On Chris Buckley

Chris Buckley's article endorsing Barack Obama has certainly roused some anger.  I am not angry, however, I find his arguments ridiculous.

Let me summarize:

1. Chris Buckley claims he is true conservative because of who is father was, and therefore his endorsement represents "A Conservative Case for Obama".  However, while Chris Buckley is a good writer/humorist, he is hardly a spokesman for conservatism, and his article makes no conservative arguments to support Obama.
2. Buckley contends that McCain was a great conservative when he was supporting campaign finance regulations, global warming mandates, and opposing tax cuts, because he was "authentic".  Now that McCain is making campaign promises, running negative ads, and making silly moves on the bailout scheme - i.e. campaigning for office - he's not as great. 
3. Obama's books are well written. 
4. Obama hates religion and loves abortion (remember the link says "The Conservative Case for Obama."). 
5. Obama criticizes special interests, therefore he will reform Washington - if you ignore Buckley's  parenthetical comment alluding to the fact that Obama is actually in the pocket of special interests and just using the usual campaign rhetoric.  

The Obama as reformer/messiah cult is the most perplexing fad since the B-52's were considered musicians.

In the fallout, Buckley resigned from the National Review.  His post on that episode is here. Here is the key passage:

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case. 

On that note, I am in agreement with Buckley.  The Bush years have not been a "conservative government" but an era of big government Republicans (at least, I assume he it criticing Bush and his so-called conservative defenders, rather than suggesting Bush is a true conservative ala Michael Smerconish and others.)  However, that rejection of Bush and big government Republicans - and even, by extension, a rejection of McCain - fails to translate into "a conservative case for Obama."