* Point being, the critics *had* their opportunity to confront him while he was living. If they couldn't get the better of him then, trying to rehash old arguments after the opponent is gone is sour grapes.
* If you're going to argue that his skill at writing and arguing didn't make him right, well, to steal a meme from another thread on Buckley, most of the same things could be said of Molly Ivins. They're actually pretty good mirror images of one another.
* Public debate formats such as WFB engaged in on "Firing Line" and via National Review aren't known for "cooperation, compromise, creativity and sacrifice"; that's left to the legislators to work out afterwards. I've run across two seperatetestimonials that WFB was known for consistent graciousness with his opponents while still disagreeing with them (which is more than I can say for the dance-on-his-grave critics that I criticized in my original post).
* On the rest, I think your obvious dislike of the current administration is somewhat twisting your perspective on WFB's actual influence (and illustrating, I think, the need for historical distance to squeeze the emotion out before an accurate analysis can be made). Buckley disagreed with a lot of what has gone on, and said so - most notably on Iraq, but hardly the only example. He was not a "neocon", insofar as that term has any meaning anymore.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-03-02 02:41 am (UTC)* If you're going to argue that his skill at writing and arguing didn't make him right, well, to steal a meme from another thread on Buckley, most of the same things could be said of Molly Ivins. They're actually pretty good mirror images of one another.
* Public debate formats such as WFB engaged in on "Firing Line" and via National Review aren't known for "cooperation, compromise, creativity and sacrifice"; that's left to the legislators to work out afterwards. I've run across two seperate testimonials that WFB was known for consistent graciousness with his opponents while still disagreeing with them (which is more than I can say for the dance-on-his-grave critics that I criticized in my original post).
* On the rest, I think your obvious dislike of the current administration is somewhat twisting your perspective on WFB's actual influence (and illustrating, I think, the need for historical distance to squeeze the emotion out before an accurate analysis can be made). Buckley disagreed with a lot of what has gone on, and said so - most notably on Iraq, but hardly the only example. He was not a "neocon", insofar as that term has any meaning anymore.