NY Times Needs a New Columnist:
So you do you think should replace William Kristol? If I were at the Times, I would hire five columnists instead of one -- paying them very little, because hey, they're getting terrific exposure -- and promise them that their columns would be posted on the Times website and then considered for inclusion in the paper version. I would then pick the best column written that week for inclusion in the paper version. Over time, a great columnist might emerge from the pack. And even if no great columnist emerges, at least you would avoid the problem of columnists who have the gig and are just coasting.
You watch too much reality TV.
JonC:
Agreed that Ramesh would be great.
Otherwise he would never imagine that the Times could find five columnists who would submit to such a gross imposition on their dignity. Merit evaluation! Pah!
The *best* solution is of course to persuade Maureen Dowd to register as a Republican. Representation problem solved, and we Dems would just as soon have her on the other side.
He has a real job at National Review, but Kristol supposedly has had such an obligation himself at the Weekly Standard.
Oh now there's a sane and balanced conservative!
Assume the NYTimes wants someone who can 'balance' the liberal opinions on their oped page. Then, if you are a conservative, I would hope that you would want someone who didn't support Bush and all his positions for the past 8 eights. You would need someone who was a lonely voice against big gov't, admitted for the past few years that Iraq was handled badly and Rumsfeld had to go, admit that the Repulibcan party took a drubbing in the last few elections and has lost touch with ordinary folk, doesn't look to God as the answer to all our problems, believes in the rule of law, however it falls, and so on.
In other words, I'd look for a sane rational conservative who stuck to his guns for the past eight years. That's the only republican I could respect, in fact. But I find that there are few of them, at least with a national name recognition.
Which implied that for the past 8 years, he was just a cheerleader for Bush &Co,, despite his misgivings. If that's what you want, it would be much easier to have the oped page provide a link to the RNC's website, and you can get all your propaganda there.
George Will, then.
Already at the WaPo and unlikely to pull up stakes at this point.
Ponnuru has faults, as Randy points out above, but overall I think he would be a good choice -- especially given the poor field. (Larison is a stone-cold conservative, but for that very reason he would tend to frighten many readers, including putatively conservative ones.)
Andrew Sullivan would be an excellent choice, but he's scarcely regarded as a conservative any more, so badly has the brand deteriorated.
As much as I love Brit, he doesn't meet Randy R.'s criteria, which are the best I've seen so far.
On reflection, though, I wonder whether we (the blog-reading public) should want the NYT to select someone who's already a blogger or columnist. Do we really care where Rich Lowry's or Ramesh Ponnuru's columns are posted and printed?
I grant that the NYT op-ed page still has some power to shape public discourse. But it's much less than it used to be (which is almost certainly a good thing), such that someone's status as a NYT columnist carries more symbolic weight than real power. (I'd guess that having Kristol at the NYT rather than the Weekly Standard affected precisely zero people's views of conservatism.) Furthermore, I'd find it much more valuable to add a new voice to the mix than it would be simply to shift an existing voice to a new platform. So maybe we should be looking for someone new -- perhaps an academic or a former politician, staffer, or diplomat -- who doesn't write regularly now but whose views would be an interesting addition to public discourse.
You would need someone who was a lonely voice against big gov't, admitted for the past few years that Iraq was handled badly and Rumsfeld had to go, admit that the Repulibcan party took a drubbing in the last few elections and has lost touch with ordinary folk, doesn't look to God as the answer to all our problems, believes in the rule of law, however it falls, and so on.
</blockquote>
I'm not sure whether you've actually read "The Party of Death," or anything else Ponnuru has ever written, but he basically meets all these criteria. He hasn't written much about Iraq as he's more domestic policy-oriented, but I imagine he would agree that "Iraq was badly handled and Rumsfeld had to go."
If anything, it may have been counterproductive to his cause.
Reports of his Trig-obsessing tended to be exaggerations of what he actually wrote on his blog.
But by all means, if the GOP wants to make fidelity and honor to Sarah Palin a litmus test, do what you think best. I disavow any partisan sentiment, most assuredly.
The howling from the Loony Left over Kristol was bad enough - can you imagine what would happen to the blessed echo chamber inhabitants if they actually had to see a real conservative column?
Rush would be perfect, but he'd never take the gig. He'd be compelled to censor himself, both in print and on air. (contra-example: Matt Yglesias)
I nominate Mark Steyn.
Now that Colmes is free, why not let him and Rush talk over each other in print (I CAN SEE ALL THE CAPS NOW!).
Come on, the goal should be to limit the exposure and relevance of the extremists and sensationalists from each party, not to give them a larger platform.
Actually, I think Sarcastro would be a great choice. See how long it takes the GOP to figure it out.
I second the "Douthat so long as he is not permitted to write pithy columns about Catholicism and atheism" suggestion.
I recall -- it wasn't that long ago -- various folk of the lib'rul persuasion saying they thought hiring Kristol was an extremely bad idea. And, no doubt, somebody howled because there's always Some Guy Somewhere. But the reaction I remember was more in the line of derision and contempt, amply vindicated by later events. At the time I advised that the best strategy for people who wanted William Irvingson Kristol not to be a Times columnist was not to rise to the bait, to ignore him as much as possible, in the expectation, again, amply vindicated by events, that what would do him in was an utter lack of "buzz." And so it happened.
"You would need someone who ... admitted for the past few years that Iraq was handled badly and Rumsfeld had to go ..."
How about George W. Bush?
I question whether it's desirable to select someone who's "mainstream" -- that is, someone who's representative of a particular movement (or subsection of a movement). The worst columnists are the ones who tend to spout the talking points or conventional wisdom of "their side" (this is true of columnists across the political spectrum). I'd much prefer someone idiosyncratic, or at least someone with a particular area of real expertise, than someone whose main skill is articulating the his party's reigning orthodoxy or current hot-button issue. There's got to be a good conservative historian or economist out there, right?
Exactly my point. If you want conservatism to be taken seriously, then you need a serious contender. Douthat, Will and several others would be fine. Limbaugh? he's a joke, and if your goal is to present another side to the national debate, he won't be the one. If you want sane rational dialogue that will actually get conservatives somewhere, and their points aired, then you need someone else.
As Re: Sullivan and the baby issue: Sullivan merely asked for proof of the baby's parentage. It would be very simple to get, and yet Palin has never provided it. Why is that an issue? With most people, probably not, but Sully also documented a long list of lies that are easily proven. Therefore, when you prove that you are a lier in so short of time, everything you say should demand some degree of evidence to back it up.
Even if you don't buy that, it's hardly any more looney than demanding the birth certificate of Obama, which many mainstream conservatives were doing.
Or, as he was known to his classmates at Dartmouth, Distort da newza.
Buckley would be terrific, and he has the bonafides of being thrown off the magazine by Rich Lowry. that's a real plus.
I mean, seriously -- do we really need more arguments about how bad abortion is? How wonderful tax cuts are? How evil terrorists are? Prognositications on how valuable the religious right really is? Or fergodsakes, how terrible Washington really is?
How about someone who actually *served* in Iraq for several rotations, and knows the military for all its glories and flaws? Or who has started up *several* businesses, some failed, some spouting riches? Perhaps someone who knows something about the real world?
THIS is why I object most to Ponnuru and Lowry &Co. They are all theory. It's everything they learned in classrooms and lectures and seminars. They live in an echo chamber of cocktail parties and think thanks. Ponnuru writes about the Party of Death -- I didn't read it, so catch me if I'm wrong, but has he *ever* actually spoken to a woman faced with the dilemma of carrying the child to term or abort? (I should say listen -- it's really easy to lecture anyone about anything, much harder to understand their hard choices).
Liberal writers can be just as bad, so I hold no truck for them either. Sometimes their analysis is so laugably bad, you think they learned everything by reading a stupid book. But if the conservative movement wants to get off the ground, they should turn their back on the people who led them into this disaster and seek a fresh voice. And the Time would be the better for it.
After all, disgraced NY governor Eliot Spitzer became a columnist for Slate, so the precedent has been set.
He could even increase revenue for the New York Times by shaking down children's hospitals in exchange for favorable coverage.
True, but (1) it's not as though the Dems will proclaim him one of their own; and (2) I'm sure he'd change that. His politics seem to consist purely of opportunism.
Christopher Caldwell
Matthew Continetti
Jonah Goldberg
John Podhoretz
Peter Wehner
Heather Mac Donald
John Stossel
Andy McCarthy
Michael Barone
David Brooks. Oh, wait....
Another vote for DangerMouse.
[BTW, I'd suggest Newt.]
Even if you don't buy that, it's hardly any more looney than demanding the birth certificate of Obama, which many mainstream conservatives were doing.
Yeah, well that was pretty loony too. Let me add that the Times should definitely NOT hire anyone who writes for The Corner.
I'd vote for Douthat and Steyn, but both might be too prone to original thinking for the Times' liking.
BTW Kristol and the other phony conservatives compromised themselves by accepting Obama's meal invitation. This allows him to define who is a conservative.
I'm only slightly embarrassed to report that I sat here laughing out loud when I read his post.
I wonder if Times writers have said this about any of their other columnists?
I nominate . . . ME. Because I'm witty, intelligent, and I really need money. Even if the gig itself doesn't pay well, the speaker's fee for, say, the National Aluminum Can Makers Nationwide National Convention would probably be a few K. Much more if I could use the column to wedge myself into a slot on cable "news."
And then: I begin writing books that serve as chum for the sharks of the right. Books with titles like "Liberals Should be Castrated in a Very Painful Manner" and "How to Have Sex with a Liberal (If You're Horny)." These would be displayed front-on, not sideways, at the major bookstores. The money would roll in.
Final step: World domination.
Either that or Mark Steyn or James Lileks. One of us three.
I like Sullivan...but I would really like Bill Maher.
Failing that, I don't think a conventional R/Con really works for the Times, since Times readers already know all the R/Con Talking Points and all the Rebuttal Points Huff/Kos helpfully provide so that they can avoid engaging them.
Hanson/Stossel/Hitchens/McCardle would all be good for some curveballs.
Speaking of parody artists, how about Stephen Colbert?
That makes him a perfect fit for a NYT columnist.
He hasn't been rejected for more than 2 decades. Making that much money in a highly competitive field (where most fail) is proof of fitness for the job.
I second. The floor is open for discussion.
Andrew Ferguson
William Bennett
Hoosier: "I nominate . . . ME."
I second. The floor is open for discussion.
I am still an undecided voter. But I do think Hoosier would bring HOPE to the New York Times. And CHANGE. He'd bring CHANGE too.
So I'm leaning toward him.
John Simon, as long as he remains alive
Bob Tyrrell
I like Emo, too, though.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.