"I learned a lot of things from Bill Buckley, but the best thing he taught me was how to be a Christian." Joe Sobran wrote these words in a beautiful column this week in praise of William F. Buckley Jr.

I once pulled off the coup of having both Buckley and Sobran speak at the same conference. That's about the closest (I sense) that the two have been in many, many years. After all, Buckley had bitterly denounced Sobran, fired him from National Review after 21 years, and labeled his writings "contextually anti-Semitic" (though he noted that "those who know him know that Sobran is not anti-Semitic").

For his part, Sobran labeled Buckley "insincere." "The book was written in a sort of nervously meandering prose that sounded as if the author had a gun at his head," Sobran noted of Buckley's In Search of Anti-Semitism. "It should have come with a ransom note." "His conservatism is a conservatism of image, show business, public relations, stock mannerisms; big words, anfractuous grammar, repetitious Latinisms, implying a depth that isn't there," Sobran opined of his longtime boss.

But all that, hopefully, is history. Buckley and Sobran share much in common: a religion, an infectious gregariousness, twenty years of history, a mastery of words, and the fact that wherever either one is, he is probably the smartest man in the room. How ironic, too, that in remaking National Review into a publication so utterly foreign to the National Review Joe Sobran knew, Buckley too now finds himself out of step with the fortnightly's prevailing obsessions. One waits, any day now, for when William F. Buckley's delayed criticisms of the Iraq venture will land him on NR's "Unpatriotic Conservatives" list with Joe Sobran.

Observing both men up close--Buckley for just a few hours, Sobran on numerous occasions--I came away impressed by how friendly and patient both men were with the young people who made up the audiences for their speeches. Buckley, perhaps accustomed to such treatment, handled numerous bumbling admirers with kindness and toleration. Sobran, through his cheerfulness and wit, made numerous admirers, bumbling and otherwise.

Sure, Buckley went to Yale while Sobran went to Eastern Michigan; sure, Buckley drinks French wine while Sobran smokes Dutchmasters; sure, Buckley comes from money while Sobran comes from Ypsilanti. But the formerly feuding men are alike in so many other ways. And perhaps that was the problem. When we are alike, differences become more difficult to take. We easily understand why alien people hold thoughts so at odds with our own. But when someone in the same office, fighting for the same cause, kneeling in the same church sings from a different sheet of music, take cover.

In his current column, Sobran writes about Buckley: "When I had serious troubles, he was a generous friend who did everything he could to help me without being asked. And I wasn't the only one. I gradually learned of many others he'd quietly rescued from adversity. He'd supported a once-noted libertarian in his destitute old age, when others had forgotten him. He'd helped two pals of mine out of financial difficulties. And on and on."

This is heartwarming, as the break between these two was heartwrenching. Like so many National Review readers, I admired both men. Why did we have to take sides: Buckley or Sobran?

Absolutley wonderful post, Dan. Thanks for alerting us to Joe's gracious article.

So what about the excrement that is Mr. Buckley's latest column? As a man who has seen the worst side of war, I'm inclined to wait for Mr. Buckley in the proverbial parking lot.

http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=200742&loc=/opinion/column/wfbuckley/2006/06/11/200742.html

The juxtaposition of the posts on Buckley and Coulter provokes a comment. Buckley is so genteel he never saw that Sobran's critics likely didn't think Sobran was actually anti-Semitic, but were fighting with the biggest brick they had. The attack on Pope Pius XII (the man who might be responsible for saving more Jewish lives than anyone in history) as anti-Semitic shows that some lack either sense or shame when they make that accusation.
Buckley's position was that conservatives have to be deferential to those who might actually be overly sensitive--a fair point for a genteel age, but a vulnerable opening to the James Carvilles of the world.
In the piece that justifiably has upset The Fastest Squirrel, Buckley has automatically trusted the military prosecutors and the higher ups who have leaked damaging evidence. He seems to assume that the kind of prosecutorial misconduct that has sprung up elsewhere(see the Duke lacrosse case or Redskin safety Sean Taylor's case for two examples of many) could not have penetrated the Pentagon. Maybe not, but I wouldn't tarnish a soldiers reputation based on such trust.

Now we have Ann Coulter when then we had Bill Buckley. Coulter seems to have learned that conservatives can't just bring a knife to a gun fight. Maybe she is right but it is kind of sad.