My Conversation with William F. Buckley, Jr.

William F. Buckley, Jr. author, conservative commentator and founder of the National Review, died last week at the age of 82. He was a dear and close friend of mine and one of my favorite guests. What I loved about him were his passions for life in every endeavor, whether it was political discourse, sailing, television, or Bach. He was unique, irreplaceable and we are all a little less because he's not here.

Over the past 15 years, he appeared more than 15 times on our broadcast, even guest hosting once. Here is an excerpt from a conversation in 2006.

Comments

[Phaedrusnyc]

Bill was a "dear and close friend" of Charlie Rose? THAT certainly tells me more about Rose than I had hoped to learn.

[Seafarer61]

I can respect a man whose intellect is strong enough to make me question my own beliefs. Even though I rarely agreed with him, I found his discourse to be fascinating, his opinions strong willed and earnest. The only man on earth I disagreed with more than Buckley was my own father and I certainly don't hate dad.


Well played Mr. Buckley, well played.

[Stanley]

Charlie like Bill and he missed him and was eulogizing his friend. No need to comment or snipe, just remember him fondly or move on.

[momorune]

I think Buckley's obvious confusion when answering the question about "a life well lived" is a tribute to the long-term eroding effects of erudite obfuscation on the brain. Lordy lord. Who cares if the guy was an artiste of delectable elitism? The entire premise of his career is fundamentally wrong.

[beerguy]

It is amazing to me the comments on here. Call WFB an evil reactionary if you wish. You just practice the the demagoguery you accuse him of.

[Merlin7]

The critical comments below indicate that many readers still don't get it: For most big names in the MSM, it doesn't really matter what you stand for. All that matters is that you're rich and famous. (I firmly believe that if David Duke were worth a billion bucks or so, talk show hosts would still be fawning over him in prime time.) For a more accurate profile of William Buckley, see Dennis Perrin's blog on this site. As Perrin points out, Buckley was an evil reactionary, a man who made his hateful rhetoric more palatable by couching it in the rounded tones of the privileged and pseudo-cultured.
What's more, Buckley's intellectual bunk-mates are still very much with us, but most are more careful in that they disguise their arrogance with concerns about "political pragmatism" and "national security." And they're running the U.S. into the ditch, as usual, and probably will continue to do so regardless of who's elected in November.

[nunzia]

Merlin - well said.
Another sign of the times: doesn't matter what you stood for. If you were rich and famous, you're "loved".
Very sad.

[jmpurser]

Born to a life of privilege and with undeniable gifts he spent his live dedicated to the principle that poor little rich boys deserve a little more.

What a waste.

[dadw5boys]

Charlie I would have been more impressed to see you challenge him to a boxing match.

While words never fail him Buckley has never had to put his body on the line for anything!
Protected and insulated by wealth he never had to actually protect his country in Vietnam or Korea.
I would have love to see his reaction to a bloody nose just like the ones he gave the hard working men and women of America who struggled for the right to be repersended by unions.

Just one good lick for humanity would have served as an answer to all his well worded attacks.

[desmirl]

Miss him all you want. Buckley was the prototype American Chickenhawk, a coward who couldn't bother to defend this country by putting on a uniform and carrying a rifle, but could blather on and on about what a wonderful thing was our war in Vietnam. And, when Gore Vidal called him on his unAmerican stance, he attacked Vidal physically. Some gentleman. He will not be missed by the rest of us.

[RobbieEagleFan]

Did anyone catch the clip of Buckley from 1963 on Meet the Press. He was asked, considering he trashed Esenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, what he thought of the voters who elected such aweful leaders. He responded in classic fashion by ignoring the question(since as candidate for NY mayor he couldn't reveal his contempt for he voters) and talked in circles until no one could figure out what he was saying- for good reason. He taught them all how to do it.