1. That Buckley embraced segregation (which was wrong), but then supported desegration which was also wrong? Or are you suggesting that segregation was correct? I am confused. Buckley’s objections to Brown had more to do with his concerns about imposing on the nation a social contruct it was not yet ready to endurse or confront. That is a traditionally conservative notion, and one that even liberal scholars such as Bickel and Jeffrey Rosen have discussed. You inflame situations when you move to precipitously. But Buckley has simply reconciled himself to the fact that the injustices done to African Americans needed to be corrected and that all in all the civil rights movement did much good for the nation.
2. His alignment with neoconservatives is a fair observation. As a traditional conservative, I don’t disggree that NR has become more corporate in its approach and less eclectic. See my review of Jeffrey Hart’s history on this site. On the other hand, I think Buckley has shown more loyalty to old friends than many of them have shown to him. Joe Sobran, whom I met and had dinner with once, echoed some of the same comments. And Sam Francis was a good friend of Joe’s. But Joe and Sam, right or wrong, were out of step with at least some aspects of the conservative movement under Reagan. No crime in that, but I don’t think Buckley has strayed as far as Gottfried suggests. Note the comments he made in the article above.
3. Yes, Buckley was a social butterfly, and perhaps even cultivated this aspect more than some of us agraian and traditional conservatives might like. He is an urbane man who enjoys interaction — to quote Ali, he — intellectually speaking — floated like a butterfly, but stung like a bee. But that very nature is also what neabled him to bring conservatism into the mainstream, which helped propel Reagan to the presidency, which helped bring communism to an abrupt end.
4. I think some of the old line guys resented Buckely simply because he was having too much fun being the gadfly many of them simply could not be……but hey, just one guy’s point of view.

In the history of the NR there have been only three editors-at-large: Buckley, O’Sullivan, and Goldberg. The fact that Buckley would allow a dolt like Goldberg to be an editor-at-large only demonstrates further the decline: how the NR has become a watered-down neocon rag.

For those of you not familiar with Goldberg’s inept skills, here are but two recent examples of Goldberg’s ignorance:

Goldberg has no clue about Montenegrin:

http://larison.org/archives/001094.php

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/rockfordfiles.cgi/Sweet%20Neocon/The_Invincible_Igno.writeback

Goldberg on ‘nationalism’ & ‘patriotism’:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/rockfordfiles.cgi/Sweet%20Neocon/The_Invincible_Igno_2.writeback

http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/050224_sam.htm

However, there really are smart conservatives out there, like Lou Dobbs, Thomas Fleming, Chilton Williamson, Clyde Wilson, Roger Scruton, etc.

It is shame that people waste their time with knaves like Limbaugh or Buckley.

The first two points mentioned for not supporting the war at this time, I believe, are erroneous, thought the last two points I totally agree with. Weapons, or the components of weapons of mass destruction, have been uncovered in Iraq. And although each life lost is painful to our nation, the casualties pale in comparison to other wars, and are more in line with the casualties on the streets of some of the nations largest cities. However, what has become apparent is that bringing democracy to nations whose cultures are inherently opposed has proven to be a pipe dream of the west. Those casualties are definitely harder to swallow as a result.

President Bush ran on a conservative platform. Domestically, he has done nothing but back-stabbed his base from the beginning. Wars are fought for purposes of politics now, not to win, and the Iraq War is no exception. What is ironic to me is how Democrats and liberals despise Bush so much, and yet he is their republican dream-come-true.

Limbaugh has become a republican hack. I have quit listening to him, since the Dubai ports issue. I came to realize that he had become a one-man cheering squad for Bush.

It is truly unfortunate that no true conservative leadership that exists today has come to the forefront of the republican party. This party has blown their chance to bring America back to its roots of freedom.

As Russell Kirk said, the authentic conservative position is to follow Aristotle and realize that different forms of government are better suited for different cultures.

The Wilsonian conversion of the Middle East is historically Leftist, naive, and undesirable.