SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/25/2008 5:24:17 PM
From: jrhana  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Yes, please, dear God do not make Hilary Secretary of State or Majority Leader. Surely the Democrats can offer someone both able and ethical for such posts of importance.

Hilary is free to serve as Dog Catcher, however.



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/25/2008 5:41:25 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Clinton-Obama battle takes toxic new turn

afp.google.com

WASHINGTON (AFP) — White House contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Monday hurled barbs over foreign policy and fought over an alleged anti-Obama smear, heading into do-or-die contests for the former first lady.

A day before a crucial debate in Ohio, Clinton used a speech here to portray her Democratic rival as a dangerous risk on foreign affairs, implying Obama would need a beginners' guide to the world's hot-spots if elected president.

Before the speech, an Obama aide had already said sound judgment was the most important presidential attribute, highlighting Clinton's Senate vote in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war.

The policy sparring came as a photograph emerged of Obama in African dress, at the start of the candidates' final week of campaigning before primaries in Ohio and Texas on March 4 that are must-win contests for the faltering Clinton.

Obama's campaign accused the Clinton camp of "shameful, offensive fear-mongering" after the picture of Obama dressed in a Somali robe and turban appeared on gossip website Drudge Report.

The picture of Obama, who is bidding to be the first African-American president, was taken during an emotional visit by the candidate to his father's homeland of Kenya in 2006.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the photo represented "exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world."

The website said the photo had been circulated by Clinton aides, a claim denied by her campaign, which said the Obama team should be "ashamed" for suggesting that the image could prove divisive in the hard-fought election.

"Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely," campaign manager Maggie Williams said.

"This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry," she said.

The two campaigns also crossed swords over trade, with Obama highlighting Clinton's past support for a North American pact passed by her husband's administration that many in Ohio blame for the loss of thousands of jobs.

With Obama basking in 11 nominating wins in a row, a new poll in Ohio cast doubt on Clinton's capacity to pull off the kind of emphatic victory she now needs to chase down Obama's lead in nominating delegates.

The Quinnipiac University survey showed Clinton leading 51 percent to 40 percent among likely Democratic primary voters -- down from her 55-34 percent lead in a poll by the same organization 11 days before.

"Senator Clinton's lead remains substantial, but the trend line should be worrisome for her in a state that even her husband, former president Bill Clinton, has said she must win," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"A week is an awful long time in politics to be playing defense."

A RealClearPolitics.com average of recent polls has the New York senator up nearly nine points in Ohio, where once she led by over 20 points. Texas polls meanwhile show a dead heat between the Democrats.

But Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said: "We feel very, very good about our prospects in both Texas and Ohio."

Battling to wrest back the initiative, Clinton said in her speech at George Washington University that unlike Obama, she did not "need a foreign policy instruction manual to guide me through a crisis."

Her voice cracking from the strain of non-stop campaigning, the New York senator took fresh aim at Obama's proposal for summit talks with sworn US foes such as Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

Obama aides shot back by accusing Clinton of joining a "neo-conservative drumbeat" for war with Iran.

"When we talk about experience, it is important to look at not only years on the seat but the substance of that experience," said Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice.

Pundits meanwhile sifted the fallout from consumer crusader Ralph Nader's announcement Sunday that he is again running for president.

Nader angrily denied that his candidacy might split the Democratic vote and hand the 2008 election to Senator John McCain, who is poised to win the Republican nomination.



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/25/2008 5:51:42 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Tsakopoulos split?

sfgate.com

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's biggest -- and most generous -- supporters in California has been Eleni Tsakopoulos Kounalakis, president of Sacramento-based AKT Development Corp., the firm headed by her father, major Dem donor Angelo Tsakopoulos.

But now a split in the powerful family has surfaced: Eleni's brother, Kyriakos Tsakopoulos, AKT's executive vice president and another Democratic political heavyweight, said Monday that -- inspired by California First Lady Maria Shriver's recent public endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama -- he has become a major fundraiser and backer in the Illinois Senator's finance council.

What's it mean? Tsakopoulos will be one of the 200 major national fundraisers for Senator Obama -- and has already participated in meetings of the council chaired by Penny Pritzker.

Tsakopolous, reached this afternoon, said he has long been an admirer and supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton. ''I love Hillary Clinton and she is a great public servant,'' he said.

''But this is not a choice about good and bad candidates. But Barack Obama has moved me...this is a great country and deserves a great president, and Barack Obama is the right leader at the right time for America.''

Asked about the public family split, Tsakopoulos said, ''I love and respect my sister, and she is also a person of conscience.''

Kyriakos Tsakopoulos has the connections to shake the money tree for Obama: he's a member of the Columbia University Board of Trustees, a trustee of California State University System, and sits on the board of the University of California at Davis M.I.N.D. Institute -- as well as being a California elector in the Electoral College in 2004 and 2008. He says his business partner Demetrios A. Boutris has also signed on to the Obama effort.

Posted By: Carla Marinucci | February 25 2008 at 12:20 PM



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/25/2008 6:02:31 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
A big-buck Democratic house divided

latimes.com

While Sacramento Valley developer Angelo Tsakopoulos and daughter Eleni ara backing Clinton, son Kyriakos will support Obama.

By Dan Morain,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 19, 2008

SACRAMENTO -- For the better part of two decades, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have counted on the support and money of the Tsakopoulos clan of the Sacramento Valley.

Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis is one of Sen. Clinton's most active fundraisers, having hosted numerous Northern California galas for her Democratic presidential campaign. Patriarch Angelo Tsakopoulos, a major Sacramento developer and one of the former president's early California backers, supports the New York senator as well.

But on Monday, Kyriakos Tsakopoulos, Angelo's son and Eleni's brother, said he was backing Democrat Barack Obama.

The lawyer and developer said he would fly to Chicago today to confer with Obama's campaign about how he could best help. He is offering to raise money for the Illinois senator.

Obama "will restore our credibility internationally," he said, adding that he came to the conclusion after this month's Los Angeles debate. He said California First Lady Maria Shriver's endorsement of Obama inspired him.

Tsakopoulos, 38, went out of his way to say the decision did not reflect any family schism. He called his father his "hero in business and public affairs." But he added that his father also taught him to follow his conscience.

"I love Hillary Clinton; she is a great public servant," the younger Tsakopoulos said. "This is not a choice about good and bad candidates. It is a choice of conscience. Barack Obama has moved me."

Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, 41, declined to comment. Her father could not be reached.

The family has donated and raised millions of dollars for Democrats in California and across the country.

They poured $10 million into an independent campaign in a failed attempt to help former state Treasurer Phil Angelides become governor in 2006.

Kyriakos Tsakopoulos has donated $225,000 to federal candidates and campaigns over the last decade, including $4,600 to Clinton's presidential campaign at the end of 2007, Federal Election Commission records show. He has spent at least $700,000 more on California politics since 2000, much of it going to Placer County, where he has development interests.

He was appointed to the California State University's Board of Trustees by then-Gov. Gray Davis -- a post he still holds. Tsakopoulos and his father, now 71, joined Davis in 1999 on a trade mission to Greece.

The elder Tsakopoulos was one of the major Democratic donors who slept in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House during the Clinton administration. He told the Washington Post that the stay "was the proudest day of my life."



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/25/2008 6:16:13 PM
From: Sr K  Respond to of 149317
 
I wouldn't be so sure Harry Reid keeps his ML position next January. Like many, including Charlie Rangel, he will have some "splainin'" to do.



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/26/2008 1:26:43 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Clive Crook, a Financial Times columnist in the US, has this interesting comparison of Obama and McCain...

ft.com

Hawk versus pragmatist

By Clive Crook

Published: February 24 2008 19:25

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is not over, but the US presidential election in November seems ever more likely to be between Barack Obama and John McCain. It would be a fascinating struggle and a quite different one from the nomination contests seen up to now. The issue of personality, which dominated the Democratic race from the start, would not disappear – nor should it – but it would subside and leave space for an overdue debate about policy. This shift may test Mr Obama, if he is indeed the nominee, more than he and other Democrats expect.

Mr McCain’s victory speech after the Potomac primaries entirely ignored Mrs Clinton. Without saying his name, Mr McCain attacked Mr Obama. “To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.” That was a Clintonesque line of attack, to be sure. And of course Mr McCain will emphasise his years of experience (he has more to boast of, quantitatively and qualitatively, than Mrs Clinton) and contrast that with Mr Obama’s callow youth. But whereas the Democratic contest was about nothing else – Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton disagree about almost nothing – the general election will turn on large, substantive questions.

Interestingly, Mr Obama and Mr McCain do agree about some big controversial things – more than you might expect, remembering that the first is a liberal Democrat and the second a conservative, albeit quirky, Republican. They agree about global warming, for instance, a huge change on the Republican side. Both are calling for a cap-and-trade system to curb emissions of greenhouse gases. In office, perhaps either would be pragmatic enough to consider instead a carbon tax, which would be more cost-effective, or failing that a cap-and-trade system modified to emulate a carbon tax. They should study the proposal of Warwick McKibbin and Peter Wilcoxen, which I discussed on this page on June 7.

They agree about Guantánamo (both want to close it); they agree about waterboarding (both call it torture and want it banned). They agree about immigration reform. It is a miracle of US politics that John McCain has the Republican nomination all but sewn up, despite the fact that he appalled much of his party last year by co-sponsoring (with Edward Kennedy) a plan to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. To appease popular opinion, Mr McCain is now stressing border security first, with more liberal regimes for legal immigrants and measures to normalise the status of illegal immigrants later. But so is Mr Obama. You cannot tell them apart on the subject.

This convergence is welcome, because on all four of these issues they are right. But their disagreement in other areas is stark. On national security, including Iraq, and on the government’s role in the economy, the distance between them could hardly be greater. On Iraq, both can plausibly claim to have been right all along – Mr Obama for opposing the war in principle, Mr McCain for demanding a much bigger initial commitment of resources. But Mr Obama now wants a speedy withdrawal, whereas Mr McCain has talked of a 100-year commitment if that is what it takes. The opportunities for triangulating a compromise from those starting points look limited.

Can Mr McCain convince US voters that “success” in Iraq is still achievable and that their safety depends on it? On the first, maybe. Arguably, as Mr McCain emphasises, the surge has worked. Mr Obama acknowledges as much (though in last week’s Democratic debate he called it a tactical success imposed on a strategic blunder: a good line). On the second question – will a heavy and indefinite commitment of forces in Iraq make the US safer? – Mr McCain faces a far more sceptical public. Much as Americans admire his patriotism and his grit, persuading them that this sacrifice is worthwhile will be extremely difficult.

On taxes and spending, the two men again have fundamentally opposed world views. Measured by his voting record in the Senate and his economic plan, Mr Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal. He is a pragmatist, not an ideologue – which makes him such a compelling politician – but his plans for health reform and other new outlays nonetheless call for big tax increases (going beyond merely allowing the Bush administration’s cuts to expire). He calls for new forms of industrial policy activism. As the campaign has progressed, he has become markedly anti-trade – attacking Mrs Clinton, for instance, for ever having favoured the North American Free Trade Agreement, while at the same time (and preposterously) calling for the US to support faster economic development south of the border.

Mr McCain is a small-government, fiscal conservative and a hawk on public spending. His proposals on healthcare focus on cost control – which makes sense – but fall far short of Mr Obama’s commitment to extend access and, ultimately, achieve universal coverage. He is unapologetically pro-trade. The priority he repeatedly emphasises is keeping taxes low.

Barring some national security emergency, health reform will be pivotal. It is hugely important in its own right and has enormous long-term fiscal implications. It crystallises the two men’s differences and the choice that confronts the US. Most Americans (not just the uninsured) want comprehensive health reform. But they are also suspicious of tax-and-spend politicians. The country’s instincts are sound on both points – but which is stronger?



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/27/2008 9:46:28 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
McCain's Approaching Storm

huffingtonpost.com

Posted February 27, 2008 | 09:21 AM (EST)

By Dylan Loewe*

When it first became clear that, despite insurmountable odds, John McCain would be the Republican nominee, most saw a number of advantages for the Senator. While Obama and Clinton continued in battle, McCain would have time to court his base, develop a national campaign strategy, and appear presidential, traveling overseas whenever possible.

The first few weeks of that plan, however, have not gone accordingly. While the Democratic race continues to dominate headlines and news cycles, Senator McCain's presence in the media has been limited to five subjects: the weary road he must walk to unify the rightwing of his party behind him; the surprising difficulty with which he has mustered victories against Mike Huckabee, despite his nomination being assured; that he has a temper, often using profane language in Senate chambers; that the lobbyists running his campaign actually do business on the Straight Talk Express; and most recently, that he may have used his chairmanship to do favors for an attractive, blonde lobbyist.

For McCain, the storm is fast approaching.

The Senator has also encountered another problem, one that speaks to a steeper obstacle and magnifies the core of his weakness: despite objections from the Federal Election Commission, McCain is withdrawing from the public matching funds program.

By December of 2007, John McCain had already received a $3 million bank loan to finance his floundering campaign. When he returned to the bank for another $1 million, he needed collateral. Having already taken out a life insurance policy to secure the first loan, McCain secured the second with a pledge to accept federal matching funds, and to stay in the race long enough to receive them. Entering the matching funds system meant accepting a spending cap in exchange for public money.

But primary matching funds is truly a terrible system. The cap is woefully low - this year about $50 million - putting any candidate who accepts it at an enormous financial disadvantage. And because the primary doesn't legally end until the nominating convention, the money must last beyond beating one's opponent. It must last until September.

These considerations, however stark, were risks McCain had to take in December. Already deep in the red, McCain pledged to accept matching funds, almost immediately receiving benefits. His name was automatically placed on a number of state ballots, a process that would otherwise have required signatures.

Now that he is the presumptive nominee, he is determined to renege on his pledge to the federal government, despite having already benefitted. By now he has likely exceeded the $50 million spending cap; if held to his commitment, he would be unable to spend another dollar before his nomination. Complicating matters, the FEC is requiring McCain to get approval from its six member body to withdraw, an impossibility given four vacancies on the commission - a lack of quorum with no end in sight. McCain has said he doesn't need FEC permission to exit the system, while the DNC has filed formal complaint to ensure he cannot.

Ultimately, McCain will refuse matching funds, regardless of the FEC's proclamations. Doing otherwise would be tantamount to conceding the election. But he will not do so without consequence. The coming days will wound him and those wounds will surely fester.

Senator McCain has built his narrative, brick by brick, on his honesty and integrity. But in the wake of his campaign finance flap, as that façade begins to crumble, he must confront a two front war. To independents and moderates, he will have to reestablish his credibility as an honest advocate for clean government, his stance on campaign finance growing wobbly by the minute. Doing so will no doubt infuriate those on the right, where opponents to campaign finance reform are among those most reluctant to back the Senator.

McCain's failure to unify his party during the primary will carry enormous implications, beginning here. His maverick persona, embraced by the center, is deeply despised by his base. When speaking to moderates, he will alienate the right. When speaking to the right, moderates will grow weary. For McCain, whenever an issue emerges that divides those constituencies, his hands will surely be tied. Unable to fight on two fronts, his army stretched thin, the campaign will falter, then fail.
__________________________________________

*Formerly the Executive Director of a multi-state anti-war ballot initiative campaign, Dylan Loewe is the Editor of Loewe Political Report. He is currently pursuing a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a law degree from Columbia Law School. dylanloewe.com



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/27/2008 7:09:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
William F. Buckley Jr. Is Dead at 82
_______________________________________________________

By DOUGLAS MARTIN
The New York Times
February 27, 2008

William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Conn.

Mr Buckley, 82, suffered from diabetes and emphysema, his son Christopher said, although the exact cause of death was not immediately known. He was found at his desk in the study of his home, his son said. “He might have been working on a column,” Mr. Buckley said.

Mr. Buckley’s winningly capricious personality, replete with ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare with an anteater’s, hosted one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine National Review.

He also found time to write at least 55 books, ranging from sailing odysseys to spy novels to celebrations of his own dashing daily life, and to edit five more. His political novel “The Rake” was published last August, and a book looking back at the National Review’s history in November; a personal memoir of Barry Goldwater is due to be publication in April, and Mr. Buckley was working on a similar book about Ronald Reagan for release in the fall.

The more than 4.5 million words of his 5,600 biweekly newspaper columns, “On the Right,” would fill 45 more medium-sized books.

Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism, but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal post-World War II America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964, and saw his dreams fulfilled when Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.

To Mr. Buckley’s enormous delight, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the historian, termed him “the scourge of liberalism.”

In remarks at National Review’s 30th anniversary in 1985, President Reagan joked that he picked up his first issue of the magazine in a plain brown wrapper and still anxiously awaited his biweekly edition — “without the wrapper.”

“You didn’t just part the Red Sea — you rolled it back, dried it up and left exposed, for all the world to see, the naked desert that is statism,” Mr. Reagan said.

“And then, as if that weren’t enough,” the president continued, “you gave the world something different, something in its weariness it desperately needed, the sound of laughter and the sight of the rich, green uplands of freedom.”

The liberal advance had begun with the New Deal, and so accelerated in the next generation that Lionel Trilling, one of America’s leading intellectuals, wrote in 1950: “In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”

Mr. Buckley declared war on this liberal order, beginning with his blistering assault on Yale as a traitorous den of atheistic collectivism immediately after his graduation (with honors) from the university.

“All great biblical stories begin with Genesis,” George Will wrote in the National Review in 1980. “And before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley with a spark in his mind, and the spark in 1980 has become a conflagration.”

Mr. Buckley weaved the tapestry of what became the new American conservatism from libertarian writers like Max Eastman, free market economists like Milton Friedman, traditionalist scholars like Russell Kirk and anti-Communist writers like Whittaker Chambers. But the persuasiveness of his argument hinged not on these perhaps arcane sources, but on his own tightly argued case for a conservatism based on the national interest and a higher morality.

His most receptive audience became young conservatives first energized by Barry Goldwater’s emergence at the Republican convention in 1960 as the right-wing alternative to Nixon. Some met in Sept., 1960, at Mr. Buckley’s Connecticut estate to form Young Americans for Freedom. Their numbers — and influence — grew.

Nicholas Lemann observed in Washington Monthly in 1988 that during the Reagan administration “the 5,000 middle-level officials, journalists and policy intellectuals that it takes to run a government” were “deeply influenced by Buckley’s example.” He suggested that neither moderate Washington insiders nor “Ed Meese-style provincial conservatives” could have pulled off the Reagan tax cut and other reforms.

Speaking of the true believers, Mr. Lemann continued, “Some of these people had been personally groomed by Buckley, and most of the rest saw him as a role model.”

Mr. Buckley rose to prominence with a generation of talented writers fascinated by political themes, names like Mailer, Capote, Vidal, Styron and Baldwin. Like the others, he attracted controversy like a magnet. Even conservatives — from members of the John Birch Society to disciples of conservative author Ayn Rand to George Wallace to moderate Republicans — frequently pounced on him.

Many of varied political stripes came to see his life as something of an art form — from racing through city streets on a motorcycle to a quixotic campaign for mayor of New York in 1965 to startling opinions like favoring the decriminalization of marijuana. He was often described as liberals’ favorite conservative, particularly after suavely hosting an adaptation of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited” on public television in 1982.

Norman Mailer may indeed have dismissed Mr. Buckley as a “second-rate intellect incapable of entertaining two serious thoughts in a row,” but he could not help admiring his stage presence.

“No other act can project simultaneous hints that he is in the act of playing Commodore of the Yacht Club, Joseph Goebbels, Robert Mitchum, Maverick, Savonarola, the nice prep school kid next door, and the snows of yesteryear,” Mr. Mailer said in an interview with Harpers in 1967.

Mr. Buckley’s vocabulary, sparkling with phrases from distant eras and described in newspaper and magazine profiles as sesquipedalian (characterized by the use of long words) became the stuff of legend. Less kind commentators called him “pleonastic” (use of more words than necessary).

And, inescapably, there was that aurora of pure mischief. In 1985, David Remnick, writing in The Washington Post, said, “He has the eyes of a child who has just displayed a horrid use for the microwave oven and the family cat.”

William Francis Buckley Jr., was born in Manhattan on Nov. 24, 1925, the sixth of the 10 children of Aloise Steiner Buckley and William Frank Buckley. (His parents intended to name him William Frank Buckley Jr., but the priest who christened him insisted Frank was out because there is no Saint Frank. But when Bill Jr. was 5, he insisted on switching to Frank and became Jr. at that point.)

The elder Mr. Buckley made a fortune in the oil fields of Mexico, and educated his children with personal tutors at Great Elm, the family estate in Sharon, Conn. They also attended exclusive Roman Catholic schools in England and France.

Young William absorbed his family’s conservatism along with its deep Catholicism. At 6, he wrote the King of England demanding he repay his country’s war debt. At 14, he followed his brothers to the Millbrook School, a preparatory school 15 miles across the New York state line from Sharon.

In his spare time at Millbrook, young Bill typed schoolmates’ papers for them, charging $1 a paper, with a 25-cent surcharge for correcting the grammar.

He did not neglect politics, showing up uninvited to a faculty meeting to complain about a teacher abridging his right to free speech and ardently opposing United States’ involvement in World War II. His father wrote him to suggest he “learn to be more moderate in the expression of your views.”

He graduated from Millbrook in 1943, then spent a half a year at the University of Mexico studying Spanish, which had been his first language. He served in the Army from 1944 to 1946, and managed to make second lieutenant after first putting colleagues off with his mannerisms.

“I think the army experience did something to Bill,” his sister, Patricia, told John B. Judis for his 1988 biography, “William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint Of the Conservative.” “He got to understand people more.”

Mr. Buckley then entered Yale where he studied political science, economics and history; established himself as a fearsome debater; was elected chairman of the Yale Daily News, and joined Skull and Bones, the most prestigious secret society.

As a senior, he was given the honor of delivering the speech for Yale’s Alumni Day celebration, but was replaced after the university’s administration objected to his strong attacks on the university. He responded by writing his critique in the book that brought him to national attention, in part because he gave the publisher, Regnery, $10,000 to advertise it.

Published in 1951, “God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of ‘Academic Freedom,’” charged the powers at Yale with having an atheistic and collectivist bent and called for the firing of faculty members who advocated values not in accord with those that the institution should be upholding — which was to say, his own.

Among the avalanche of negative reviews, the one in Atlantic by McGeorge Bundy, a Yale graduate, was conspicuous. He found the book “dishonest in its use of facts, false in its theory, and a discredit to its author.”

But Peter Viereck, writing in The New York Times Sunday Book Review viewed the book as “a necessary counterbalance.”

After a year in the Central Intelligence Agency in Mexico City (his case officer was E. Howard Hunt, who went on to win celebrity for his part in the Watergate break-in), Mr. Buckley went to work for the American Mercury magazine, but resigned after spotting anti-Semitic tendencies in the magazine.

Over the next few years, Mr. Buckley worked as a freelance writer and lecturer, and wrote a second book with L. Brent Bozell, his brother-in-law. Published in 1954, “McCarthy and His Enemies” was a sturdy defense of the senator from Wisconsin who was then in the throes of his campaign against communists, liberals and the Democratic Party.

In 1955, Mr. Buckley started National Review as voice for “the disciples of truth, who defend the organic moral order” with a $100,000 gift from his father. The first issue, which came out in November, claimed the publication “stands athwart history yelling Stop.”

It proved it by lining up squarely behind Southern segregationists, saying blacks should be denied the vote. After some conservatives objected, Mr. Buckley suggested instead that both uneducated whites and blacks should not be allowed to vote.

Mr. Buckley did not accord automatic support to Republicans, starting with Eisenhower’s campaign for re-election in 1956. National Review’s tepid endorsement: “We prefer Ike.”

Circulation increased from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 at the time of Goldwater’s candidacy in 1964, and leveled off to around 100,000 in 1980. It is now 155,000. The magazine has always had to be subsidized by readers’ donations.

Along with offering a forum to big-gun conservatives like Russell Kirk, James Burnham and Robert Nisbet, National Review cultivated the career of several younger writers, including Garry Wills, Joan Didion and John Leonard, who would shake off the conservative attachment and go their leftward ways.

National Review also helped define the conservative movement by isolating cranks from Mr. Buckley’s chosen mainstream.

“Bill was responsible for rejecting the John Birch Society and the other kooks who passed off anti-Semitism or some such as conservatism,” Hugh Kenner, a biographer of Ezra Pound and a frequent contributor to National Review told The Washington Post. “Without Bill — if he had decided to become an academic or a businessman or something else — without him, there probably would be no respectable conservative movement in this country.”

Mr. Buckley’s personal visibility was magnified by his “Firing Line” program which ran from 1966 to 1999. First carried on WOR-TV and then on the Public Broadcasting Service, it became the longest running show hosted by a single host — beating out Johnny Carson by three years. He led the conservative team in 1,504 debates on topics like “Resolved: The women’s movement has been disastrous.”

There were exchanges on foreign policy with the likes of Norman Thomas; feminism with Germaine Greer and race relations with James Baldwin. Not a few viewers thought Mr. Buckley’s toothy grin before he scored a point resembled nothing so much as a switchblade.

To New York City politician Mark Green, he purred, “You’ve been on the show close to 100 times over the years. Tell me, Mark, have you learned anything yet.”

But Harold Macmillan, former prime minister of Britain, flummoxed the master. “Isn’t this show over yet?” he asked.

At age 50, Mr. Buckley added two pursuits to his repertoire — he took up the harpsichord and became novelist. Some 10 of the novels are spy tales starring Blackford Oakes, who fights for the American way and bedded the Queen of England in the first book.

Others of his books included a historical novel with Elvis Presley as a significant character, another starring Fidel Castro, a reasoned critique of anti-Semitism, and journals that more than succeeded dramatizing a life of taste and wealth — his own. For example, in “Cruising Speed: A Documentary,” published in 1971, he discussed the kind of meals he liked to eat.

“Rawle could give us anything, beginning with lobster Newburgh and ending with Baked Alaska,” he wrote. “We settle on a fish chowder, of which he is surely the supreme practitioner, and cheese and bacon sandwiches, grilled, with a most prickly Riesling picked up at St. Barts for peanuts,” he wrote.

Mr. Buckley’s spirit of fun was apparent in his 1965 campaign for mayor of New York on the ticket of the Conservative Party. When asked what he would do if he won, he answered, “Demand a recount.” He got 13.4 percent of the vote.

For Murray Kempton, one of his many friends on the left, the Buckley press conference style called up “an Edwardian resident commissioner reading aloud the 39 articles of the Anglican establishment to a conscript of assembled Zulus.”

Unlike his brother James who served as a United States senator from New York, Mr. Buckley generally avoided official government posts. He did serve from 1969 to 1972 as a presidential appointee to the National Advisory Commission on Information, and as a member of the United States delegation to the United Nations in 1973.

The merits of the argument aside, Mr. Buckley irrevocably proved that his brand of candor did not lend itself to public life when an Op-Ed article he wrote for The New York Times offered a partial cure for the AIDS epidemic: “Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm to prevent common needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of homosexuals,” he wrote.

In his last years, as honors like the Presidential Medal of Freedom came his way, Mr. Buckley gradually loosened his grip on his intellectual empire. In 1998, he ended his frenetic schedule of public speeches (some 70 a year over 40 years, he once estimated). In 1999, he stopped “Firing Line,” and in 2004, he relinquished his voting stock in National Review. He wrote his last spy novel the 11th in his series), sold his sailboat and stopped playing the harpsichord publicly.

But he began a new historical novel and kept up his columns, including one on the “bewitching power” of “The Sopranos” television series. He commanded wide attention by criticizing the Iraq war as a failure.

On April 15, 2007, his wife, the former Patricia Alden Austin Taylor, who had carved out a formidable reputation as a socialite and philanthropist but considered her role as a homemaker, mother and wife most important, died. Mr. and Mrs. Buckley called each other “Ducky.”

He is survived by his son, Christopher, of Washington, D.C.; his sisters Priscilla L. Buckley, of Sharon, Conn., Patricia Buckley Bozell, of Washington, D.C., and Carol Buckley, of Columbia, S.C.; his brothers James L., of Sharon, and F. Reid, of Camden, S.C., a granddaughter and a grandson

In the end it was Mr. Buckley’s graceful, often self-deprecating wit that endeared him to others. In his spy novel “Who’s on First,” he described the possible impact of his National Review through his character Boris Bolgin.

“ ‘Do you ever read the National Review, Jozsef?’ asks Boris Bolgin, the chief of KGB counter intelligence for Western Europe, ‘it is edited by this young bourgeois fanatic.’ ”



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/27/2008 11:16:52 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Bloomberg Says He Won’t Run but Will Be Active
_______________________________________________________________

By DIANE CARDWELL
The New York Times
February 28, 2008

Bringing an end to a long flirtation with a bid for the White House, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has officially closed the door on a presidential candidacy.

In an Op-Ed article published in Thursday’s New York Times, Mr. Bloomberg wrote that he still believed that a nonpartisan approach is needed to solve the country’s problems and that an independent candidate can win. But he will not run, he said.

“I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.”

In a switch, the mayor said that if one of the candidates offered a practical approach and challenged party orthodoxy, he would work to help elect that person.

“And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."

Mr. Bloomberg’s explanation for his decision came after months of careful denials that he was a candidate despite the elaborate behind-the-scenes effort to build the infrastructure of a campaign. Aides, under the guidance of Mr. Bloomberg’s political deputy, Kevin Sheekey, researched getting on the ballot in all 50 states, tested the mayor’s appeal across the country and made alliances from coast to coast.

During the past two years, Mr. Bloomberg has seemed to delight in the political parlor game of whether he would run, talking up the notion at dinner parties and telling reporters it was flattering and helped him to draw attention to issues important to the city. The added prominence also kept his lame-duck status at bay, increasing his leverage over elected officials who might have otherwise been unwilling to bow to his wishes since term limits will force him from office in 2009.

But the political classes began to tire of the mixed signals and the presidential campaign solidified around candidates who could appeal to the centrist, independent-minded voters a Bloomberg candidacy would need, including John McCain, a Republican, and Barack Obama, a Democrat.



To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (10933)2/29/2008 4:52:51 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Barack Obama at TED

huffingtonpost.com