Pick someone else:

Apparently Bill Kristol will be writing op-eds in the New York Times. Personally, I'd rather read Pat Buchanan. Why?

• He represents paleo-cons, a faction of conservatism that rarely gets heard and which may be growing (these days) at the expense of neo-cons.
• He's had some success in politics (at least at the presidential primary level) and has made good calls about the political viability of candidates (both Democrats and Republicans).
• Is an economic nationalist (i.e. against free trade) and a deficit hawk, positions ignored by the press for the most part.
• Can be quite funny at times.
• Is reasonably civil during political debates (and seems to get along nicely with Elanor Clift on the McLaughlin Group).

In any event, consider Kristol's point of view. He's already got a magazine (!) where he can express his views, along with frequent appearances on Fox News Channel. So what will he do at the Times? Probably try and establish a narrative. Most likely something along the lines of American Greatness, which he was all excited about in 2000 when he admired John McCain. (According to Paul Krugman, Times op-ed columnists are not supposed to endorse candidates. Will Kristol be held to the same standard? Will he be allowed to support a candidate in the pages of the Weekly Standard, yet appear "disinterested" in the Times?)

Whatever. In the words of some commenter on a random blog, "Bring back TimesSelect!"


posted by Quiddity at 12/29/2007 03:55:00 AM