I suppose this was inevitable.
A great deal of Bush Grindhouse water has pooled up since Judy Miller left, so the NYT had a need for another water carrier, someone with a big bucket, someone with “Big Lying” credentials.
Apparently, David Brooks wasn’t up to snuff, or that his “body language” thing has even creeped-out his co-workers.
Jonah Goldberg is currently unavailable, too busy sticking his head up his own ass.
They probably could have reached out and pulled in Coltergeist, but why risk seeing the building explode into flames?
Someone should go check on Arthur Schulzberger Jr., just to make sure he didn’t hit his head on a SUV sunroof lever.
Bonus Bad News Billy Links
Anonymous Liberal: Kristol’s Secret to Success
Anonymous Liberal: Bill Kristol: Pundit Superstar
Creature/State of The Day: The post in which my head explodes
Crooks and Liars: Bill Kristol is rewarded for being “wrong” on everything: NY Times gig is a comin’
Crooks and Liars: Bonus Bill Kristol Highlight Reel
It Takes A Neocon To Raise A Legacy … They’re Drinking The Kool-Aid Again …
Of Legacy Maintenance – And Corrections! … David Corn’s “REBUTTAL – Why Bush Is A Loser”
…it makes it clear that the NYTimes is not even worth wrapping fish in.
but is he really that much worse than David Brooks? From my reading, Brooks drank the neocon kool-aid as well.
He was Dan Quayle’s chief of staff for God’s sake. He was hit with the stupid stick a long time ago. It’s like throwing a turd in the Christmas punch bowl.
Opus
<
p>I agree … Which makes this move a bit puzzling … You’ve got now Brooks, Kristol and The Friedman Unitman … It almost seems like a naked attempt by the NYT to pull in (or dip their toes)conservative readers, being they are now surrounded by Ruppert (Fox and the WSJ) …
<
p>Thie Letters-to-the-Editor editor, and Ombudsman sure should be busy once Kristol starts spewing his BS …
<
p>Thanks (and thanks to all) for reading and commenting
<
p>Peace
JTD
Why does the MSM recycle the same old people, again and again? Maybe if the MSM cycled in some fresh blood, they wouldn’t suck so much.
on the list among American institutions. It is much like Katie Couric. What I mean is that it is part of the calculated effort to make old established bastions of Americana look stupid, ineffectual and or morally bankrupt.
<
p>Far more damage is done locally by 96.9 talk radio and their successful appeals to a much younger demographic. We know Kristol,hannity and falafelman but I don’t think they draw the younger set.
After years of declining revenue and a stock price heading for the teens, even Pinch and the NYT Editorial Board (which too often finds itself on the front page instead of the Op Ed page)acknowledges that the “Hate America” theme is not carrying well. An earlier effort to take the firm private so they would not have to concern themselves with the crass effort of making money and to be able to spout sedition with no concern from the backlash of the American public was met with silence from the private equity community.
<
p>It seems that there was no bidding war in who would allow Pinch to spew his venom as the Gray Lady sank beneath the waves. Maybe George Soros would be interested?
<
p>Adding a bit of balance with a distiguished journalist as William Kristol sends the message that the crazed Left doesn’t control 100% of the content at the NYT, and broadens the appeal of the paper beyond the Hate America First crowd.
<
p>The fevered responses to this story reinforce the viewpoint that any differing opinion is intolerable to the Left. It is time to grow up and face facts, not feelings.
So according to your theory, the Washington Times should be raking in the bucks, but it isn’t. Thoughts?
The Sulzbergers have arranged the stock structure of the NYTimes company to ensure that they will control the company. There are (at least) two classes of stock, and they control the class that controls the company. They graciously allow others to own the other class of stock, but, except for the right to receive dividends from the company, I’m not sure why anyone would want to.
<
p>Getting to the Billy Kristol hiring, as far as I can tell this is nothing more than a further NYPost-ianization of the NYTimes. I was not joking elsewhere here when I wrote that the NYTimes has been lying since the 1930s, when they published positive articles about Joseph Stalin’s regime in the former USSR. Regarding the NYPost-ianization, it reminds me of CNN (and its sister Headline News) trying to make themselves over to be like Faux News. Several months ago, liberal bloggers noted that the conservative bloggers get cushy positions, despite normally being wrong in their predictions. As far as I can tell, that strategy has not worked out well for CNN/Headline News.
So simply because we disagree with the guy he shouldnt have a job at the New York Times? The New York Times opinion page I would say is still relatively liberal. Safire is gone. Kristol would be the only truly conservative voice on that opinion page.
<
p>Dowd, Rich, Krugman, Hebert, and to a lesser extent Kristoff are all liberals. Friedmen and Brooks are both moderates, though Friedmens a right wing Democrat and Brooks is a left wing Republican. And then Kristol would be the only conservative truly to the right of center represented in the page.
<
p>I enjoy reading Kristols columns even though I disagree with them about 90% of the time because unlike most conservatives he engages the other side, he is rarely pedantic, and while yes he was stupendously wrong on Iraq I see no danger in giving him a place to write, only the 30% of America that still believes the war is winnable will still believe Kristol, none of us here will, and more importantly most New York Times readers wont either. So why care?
So simply because we disagree with the guy he shouldnt have a job at the New York Times?
<
p>are that his predicutions have almost uniformly failed to come to pass, that he suppored an idiotic war in Iraq, and that he is taking a slot that could be occupied by someone with a bit more intellect.
<
p>I found Safire generally entertaining, particularly his columns on grammar, despite the fact that I disagreed with his politics. I have found Kristoff generally annoying, but at least he has facts to back up his arguments. I’ll ignore David Brooks, Kristol’s former sidekick at the Weakly Standard, for the moment.
<
p>Kristol? No. No facts and incompetent predictions. That is why his hiring by the NYTimes is amusing, at the very least, and it does not enhance the NYT’s reputation at all.