Blogs and Stories
My Brush With Rush
How Limbaugh tried (and failed) to replace my dad.
Note: This article was first posted on October 27, 2008.
Let me say for the record, as I prepare to stab him with my pen-knife, that I like Rush Limbaugh.
After my father (WFB, Jr) died in February, Rush wrote me a condolence email that brought tears to my eyes. His pain at my father’s loss was genuine and deep. After Reagan, WFB was Rush Limbaugh’s great conservative hero. My father was also personally kind to him when he arrived in New York in the late 1980s and found himself being cold-shouldered by his bigfoot broadcasting brethren because of his Gotham-unfashionable conservative views. My father was personally fond of Rush, and after the Gingrich coup of 1994, National Review anointed him on its cover “The Leader of the Opposition.” They kept up socially. He visited WFB at our home in Stamford, Conn., and proudly showed off his $450,000 Maybach car. At any rate, I responded to Rush’s email in kind. I was greatly touched.
As Limbaugh's words were going out over the Excellence in Broadcasting network, my father’s corpse was still warm. As me old mater might say, I found them a bit…de trop.
A few days later, as I was planning WFB’s memorial service at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, I was approached by an intermediary, a big player in the vast right-wing conspiracy, with the suggestion (“Wouldn’t it be appropriate….”) that Rush should give the eulogy. I declined, partly on the grounds that Mother Church maintains that a mass is a sacrament and not a Friar’s Club roast. To enforce this, she sets a strict limitation on eulogies: a max of two. I had asked Henry Kissinger to give one, and had myself planned to give the other.
I am not generally a listener to day-time radio, but in the days following WFB’s death, a number of people mentioned having listened to Rush’s show that day. I’ve dug up the February 27 transcript:
CALLER: Long-time listener. It is my pleasure. When you began speaking about Mr. Buckley, my first thought was that you are now being passed the torch to continue that fight for conservatism.
RUSH: You think so?
CALLER: Yes, I do, sir. You are more important now to this fight than ever before.
RUSH: You're right.
CALLER: Yes. I know I'm right.
RUSH: One of the questions I always ask, "What would Bill say?" When I was stuck on an issue or an opinion, "What would Bill say? What would Bill think?" and I think Bill would probably thank you and say, "Yes, madam, you're very intelligent, very wise, and you're right."
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Lessons from Another War
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
It's Time for Us to Go
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
A Prize Too Far
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
...and to you Chritopher: Chritopher, I read William F. Buckley, Jr. William F. Buckley, Jr. was a favorite of mine. Chritopher, you're no William F. Buckley, Jr..............sad but true.
I find it near incomprehensible that any Buckley would find the intellectual black hole that is Rush Limbaugh, et alia, anything other than vile. Hate-porn is not argument. Foaming at the mouth is not reason. The radical right has gone beyond radical all the way to unreason. Truly. I find "these people" dangerous, small and mean-spirited, totally lacking in anything approaching "good humor" (the very thing, by the way, which made the illustrious Buckely senior so very compelling, interesting, and engaging), and devoid of substance.Rush Limbaugh peddles nothing but hate, hate, hate daily -- the more venomous and divisive, the better. The undistributed middle is the bait devious pseudo-intellectuals use relentlessly to trap the unwary.
There is no "heir" to the conservative world view; there is no credible conservative voice. There is only the brittle scream of poison and despair from the right; the sounds of confused and bitter children giving voice to a desperate desire to be noticed.
The so-called right (actually the radical, silly, unschooled right) is irrelevant. Given the absence of erudition, logic, reason, and skilled argument, they have only demonization as a strategy. And that is wearing a bit thin with the world.
Rush Limbaugh's bloated brayings are not in and of themselves frightening. The fact that anyone other than himself listens, is.
Rush Limbaugh in the same sentence as William F. Buckley? Nonsense.
Let's end in the blog-created tradition of misquoting Shakespeare"
Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens,
'Tis just the fashion.
Well, this is how Rush has been treating others--as well as encouraging others to treat others--for years.
BTW, I too was moved by BO's books and consider them one of the reasons he was able to best Ms. Clinton.
Thank you.
Could you would provide three examples of Barack Obama's "thinking clearly?" Your only constraint is this: the examples you provide may not be loser ideas...after all, even a loser idea can be expressed clearly.
Christopher Buckley is truly amazing. End of story.
After reading the brilliantly-written piece by CB, I read the first (and only comment)...THREE times in order to figure out what it meant. I still don;t know. If anyone can explain it, please do. I'll be checking back.
Christopher, as a left leaning usless liberal, I have always enjoyed your writing although seldom agreeing with it, except of course for your recent essays. Keep up the good work. Bon Voyage...
One comment about thinking clearly. We all know that the republicans have been in charge for 8 years with the exception of the last two when Dems had a slight majority in congress and could get nothing past "Shrub's" veto. I think Obama's thinking is pretty clear when he says we cannot have 4 more years of that. No matter what he does, it can't do as much harm as has been done the last 8 years. When a president walks over the constitution as Bush has, he should be impeached, but we Dems didn't have a enough majority to do it. Yes, Bill Clinton lied under oath, about something personal, Bush has lied and lied and lied about official stuff. That should be a far more an impeachable offense.
Good sir;
How about these three;
A ,a fifty state campaign.
B, a vice presidential selection that is superior to the GOP's I know that Sen. Biden will be fodder for comedians for years to come but also bring to the equation his service in the senate he will only augment Sen. Obama's agenda has LBJ did during the Kennedy years.
C, Private funding , now being a lowly Democrat born on the southside of Chicago I suspect that was very well thought out.
Omnia vincint amovr;
Mike Miller
Correction for CB (thank you, lorijen):
Could you provide three examples of Barack Obama "thinking clearly?" Your only constraint is this: the examples you provide may not be loser ideas...after all, even a loser idea can be expressed clearly.
Extra credit for lorijen: provide three examples of brilliance from the "brilliantly-written piece by CB. No constraints.
Great piece Chris. It astounds me that people like Limbaugh and Coulter even take on the mantle of 'conservative'. They're demagogues, nothing more. WJB was a conservative, an entirely different creature from these two
...and to you Christo: Christopher, I readWilliam F. Buckley, Jr. William F. Buckley, Jr. was a favorite of mine. Christopher, you're no William F. Buckley, Jr........sad, but true.
Mr. Miller.... I grade you "E" for effort.
A. "Fifty state campaign?" Obama is on record saying that there are 57 states. Bad example.
B. "a VP selection superior to the GOP's". Even you nullified this in your own post. Enough said
C. "Private funding..." Ok, this would have been a decent example had Obama's thinking been clear on the matter. In fact, he went back and forth on which way to go and finally swerved into private funding. at the eleventh hour. It was an advantageous choice, but his thinking was anything but clear.
The challenge stands.
It's interesting to note that a Republican campaign has been run on the notion that there is something "elitist" about superior intellect and to sneeringly refer to anyone with manners, good taste, class or (dare I use the word "breeding") as possibly not being a "real" American or Patriot. As though the use of slang or dropping the g's on your words and "gosh darn it" hanging out with "Joe Six Pack" was not just a cultural choice in a free society but a virtue and a rite of passage into this common society of " Real" Americans.(The ones I suppose who listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk) I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a VP candidate who chooses not to accept the science of evolution wouldn't believe that the progression of the human brain and consequentially, the advance of civil society is the greatest impetus towards human advancement that we have.(BTW-a sharp mind is one of the sexiest attributes any man or woman can have and bubble-headed Stepford wives went out of style after the fifties so what's the attraction with this caricature? I don't get it...)
As much as I respect the intellectual content of the old-style conservatism of William F. Buckley, et al, I don't see how that ideology can ever become dominant, given the fact that few members of the electorate actually understand it. And that makes necessary, an alliance with the Rush's, Hannity's, neo-cons, social-religious conservatives, libertarians. Can an amalgam be formed that would allow the old-style conservatives to recognize any meaningful element of their ideology? I hope not. But not to worry, Factor-watchers, you don't really need the old-time conservatives. In ordinary times, you probably have enough to be viable in appealing to the center-right leanings of the majority of the electorate. So, wait until the economic crisis is over. Much to my regret.
Dear Sir,
Nothing profound in my comment. A simple thanks ..about time someone countered Mr. Limbaugh from a position of eloquent strength.
In a world dominated by e-mail, texting, and (yes) blogging, true eloquence is rare. Indeed, eloquence in speech or writing is often considered a symptom of that most awful of American political sins: "being elitist". Over the past twenty years or so, the American conservative movement has become more and more anti-intellectual, preferring to nominate people who "ordinary Americans" (whoever they are) would "like to have a beer with." Small wonder, then, that many serious intellectuals (like both Mr. Buckleys and Mr. Will) feel disconnected from the "mainstream" of the GOP.
My students and I have been discussing Plutarch's Life of Pericles and we've come to the conclusion that the greatest of all the Athenian leaders would have *no* chance of getting elected in modern America. Because he never engaged in what Plutarch called "the vulgar and unscrupulous buffooneries of mob-oratory" that seem so prevalent today on both sides of the aisle, Pericles would be immediately tarred as an elitist by talk-radio and receive very little in the way of campaign donations...
Several conservatives have claimed that Mr. Obama's victory would be like Jimmy Carter's victory in 1976 in that it would pave the way for another Reagan. While I'm no fan of Reagan's policies, I do hope that a more serious GOP will emerge from the crucible of Campaign 2008.
I am having difficulty visualizing Charles Masson under glass.
Do not discourage the Limbaughs, Hannities, Bortzs, Levins, Savages and other members of the unintelligible right. They provide up to 15 hours per day, five days a week of reasons why Obama is ahead in the polls. With enemies like these, who needs friends?
(Forgive me Grantland Rice)
NJnoecker Goodsir;
"Outlined against a blue-gray October sky, the Four Horsemen rode again. In dramatic lore they are known as famine, pestilence, destruction and death. These are only aliases. Their real names are: Enamuel, Franken, Hagan and Tinklenberg. They formed the crest of the Democratic cyclone before which another before which another fighting GOP team was swept over the precipice at the voting box ............
I grade you S for stubborn , 57 states please!!!!! Mr. Emanuel will be speaker of the House and Michele Bachmann will be back in Minnesota feeling the sting of foot in mouth while Franken and Hagan will be sheparded by Joe Biden himself.
Will you need some Idione for this burn?
Warmest regards;
Mike
Rush L. is a right wing WACKO!! Rush L. is a right wing WACKO!! Rush L. is a right wing WACKO!! Rush L. is a right wing WACKO!! Rush L. is a right wing WACKO!!
I feel better now.... :-)
Great article, Mr. Buckley!
We now have it on Sarah Palin's unimpeachable authority that an elitist is someone who thinks he/she is better than you or I. What a relief!. I labored under the misconception that it was someone who wore clothes purchased at Neiman Marcus. Thanks Sarah for clearing that up.
For those wondering where Rush got the idea that General Powell based his endorsement of Obama on race, it came from the taxicab scene in the movie "The Thing with Two Heads." See the trailer on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWHNA_j7h5A.
njnoecker, I grade you L for laughable.
A. "Obama is on record saying that there are 57 states." John McCain is on record, several times, referring to Czechoslovakia. If you want to play the fun gaffe game, fire away. You'll lose. Badly.
B. "'a VP selection superior to the GOP's'. Even you nullified this in your own post. Enough said" - "Enough said"? Homerun!
C. "'Private funding...' Ok, this would have been a decent example had Obama's thinking been clear on the matter. In fact, he went back and forth on which way to go and finally swerved into private funding. at the eleventh hour. It was an advantageous choice, but his thinking was anything but clear."
McCain's record on campaign financing reeks just as bad as your laughable crap. McCain slammed the public financing system during the primaries, then opted in, then opted out, then opted back in (collecting $84 million in taxpayer funds). When McCain's above-bar behavior prompted the nation's top federal election official, a Republican, to warn McCain that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested to do so, McCain ignored the letter on the grounds the FEC lacks a quorum.After opting back in, McCain used the incoming funds as collateral for a loan. Then, after having opted out (still with me?), McCain asserted that his campaign didn't need the FEC's approval to withdraw from public financing. Those crazy federal regulators. This from the maverick reformer of campaign finance! McCain understands the campaign finance laws so well, he's abused them at a whole new level.
If you're able to honestly evaluate either candidate regarding public financing, the issue is whether they will pledge to pass an overhaul of the current system and whether they'd work to establish public financing for congressional races. Obama has stated he will, and has cosponsored bipartisan legislation to do so.
McCain has refused.
The challenge stands njnoecker. No constraints for you.
Extra credit for responding at all.
As an unabashed liberal, and a red-diaper baby, I disagreed with WFB Jr. on almost every issue.
But I had the highest respect for him, for insisting that the playing field should be that of ideas. And I respected him as well for maintaining a sharp sense of humor.
It is too bad that the new Conservative (capital C) orthodoxy of Limbaugh, Kristol, Palin, et al, are devoid of both ideas and humor.
Carry on Chris. Carry on.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.