Here’s the thing about the New York Times hiring Bill Kristol that really bugs me ...
Here’s the thing about the New York Times hiring Bill Kristol that really bugs me ...
It’s not the fact that Kristol is being hired by the Times even though he has called for the New York Times to be prosecuted for revealing the truth. Perhaps the management of the Times believes, deep-down, that they deserve to be prosecuted for SOMETHING.
It’s not the fact that both David Brooks and Bill Kristol – two kooky, cookie-cutter neo-con columnists cut from the same cloth – are now working at the same paper. Maybe the Times wants to put a stake through the heart of the notion that it’s a liberal newspaper.
It’s the fact that the Times has gone to the effort to employ two columnists who are deeply, irredeemably WRONG on everything. And I mean absolutely everything. Pick a topic: The war on terror, the economy, Iran ... Iraq, Iraq, IRAQ!
Does the Times want Kristol (along with Brooks) to somehow balance out Krugman? Then why not hire a principled conservative who is occasionally right about the important issues? Whereas Krugman is liberal, truthful and correct, these two dyed-in-the-wool liars are consistently wrong, and they constantly shift their principles (apparently) every time they get a new email from the RNC. Do two wrongs balance out one truth? What IS the Times’ weird voodoo math here?
I know the wingnut welfare circuit is firmly in place. But I also know that Brooks and Kristol together have the intellectual heft of the cranky windbag you’ll find propped up at any neighborhood bar. By hiring Kristol, the Times has abandoned any claims to self-respect or "serious" journalism, whatever the heck that is. I may not be able to define it, but I sure as hell know it ain’t Bill Kristol.