There’s a surprise. A liberal doesn’t like the only conservative writer at the NY Times and thinks he should be removed.

Except for Brooks, I would argue the whole lineup of NY Times opinion writers have become “a member of what Orwell called a “permanent and pensioned” class of critics” and should be let go. Dowd, Rich and Herbert are particularly dire and some fresh blood should be brought in. And if they get rid of Kristol, they should replace him with a libertarian, not another conservative with gravitas but little to say.

What I love about so many of our commenters is their consistency.

Oh, why be arch? I might as well say what I mean. jwl, what’s wrong with Kristol is not that he’s conservative. I know no serious commentator who questions the wisdom of keeping a conservative columnist spot at the Times, after William Safire spent 30 years making that spot one of the most important in American journalism. I know of nobody who’s suggesting that Kristol be replaced with a liberal.

The problem with Kristol is that he’s a dire writer who was wrong at every turn this year; that he made big obvious factual mistakes all the time; that his prose is appalling; that he self-evidently couldn’t be arsed to do a serious job with the amazing gift he’d been given. He is an embarrassment, least of all to himself, and most of all to Arthur Sulzberger, who personally selected one of the worst columnists in his newspaper’s modern history.

All of this is obvious. It’s why I protested when Kristol got the gig. (My suggestion, at the time, was that they should have considered Mark Steyn. My feeling now is that they should find somebody 35 or younger that nobody has ever heard of.)

Could everybody please spend a little less time jerking their knees around here? If you think that’s a partisan comment, you’re part of the problem.

I have trouble understanding Canadian politics, let alone American. So, Kristol is no longer /or will no longer be a NY Times columnist. He’ll reappear elsewhere and still be interviewed on the mainstream political shows.

I wonder if being a NY Times columnist is that significant any more. In Canada, I don’t think so.

Paul

I agree that Kristol should be let go by NY Times, though I have different reasons than you two, but why stop with him. Except for Brooks, I would argue all their political opinion writers have been phoning it in for years and have become part of the “permanent and pensioned class of critics”. The criticisms you have of Kristol can be equally applied to Dowd, Rich and Herbert but neither you nor Packer mention them.

I thought Packer’s post would have been much more interesting if he would have looked at all the writers, and not just the sole conservative one, and that’s why I thought it came across as partisan. I am guessing that every prediction Dowd and Rich have made over the years hasn’t been accurate and if Herbert is the not the most milquetoast columnist ever, I would like to know who is.

jwl: “Except for Brooks, I would argue all their political opinion writers have been phoning it in for years and have become part of the “permanent and pensioned class of critics””

How about Krugman? Tough to argue that he should go, what with his being so consistently right and winning that Nobel prize and all.

Brooks is a complete clown, dispensing mush-mouthed “conservative” common wisdom and adding close to zero value most days.

The good news is that if you’re not part of the problem you’re part of the solution.

Isn’t Douthat the current conservative flavour-of-the-month ?

if you read brooks’ column in the times today, and even if you don’t agree with it, you get the sense of the thought and effort that goes into each of his columns – and into most of the columns on the nyt op-ed. i used to love reading dowd when she was 70% style and 30% substance but she’s a bit tough to take now that she’s 110% style and minus-10% substance. i’ve become a big fan of gail collins, who is always interesting and usually pretty funny, even if her writing isn’t provocative or deep.

i couldn’t stand kristol. i wanted him to be good because i loved safire. but he’s no safire. (although he columns defending palin were highly – though inadvertently – amusing.

Gail Collins rocks, gently gently.

jwl: Dude, you owe me a new monitor, as I just spit coffee all over mine.

Jonah Goldberg? Are you freakin’ serious? He’s as fatuous as David Brooks, as unconnected to reality (and as reliably wrong) as Billy Kristol and as lazy as Maureen Dowd. In that sense, I suppose, he’s the perfect new conservative columnist, having fully realized all the potential of the conservative “movement”.

But seriously, jwl, do you really respect the man? Goldberg’s finest contribution to American culture has been as fodder for leftwing bloggers, who delight year after year in raking his gong-show fatuous “work” over the coals. He may very well be the laziest man on the Internet, and you think he should be stinking up the NYT?

As for Krugman, his brilliant insight on trade may have been 30 years ago, but his brilliant insight on the housing bubble and associated crash is ongoing. Throughout the Bush administration, Krugman has been as right as Kristol has been wrong (and that’s a VERY strong statement). Seriously jwl, can you point to a big, fat boner in Krugman’s Times column? No? Because Kristol drops piles of concentrated wrong week after week. Goldberg doesn’t try hard enough to be wrong, and only hopes of replicating Kristol’s “success”.

What a joke.

Sorry can’t resist,

Jonah Goldberg ? The same one who while touting “Liberal Fascism” thought that the Nazi desire for an organic state meant they wanted better vegetables?