Who to Pick? The New York Times Conservative Slot
3. David Frum. Frum, an independent minded conservative and committed Republican, has now set up his own website, www.newmajority.com, a site devoted to presenting a dialogue among conservatives about what can be done to rebuild a serious Republican alternative to the growing Democratic majority. Readers of the site know that he is fearless in criticizing sacred cows among conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, who yesterday Frum argued was playing an “actively dangerous” role that could condemn Republicans to a permanent minority status for decades. He wants a party that will be what he calls “businesslike, sensible” and “responsible,” and that will have resonance with the middle class. From a man like Frum, Times readers could discover a Republican with whom they might disagree, but whose argument they might learn from.
4. James Kirchick. Currently an Assistant Editor at The New Republic, Kirchick might be considered by some as too young for the choice. But he has already established himself as a first rate editorial columnist in scores of op-eds he has written for major newspapers like New York City’s Daily News and websites. Politically, he combines the stance of a moderate neo-conservative who is also known as a gay activist, who writes for Washington, D.C.’s weekly gay newspaper, The Washington Blade. Kirchick has an independent mind and handles all sorts of issues and topics in his commentaries. In an age where Barack Obama’s chief speechwriter is no older than Kirchick, the paper would do well to consider him.
5. Seth Lipsky. Seth Lipsky is a major American journalist, who singlehandedly created the English edition of The Forward, once the influential daily Jewish newspaper originally published in Yiddish. When Lipsky was ousted by its board for being too conservative, he created the now defunct daily, The New York Sun, which took the name of a paper that once had been a city institution. Created intentionally as an alternative to the liberalism of The New York Times, Lipsky often scooped the Times with stories they had to cover and attribute to the Sun. He wrote many of the paper’s editorials, as well as his own columns. Before his own endeavors he worked for years at The Wall Street Journal. It would be a touch of humility for the Times to give an editorial slot to one of its fiercest critics.
6. Cathy Young. Now an editorial columnist for The Boston Globe (a paper owned by the Times), Young would be a terrific counterpart to all the liberal feminist writers employed by the paper. She writes on women’s issues, foreign policy and cultural issues. Her writing is sharp and pointed, and she calls her own shots, and is beholden to no kind of party line. The paper could well use another women’s voice that is not the same as all the others its readers know so well.
Let’s hope that when Keller makes his announcement, his choice will be someone as good as any of the above. These are just some of the many good choices Keller and company could make.
They’ll pick Rush Limbaugh. It’s a friends-close, enemies-closer kind of thing.
I’m supporting Megan McArdle because she is conservative enough to appeal to fans of Kristol and crazy enough to keep the heat off of Maureen Dowd/
The New York Times is only interested in employing Uncle Tom conservatives. Bill Kristol simply did not sufficiently behave himself. No, the Times is too far gone. It has become the plaything of “Pinch” Schultzberg. The odds are against its survival especially if this spoiled left-wing elitist continues to be the publisher.
VDH and Steyn are the two best. Krauthammer would be good, too, but he’s got his spot over at Wa-Po.
Steyn! And he’ll mess with Maureen Dowd’s mind.
Some names to consider for the coveted spot now that Bill Kristol is gone. A “coveted spot”? In a failing business? Come on !
Nobody. Conservatives should simply refuse to give any fig leaf of legitimacy to that traitorous, anti-American, anti-Semitic Marxist bird cage liner.
Let it die.
No real conservative should be tempted by any offer from NYT, unless it’s to print the obituary for the Slimes (it may be sooner than we think..). In which case I nominate Ann Coulter.
#3 David Thomson is on the right track. A conservative writer should be picked by conservatives, or by conservative organizations. I’m not sure how this would be done, but if the NYT picks the replacement, you can be sure it’s one of their pets; harmless to the NYT, or to anyone with a liberal mindset.
If I could choose, I’d pick Limbaugh, simply based on the huge numbers he generates. Any conservative with tens of millions of daily followers is saying something that resonates with tthem. I don’t listen to Rush much, but the market has certainly identified him as the country’s major conservative voice.
Don’t expect Steyn, Hanson, or any other sincere, principled conservative with an elegant writing style to be allowed into the Times’s editorial coop. The ownership and management of that paper is utterly committed to the leftist / “progressive” agenda, despite all the destruction it’s wreaked, and will allow no significant opposition to it from its pages. William Safire and David Brooks were tolerated because they were unprincipled and ineffective.
Also, I question whether a man with actual morals should take the Devil’s shilling, when there are so many other outlets for his opinions. I can’t imagine Mark Steyn being more effective on the Times editorial page than he’s been on the World Wide Web. Anyway, hasn’t he simply too much taste to want to rub shoulders with Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, two of the preeminent slanderers and mud-hurlers of our time?
It’s more important than ever for conservatives to keep our escutcheons unblotted.
Is Krauthammer not a possibility?
You don’t really think they’re gonna hire someone, do you? They’ve chosen their position and are making their last stand. Fact is, they’re broke. I don’t expect them to replace Kristol.
On the other hand, if they want to sell papers, they could hire… Ann Coulter!
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Of all the people Ron’s listed, I think David Frum has the best chance. As Ron says, Frum’s willing to criticize our sacred cows, which is what the NYT is really looking for: a conservative who’s willing to talk S__t about conservatism.
Why don’t they just hire Andy Sullivan?
Dr. Seuss. Need to start dumbing it down for the lib.
Dr. Kevorkian- for obvious reasons.
Mr. Radosh:
“There has been a great deal of speculation on conservative websites about who will get the coveted post,”
It’s a coveted post? I can’t imagine why that would be.
Don’t most writers want to have their copy actually READ?
Conservative writers should boycott the Times, let the thing sink, and take it’s staff down with it.
Unless one’s goal in life is to be a toilet, one shouldn’t reward people or organizations that crap on you.
Exactly right! Whoever takes the position will certainly slip more than a few notches in my mind. When the POS fails, let’s have only Leftists on board.
I can’t think why anyone would want to write for them but I suppose it’s considered a “catch” of a job.
Mark Steyn is the obvious choice. Although Hanson is great, Steyn is a firestarter.
Professor Ann Althouse, also, would be a very thoughtful columnist, but she’s really more of a classical liberal than a conservative.
Based on their current practice, whoever they get will have to have gone to an Ivy-League college, or at least to an eastern college. So you can cross Mark Steyn off the list. As far as I can tell, he didn’t even go to college, though that hasn’t prevented him from being an utterly brilliant columnist. But the Times, just like the Democratic party, are snobs, and so they probably won’t take him.
Mark Steyn is a (thoroughly enjoyable) vinegary polemicist in the same league as Dowd. To match Kristol in gravitas and substance, VDH would be a brilliant choice. Or perhaps the blogfather Glenn Reynolds – if he keeps his distance from the highly irascible, foul-tempered young lady: Malkin
Conservatives MUST have gravitas; thats the only trick that has brought Obama to power. (and we have McCain going on Letterman every other day saying things like “bleep you” etc, to get a few cheap laughs. sheesh)
Please remove my previous comment – I accidentally submitted it before I was ready.
Sure, those would all be great picks (I might add Ann Althouse, who isn’t a card-carrying conservative, but still seems to argue the conservative case more often than not).
On the other hand, none of those guys took the time to create a Facebook page about why the Times should pick them!
Restore ‘a semblance of balance’?
NY Times has a dozen Op Ed writers. And so ONE will be conservative? What kind of balance is that?
Dowd, Krugman and those clowns couldn’t tie Hanson’s shoes.
Why should conservatives help liberals prop up their dead horse? Throw them a shovel instead…..
Mark Steyn would be my choice.However,despite living in a suburb of NYC(Rowayton,CT)I rarely read the Times.When I do usually confine it to the Sports and Business.Even there it is hard to escape the leftward slant.
I doubt running a conservative once or twice a week would entice me to buy the paper on a regular basis.It is beyond redemption.
Most of my friends used to read it regularly.Few do now.We consider 95% of the paper to be a liberal editorial.
Is having a token conservative columnist an admission by the Times that they are a Democrat Party rag?
Not one of those good men mentioned by you should sully their name by writing for that piece of propaganda.
And why would a conservative want add any legitimacy to the NYT?
I guess David Brooks would have written for Tass or Pravda if he had been asked, but, seriously, I don’t see point.
Writing for such publications reinforces the fiction that they provide objective news coverage.
We shouldn’t legitmize them.
A “Conservative” slot at the NYT? Ha Ha Ha. And Ha.
Too funny.
I think you mean what liberal, moderate, or whackjob can the NYT put out there claiming to be a conservative so as to continue to deceive the public into believing that there is even a ounce of balance in their “reporting”. No decent, self respecting conservative would ever act as cover for the Marxist agitprop of the NYT; sounds like a job for Pat Buchanan. Maybe he could even snag a Pulitzer. (boy, sure would like to be at that banquet.)
This position would be the kiss of death for any serious conservative writer, sorta like an Upper West Side equvalent of the Nobel Prizes for Literature or Peace.
Steyn? Heavens help us, we sure do not need him co-opted and ruined. That will be the end of him. Maybe that would be the point of hiring him.
I think Dr. Suess is a great notion, but think of all that book burning out there in the suburbs that would quickly ensue. What a mess! I’d bet that even the Cat in the Hat could not make that right again.
I agree with an earlier post, the New York Times is too far gone. I used to be a subscriber and now I would not even put it under my cat’s litter boxes, her paws deserve far better. I rarely wish others ill however I enthusiastically make an exception for Maureen Dowd. I give her credit, she spews hate with the worst of them.
Hanson or Steyn would be great, I sincerely hope they will not sully themselves and keep company with such scum. I read my own local newspaper and several from Canada and Europe. New York Times? They are so last century.
Steyn was labeled a bigot by the NYT for his comments on Islam for which he was brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Of course, they didn’t state what he said that that qualified as bigotry, but nevertheless, this will make choosing him untenable for the NYT.
The NYT has always chosen “conservatives” that criticize any prevailing republicans leaders, and ideally criticize them for not being more moderate. Kristol did plenty of that, but not forcefully enough. Most of the people listed here don’t fit the NYT’s view of the right kind of conservative columnist.
Raj: Dowd and Steyn as co-equals? Kristol and Hanson at the same level?
Come on now.
Golly, even Styen has more “gravitas” than Kristol. The closest Kristol ever gets to “gravitas” is when he gets some gravy on his tie.
Hanson? My goodness, their presses would buckle uder the weight.
Skip #25: you nailed it!
I would want to see Jonah Goldberg get the spot, if he were willing. Steyn is very funny and knowledgeable, but Goldberg has many columns that are memorable for me: the time he went through airport security shortly after 9/11 to see if anything had changed, the visit to ANWR, the rant about whether the X-Men movie was actually good or not.
I mean, for me what matters is that a voice from the page sounds human and engaging, and one of the more interesting things about Goldberg is that his columns and writings have grown as he has. Stuff he used to write about the “hidden law,” defending hypocrisy in social conservatism, has gradually receded in favor of asking both bigger and more nuanced questions. He’s not interested in who’s gonna win an election or not, he’s more interested in why we think, act and choose the way we do.
The mark of seriousness is where your concerns lie. Anyone can get up there and sound good or serious or weighty. What’s really serious and weighty isn’t giving a spin on events, though, as much as wondering why they happened.
Blago. He’s our Baghdad Bob.
In this desperate, cost-cutting period for the Times, what in the world makes anyone think that they’re looking to fill that slot? At a time when the newspaper is selling part of its building and possibly its radio station, why would they even think of adding another “conservative” pundit to its ranks? No matter what you think of Brooks’ credentials, he is their conservative. Live with it. I’d rather they keep WQXR than put out money for an unnecessary scribbler.
I doubt tha NYT readers would get the historical background of VDH’s analyses, and they certainly aren’t clever enough for Steyn’s satire. Let BO recruit someone from his civilian volunteer army since the NYT probably doesn’t have the money to pay another salary. Actually, they could give Pelosi a column. That would surely send one or two of the minimaly brain damaged our way.
Ron,
The problem with the New York Times is, believe it or not, not the editorial pages (I don’t read the paper, by the way). People understand, unless they’re dolts, that op ed pages are OPINION. No, the problem is biased reporting. The NYT, like almost every MSM outlet in this country, is infected by “advocacy journalism.” The Columbia University Graduate J-School, and others that imitate it, have set loose upon the industry legions of writers who have an unawareness of the bias they bring to their jobs.
Mark Steyn, hands down. The others don’t even come close, not that they’re slouches or anything, but Mark Steyn has two things going for him that the others don’t: a wicked sense of humor and a love of show tunes.
Joe Dirt……..Dang
Well, if they are looking for a CINO (conservative-in-name-only), who goes out of his way to trash both conservatives and republicans on nearly every major issue, so that he can remain in the good graces of the left-wing media, how about Juan McCain?
He’s already helping Obama make sure he has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the Times can claim to have Obama’s (supposed, so-called) opposition to show how balanced they are.
Who should they hire? Steyn, hands down. Would he accept it? Only for sh*ts and giggles.
One slot ? Adding a different “conservative” columnist is spozed to help the business model ?
Maybe the NYT should consider replacing some of the highly tedious & completely predictable regulars, Herbert, Dowd, Rich, Krugman, Friedman…
If Mark Steyn doesn’t get the NYT gig (cold day in hell, here
)…I, nevertheless, nominate him for sentence of the year…
“Stimulus” comes from the verb stimulare, which is Latin for “transfer massive sums of money from what remains of the dynamic sector of the economy to the special interests of the Democratic Party.”
Where Nations Go to Die
VDH is out because he became an eager house-whore to the now-discredited Neocons. Mark Steyn has a good base, is an excellent writer, but they probably want an American that might reflect the “loyal opposition” after Bush and a degenerate Republican cabal in Congress and in various “constituency lobbies” all but wrecked the Party.
Ann Coulter is a modest writing talent that at best, serves as a witty clown-jester. Think of her as entertainment, like Jonah Goldberg..
Sean Hannity is unfortunately, too stupid to do a column, unless a ghost writer is assigned.
Then you have a guy who speaks for a large conservative base, served in 3 Republican Administrations, ran for President and who has sold more books than W F Buckley. But Pat Buchanan has too much self-respect to ever want his name associated with the NY Times.
My suggestions would be Mike Huckabee if they want a cultural conservative or a legal blogger like Glen Reynolds or Ann Althouse (who has already written a column for the NY Times). But Althouse is more moderate – she voted Obama as the objective better candidate for President over the “erratic, incoherent at times” McCain. A very interesting woman, though..she blogs on many topics besides law and politics, and is a skilled photographer.
An alternative would be to resurrect Richard Nixon , lately channeled in Purgatory during the 90s, dispensing sage advice to NY Times readers through his former writer, William Safire. It was Nixon that repaired the damage Goldwater did and brought the Republicans back (not Reagan) just one election after the Party had been reduced to just Arizona and Fundie-Land. Had Wallace not run in 1968 and captured most of the Deep South “Fundie-Land”, Nixon and his Silent Majority would have had almost as big a landslide then as they did 4 years later.
Robert Tracinski, one of the best out there. However, he has no chance since he can reason well, make a fact-based case, and is passionately committed to reason and freedom, while refusing to cave to pragmatism. In short, he has brains and integrity.
The NYT will only select (if they fill the slot at all) a tepid CINO like Brooks or Kristol.
Hopefully the NYT’s will be belly up and out of print soon. I would love to see their crack staff and chairman standing in a bread line.
Ron has picked a couple of great choices. I would just like to add a couple of names to the list. First, our very own Richard Fernandez, who is one of the best strategic thinkers around. Second the columnist for the Asia Times newspaper who uses the pseudonym Spengler. Either one of them would probably make some liberal heads explode.
How about Paul Craig Roberts…Oh wait hes a real conservative not a neo-con
#30 StLouis:
“…he was brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.”
The Canadian Human Rights Commission?
Wasn’t that the punchline of an old Monty Python gag?
Who gets the liberal spot on PJM?
Cederford: Enough of you and “the Jooos”. Listen, NeoCon is just another way for you to say “Filthy, Dirty Jew”, and you know it! Stop the dishonet dodge of using code words and just face up to the fact that you are a bigot and a liar. You may fool the young Leftys that occasionally pop in here, but everyone else knows what is up with you. Stop it, and stop leading impressionable and immature young people into immorality. Stop pretending that you seek truth or wish well for America.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Why can’t you figure out that few adults here wans to hear you taking out your old man’s life frustrations and bitterness on the Jews. Go take your bigotry over to KOS or some other place that accepts your sort of immorality and indecency. They love lies over there–you will feel right at home. Do you have children, for Pete’s sake? If you do they must be so ashamed of you. The adults here surely are ashamed of you, and sick to death of reading to your bigotry and lies. Why do you want to be were few want you to be?
Let me try this again:
This whole “NeoCon” notion that you are running though your mouth is just a parroting of a MSM/Leftist myth, and you parrot it to cover up your Jew hatred, your own self hatred, and the paucity of real knowledge or thought that informs your so called “opinions”. You well know this and do so willfully; it is all quite sinful, indecent and immoral.
In the real world, there is no such policy group or political group called “Neocons”. In the real world, there is no political movement, political policy or political philosophy called “Neo Conservatism”. Period. Moreover, GWB did not have a cabal of “NeoCons” designing, guiding or evangelizing the WOT. Period.
This is a complete fiction, no matter what the International Left, the Democrats, the MSM, the EU “colleagues” or Pat Buchanan and his fellow towel boys over at the The American Conservative have say about it. Period.
Please stop lying.
“Neocon” is just a name the Democrats throw at a absolutely tiny group of people which they want to slander and blackball. Many 30 or 40 people are in this group. These are just mostly some New York, LA and Washington Jewish writers and pundits that used to be Liberal Democrats, saw how vile the Democrats really were, switched parties and then had the temerity to write about the experience. Other than being apostates from the Left, they have no particular commonality of thoughts, opinions or philosophies. That is it! There is nothing more to it. Period.
They no doubt had enough of self important bigots like you–bigots that mask their superficiality, mediocre intellects and dark, jew-hatring venom behind a sophistic fog of pseudo-intellectual and ahistorical gobbledygook.
Nobody and no thing here has been “discredited”. Not “The NeoCons”, not the GOP, not Bush, not the WOT, not the War in Iraq, not the war in Afghanistan. The fact that you may think otherwise is wholly irrelevant. The world that you imagine that you live in is a purely imaginary one shared only by other loony anti-semitic bigots like yourself. It is a projection of self hatred and a paranoid self-delusion. It is an inversion of reality. Period.
In fact, what is going to happen during this treasonous and incompetent administration is going to prove just how right Bush and the GOP was. His WOT will be profoundly vindicated once and for all time. Period. Let us pray that few Americans or Israelis have to die to seal that vindication.
By the end of the summer the Nation will be begging Bush to come back, at least in the privacy of their own hearts and minds they will be begging.
Stop with the libel already. You are making yourself into a silly old fool. You are publicly degrading and humiliating yourself. Seriously. Take a look at what you are doing.
You really need to get a grip on yourself. You are so full of bitterness. Seriously, it is going to end badly for you. Reflect on what sort of people have shared you beliefs–they include some of the most hideous and immoral people in recorded history. They include some of the most murderous butchers alive today. They include the most dangerous and vicious enemies of your country. It is not the Jews fault that you are unhappy with your life. It is yours. You need some serious counseling of some sort. Go get it. Really.
I expect Frum. An anti-Palin RINO would suit the NYT just fine.
The weird part of this discussion is that no one has brought up the crucial point of it: the issue isn’t which conservative will best fill Kristol’s shoes, it’s which conservative the NYT will *want* to fill Kristol’s shoes. Nobody on the left wants to read a column from Mark Steyn or VDH: they’re way too eloquent and smart. The liberals at the times are likely to hire Limbaugh or Coulter, someone like that, because everyone hates the person involved, and because the individual can be counted on to say something outrageous that can show everyone what buffoons and monsters conservatives are. Think Colbert Report, not Firing Line with William F. Buckley (though Buckley was on PBS for years because liberals could tolerate him, too). Someone like Frum, who’s seen as more moderate, wouldn’t do the trick either: he’d be just another columnist. Remember, they’re strapped for cash. Coulter, with her low-cut blouses and confrontational/sexy stare, would be perfect, controversial and photogenic. Who would want another middle-aged white guy who’s going to spout some mildly unpopular opinions?
James:
How about Paul Craig Roberts…Oh wait hes a real conservative not a neo-con
Oh, watch it James! The hysterical Israel uber alles poster named Mongoose gets especially hysterical about criticism about the Neocon disaster that helped wreck Bush’s Presidency. From his venting at me and others:
1. Mongoose – Listen, NeoCon is just another way for you to say “Filthy, Dirty Jew”, and you know it!
2. Mongoose – In the real world, there is no such policy group or political group called “Neocons”. In the real world, there is no political movement, political policy or political philosophy called “Neo Conservatism”. Period.
3. Mongoose – “Neocon” is just a name the Democrats throw at a absolutely tiny group of people which they want to slander and blackball. Many 30 or 40 people are in this group.
4. Mongoose – This is a complete fiction, no matter what the International Left, the Democrats, the MSM, the EU “colleagues” or Pat Buchanan and his fellow towel boys over at the The American Conservative have say about it. Period.
5. Mongoose – Nobody and no thing here has been “discredited”. Not “The NeoCons”, not the GOP, not Bush, not the WOT, not the War in Iraq, not the war in Afghanistan.
6. Mongoose – what is going to happen during this treasonous and incompetent administration is going to prove just how right Bush and the GOP was. His WOT will be profoundly vindicated once and for all time. Period. Let us pray that few Americans or Israelis have to die to seal that vindication. By the end of the summer the Nation will be begging Bush to come back….
7. Mongoose – It is not the Jews fault that you are unhappy with your life. It is yours. You need some serious counseling of some sort.
Now, if one tracks what the poor chap is screaming about, all in one post:
All the Neocons never existed. The Left, the Euros and Pat Buchanan wing are wrong about the Neocons, who led us wisely in the WOT and into Iraq, and they will be vindicated soon. All while the Neocons are just this tiny, tiny group…..
But really, Neocon is just anti-Semetic code for “Joooooos!” – which bigots in the traditional conservative ranks use – and various powerful people who were triumphantly proclaiming themselves to be – Neocons – at the AEI, Heritage Institute, the “wise architects” of the New Pax American, back in 2002.
But Mongoose, like his Bolshevik ancestors did with anti-Communists, now diagnoses criticism of the Neocons he simultaneously says were correctm while they didn’t exist -as a “psychological malady”. You know, as the bigger weasel says…”a complete fiction”.
Then Mongoose closes out by saying how treasonous the new Administration is, and despite the elections of 2006 and 2008, will be begging for Bush to come back (somehow) as the GOP, the Israelis, and the non-existent Neocons are vindicated!!!
Sometimes even a hysterical joke like Mongoose, likely a refugee from the hatespeech Website “Little Green Nazis”
is funny.
I cannot see the NY Times picking Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn as regular columnists. Hanson and Steyn would show the rest of the NY Times to be mediocre and would convert a number of New Yorkers to conservatism.
Who cares? It is a porch monkey job for a Real American anyways.
If you were a principled conservative thinker, why would you take a job writing opinion columns for the New York Times? That paper, and its affiliates and allies in the MSM, is going down the tubes because of biased and unethical news writing. I would rather see them go down the tubes. If adding my name to a stable of columnists would enable that paper to survive, then I give it thumbs down. I can make money in other places and get my columns out to people in other ways. There is no way that a token conservative columnist is going to get Pinch Sulzberger to clean up the mess among the beat journalists and the editors. Not gonna happen.
If I were Steyn or Hanson, I’d walk away from them.
I vote for Sandy Duncan. Remember her? When she played Peter Pan? Yeah, she’d be good. Or maybe Chuck Norris. He’s still got more to say. Either of them. Throw in the Reverand Robert Tilton. That’s three good choices. This is too easy.
Peggy Noonan or Colin Powell.. they’ll feel right at home in the NYT’s echo chamber.
Hey. How about Glenn Beck? Most would consider anything he has to say as comedy. But it might increase circulation for the New York Times. Sort of win win in a loopy sort of way.
“Cederford: Enough of you and “the Jooos”. Listen, NeoCon is just another way for you to say “Filthy, Dirty Jew”, and you know it! Stop the dishonet dodge of using code words and just face up to the fact that you are a bigot and a liar.”
Mongoose, since you’re dropping smears, you come off as a psychotic lunatic. When leading neocons themselves, who happen to be Jews, have identified themselves with the description “neocons,” actually coining the term, where do you get off repeating this calumny? You’d best take care of your paranoid psychosis.
If, as you say, there is no such thing as a “neocon,” go tell that to Norman Podhoretz. You truly sound like a fool.
They won’t pick a conservative that actually is, you know, a conservative. It will be another Brooks type who wants the conservative label without all the baggage of actually having to believe anything that main stream conservatives believe. Kristol actually had a few beliefs that were, well, conservative and we see where that got him.
The lefties that read the NYT want a museum conservative like Brooks. The can look at him behind glass without actually feeling the discomfort of having their world view challenged.
Victoria,
Whatever your quibbles with Mongoose’s facts or definitions, you have not been around long enough to know the C-Fudd Schtick. He really is a Jew-hater from way back. I have observed this, and I’ll go on the record in defense of Mongoose’s long post. It’s mostly accurate. I started participating in Richard Fernandez’ Belmont Club weblog back in ’04 and C-Fudd was around back then, bashing the Zionists/Jews and any one who defends them. He’ll come at me too, from time to time, but that’s o.k. because I’m proud of the fact that he calls me a Christian Zionist. I think I must be doing something right when C-Fudd goes at me. He likes to call me stupid also. Again, I take it as a compliment (it must drive him nuts that I love it when he insults me).
Originally, “neo-conservative” meant a liberal/Leftist who, starting in the late Sixties, defected over to the Dark Side (the Conservatives)and retained some of their former identity, which typically, today, would look more like the old-style Democrats under someone like JFK or Truman before that. Since a lot of the neo-Conservatives (but not all of them, because Bill Bennett is not Jewish)are Jews, and much of the Left hates Jews and Israel, the use of “neocon” has, over time, come to be synonymous with “dirty Jew.”
I have an in-law and her husband (my wife’s sister)who hates Jews and Israel and tosses around the word “neocon” with frequency and when he uses the word you can see the madness in his eyes. And he uses it to describe me, even though I am not a Jew. But when he is talking about Jews he uses this word liberally. It’s a tense relationship, and it only got worse when his brother, who is in the New Hampshire Guard, was sent to Iraq for a tour of duty. Because I supported his brother AND THE MISSION, and because my sister-in-law’s husband despised the mission, I have fallen to even deeper depths of being persona non grata.
I was a Leftist from 1977-1987. Even in those days it was kind of lonely there on the Left if one supported Jews and Israel. And it has only gotten worse since those days. I now live in a country where we have demonstrations against Israel where Leftists join in with the Muslims calling for Jews to be sent back into the ovens again.
I’m never going back to the Left again. I burned that bridge for good. There is nothing good there to go back to.
Longshot from right field -> Kyle-Anne Shiver
Good writer, well read and entertaining.
Excellent conservative credentials.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, Fred, don’t be so presumptuous to believe that you’re needed to give us the origins of the neocon camp. It’s tired, old hat, and by now we know the wherefores. And spare me the Bill Bennett-Fred Barnes-evangelical crap. They’re all apologists for a country that should be of no importance to us, i.e., Israel. I don’t care what they label themselves, or how others label them, they do great damage to this country, both economically and culturally.
I don’t care how people use the “neocon” appellation. The fact is that the originators of this fraudulent form of “conservatism” were overwhelmingly Jews (just ask the two papas, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol), to be joined eventually by their sycophant gentile Israel worshippers.
Does Pravda hire conservative columnists too?
So, Victoria, the aspersions of your post suggest that you do hate Jews.
So, why do you hate them?
For your edification, Fred, I hate all the enemies of this Republic that was founded by Jefferson/Madison/Hamilton, et.al. And people who have greater love for another land are haters of my country. It’s your ilk who are the “haters,” a term as overused and now worthless as “racist.” Those Founders did not establish this country with a Middle East cipher in mind, that would milk it financially and transform it culturally. I’m sure they did not have that in mind.
Fred = WE have all heard your life story about how you were a slavish Leftist and have now been transformed into a slavish Zionist ball-licker.
The mystery, to me, is why you are so proud of being a lifestyle pawn of others..
And if they somehow disappoint you, no doubt you will move on to a new cause that you are too stupid to understand the arguments, pro and con, about…and end up being a stooge again. Mindlessly parroting their words.
One of my cousins is like you. Sub-100 IQ, started as an Ayn Rand worshipper, then became an Israel-lover, then a believer in macrobiotics and preacher to others about organic vegan lifestyle, dropped that, shifted to being a Moonie for a few years, now he is a AGW hysteric. For his Christmas gift to his Mom, he gave a dozen large reusable shopping bags, enough Gore bulbs to replace all her lights, and a copy of Gore’s latest book.
Opinion is mixed on the chappie – either he just naturally does stupid things, or is just a natural tool of others…
I can’t imagine anything more arrogant than the NY condescending to grant one op-ed column a week to a conservative pundit in order to show its “balance”, its dedication to its famous motto, “All the news that’s fit to print”. It smacks of “The spook who sits by the door”. It is a deliberate act of humiliation.
Anyone who thinks that commentators of the caliber of Hanson, Steyn, Krauthammer, or Frum covet that role, or would consider it for a minute, is out of touch with reality. I’m sure Bill Kristol honestly felt that his voice might be heeded by Democrats during the long campaign. After the disgraceful partisan performance of the Dirty Yellow Hooker, any right-wing writer who accepts the job will lose all status with his peers.
Just let it go. Non-appearance of a conservative column will make a statement to he publishing world: either the NYT has decided not to give any room to conservative opinion, or its reputation has sunk so low that no self-respecting writer on the right will work for it.
Charles Krauthammer is so terrific and I never miss a column. Come to think of it, I never miss anything by Hanson or Steyn either. They don’t need the New York Times.
I have not quite put the 2008 election season in my own “rear view mirror” at least in part because my candidate did not win. What took me by surprise was the venom from the left and the advocacy by most of the MSM for one candidate over any other. Facts didn’t matter. Questions were never asked. Too many pundits and not enough journalists. Adding a columnist with high ethical standards and a knowledge of history will not fix the New York Times anymore than it could fix MSNBC. I only hope we have seen the pendulum swing as far as it can in one direction and hope the events of 2008 have inspired a new generation of journalists/writers who will raise the standards and benefit us all.
Those Founders did not establish this country with a Middle East cipher in mind, that would milk it financially and transform it culturally. I’m sure they did not have that in mind.
Oh, you must mean the Ikhwan’s (Muslim Brotherhood) long articulated agenda for the United States.
Small Snippet Here
Entire document (in English) starts about halfway down the page…
Here
While I agree with most of the sentiment; eg, don’t sully the conservative cause, I’ve come to the conclusion that having a true conservative embedded would actually be a good strategy–depending on the editorial obligations of the contract.
If the NYT wants to survive even a little longer, they need to insert several conservative columns daily. People will pay to read that war of words between the incumbents and the newby(s).
Good columnists deserve payment. The NYT is failing. Better that some of the conservative voices get those last few dollars, no? And, there might be a bailout of the press, which we cannot override.
It will be like having a Michael Yon or Totten on the fantail of the Brittania (sister ship of the Titanic, neither of which survived their maiden voyages BTW) and the reportage will be accurate and interesting.
And, any conservative personality taking the job will know it’s a temporary position.
So Victoria, if another 3-6 million die because
of Ahmadinejad, or the Sauds,getting the bomb you will say what, they didn’t matter, it wasn’t our concern. You think this crew in power, gives a damn about the Republic, hell no, remember all that talk about ‘negative rights’ like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. It seems the neocon crew, is possibly the only ones who still care about the promise of America, with few exceptions.
WoW Victoria,
I’m surprised. I can appreciate your isolationist stance that leaves aside alliances, but how do you respond to a scanario where Israel is “wiped off the earth” and at that point Muslims control all the oil in the Arab ME and launch another boycott, along with Hugo, or close the straits over internecine wars between Sunni and Shia?
And if your isolationist dreams are fulfilled, we’d be out of Iraq, Afghanland, Somalia et al, as well? So, there’d be no one prepared to stop the advance of Islam by its blackmail, coersion and death-spreading?
So, our only response would be to nuke the bad guys? Surely, you believe there are bad guys? Many of us would rather use convetional warfare, before we absolutely have no option other than going Roman.
Would your position be different vis a vis Israel, if we (the West, or what remains) were actually on a Declared War footing? I mean outposts are important both strategically and tactically, and the erstwhile “antagonists” are right there, closeby, all around. We could sort out your alleged rape of our culture after the war, no?
Isn’t Steyn on record as swearing that he’d never write for the NYT?
It seems the neocon crew, is possibly the only ones who still care about the promise of America, with few exceptions.
———————–
Now this has got to be one of the funniest lines ever written. Are you auditioning for Saturday Night Live? By the way, I wonder who those “few exceptions” are. Maybe their the ones who have done all that damage to our country. To these people, the “promise of America” is the promise of endless billions of dollars transferred annually to their Beloved Country. That’s the only promise that interests them.
I would rather give up the three billion to the Mubarak regime, who have exported to us over the years, Sheikh Rahman, Mohammed Atta, Ali Mohammed, Seyf Al Adel (the originator of the plane as ‘flying bomb’)Abu Hamza al Rabia, Ayub al Masri, the AQ deputy in Iraq, Zawahiri, Abu Ubeida al Masri (planner of the last two aviation plots) I don’t think the neocons have much to do with that. I’d rather we not send the Sauds and their Ilkwan retainers, a check in the hundreds of billions each year, and exploit oil more in our own hemisphere, is that a neocon project too. I recall Steve Emerson, pointed out the Saudi penetration of our economy and even our politics, twenty five years ago. Neocon trick too, I bet
I like the way the Israel-lovers point to the self-defense tactics of Arab countries, as these countries attempt to offset the initial money-plucking originally begun by the powerful Zionist lobbies. Neither Egypt, nor any other Middle Eastern country, would be sucking at U.S. teats, if the original teat-sucker, Israel, had not developed the power to drain American taxpayers. How else to compete? These Israel-firsters are so pleased to be able to cite extortionists other than their Beloved Land, never pointing out the fact that such arrangements would be non-existent if it were not for the Israel connection.
Have only heard of the first three. VDH is too much an intellectual to be grasped by the typical NYT featherweight thinker. Steyn won’t kiss ass enough. The next house-conservative will be the RINO Frum… a nice Canadian that can be relied on to know where his bread is buttered, and what a stalking horse is intended for.
Shorter version: who cares?
Call me nuts, but isn’t this thread about a conservative slot at the NYT?
What’s with all the Jew comments??
No one, the goal should be to let the SLIMES die the death it so richly desrves,for having supported Stalinism,Pol Pot,Castro,and every kind of left wing brutality. Maybe Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il can bail them out.
Victoria, you are most entertaining, I’ll give you thst. AQ is now an Egyptian self defense method. You do realize that the Egyptian parastate is essentially a CIA creation, seeded by Miles Copeland,(a former Birmingham Alabama musician and James Eichelberger (a former ad man)seeded with German expatriate military and intelligence mean, like Alois Brunner, who helped manage the first WMD program from Syria.It was in this culture, that young Saddam was cultivated by these geniuses, along with other Baathist exiles, coming to power in a series of coups after the death of Kassem.
The Sauds are clearly a more significant problem that we incurred sometime around 1932.
Who cares. The paper is irrelevant and going out of business.
…if the original teat-sucker, Israel, had not developed the power to drain American taxpayers.
I’d like to see your concrete & specific examples of this claim you keep making.
(at least you finally threw off any remaining doubt as to your actual position by using the inflammatory code word “zionist”)
Maybe Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il can bail them out.
Carlos Slim has loaned the Times…
A bunch of money at 14%
I’m somewhat sad at the decline of America’s top newspapers, the passing of an era, and all that.
In the case of the NYT, it seems a combination of Pinch Sulzberger’s hardheaded (and not very enlightened) personal ideology and competition with all the other sources of “news” now available.
Tanstaafl: You’re right, but like the plutocratic gangster he is, Slim is charging the SLIMES 14% interest;he is going to get something out of this, so I don’t quite think his move is a bail-out.Still, it’s fun to realize that the SLIMES, now depends on a gangsetr charging loan-shark rates,to print its garbage:Sic transit gloria mundis!
Any paper that puts the degenerate thug EMINEM on its cover,proclaiming him a “genius”,deserves to die!
I would like to nominate Peggy Noonan. She’d fit right in.
DR. Lippenheimer:Yes she would;she’s an Obama lickspittle!
Joe the Plumber. Why not?
Andrew Klaven!
Thomas Sowell and Walter Wiliams are my choices .
Both Black ..Economist and Devout very Smart Conservatives ,
Not to mention loaded with Wisdom , Common Sense which has been missing for years in the NY Times .
Krystol is no conservative in my book, he is a neo con, i.e. advocate of democracy building using USA military power and a Jesus fascist. non neo con conservatives and are not isolationist and certainly not Jew or Israel haters. get over yourselves. enough with the evangelical ignoramuses that think they are on God’s side to change the world. how pathetic.
since no conservative is there to replace, i say no one. let the NYT’s rot. if there is to be a choice, i would favor a conservative that is more informational than avocational. someone like John Lott or Novak for example. Novak pegs people, from Krystol to Jimmy, the lying village idiot, Carter exactly on the money. he was also on the correct side of both American Gulf wars. Lott, does research, reports research, and relates it in copious quantities with devastating quality.
those are conservative journalistic qualities. qualities most liberal and conservative pseudo journalists do not have. i am tired of being preached to.
i have no interest in a right wing CNN,or New York Times, just the fact ma’am.
Upon a quick perusal of the comments at this thread, there’s an understanding that “conservative” can have different meanings.
To be precise, Kristol is a neoconservative.
As previously communicated by at least one other person at this thread, don’t expect a conservative which truly challenges the prevailing biases of The NYT.
An example would be people who think along the lines of Srdja Trifkovic on a number of foreign policy issues. BTW, this observation of The NYT has to a degree been noted in relation to National Review. Some would no doubt put Pajamas Media in the same category.
No one. Let them die from natural causes.
Victoria,
You are aware that the US and Israel were not on such good terms until 1973? We got sick of the Arab state’s siding with the Soviets, and tossed our lot in with their enemies. (The hardware of the 1948 and 1967 wars was mostly French and WW2 leftovers.) It didn’t hurt that Israel was a Western democracy like Germany or Norway as opposed to a corrupt dictatorship. Consider that our money to Israel actually gives us an ally in the region, one that contributes something to the world other than oil.
I only really developed a special fondness for Israel (along with the Philippines and a few others) after 9/11. They fight the same crazy irhabi movement we do.