Welcome Timothy Stanley
Joining us at Ricochet as this week's Guest Contributor is Timothy Stanley. An historian and writer at the University of Oxford, Tim Stanley is the author of the newly published The Crusader: The Life and Tumultuous Times of Pat Buchanan. Tim also blogs about the U.S. elections over at the Daily Telegraph.
A little bit about Tim in his own words:
"Like everyone of my generation, I’m a bit obsessed with Sarah Palin. I define my politics as Anarcho-Catholic – an eclectic kind of pacifistic, red meat eating, gun loving, tax hating, Buddha hugging voodoo. I’m temperamentally conservative, but neither a Tory nor a Republican. I love America deeply and I suspect she is the last hope for mankind (I really don’t want to have to learn Chinese)."
Join me win welcoming Tim Stanley to Ricochet!
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Dec '11
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Welcome Tim. Look forward to reading your insights.
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Welcome, Tim, and here's my first question: What did PJB, an Ortho-Catholic, make of his biographer's Anarcho-Catholicism?
Dec '10
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Welcome, Tim! I've enjoyed your work at the Telegraph blogs, and it's great to see you here.
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Hi everyone! I will be posting something "proper" either tonight or tomorrow...
But to answer your question, Peter, I think he rather approved of my "Anarcho Catholicism"! Certainly, the Catholic bit went down well (our first meeting was entirely, by accident, at Mass in Washington) and the anarchistic part appeals to his rebelliousness.
I got the impression - and I may be wrong - that my Britishness might have been more of an obstacle. Aside from PJB's extreme dislike of Churchill (which is as hurtful as an Englishman questioning the reputation of Andrew Jackson), there's also an Irish dimension to his view of the UK. But that may have been mitigated by my Catholicism, I'm not sure.
Either way, he's very easy to get on with and - which is so important in these dark, politically correct times - a drinker...
May '10
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Welcome aboard.
Apr '11
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Welcome Tim!
On another thread, James Delingpole says that you spoke to a man with no qualifications to be President (no electoral or governmental history, nor success in the private sector), who is not actually running (he hasn't bothered to get on even many easy ballots) and whose platform is almost entirely of either the left or the lunatic fringe.
Of the former, he supports bringing the troops home, expanding discrimination laws, a host of subsidies to all kinds of businesses, ending the drugs war, amnesty, gay marriage, government healthcare, clean energy subsidies, and enthusiastic protectionism. Of the latter, this is my favorite of many policy positions. (www.fredkarger.com/issues/)
"There are 3.1 million jobs available in the United States. We must begin to immediately fill these jobs.
Create a web program, Jobs.gov, to connect employers with perspective employees. The program would use a viral marketing campaign to put America back to work."
You allegedly concluded that the reason the party was ignoring Fred Karger was because he was gay, explicitly not because of his "lack of money or talent", nor, implicitly, because he's a leftist lunatic. Could you expand on this accusation of bigotry?
Mar '11
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Welcome Tim!
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Certainly, James of England! I'm only now listening to the Delingpole interview - and I'm amused to hear that I discuss whether or not the Daily Telegraph is paying me in the first five minutes...
My point about Karger is that it was unfair that he didn't get a booth at CPAC. My view of his campaign was from Los Angeles, where he was very active and did strike me as a serious candidate. I was invited to a fundraiser of his and only didn't go because I was out of town that week. I seem to recall that the attendees were respected Hollywood fundraisers (these things work by referrals).
I'm always happy to admit when I'm wrong. But I do feel that even marginalized candidates - Roemer included - should get their fifteen minutes of attention. Plus, the historic nature of Karger's candidacy should have earned him at least a place to hand out leaflets from. But if you have proof that he really was crazy-left-wing, then, yes, that would be a fair reason to exclude him.
Jul '10
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Welcome Mr. Stanley.
Apr '11
Re: Welcome Timothy Stanley
Thank you for your reply, Tim! I included Karger's website in my comment, and include it again here. (www.fredkarger.com)
It's worth a chuckle.
Buddy Roemer is on significant numbers of ballots, and was at one point a potentially serious contender. Karger has a variety of viewpoints (some mentioned above), but the Presidential race is manifestly not sincere, but a way of getting a platform for anti-GOP and particularly anti-Mormon attacks on gay rights. That he could manage a serious Hollywood fundraiser for this effort makes sense (there's a lot of Pride in LA), but does not mean that he was mounting a Presidential campaign.
Gary Johnson and Roemer deserved some attention. The others, whether birthers, comedians, wrestlers, or prohibitionists, who get on only trivial numbers of ballots and do not break 1% in polls, are "color" stories, not news stories. Karger, who is running specifically to damage the party he is a false flag candidate for (all of his attacks are on Republicans and conservatives), is even more disruptive to the democratic process, and gets far more than 15 minutes of attention, with each poisonous minute another minute too long.