“This is William Kristol’s last column.”
Dare we dream?
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
Yeah, I’m sure there’s at least one or two of W’s speechwriters who haven’t been given sinecures yet. I keep hoping for Michael Gerson to… I dunno. Die in some horribly ironic way, like choking on his own smug satisfaction. Or at least get his ass fired for dumping huge steaming piles of bullshit on the Washington Post‘s op-ed page.
Nice to see the Times is finally recovering from that nasty social disease it has had for the last year or so.
As with the new Presidential administration, the NYT has obviously decided that there are more important things in an employee than ideology—competence and acknowledgment of the real world and being right once in a while, for example.
I’m not sure why it took Obama’s inauguration for them to finally dump this clown, but at least they’ve spared themselves more embarrassment going forward. I hope that they’d take this opportunity to make their columnist roster the polar opposite of the WSJ‘s conservative fantasyland, but they’re still caught up in that bogus “everyone deserves a hearing” meme that often hobbles liberal and progressive efforts.
The real dream is if they replace him with someone sane, or someone who at least gets the facts correct more often than not.
There is great wailing and gnashing of teeth on many content-starved parodic sites, to only be surpassed if the LA Times wakes the fuck up and throws Jonah Goldberg’s column into the Pacific Ocean.
Don’t laugh! This could be the result of something horrible, like he could’ve been struck by a crippling palsy, or a consuming VHS porn addiction. Maybe his tongue has cleaved to the roof of his mouth. Anything.
If it’s true, I’d be a lot more stoked about it if I thought they wouldn’t replace him with someone even worse.
Two words: Jonah Goldberg.
Gracchus, the reason it took them this long is that they gave him a one-year contract a year ago. Or, come to think of it, maybe it would have taken them this long anyway. But at least they didn’t renew. Now I suppose it’s on to the Pantload or somebody.
Could it be that the Times has learned the lesson—conservative = fact-free, embarrassing blunders?
Nah, probably not. After all, Newsweek decided to balance George Will a year or so ago with columnist Karl Rove—which is when I cancelled my subscription.
I have to think that even the Timesmen must have found it all rather a bit much when Kristol did his best to foist Sarah Palin on the luckless nation.
According to Politico, Kristol is moving to the Washington Post. Because what the Post needs is even more columnists who are perpetually wrong.
“Ben Stein. It’s gonna be Ben Stein.”
How to win Ben Stein’s money this time: read his column without throwing up!
Oh thank Discoball.
Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, conservatives of various sorts, and conservatisms of various stripes, have generally been in the ascendancy. And a good thing, too! Conservatives have been right more often than not — and more often than liberals — about most of the important issues of the day: about Communism and jihadism, crime and welfare, education and the family. Conservative policies have on the whole worked — insofar as any set of policies can be said to “work” in the real world. Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years have a fair amount to be proud of.
WTF? I mean really, WTF?
And who created the jihadist monster???? Dear Ronnie.
Ben Stein, Jonah Goldberg? Oy. My people are better than this.
Call me cynical but mostly I see this as a corporation whoring to the powers that be (at the moment).
Mm, I think he just wants to go out of a liberal paper with the most asinine conservative column possible.
Nah, probably not. After all, Newsweek decided to balance George Will a year or so ago with columnist Karl Rove—which is when I cancelled my subscription.
I thought Rove was to balance Kos, which seems slightly more fair. Because, as you know, a popular blogger on the left (who isn’t even very far left, and is much more concerned with electoral politics than policy) is as powerful as the Turdblossom.
Rebecca:
The New York Times a liberal paper? It’s only liberal if you define “liberal” as “not wholly under conservative control and/or not reliably hostile to Democrats”. It was a key MSM bullhorn for the Lewinksy non-scandal and for attacking Clinton on his few liberal policies. It spit-shone Bush’s… ummm, policies, to the point where it could see its lying, omission-obsessed face in it. It is NOT a liberal paper. It is a corporate paper which isn’t entirely GOP, still has a few good columnists and, on occasion and out of force of habit, does decent journalism. that makes it “not conservative” but certainly not liberal.
Would someone please link me to the NYT article claiming it was a “mutual decision”? Greg Mitchell mentions it in his Huffington column but I can’t find it. Thanks. I need (another) good laugh today.
The real dream is if they replace him with someone sane, or someone who at least gets the facts correct more often than not.
And I’ll echo here John Cole’s repeated call: if NY Times wants a conservative columnist, they need to grab Daniel Larison.
If it’s true, I’d be a lot more stoked about it if I thought they wouldn’t replace him with someone even worse.