Saturday, December 29, 2007
Kristol due persuasion?
Or as Jim Morrison predicted, the Kristol Ship may be about to sail. Much uproar across the blogosphere over a report on Huffington Post that The New York Times is about to name inexpert expert Bill Kristol as a new op-ed columnist. That second conservative slot has been open since wacky John Tierney got dumped. However, this "news" still seems to be in the rumor stage so perhaps people should hang on to their hats for now. But let's not forget Kristol's call for the paper to prosecuted, on Fox News in 2006, after its big banking records scoop: "I think it is an open question whether the Times itself should be prosecuted for this totally gratuitous revealing of an ongoing secret classified program that is part of the war on terror.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Would this really be so surprising? Hell, if Rove can get a job sharing his views, why not Kristol? In fact, as you'll see when they officially make this announcement, Kristol's work will be right above the new Times section called " Curveballing", where our government's loyal and dependable informant now gets a weekly spot to share foreign policy thoughts and ideas, which will then automatically be implemented upon publication.
Field testing comes to mind.
We may be missing the point. The
Times' hiring of as turgid a writer as Kristol may have more to do with being democratic about talent than politics.
As Sen. Roman Hruska famously said in defending a Nixon Supreme Court appointee called mediocre, "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/12/left-right-and-dead-wrong.html
To let Kristol, a manifest warmonger, publish in the NYT is about the dumbest and saddest thing I have experienced at the end of the year. Why, in God's name, did you do that???
To let Kristol publish in the NYT is about the dumbest and saddest thing I experiened at the end of this year. Why???
My guess is the government must have forced them to do this. Maybe blackmail? Why give any credibility to this clown? And the argument of “tolerance” is ridiculous. The problem is not “tolerating an apposing viewpoint”, no one is against that. The issue is honesty and credibility, something that Krystol does not have. That should not be tolerated by the NYT.
My guess is the government must have forced them to do this. Maybe blackmail? Why give any credibility to this clown? And the argument of “tolerance” is ridiculous. The problem is not “tolerating an apposing viewpoint”, no one is against that. The issue is honesty and credibility, something that Krystol does not have. That should not be tolerated by the NYT.
Post a Comment