(02-07-2011 09:48 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: Buckley was lukewarm on Goldwater for President, and that turned to outright hostility towards much of the rest of his tenure in the Senate.
I can't quite believe you have actually posted that sentence. It almost makes me wonder if you are getting Buckley confused with someone else. Anyway, the historical record is still so recent, so widely known, and so readily accessible through the internet and traditional media that I won't bother to refute it.
Quote:In came the social conservatives to **** up the Republican Party, to the cheers of Buckley and chagrin of Goldwater and myself.
First off, this is an entirely separate question from your original claim that William F. Buckley was "anti-Goldwater."
There is
Some truth to this comment, although it is quite exaggerrated with respect to Goldwater, who publicly accepted the support of Arizona Right to Life in both his 1974 and 1980 elections. Even though 1980 was a landslide year for the Republican Party in Arizona and across America, Goldwater himself just barely won his final term in office and the support of the "social conservatives" was crucial in pushing him over the finish line. But the larger reality here is that the "social conservatives" had always been supporting him since he emerged on the national stage in the late '50s. And he had never shied away from accepting their support and championing the issues that were important to them at that point in time. Obviously, abortion itself became a national issue only in 1973, after Goldwater's career was already well-established, but that's not the fault of either Goldwater or "social conservatives".
Quote:That went all the way up to the last major battle of Barry's career where he helped see Sandra Day O'Connor appointed to the Supreme Court. *Gasp* ... Sandra wasn't 100% pro-life from conception and hostile about it.
Again, we are getting rather far afield from the original "Buckley was anti-Goldwater" comment. But just for the record, O'Connor was confirmed by the Senate 99-0. All of the "social conservatives" (about 25-30, give or take) voted in her favor, with one (1) abstention. I do not honestly remember what public comment Buckley made about the O'Connor nomination, although unless someone can show me where he opposed it, I will remain convinced that he supported it.
Quote:The National Review didn't like O'Connor very much. Despite having a too narrow focus often, O'Connor was solidly with Rehnquist and Thomas in her votes most of her career.
Yes, O'Connor voted with the other conservatives on the SC "most of" the time. And accordingly, the National Review of that era (1981-2005) supported her jurisprudence "most of the time" as well.