E!!

Mickey Kaus is keeping track of them.

H/T:  Jonah @ NRO

I’m still deciding what I think about this.  My initial reaction – before I heard her speech (which was more of a meandering ramble, really) – was “what the heck is she doing?”  Not sure that question was answered even after sifting through her speech to find her stated reasons.

Her ”higher calling” comment does seem to indicate she is not stepping away from politics, just from the governorship of Alaska.

Kathleen Parker chimed in on the Christopher Buckley thing.  A very well written piece, and I agree with much (though not all) of it.

Let me be clear that I have no issue with Buckley’s complaints against and dissatisfaction with the Republican party.  In these things I agree with him and am similarly disgruntled.

My criticism was not of the fact that Buckley left National Review; it was the way he left.

And, though his vote is his own, I don’t think it makes sense to show your disgust for the lack of conservatism in the GOP by voting for the candidate/party who has even less of it.

UPDATE:  As for the “shunning” of conservatives like Buckley, I have to agree with what Rich Lowry said just a bit ago, mentioning both Kathleen and Peggy Noonan:

In her Palin-centered column, Peggy says those “whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives,” and then cites Christopher’s resignation from his NR column as an example. Peggy is a busy person, so I suppose she hasn’t had time to notice that Kathleen Parker’s columns ripping Sarah Palin have appeared on NRO. That David Frum has aired his discontent with the Palin pick on NRO. That others of us—Ramesh and even me (between my occasional bouts of rhapsodic gushing!)—have criticized aspects of her performance. And that other writers on NRO have stuck up for Palin and pushed back against the critics. It’s called debate.

Now, I regret how some conservatives immediately question the motives of the critics of Palin, but it’s equally regrettable that Noonan, Parker et al are portraying most conservatives as irrational thugs. It makes you wonder: Who is really being overly emotional and deeply unfair in this intra-mural conservative debate? Which brings us naturally to Kathleen Parker’s column today. Read and judge for yourself. Is this calm, cool deliberation? Or hyperbole worthy of a peeved e-mailer? (By the way, I hate that Kathleen got any abusive e-mails at all; it’s a very unfortunate part of the world of the web. But hate e-mail goes both ways. I wouldn’t want to live for a minute with, say, Kathryn Lopez’s or Jonah Goldberg’s in-box on any given day.)

Finally, on Christopher, I already addressed it here. But he proffered a “sincere offer” of resignation of his column that he had taken up temporarily while Mark Steyn was on hiatus. It struck us as a win-win: Chris would get out of a column we thought he wanted out of; we’d get Mark Steyn, who had recently returned to writing, back on our back page. We never imagined Chris would feel he’d been “fatwa-ed.” In any case, Chris is still on NR’s board, and is welcome to write pieces for us going forward, which I’m hoping he’ll do after everyone, very much including the Noonans and Parkers of the world, takes a deep breath.

And BTW, I posted on what Peggy Noonan said earlier over at Culture11‘s LadyBlog.

For more on the Christopher Buckley thing, here’s his latest post, and Rich’s note on The Corner yesterday.  (Don’t miss the part where Buckley changed the header of his post from the patently dishonest “I Was Fired” to the fully accurate ”Buckley Bows Out”)

Here’s my three cents:

(1)  Those who cancelled their subscription to National Review over this matter are being silly. The magazine’s value is not negated by what any one contributor (or ex-contributor) does or says on any one day. NR is more than a great conservative political journal; it his an American Icon. You’d no more stop reading it than you’d swear off apple pie and ice cream.

(2)  It appears that Christopher Buckley is exaggerating all over himself in an effort to create a stir and invite publicity as he breaks away into his brave new world.

What does Christopher mean by saying that Rich Lowry “rather briskly” accepted his resignation and that he is saddened by the “disavowal”?

Does he mean there was not a satisfactorily lengthy pause preceding Rich’s agreement to his departure?  Was Christopher’s ego disappointed at not receiving the expected number of murmured regrets and “it’s a damn shame”s?

Or did he think, as I suspect, that his resignation would not be accepted?  Was the act more a gesture than a genuine offer, and is he now in a snit because Rich and Jack Fowler had the ill manners to take him at his word?

Regardless, to say there was/is “acrimony” on the part of NR is surely going too far. I’ve seen nothing but friendship and warmth extended Buckley’s way from everyone at NR and on The Corner, so the insinuation that there is an air of rancor and animosity feels like Complete and Utter Nonsense.

(3)  There is much more that could be said in re: to Christopher’s comments about WFB’s occasional support of liberal Democrats (all far better men than Obama appears to be), rigorous standards of candor (which Junior seems to be lacking), and independence of thought and action (which were genuine and never for show).

But, it is all well known. WFB was a singular man. He was always himself, and never embarrassed or dishonored his friends (or even his enemies) by being small of heart or deed.

The son does not honor the father with all this elaborate and unpleasant flailing around.  A graceful exit would have been a more fitting tribute to the man we all loved…and miss terribly in these difficult days.

(UPDATE: Anne of Idaho, who is reading D.H. Lawrence, sends an unrelated yet serendipitous quote.

“And he began to feel, coldly and cynically, that among all her distress there was a luxuriating in the violent emotions of the scene in hand, and the situation altogether.”

Re-stated: Christopher Buckley is being a drama queen, and it is causing me to feel more indifferent to his plight than I otherwise might.)

Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach has filed a complaint with the District Court of Carson City asking for the removal of Bob Loux – executive director for the Nuclear Waste Project Office of the Agency for Nuclear Projects for the State of Nevada – from office for malfeasance as provided for in NRS 283.440.

According to NRS 283.440, “Any person now holding…any office in this State…who is guilty of any malpractice or malfeasance in office, may be removed therefrom as hereinafter prescribed in this section.” 

According to a September 9, 2008, story by Cy Ryan of the Las Vegas Sun, Mr. Loux gave “himself and his staff an unauthorized 16 percent pay raise,” well above levels set by the Legislature for his office. 

On September 10, 2008, Brendan Riley of the Associated Press reported that Mr. Loux “apologized to the lawmakers’ Interim Finance Committee” (IFC) at the hearing on September 9, 2008, “for giving himself and other agency staffers unauthorized pay increases of up to 16 percent.” 

According to the AP report, Mr. Loux’s agency falls under the governor’s office, but Mr. Loux ”didn’t report the pay increases to the governor and instead signed the paperwork needed to authorize the higher pay.”

The raises came to light at the IFC meeting because Mr. Loux had overspent his budget – which in itself is malfeasance in office per NRS 353.260 (copy attached).

According to the statute, “It is unlawful for any state officer, commissioner, head of any state department or other employee, whether elected or appointed, to expend more money than the sum specifically appropriated by law for any such office, commission or department.”

Mr. Loux admitted to the IFC that he both overspent his budget and personally approved the unauthorized pay increases. “I take full responsibility for all of these errors,” Mr. Loux said.  “They were done by me.”

In an official letter to Mr. Bob Loux calling for his resignation, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons noted that a review by the Budget Office discovered that “there has been a history of salaries in (Mr. Loux’s) office paid well over the amounts budgeted” and that “increases have been made without my approval and in violation of NRS 223.085.”

According to a report by Ed Vogel in the September 11, 2008, edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Mr. Loux’s “salary manipulation” resulted in Mr. Loux receiving a salary of $151,542 per year – well in excess of his authorized, approved and budgeted salary of $114,088.

In addition, the Budget Office review referenced by Gov. Gibbons shows that Mr. Loux’s willful and unauthorized actions resulted in salary increases for every member of his staff in excess of 27 percent higher than budgeted for Fiscal Year 2008, and in excess of 32 percent higher than budgeted for Fiscal Year 2009.  In one case, one employee was scheduled by Mr. Loux to receive a salary increase next year which would have been more than 50 percent higher than budgeted.

According to Mr. Vogel’s story today, Mr. Loux has rejected Gov. Gibbons’ request for his resignation, saying “I am not going away.”

We’ll soon see!!