He May Be Unwelcome, but We’ll Survive(NYT Public Ed on William Kristol)

[RamboLiberal]

-----

Of the nearly 700 messages I have received since Kristol’s selection was announced — more than half of them before he ever wrote a word for The Times — exactly one praised the choice.

Rosenthal’s mail has been particularly rough. “That rotten, traiterous piece of filth should be hung by the ankles from a lamp post and beaten by the mob rather than gaining a pulpit at ANY self-respecting news organization,” said one message. “You should be ashamed. Apparently you are only out for money and therefore an equally traiterous whore deserving the same treatment.”

Kristol would not have been my choice to join David Brooks as a second conservative voice in the mix of Times columnists, but the reaction is beyond reason. Hiring Kristol the worst idea ever? I can think of many worse. Hanging someone from a lamppost to be beaten by a mob because of his ideas? And that is from a liberal, defined by Webster as “one who is open-minded.” What have we come to?

Sulzberger told me he was surprised by the vehemence of the reaction. But Kristol is a particularly polarizing figure in a polarized age. While he holds the full range of conservative Republican views on economic and social issues, he is most identified today with ardently pushing for the war in Iraq, a war sold to the American people on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, though a fair reading of Kristol’s statements includes broader arguments. Today, the public widely sees the war as a mistake, but Kristol remains its aggressive, unapologetic champion. In his first column last Monday, he warned against electing a Democratic president who would “snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq.”

-----

Kristol was hired on a one-year contract for what amounts to a mutual tryout. He will continue as editor of The Weekly Standard and on Fox, but Rosenthal said Kristol would not advise candidates or take any other active part in the presidential campaign. If Kristol is another Safire, he has the chance to prove it. If not, he and the newspaper will move on, and the search will resume.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/opinion/13pubed.html?em&ex=1200459600&en=910f25adb37a38e4&ei=5087%0A

[tomreedtoon]

1. NYWT CYA?

They have gotten this negative reaction so strongly that they must realize they made a mistake. But a big organization like the NYWT could never make such a mistake, so they're going to let Kristol run for a year - during an election, a critical period - without him commenting on the election (Sure.)

[hlthe2b]

4. It doesn't say Kristol won't comment on the election...

Just that he won't advise candidates. I take that to mean he won't be working on any specific campaign on his "off time." But, he certainly will be commenting on (and attempting to influence) the election. Bet on it. Demonstrated habitual liar whose lies got us into a horrendous, protracted war gets continued forum in the country's leading newspaper to resurrect those same lies and lead us into war with Iran.... May he rot in hell.

[RamboLiberal]

8. He's already disparaging the Dem candidates

January 14, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Democrats’ Fairy Tale
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Thus spoke Bill Clinton last Monday night, exasperated by Barack Obama’s claim that he — unlike Hillary Clinton — had been consistently right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) on the Iraq war.

Now in fact, Obama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But Bill Clinton is right in this respect: Obama’s view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.

When President Bush announced the surge of troops in support of a new counterinsurgency strategy a year ago, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic Congressional leaders predicted failure. Obama, for example, told Larry King that he didn’t believe additional U.S. troops would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” Then in April, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, asserted that “this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.” In September, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus that his claims of progress in Iraq required a “willing suspension of disbelief.”

The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. And according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, last month’s overall number of deaths, which includes Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties as well as U.S. and coalition losses, may well have been the lowest since the war began.

Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[lurky]

2. "Kristol would not have been my choice ..."

Did an editor of the Times actually write that publicly? :wow:
I wonder what the back-story on this decision was. He mentions Sulzberger. Is it possible that Sulzberger pushed for Kristol? I mean, he was reputed to have a special fondness for Judy Miller, so maybe he's got a soft spot for neocons.

[grasswire]

3. "another Safire" is something admirable??

I guess they don't know how we feel about the traitorous William Safire.

[Joe Bacon]

5. Well, Outside of Krugman, The Screw York Times is worthless

Krugman is the only saving grace in what has incresingly mutated into a fascist rag.

[RamboLiberal]

7. Don't forget Bob Herbert and Frank Rich

Krugman, Herbert and Rich usually have spot on columns. And its amazing how the RW disparges Krugman yet he is usually right - more than can be said of Kristol.

[Joe Bacon]

16. Check out Bob Somerby's Daily Howler

Bob carefully documented the sleazy bullshitters Herbert and Rich, especially Rich, who kept telling us that there was no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000. Rich repeatedly fabricated lies about Gore and saw nothing wrong with what he did. So did Herbert. Both of them can burn in hell along with Whoreen Dowd, Judith Miller and Ad Nags.

Paul Krugman is the only person published in the Screw York Times who tells the truth. Everyone else is too busy rewriting GOP press releases.

[mwb970]

6. The problem is, Kristol is always wrong about everything.

That may be, but Kristol’s first column joined the pack in its first paragraph and wrote off Hillary Clinton with finality the day before she won the New Hampshire primary. He also misattributed a quotation that had to be corrected.

You would think that Kristol's long record of incorrect predictions and blatantly false statements would rule him out as a commentator, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.

Why does everything involving Republicans always turn out upside down, backwards, and just plain wrong, wrong, wrong? We elect Al Gore and bush takes over. We vote to withdraw from Iraq and bush sends more troops. And remember when Kristol said that there was no historical reason to think that the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq would go after each other once we removed the strongman keeping order there?

Jeez, I can't wait to read his second NYT column!

[travelingtypist]

9. Who are the "six liberals" he's talking about?

I count one -- Krugman. Dowd is a lot of things, but liberal ain't one of them.
She's an inane, useless Heather, not a liberal.

Anybody?

[RamboLiberal]

13. Herbert and Rich can be counted as liberals

and very good columnists as well.

[Doctor_J]

10. Troublesome?

A discredited, hyper-partisan, dogmatic liar is troublesome for the paper of record???

Big Media bids a final farewell to relevance and sanity.

[applegrove]

11. I still say the NYTimes wants a rabid neocon at their paper so

they themselves will be freed up to take a stance during the Democratic election and be for Democrats. And hey - Kristal is one dumb bunny so how much damage can he do if nobody is listening. Better that the NYTimes editorial board have a neocon on staff so they can really go at the GOP legacy all the while saying "hey - we are balanced".

I know I am a pollyanna...but that is how I see it.

[rAVES]

12. Kristol and Co just utilize a deeply ignorant republican base for their own ends..

I wish they could see just how badly they are being fucked.. it would be a different world.

[winston61]

14. Why stop with Kristol? Why

not Alan Keyes or Pat Robinson?

[marmar]

15. Alan Keyes would at least be entertaining.....

.... in a bat-crap crazy, Katherine Harris kind of way.

[depakid]

17. "Sulzberger told me he was surprised by the vehemence"

Therein lies the problem. Smarmy silver spoons like Sulzberger and Graham at the Post have lost any idea of what it is to have integrity. And they're surprised when anyone else still does....