Deaf isn't even the right word. More like contemptuous.
This is very nearly a companion piece to your post down below about Rudy's NH co-chair. Kristol's a thug.
I just understand this hire, except for the stir-up-controversy angle.
The NYT is now adopting the talk radio model?
I hope we can have one of those threads where earnest people denounce any minimization of the differences between Republicans and Democrats.
I'm with Will, except that I don't even get the stir-up-controversy angle. Kristol is widely known to be a transparent mountebank; you'd think they'd at least look for a batshit-insane right-wing dead-ender with a little more credibility.
Maybe they thought readers would be faked out by the Kristof/Kristol similarity. Coming soon to the NYT op-ed pages: Kris Kristofferson.
But Adam, Republicans are evil! They poisoned Rfts' lunch, forcing us to bail on the Chicago meetup! Who knows what Kristol will do now that he's got a bigger stage??
Seriously, what on earth does this bring the Times? He's not even an interesting Republican hack; I'd have been much more interested if they decided to, say, "balance" a new hire of Dahlia Lithwick by bringing on Ross Douthat. Kristol is just Krauthammer without the opportunity for Ogged to make cripple jokes.
So, clearly, we should fix it up so that Ogged has that opportunity, right?
That's the sort of uncivilized comment that, unlike calls to prosecute the Times editors for treason, will ensure that you never get a column in the Times, Nathan. For shame.
I embrace Jonathan Schwarz division of our ruling elites between the crazy evil people and the sane evil people -- and I vote a straight "sane evil people" ticket every single time.
I was thinking about this when I saw the LGM post. I wonder what would happen if there was a concerted effort to propose a specific alternative. Like, you want a non-liberal voice on your page? OK, how about Jim Henley? Or whoever. (I don't read Henley enough to know if he'd be a good fit for that medium.)
If I had time and energy, I'd definitely mount a campaign to get a sharp, smart writer in to replace M.D. I'd a million times rather see decent writing from someone I disagree with rather than crappy writing from someone I sorta-kinda agree with. (Mark Bowden is an example of the former.)
I also still don't understand why these positions are quasi-tenured. Two years and out! Or one column a month.
more consternated than anticipated
Anticipated?
9: Apparently Kristol has a one-year appointment. He is the visiting assistant columnist. He also can't write. How about Christophers Buckley or Caldwell?
Henley's not a conservative.
I believe I said only that he's not a liberal. Which is true, at least as far as the NYT crowd would define liberal.
M. Leblanc would be a great replacement for Dowd.
Have they hired Lithwick yet? I thought she was the consensus choice for awesome lefty woman columnist.
16: They hired her temporarily during Dowd's (?) hiatus, IIRC/UIRI. She could vastly improve the paper by replacing 80 percent of their staff columnists.
Is there any sort of official explanation as to why they're hiring Kristol?
It must be nice to be a right-wing conservative. You can get a column at one of the nation's leading papers without even knowing how to write.
M. Leblanc would be a great replacement for Dowd.
Oh, yeah.
A friend of mine suggested that instead of hiring one new columnist to excrete eight or so columns of his or her usual nonsense a month, it would be more useful to retain four to six foreign pundits to submit semiregular columns from their own particular foreign perches.
20:
I think that is a fabulous idea. I would much prefer a different perspective.
20: You know, the Christian Science Monitor sorta does this (or at least used to). They had a semi-regular feature called "A Letter From..." some international location, and it would be this conversational/observational piece written by a longtime correspondent or native of whatever city.
Kristol seems like an odd choice given the overlap with Brooks, but he's a power broker -- what he thinks makes a difference merely because he thinks it, etc. Caldwell would have been a much better pick, as oudemia notes.
Caldwell would have been a much better pick, as oudemia notes.
Wasn't Caldwell the one who went all pearl-clutching-clairvoyant over Feingold's funeral?
I wonder how Theodore Dalrymple would be received by Blogsylvania.
You can get a column at one of the nation's leading papers without even knowing how to write.
And you've got a bigwig parent.
Feingold's funeral! Oh noes!
Wrong state. Wrong senator.
But as to your question, dunno. Caldwell can write, though.
24: But you seem to be right about his penning a pretty gross article about Wellstone's funeral.
Caldwell's Wellstone hit piece was part of an orchestrated effort, indicating that he is much more of a hack than people think. Like Brooks, he is slick enough to fool people.
The Wellstone funeral uproar was one of the most despicable happenings in recent American political history, which is saying. (Less despicable than Guantanamo etc., of course, but most despicable in its weight class.)
No one agrees with me, but Kristol strikes me as the least Jewish-looking Jew in history. In Lake Wobegon no one would ask where he was from, unless he opened his mouth.
The Wellstone funeral uproar was one of the most despicable happenings in recent American political history
Absolutely. Contrast it with the relentless pushing of conservative narratives at the faux retro-comitygasm that was the Reagan funeral. "Acceptable" attitudes ranged from "Did you love the fact that it was Morning in America unconditionally or were you one of those 'liberals' who only begrudgingly loved it?"
I just wanted run out into the street screaming "I hated the motherfucker, and so did most of my friends."
Come on, nobody is still under the impression that the NYT is anything but the acceptable face of wingnuttery in America today, a total establishment mouthpiece whose sole function is to define the utter leftmost border of allowed debate?
three things I said to Husband X tonight:
"why couldn't they at least have picked some up-and-coming young conservative catholic nutbag?"
"I feel like the NYT is trolling me."
"I guess he's the new A.M. Rosenthal. 'what's "on my mind"? well, TEH PALESIMIANS ARE EVIL11!!!' remember that guy?"
NYT is anything but the acceptable face of wingnuttery in America today, a total establishment mouthpiece whose sole function is to define the utter leftmost border of allowed debate
This sounds right, except that wingnuts think it's a mouthpiece for the left. From this, the Times concludes that it's "doing its job."
Hey. Wow. Peep this email that I just this very minute received.
Thank you for your e-mail concerning Bill Kristol. We appreciate your interest and your taking the time to let us know how you feel.Mr. Kristol's column will be appearing on the Op-Ed page, where we offer a
range of diverse opinions -- often differing from our own editorial
opinions. Given that we are a news organization that believes in vibrant
political discourse, we have brought Mr. Kristol on board after a long and
thoughtful search through the ranks of strong conservative voices.Will you -- or will we -- agree with him? Probably not.very often . . .
but that is the point of offering multiple views and providing intellectual
diversity. We hope the column will engender open debate and discussion in
the democratic tradition of newspapers. And we hope that you will continue
to read and to express your views to us. We very much value your
readership.Sincerely,
Catherine Mathis
SVP, Corporate Communications
The New York Times Company
Oh, Catherine Mathis. You fail.