Is that fair? What about the time he said "What McCain needs to do is junk the whole thing and start over" — 3 weeks before election day? "McCain can make the substantive case for his broadly centrist conservatism." That was provocative.
UPDATE: From the NYT:
“It was mutual agreement,” Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, said in an interview. “We discussed this before the election, and decided that we would end now.”That article uses the same quote I used above in my post title. So maybe the NYT is reading this, perhaps to consider me as a replacement for Kristol. I did temp there once, on the op-ed page, you know. In any case, the quote is from the New Yorker's George Packer, and I suddenly remember I have a feud with that guy... not that I remember the reason. Oh, here.
As for whether The Times would find another conservative voice for its Op-Ed page, Mr. Rosenthal said: “Sadly, I can’t answer that question, except to say stay tuned. We have some interesting plans.”
ADDED: A little straight talk. Kristol wasn't an exciting, traffic-winning commentator, like Dowd or Rich. Even in a conservative, the NYT has to demand that. It's a dog-eat-dog world here in political media, and the employees of the NYT, however glorified, must drag in the readers. How you do that with mere words, who knows? But it must be done, and the employers must demand it.
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
The rest of the NYT staff was jealous that he had a dinner party with Obama
Of course it's fair. They won.
The fact that Kristol didn't take his column seriously was the best thing about it, and the best vehicle for his ideas in a hostile environment.
On the left: Turgid blowhards.
On the right: Detached wiseacre.
I think the problem with Kristol is that he didn't make an effort to get Times readers riled up. At least the urbane Safire was an ex-Nixon speech writer.
Too bad Kristol's politics weren't different, I would have liked seeing Drudge (as part of his NYT (and other media) death watch) run the following headline:
KRISTOL FIRED AFTER YEAR OF LOSSES AT NYT
Have folks noticed that Drudge doesn't always use statistically based causality calculations when he conflates information in headlines?
I percieved that taking Bill Kristol on board at the NYT (a shocker at the time) was for an insurance policy in the event of a McCain victory. Now the NYT sees no reason to insure against a non-risk and will not renew that Policy. He was only a balancing voice to give the main-stream Repub point of view. He wasn't hired for any great writing skills. Besides there only needs to be One point of view during the Reign of King Obama. Maybe Bill will now be free to help Caroline Kennedy mount a come back.
Kristol was a mediocre writer who gave wrong-headed advice about everything. IOW, he was a typical NYT columnist. Why Kristol and not Bob Hebert?
But I'm happy he's gone. If Murdoch would fire him I'd be happy.
.
Oh give me a home
Where Obamabots roam
Where like-minded liberals play
Where never is heard
A discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day.
"...The real grounds for firing Kristol are that he didn’t take his column seriously. In his year on the Op-Ed page, not one memorable sentence, not one provocative thought, not one valuable piece of information appeared under his name."
Really? This critic needs to review the columns of Herbert, Krugman, Dowd, and Brooks and make a list of all the 'valuable' information they provided. I guess the Times expected a big spike in subscriptions since they added some balance to the Ed page.
The real Times news is the had to beg a Mexican billionaire named 'Slim' for rescue financing at 14%.
That's right 14%; the kind of rate for unsecured debt on a VISA.
Kristol's laughing while he's cleaning out his desk.
And let me add that I am eternally greatfull that Professor Althouse does not hold me to the standards set for poor Bill Kristol. What's wrong with using appropriate cliches anyway. You can't reinvent the wheel for every thought you try to put into writing. There, I did it again. Sorry.
I thought he was taking his column to the Wash Post, ya know, the big paper that's not going out of business.
I hope they replace him with MARK STEYN.
That would certainly liven up those pages. That's it: put Steyn opposite Herbert.
By firing the neocon the Times is betting that Obama will not attack Iran.
He's just the first in a string of layoffs to come at the NYTimes.
Krugman can turn out the lights.
Weird. Enron had to close, too. Does everything Krugman touch die this way?
Kristol wrote a column for the the New York Times? I didn't know that. Then, I haven't read them this past year. I don't know why they keep sending me subscription offers.
If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Steve wins.
Comrade Pogo said:
"Weird. Enron had to close, too. Does everything Krugman touch die this way?"
I will toast your keen observation Comrade with a little Wotka!
Can we start a petition to have Kristol replaced w/ Rush or Palin? I'll sign up!
Or, is JTP back yet? Maybe he could email his columns from Israel.
Is Ann Coulter done w/ her liberal media blitz.
What about Hannity and O'Reilly?
There are so many popular conservatives to chose from.
How could I forget Beck.
BTW, this morning Beck was concocting a theory that the portrait overseeing BHO's second oath was of Paine (though I think it was Benjamin Latrobe.) Beck suggested that this scene in the Map Room was meant to send a message that BHO is planning to implement Paine's socialist/atheist dream. Further evidence was that BHO's Inauguration speech included Washington referencing Paine's words. (You conservatives really have some serious nuts, not that the other side doesn't also.)
Weird. Enron had to close, too. Does everything Krugman touch die this way?
Tangentially, Pogo, the NYT thinks they have the smartest guys in the room. Or at least, they act like they do.
In reality, the current crop of intellectual lights at the NYT is laughable. I wouldn't trade the whole of the Althouse commentariat for one of 'em.
Especially Maureen "Blago's beedy Serbian eyes" Dowd.
I will write Kristol to thank him for having had the courage of a lion to set foot in these shark-infested waters where the hand of man has never trod before.
(Cliches courtesy of Baxter (R.I.P) ex Flying Magazine writer.)
not one memorable sentence, not one provocative thought, not one valuable piece of information
Ah, now we know why your gig was so brief. I guess you won't be back either, eh?
Don't know if it makes a sound, but the tree-killers at the NYT could make a paper out of it.
Being criticized by James Fallows is a compliment.
It's the right thing to do, albeit almost certainly done for the wrong reasons. His column was as limp and formulaic as those by Krugman and what's his name - the "special" hire... Herbert something?
Kristol was handed an opportunity to show liberals that conservatives - real conservatives, not the Obama-supporting David Brooks - can take on liberals on their own turf. He blew it. It's sad that he either wasn't up to the job or else echoes John Paul Stevens' reported opinion of Thurgood Marshall: he had the intellect to do a great job, but just couldn't be bothered to try.
I am saddened to learn that Billie Kristol is out of a job.
I liked her writing but she should go back to acting. She was great when she starred as Buddy in “Family.” She was pretty good in “Empty Nest” too.
But I didn’t like her in “Little Darlings” with Tatum O’Neal.
That made me feel uncomfortable.
The guy is a mediocre writer and thinker, nepotically trading on the reputation of his Dad, Irving - for his own career as a "noted pundit".
And it is needed as part of the ongoing struggle to purge the Neocons that helped bring America so low.
Of course, Bob Hebert is a joke. You would think that they could find the liberal or centrist black that would be as good a writer and thinker as some conservative black pundits.
But they got Bob Hebert.
Heck, my local paper has a black columnist and a female black style, arts, politics, and military reporter that can think and act circles around Bob Hebert.
As for Dowd, sorry, but she can be brilliant at times, and entertaining, whether she means to be or not, even more often.
Krugman is an idiot when he goes into politics, same with Frank Rich who left one area of competency to become the NYTimes version of sportscaster Keith Olbermann - who himself plays the Lefty ideal of the Peter Finch character.
However, Krugman is an idiot who got the Nobel for his true accomplishments in economic theory, so the Times won't get rid of him...or Rich, who is like the local sage telling wealthy Manhattanites (who may be the only ones left paying for NYTimes circulation) what plays, movies, and art they should blow their money on.
1jpb-
Are you predicting a sudden reversal of the NYT's fortunes now that Kristol is gone?
I think the real grounds for the Times impending demise is that it didn't take the truth very seriously.
Didn't take his column seriously? What nonsense. People saying that never liked Kristol or his politics, to begin with, and have never met a conservative idea, politician or writer that they would regard as "serious." Those complaining that Billy Kristol was a mediocre writer, or that he failed to articulate an alternative to the usual NYT perspective, must not have been reading his columns. I've enjoyed them, both in the NYT and Weekly Standard. Very sharp guy, that Kristol, and he has a nice way of putting things.
Getting rid of Kristol makes sense for the NYT in the same way that the junk-bond financing with Sr. Slim makes sense -- they have no choice. Kristol was always anathema to the true-blue Times reader (Ann, who seems to be a fan of the NYT, may be the only exception). To rescue the paper they've got to do something to get circulation and ad revenue up and expenses down. Might as well start with a high-profile columnist who riled the base and was quite likely to use his column to poke holes in the Dems' balloon. Just another step in the positioning of the NYT as the voice of the Dems rather than a paper of record.
Oh hell, why are they still dancing around about it?
Just get it over with and rename the NYT The Obama Times; it'll fit in with the several Obama TV networks.
Kristol's stuff with the Times was so pedestrian he should have been fined for jaywalking (rimshot). Okay, not that bad but pretty disappointing.
But his pieces for the Weekly Standard, which he edits, over the past half year have been equally poor. I'm not sure it was writing for the Times as much as he appears to be out of energy or ideas.
Compared to Krugmand and Herbert, he's a combination of Lippmann and Winchell at their prime.
Okay, so they were before my time but I wanted to sound smart.
Anyone ever read about Winchell's rise and fall? Amazing ride.
Maureen Down and Frank Rich do nothing but vomit up predictable "Bush hate" and "Obama love" - they add nothing to the public discourse, offer no solutions and take no one seriously but themselves.
Kristol is no big deal. But egad, let's get rid of Dowd and Rich.
How about replacing Kristol with Sir Archy?
Henry nails it upthread:
On the left: Turgid blowhards.
On the right: Detached wiseacre.
Sir Archy's certainly a wiseacre in his way. And who could be more detached than someone dead these 260 Years and more?
He would have to bone up on modern politics, though. He seems to be a neo-Whig.
Which, on second thought, might be just what we need for these troubled times.
I also suggest replacing Frank Rich with Titus.
If you're going to have grotesque characters write for you, at least they should be funny.
In fact, I think the commentariat here could be culled to find better replacements for most ALL pundits and columnists.
A chilling thought on a chilly day for all you J-school types.
Frank Rich is irreplaceable. Thank you so much for the honor but I can't step into Rich's shoes.
Isn't there any younger, newer conservatives that could occupy that valuable piece of real estate?
How about Rush? That would be amazing.
Rich B.
No, that was not where I was going.
I may smoke two crack rocks a day, but I never get to ten, which would be required to make the assumption you suggested.
[Hopefully the factious part of this comment is more discernible than I had hoped similar aspects of my earlier comment would have been.]
Rush wouldn't last any longer than he did on ESPN. He would drive them nuts in a few weeks.
1jpb-
My first guess was that it was a failed analogy.
Titus: Frank Rich used to be good.
The NYT needs to do something completely different.
That's why I suggested you.
Actually, Palladian might not be a bad choice, either. He brings that New York je ne sais quoi.
I agree with Theo: No one does turdgid like Titus does turdgid.
My serious advice: don't like the NY Times? don't read it so often--you are being hypocritical to say it sucks and then to keep reading it.
Odd: not one comment abut Frank Rich, the best of them all! and yes, he and Krugman make substantive remarks though you may disagree with their perspective.
Nice thing about Kristol writing: in writing, you can read him and decide. On TV--oh that silly friggin smirk!
note: silly remarks about Krugman and Rich above. Krugman writes about economics and what is wrong with conservative approach rather than focusing on politics; Rich points up the wretchedness of the past 8 years. You may believe they have been grand. The American voter does not
Sorry, Meade. I had to fix my turgid "turgid" comment.
Here it goes again:
The word, "turgid" is great. The aforementioned Henry upthread uses it. I've used it. I recall another commenter or two using it, but, in general it's fallen away. Too bad, because it describes so much leftish and progressive writing. I don't understand this and think it's too bad.
Kristol could not be accused of being turgid. He was, IMHO, often wrong, but at least you could make out what his ideas, however foolish, might be.
Unwilling to risk turgidity, I'll quit now.
Did the NYT really think that a token semi-conservative inside-the-beltway column by Kristol would cause conservative news consumers to subscribe to what is otherwise an overpriced leftist Dem propaganda rag?
That is like the American Spectator thinking it could get MSNBC viewers to subscribe simply by running a column by the semi-liberal inside-the-beltway Mort Kondracke.
Now that it has been bailed out by a Mexican billionaire, the NYT probably figures that it does not need to make any further dishonest nods to the right - unless, of course, the billionaire actually wants the rag to stop its free fall and actually make a profit.
fred: I agree re wretchedness of past 8 years. It's just that Frank Rich has lost it, IMHO. He is generally no longer funny or has too much interesting to say.
Maybe I've just been spoiled by the blogosphere, which, of course, is wretched in its own way. But at least I don't have an ink-stained piece of dead tree to try to click through.
fred, I would say that Krugman is substantive when he writes about economics. Sadly, that isn't often enough. His rhetorical style is also extraordinarily tedious. No one loves scapegoats like Krugman.
I think that Kristol kept his column light intentionally, to create a contrast to the faucet of sturm und drang offered by Krugman and Herbert.
“Sadly, I can’t answer that question, except to say stay tuned. We have some interesting plans.”
Why do I have the impression Rosenthal means "interesting" as in the Chinese curse, 'May you live in interesting times'?
What the NYT really needs is someone who doesn't represent the mainstream, Beltway elite, and someone who understands issues facing the U.S. That leaves hack bloggers like Althouse or Insty out.
Some possibilities would be PatBuchanan, LouDobbs, SteveSailer, or TomTancredo.
And, if that happened, here's what Pinch would look like after reading it.
Theo Boehm said:
In fact, I think the commentariat here could be culled to find better replacements for most ALL pundits and columnists.
Oh, what the hell, I'll take one for the team. I'm available, contact Pinch and tell him I'll take over the Kristol spot. I'll do it cheaply, too (I know they have to watch their pennies, even with Slim swooping in), $1000 a week and I'm yours (but I must be allowed to use the words "bollocks", "gobsmacking", "crap", "dude", "bite", "shiny", "metal", "ass", and "mendicant" whenever I choose, that condition is non-negotiable).
Didn't I suggest Althouse for a NYT OPED job just last week?
But I also expressed skepticism that they could be open-minded, smart, shrewd, profit-driven and good fiscal stewards for their shareholders.
Is your George Packer related to the popular man-on-the-street Greg Packer from Huntingdon, New York?
As one of the last 5 conservative NYT readers, my problem with Kristol was that he and David Brooks both essentially followed the same school of conservatism. Given that Brooks is a neoconservative, I wish the Times would have gotten say a social conservative (why not Huckabee) or a libertarian or a more traditional conservative for that role.
Classic Althouse!!
"I am not a conservative!"
"Why do people label me that way?"
"That is so unfair!"
"The NYT is looking for a conservative columnist for their op-ed page? They must be thinking about ME! I hope they are!! I'd be great!!"
To replace Kristol?
A real "conservative":
Andrew Sullivan
Kristol was way wrong about Iraq and he became tied to it like a scarlet letter.
That and the fact that he has no other ideas or thoughts is why I have discarded him as a credible pundit.
Sadly, I can’t answer that question
Why the use of Sadly?
"Some possibilities would be PatBuchanan, LouDobbs, SteveSailer, or TomTancredo."
Because only true conservatives have the balls to leave the space out of their names?
"Why the use of Sadly? "
Because he's lying.
Fat Man said:
To replace Kristol?
A real "conservative":
Andrew Sullivan
Labeling Sullivan a conservative is a tad bit like inviting Himmler to be the Keynoter at your next Women's American ORT meeting.
I can think of a dozen bloggers off the top of my head who could out-write and out-think Kristol, or Dowd, or Rich. Althouse is one. Reynolds is another. Fernandez (might be too smart for NY Times readers). Hansen. Morrissey. I could name a dozen. Anyone else have ideas?
AJ: You're absolutely right. And Hawthorne's book was WAY more interesting in the bargain. What I'm really looking forward to is Maureen Dowd as Hester Prynne, but I just can't seem to make it work. Help me out here, folks.
XWL: D'oh! Why didn't I think of YOU? Your blog is already WAY funnier than anything in the NYT, except maybe every 10th MoDo column or so. Sorry I can't link. Pressed for time. Everybody: Google "Immodest Proposals." You won't be disappointed.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a sock puppet!
I'm still trying to digest the notion that there's a newspaper somewhere with a reporter who covers black style, arts, politics and the military -- that's one HECK of a broad beat, with very little overlap.
Did Kristol ever endorse Obama? David Brooks(?) did. Brooks keeps his job. Seems it's pay back time. NYT can hire William Buckley Jr.'s son who actually endorsed Obama, made a big deal of his endorsement, and blamed National Review, his father's publication for "ostracizing" him, and National Review's readers for not being nice to him any more. May be Kathleen Parker can share the job with Jr's jr. She dissed Palin pretty nicely on TV.
Maybe the can replace him with Matt Damon.
Matt Daaaaamon
Steyn or Jonah Goldberg. But the NYT readers would never get their humor.
Caroline Kennedy is, you know, not doing anything at the moment. Maybe she could, like, ask Pinch to give her Kristol's spot.
Why not my hero Fred Thompson to replace worn out Bill Kristol. Or better yet (not that you can get better than old Fred, just ask Jeri)--but how about my favorite law professor blogger (sorry
Reynolds, Volokh and Bainbridge) Professor Althouse!
Bill Kristol should be ashamed. You get fired for being provocative, not boring.
Okay, how about my hero Fred Thompson taking over for Kristol. He is tan, rested and ready (just ask Jeri). Or better yet, how about my favorite law professor blogger (sorry Reynolds, Bainbridge and Volokh), the lovely and talented Devine Ms. Althouse!
So long as Sweet Princess Caroline is not doing public speaking, a good copy editor can take out all the uhhuhs and you knows and re-write her copy to make coherent sentances.
And given how she feels right now, she might be a tad more critical of Obama than Kristol.
JBlog said...
I'm still trying to digest the notion that there's a newspaper somewhere with a reporter who covers black style, arts, politics and the military -- that's one HECK of a broad beat, with very little overlap.
You would be astonished what a small paper in a small city near a large military base asks of their small reporting staff.
Its sort of like working in a small business. Numerous tasks, little "core knowledge" overlap.
I'm with traditionalguy at 10:01 am.
Kristol was a hedge play, and now that we are post-Elevation, there's no need for voices that besmirch The Radiance.
Kristol was a hedge play, and now that we are post-Elevation, there's no need for voices that besmirch The Radiance.
...or maybe he just wasn't that good?
It's one thing to be not good and liberal, because the Times have so many of them to pick up the slack for the other. Kristol kinda stood.
Also, he didn't mock Palin like Brooksy could be counted to at Le Cirque, you know.
What's the use of having a resident conservative who is actually supportive of conservatives, ick.
"Some possibilities would be PatBuchanan, LouDobbs, SteveSailer, or TomTancredo."
Because only true conservatives have the balls to leave the space out of their names?
LOL!
Michael, that was funny. You DO have a sense of humor.
Seconding Pogo and Theo.
Ann, you have the votes of your regular, loyal commenters.
Shall we discretely contact the NYT on your behalf?
re: Turgid
I recall that Mississippi proposed a law against being conspicuously turgid. Yep, here is the story. I wonder if it passed.
Instapundit has already linked to this thread with the question about the Professor taking Kristol's place. It's turning into a vortex.
Will you cancel the Fl trip and fly to NY? Or might you be meeting for drinks on Pinch's yacht in Miami?
Yeah, please roil the vortex for me.
Such a shameless flirt!
Triangle Man - Included in the Mississippi definition of nudity is: ".... the existence of a naked individual underneath the clothing."
A phrase, and a thought, that has sent generations of adolescents into furiously turgid fantasies.
I heard Kristol got canned because he could not master the cut-and-paste write-the-same-column day after day after day like Bob Herbert and Frank Rich.
But I didn’t like her in “Little Darlings” with Tatum O’Neal.
I ended up watching almost that entire movie because I *knew* I recognized one of the actresses in it and it was torturing me to not know who it was. And apparently I was too lazy to schlep from the sofa to the office and use IMDB. It turned out to be Cynthia Nixon (of "Sex and the City" fame) at age 14.
The movie itself wasn't actually all that bad. It kind of reminded me of "The Last American Virgin", one of those odd films that starts out as a sex comedy and ends up being a pretty convincing argument argument for abstinence.
Why not my hero Fred Thompson to replace worn out Bill Kristol.
Why would Fred even want the gig? I don't really see the upside to being the house conservative at an ailing left-wing paper.
"the house conservative at an ailing left-wing paper."
Like being Stalin's Jewish physician in February, 1953.
Are George Packer and Greg Packer related to Phil Packer, that groovy guy from a different school?
AJ Lynch said...
I heard Kristol got canned because he could not master the cut-and-paste write-the-same-column day after day after day like Bob Herbert and Frank Rich.
I heard it was because he had no idea how to use a fisheye lens.
Perhaps Althouse and/or some of her biggest fans could provide links to past posts that would act as a sort-of resume.
Please point to her most outstanding work that is most applicable to the job of a columnist.
(If that's not asking too much.)
Well, Bill Kristol is certainly not sitting around moping about his sacking.
His next challenge will be the greatest one yet!
Debating Matt Damon...
(Yeesh, how the mighty have fallen. Insert "Matt Damon" voice from World Police here)
1jpb - just the other day Althouse did a comparison of the so-called "cult of personality" re Bush and the real one re Obama, and the different impetus' surrounding them. Excellent.
And who else writes about Fashion like Althouse?
Shall we discretely contact the NYT on your behalf?
Please, please, please don't put Althouse under deadline with a word count.
Titus: Isn't there any younger, newer conservatives that could occupy that valuable piece of real estate?
Lileks.
Since Kristol was reasoned and informed he should be fired because he wasn't . . . .
like Dowd or Rich?!
Neither of whom have a thought in their head, they are just arrogant self righteous idiots spouting whatever they please.
Rich, a movie critic's who's predictions of success have almost always been proven wrong by the box office, and
Dowd, who makes Godfather, and Star Wars references in her book, clearly without having ever seen any of the movies affiliated with either saga is retained?
Sure, she knows the names, like "fredo" but all she cares about is that fredo was dumb, so clearly GWB is fredo, cuz he is dumb, so dumb he won two wars in less time it took ANY president to win one?
Who's the Fredo MoFredo?
I hate idiots. Actually I have no problem with idiots, I have a problem with idiots who think they are smart.
Mo, and Frank don't even know how to speak without an affect.
THAT'S not just STUPID! It's borderline retarded.
Revenant,
"I don't really see the upside to being the house conservative at an ailing left-wing paper."
You mean, besides daily opportunities to slip poison into the office coffee pot and water coolers, and other such little pranks?
I hope they replace him with MARK STEYN.
That would certainly liven up those pages. That's it: put Steyn opposite Herbert.
Roger that, Roger [van Oech]!
Krugman, Dowd, the brainless Herbert and supergay Rich [and Main Line yawn-provoking Brooks] all are less original than Kristol, who in turn wasn't that stimulating. The lesser lights like Kristof also bore to tears, with predictable patter.
The usual pack of lemmings like Greg Mitchell and the boys in the band are howling at the moon about supposed inaccuracies, when every day the unaccountable irresponsible crew of mediocrities on the NY Op-Ed page commit gaffers galore....
The left is similar to what Jack Nicholson in his movie on obsession called a woman...."take a man, and subtract reason and accountability...."
The entire MSM other than [and sometimes including] Fox are a witless touchy-feely subset of what used to be called losers. "None call it 'losing' when 'losing' rules the land...."
Kristol wasn't an exciting, traffic-winning commentator, like Dowd or Rich. Even in a conservative, the NYT has to demand that.
Kristol's problem wasn't just that -- nobody buys the Times to read David Brooks or Bob Herbert, either -- but that Kristol wasn't name-branded to the Times. You think of him and you think Weekly Standard or Fox News before you ever thought of his work for the folks across the street from the bus terminal.
William Safire was branded to the Times because he was both an interesting read and one not spread so far and wide you could get the gist of his arguments from an alternate site(s). Brooks is fairly exclusive, other than the News Hour on PBS, but writes pablum for the most part that only occasionally challenges the average Times reader's mindset.
John Tierney had far more potential as an alternate voice on the op-ed page, until he decided he'd rather not focus on just political writing. But if the Times is actually serious about having a conservative voice that draws people in to the op-ed page, they're going to have to find their own and not use someone who's already got 2-3 other gigs going (although the paper's ideological purity under the Pinch Administration means its virtually an affront to their sensibilities to develop a "new" conservative voice. Better to hire an established one like Kristol so they don't feel guilty for having spawned a challenger to their own beliefs.).
The flaming death of Faux Noise in print....ohhhh the Hannity!
Watching one more hot air balloon crash and burn........
rdkraus said...
I thought he was taking his column to the Wash Post, ya know, the big paper that's not going out of business."
you are referring to Washington Times where he would be more at home with a second tier (112 in circulation US)? or did you simply think wishfully?
"Whether The Times would find another conservative voice for its Op-Ed page."
Did they suddenly fire David Brooks? This whole "we must have editorial balance" is a headache. I don't read the Wall Street Journal expecting to find a horde of liberal columnists, so conservatives shouldn't expect hordes of conservatives at the NYT.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा