agenda as a crypto-racist.  You were hiding your racism and should be dismissed.  Mr. Buckly was aware of this tactic.  It was also fashionalble to label anyone successful as a Nazi.  There was an inversion of the culture and many were comparing the US to Germany's militarism.

1968 was kind of a high point in the Left-Right debates.  From there it's been all down hill.

- CRS9TNR

March 1, 2008 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to correct myself, having gone just a tad overboard. A lot of the health care policy posts (Cohn's?) have been thoughtful and helpful. My bad.

- schrek2000

March 1, 2008 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Zac - I meant to point out that parts of TNR are starting to resemble The Dish as far as the primaries are concerned. I don't buy the theory that it's Clinton's fault; she's an average politician with the usual drawbacks and looks pathetic beside Obama at times but you'd swear she invented attack ads or rough politics the way some of TNR's writers go on.

Schrek - good point. I suppose I forget that there are four blogs on the site and they are after all blogs. It's such a pity that the new site has destroyed any debate on the main articles and so we are reduced to the childish rantings of Jamie and endless instant reaction and analysis of every tick and movement in the primaries. It's the equivalent of trying to make an investment decision based on a 5 minute chart. Sure, it's fun, at times and for the obsessed it's kinda cool but there are policy differences between Obama and Clinton and apart from healthcare I haven't seen much info on this site.

No real meaningful analysis on Obama's confusing Iraq policy?

He approved an awful lot of money for it in the Senate. Over 300 billion. No analysis of how he intends to pull out. We have to rely on Teplukhin for that. And other aspects: increasing troop numbers, ever shifting timelines for withdraw etc etc.

His votes with Republicans for class action reform?

Does anyone TNR reader know his voting record in the Senate? MOre importantly his votes with Republicans? Shouldn't this site be the place to pore over and analysis such votes? Like his vote against reform of the mining law that allows private companies screw the taxpayer? There's lots more examples I'm sure. (his support for ethanol, NAFTA, and the health care industry)

Why not a debate on Buckleys vision and how it was realized, if at all and whether he was proven right or wrong, etc etc.

Maybe, I missed a load of stuff on the above. But with time on my hands this weekend, I'm getting the answers to the above and other bigger questions from other sites.

Epastoral - I appreciate the sentiment but certainly wouldn't include myself in that group of Talkback titans.

Maybe, TNR could get back to us on when they are going to fix the comment sections on the main articles?

- The Ignorant Populist

March 1, 2008 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

schrek, after next weeks primary hopefully most of the nonsense will be done and we can go back posting snarky messages about some new Bush incompetence. I do think there are still a lot of other wonderfully funny threads, especially when Will Yard posts. I think the regular articles are the ones where everyone yells past each other (although this is mostly the ones relating to the campaign) there have been other articles, such as the one about Castro, that have had only a few postings about it. Personally, I find that far more noteworthy than Wilentz's opinion about race baiting or Chait's opinion about latte sipping.

I am looking forward to the end of this campaign. I still think there will be a tremendous amount of stupidity from both the Dems and Repubs. but not, I think, coming out of the Obama and McCain camps.

- blackton

March 1, 2008 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Forgot to mention his very radical FP rhetoric, which is going to come back to haunt him in the general. Barely a whimper over his hint at a new Cuban policy or other strong FP departures from the norm. Something that us European readers would be interested in reading about.

Then again, Clinton's a bitch isn't she?

- The Ignorant Populist

March 1, 2008 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iggy, I don't believe anything any of the candidates are promising that they will do after Jan. especially about Iraq. One, we have no idea what the situation will be then, two, each side is saying what their parties base wants to hear, and three, we all know what they want: Obama and Clinton want to leave, McCain wants to stay, but what they want now is almost irrelevant. January is a long way away, the army has to draw down soon, etc. We will have a far better idea of the reality later in the year, now for the 3 of them it is just their opinion. Bush is calling the shots (as far as our troops go, in Iraq proper nobody is)

The policy difference between Clinton and Obama become negligible because they each have to pass their program through congress, moreso with McCain (he is going to make Bush's tax cuts permanent? really? with a Dem congress?) so we just have ideology and personality right now.

And which Buckley vision are you talking about? In 1957 or 2007, to encapsulate his whole life in one thread is a bit much even for the most verbose of us.

- blackton

March 1, 2008 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FP rhetoric? English iggy please, not politicese.

- blackton

March 1, 2008 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry Black, Foreign Policy. But isn't McCain getting killed on this site for his comments on Iraq? Obama's voted for 300 billion for the war, he intends to increase troop numbers yet at the same time pull out. Pull out where? When? Yea, he's not going to serve it up yet, and I hope he doesn't as it will harm him. But TNR is here to try and tease out the options and his inclinations. I haven't seen much of ithat myself.

- The Ignorant Populist

March 1, 2008 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Didn't the term "crypto-Nazi" actually characterize Buckley's views pretty accurately at the time?  He clearly thought - again, at the time - that blacks were an inferior race, so how can you take issue with Vidal?  

Of course, some people never just never get over being called a queer.  Thanks goodness Jamie's around to point out these thin skinned losers.

- benberger

March 1, 2008 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iggy, I have no idea what to do now. Did you see where the executive of Iraq vetoes that recent bill for provincial elections? If you remember the Sunnis boycotted them years back, but now are itching to get involved in the process. This was a major setback and who knows where it will lead. This is why anything that anyone says about Iraq is suspect now because we are not Iraqis, ultimately it is up to them to work it out. We have 150,000 troops there and can't get them to budge politically.

Both Obama and McCain have their own ideas, but damned if I know now which is better. Can America afford another 4 or 8 years in Iraq too afraid to leave? Can we afford to leave having no idea of the consequences. Honestly, anyone who says they have the solution to Iraq is blowing smoke out of their ass.

And of course Obama had to vote to fund the war, to not do so would have been viewed as disloyal. That is the way it is in America. The one Penn. delegate to the Continental Congress who held out against independence (and was preventing the declaration being signed) after it was passed resigned the congress and joined the army under Washington. This is the way things are meant to be done in America.

- blackton

March 1, 2008 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eric Alterman pointed to a Sam Tanenhaus article in TNR:

-- Gradually, it became less Catholic than "Christian." But that was the limit of Buckley's ecumenicalism. In 1997, when he was scouring the ranks of talented younger conservatives to find a new editor for National Review, Buckley eliminated one prospect, his one time protege David Brooks, a rising star at The Weekly Standard. In a memo to board members, Buckley reported that he had discussed Brooks with NR alum George Will: "I said that I thought it would be wrong for the next editor to be other than a believing Christian. He agreed and added that the next editor should not be a Canadian"--a possible reference to conservative writer David Frum.

www.tnr.com/story_print.html

I guess Kirchick doesn't mind that Buckley didn't think a Jew should edit the National Review. I wonder if that puts him above or beliow Ron Paul on the ranking list of bigots.

- ndmackenzie

March 1, 2008 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gore Vidal, is ungracious to say the least, in this instance.  And deserves reprimand.  But, he is otherwise, rarely boring.

AL Gore, on the other hand... Now there the tag would stick.

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackie, I doubt Tuesday settles much (unless Clinton is swept) but whomever the ultimate candidate is (HRC v. BO) I think the whole idea of an elevated McCain/Obama debate in the general is hooey, and pro-Obama hooey to boot. I know it's being heavily promoted as a not so subtle promotion of Barack over the divisive and hateful Hilllary, but Obama and McCain are already tearing at each other ferociously and that will only continue and escalate. Throw in the toxic 527s (on both sides) and all the money that each side has to devote and this campaign will be as ugly or uglier that the others we've lived through.

I expect these boards to follow suit. And then there will be all the fights about a new administration, and then the off-years and the immediate posturing for '12 and then....All by way of saying it seems we're firmly in the era of the permanent campaign with running commentary by us, the  interested, the well-informed (sometimes), the self-important (usually) and the opinionated (always). I'll continue to read, throw in my two bytes worth from time to time, hope for the best and expect the worst.

Feel free to disagree. But if you do then f**k you, you whiny, stupid, right/left wing a**hole!!

- schrek2000

March 1, 2008 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey, how is the word "bore" homophobic?  I have to work hard to see how that might be the case.  Are you alluding the verb?

You do know, by the way, that words like "homophobic" are rapidly becoming quaint and risible vestige constructs from the 70s and 80s.  

A word that will soon enough, along with its sisters, "sexist," "lookist," etc be looked back at with considerable derision.

You are too bright to resort to such banality of thought.

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, IgnorantP, things are going downhill here.  You meant to say, "There are way to many Jamie posts."

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IgnorantP, that last was meant as a goodnatured tweak.  The thrust of your post was quite valid.

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

re purcellneil, "...After waiting hours to see my own comments posted here..."

Christ, what is it with the vetted posting here.  Some threads have it, some don't.  Some hold you up for a long time, others for just a bit.

The delay defeats much of the purpose of these threads which is to create a realtime dialog among the group.  

It worked superbly in the past.  There were very few abuses, and those who did abused were frozen out of the discussion.  

The editors could just as easily check in on the flow periodically and if somebody posts something truly offensive, then it can be removed.

But the truly offensive, as opposed to the occasionally abjectly dumb, has been rare at tnr.  We're big boys and girls.  We can handle it when some rare dumbass drops some doo doo.

Are the Canadian owners such prisses or so lawyer bound that they must cripple their own property?

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jokes on me.  I made a grammatical error in my own grammatical correction.  What a putz.  

For the record, meant "...way too many"

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

re Buckley's search for an editor, guess we now have to add anti-Canadian bias to the lists of wrongs the Feds must intervene to repress.

Those poor Canucks.

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

schrek, hah. I disagree that Obama and McCain are ripping each other apart, they are contrasting ideas. I feel absolutely no animosity yet between them. McCain threw Cunningham under the bus, rightfully so, for making the introductions about Cunningham and not McCain and for lacking decency. And Obama thanked him for it. A great start. Can you honestly imagine any of these third grade Rove tactics coming out of McCain or Obama's camp? I am not saying it will be goodness and light, but lord knows it is pathetic when a stupid picture becomes a controversy. And yes, the yahoos will come out in force, but the yahoos are not in the two campaigns. Even you have to admit Mark Penn is an asshole.

And notice how Obama said nothing about the NYTimes report recently, he didn't express concerns over the allegations or anything.

I could be wrong but I also can't imagine Obama smearing McCain like Bush did in 2000, with crap about illegitimate black babies, or being driven nuts by the Vietnamese.

Now you might say I am biased toward both candidates, but then so it the media. And why is this so?  Could it be that they are both more decent than Hillary and Bush, at least in how they campaign?

- blackton

March 1, 2008 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Channy, hah. you are a crotchety right wing old fart, but not a putz. But yeah, I caught that grammar mistake and thought you were making some kind of meta joke, but then I realize you don't even know what meta means.

- blackton

March 1, 2008 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jim, great defense of Buckley in how he was repeatedly baited by Gore into his outburst.  Which, I don't find entirely regrettable at all.

I disagree with Gore on most, but always enjoy reading and listening to his opinions.  However, he is plenty catty and nasty himself.  I doubt his feelings were in the least bruised at being characterized "queer".

Certainly in both senses of the word, proper and colloquial, it is not untrue.

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

well, I am off. enjoy your saturday people. There is a wide world full of sex and drugs and rock and roll out there, but since I am married the sex and drugs part is done with, and I am getting to old to rock and roll, so anyway, there is a wide world out there.

- blackton

March 1, 2008 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Schrek, it is yours that is the wining bon mot for today:  "... And, of course, the ultimate red-convertible for the late middle aged, The Spine."

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton, I appreciate your thoughtful post, first off. But I think everyone's information filters are frimly in place (mine too, to be clear) so that I would disagree. I've sensed that McCain and Clinton genuinely respect each other after all these years even though they disagree on, oh, pretty much everything. (And note the complete media pass he got for not rebuking the "beat the bitch" questioner in Florida compared with the shower of bouquets for properly busting out Cunningham.)

And I'm also guessing he views Obama as easy pickings in the general and I'm one who agrees, correctly or (hopefully) incorrectly.

I accept and subscribe to your description of the assholic Mr. Penn who in my view is simply Robert Shrum with the mother of all databases. But perhaps the cavalry has arrived in time with Mr. Ickes and Ms. Williams who love 'em or hate 'em know what the hell they're doing.

As to decency, I dunno, I think that's an eye of the beholder issue---those who know Hillary adore her from lifelong friends to totally dedicated staffers, whereas Obama's willingness to toss friends under the bus when convenient is well documented. So yes, she's a tough pol (as is completely true of Obama). But questioning how decent a person or campaigner she is I think asserts too much.

- schrek2000

March 1, 2008 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ChanRobt

I heartily disagree: the unAl Gore is in later incarnation is a bore of the first order, and he salts his fatuity with his unshakeable belief in his own profundity, when in fact he is low rent in every respect.

- basman

March 1, 2008 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Comparing Gore Vidal to Liberace...I love that, Itzik!   So right, on so many levels...

ChanRobt, I think the way it works here is that blog posting, which is for subscribers, is automatic.  Talklback, where anybody can post, is vetted.  And this means that on weekends, when staff is apparently out partying, your Talkback post will languish until Monday.

- jm_rice

March 1, 2008 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"in fact he is low rent in every respect."

That's over the top.  He may be a lot of things, but low rent is not one of them.

- jm_rice

March 1, 2008 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, wait, if by unAl Gore you mean Vidal, then I beg your pardon.  Thought you were saying Al is low rent.

I wonder if JK's choice of "bore" rather than boor was just to make it rhyme better, because I think "boor" would certainly distinguish cousin Gore from cousin Al (amongst other things).

- jm_rice

March 1, 2008 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Definitely referring to the non-Al.

- basman

March 1, 2008 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"meta" in this context, Blackie, means a post about a blog rather than about the subject matter at hand.

Pleased to enlighten you.

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, I think you must have misread me as we seem to agree violently.

I wrote in my first post of this string that "...AL Gore, on the other hand... Now there the tag [bore] would stick.

I've always thought that Al was one of the most enervating personalities on the planet.  Eight years of that man would have sucked the life juices out of every man, woman, and child in America.  And some in adjoining countries.

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jim, your tech explan sounds right, and thanks.  But, some on some threads the post shows up almost instantly as in days of old.  On other strings there is a delay of several minutes.  

At least for me.  Are they out to get me, or are they trying to kill everybody, Yossarian?

In any event, the several minute delay does at least sometimes mess up the lovely back and forth.

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 7:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I second Jim's kudos for Gore Vidal as the Liberace of essayists.  Very droll.

Oh, ok, now I get what you meant, basemen.  So, we do disagree.  I almost always found Vidal entertaining while entirely disagreeing.  But, as he is certainly predictable, I can see how one could easily not be amused by him after a while.  Even if you did agree with him.

- ChanRobt

March 1, 2008 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jamie, tsk, tsk,...letting your petticoat show in public again. You need to get a longer mirror.

Catty. indeed.

- tomeg

March 2, 2008 at 1:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chan, though we're supposed to be memorializing Buckley, since we're on Vidal I can't help remembering one insight of his that stuck:  Back in the "Evil Empire" days he was pooh-poohing the threat of a nuclear war.  "Look," he said, "the idea of a nuclear war is preposterous.  McDonalds won't allow it!"

Were it not for the jihadi wildcard, it would still obtain.  Multinational assets are too ubiquitous to allow for a great-power conflict.  And even the jihadis might relent if their Arab sponsors take advantage of the fire sale that's going on right now and end up owning half of America.  Same goes for China.  No one will go to war if everybody owns part of everybody else.  The triumph of socialism!  Hallelujah!

- jm_rice

March 2, 2008 at 1:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jim, you write, that setting aside the Jihadist types, "...Multinational assets are too ubiquitous to allow for a great-power conflict."

Well, maybe.  But, that's what they thought in 1913 when one could cross European borders without a passport, and in which trade among the industrialized nations was at a very high level.

- ChanRobt

March 2, 2008 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I gotta stand up for Al on this one.  Watching him on SNL or Futurama, (for that matter, at the White House Correspondents Dinner back in the day) guy is straight up hilarious.  Bore is not it.

- Crock1701

March 2, 2008 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Crock1701, noble attempt to protect the poor bastard.  But, truth is, anyone who goes on SNL as host comes off looking kind of cool.  Just because they were willing to place themselves in an irreverent, often self-mocking setting.

Bush, so reviled for his supposed idiocy, comes off pretty well at the Press Club Roast each year (whatever it's called).  For the same reason.

- ChanRobt

March 3, 2008 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close