The New York Times‘ second conservative?

15 Responses to The New York Times‘ second conservative?

1. Axis Mundi says:

   January 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm

   I hope the Times picks a non-believer conservative. That way New Yorkers can learn that all conservatives are not the intelligent design types.
2. Donna B. says:

   January 27, 2009 at 6:52 pm

   No offense Heather, but Hanson would be my first choice. I have fond memories of his writings, as I had a boss who wanted to discuss every one of them in detail. Stupidest thing I ever did was quit that job. For mere money!
3. David Hume says:

   January 27, 2009 at 7:08 pm

   No offense Heather, but Hanson would be my first choice. I have fond memories of his writings, as I had a boss who wanted to discuss every one of them in detail.

   If Hanson is hired I’d bet they assume that he would play up his neocon-invade-the-world side, as opposed to his immigration skeptic side.
4. Polichinello says:

   January 27, 2009 at 7:24 pm

   MacDonald would be a good choice. Dan Larison would be another. Neither will be picked, though. The NYT is going to with another “Invade the World, Invite the World, In hock to the World” neocon.
5. David Hume says:

   January 27, 2009 at 7:43 pm

   Yeah, my money is on your bet Polichinello. I think The New York Times will be fine tolerating warmongering on his pages when they know that the likelihood of it ever translating into action in the age of diminished military expectations is rather low….
6. Donna B. says:

   January 28, 2009 at 12:43 am

   Whoever they choose, it will be interesting because it will forecast what they hope conservatives will espouse… meaning they’ve already got their ammunition lined up for that.
7. mnuez says:

   January 28, 2009 at 3:04 am

   I’m with Heather. This isn’t to say that I’m guessing that she’ll be chosen or that I give a shit as to who the Times chooses to print. I’m just noting that I’m a fan of hers. Go Heather!
8. Susan says:

   January 28, 2009 at 7:57 am

   I’m perverse enough to think that they might pick some Creationist yo-yo just to prove the point that all conservatives are Creationist yo-yos. Would they do that? Nah.

   I have a feeling they’ll go with Barnes. But I’d enjoy seeing HM writing for them.
9. Jeff Perren says:

   January 28, 2009 at 8:09 am

   “Second”? Is the author thinking that David Brooks is a conservative? Only by the criteria of the New York Times (i.e. anyone vaguely to the right of Trotsky on alternate Tuesdays, if it isn’t raining too hard).

   Ms. MacDonald would be a fine choice, though if asked I hope she continues to write for City Journal.
10. Jeeves says:

    January 28, 2009 at 9:47 am

    @Jeff Perren

    I was waiting for someone to point out that Brooks is the kind of house-broken conservative the Times readers can tolerate. I hope it’s not Barnes, with his WSJ-like views on immigration and belief we’ve “won” in Iraq. And as thoughtful as he sounds, I think VDH is basically a polemicist (at least in his NRO incarnation). Heather would be fine, but I’d selfishly like to keep her here and at City Journal rather than see her wind up with the rest of the fishwrap.
11. Victoria says:

    January 28, 2009 at 9:54 am

    When I heard that Kristol was out, it never occurred to me that the Times would be hiring someone to fill the spot. Why is it a given that this is the case? Has there been any indication from the Times that this firing is not just a part of cost-cutting, and that we’ll be hearing of more dismissals? In a liberal newspaper, why would they need more than Brooks to fill the bill, no matter what one thinks of his “conservative” credentials? I never understood why Kristol was added in the first place.
12. Susan says:

    January 28, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Victoria, the Times gave reasons for canning Kristol; they said they were dissatisfied with his pieces. Fuzzy or sloppy thinking was one reason given, if I’m recalling correctly.
13. Polichinello says:

    January 28, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    Fuzzy or sloppy thinking was one reason given, if I’m recalling correctly.

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!?

    What in his record before they hired him would have indicated clean and crisp thinking?
14. Jeff Perren says:

    January 28, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Personally, Robert Tracinski would be my first choice (after myself). They desperately need some variety. There’s absolutely no chance whatever of that, though. Apart from him not having quite large enough of an audience to bring with him, there’s no way the NYT would give a platform to anyone who is passionate, fully committed to reason and freedom, and able to make a well-reasoned, fact-based case.

    That, unfortunately, is yet one more reason Ms. MacDonald also has slim chance. The only conservative (a label which doesn’t apply to Tracinksi anyway) they would consider is someone who is tepid, like Brooks and even Kristol (to a large extent), and unable to argue his or her way out of standard Progressive traps.

    As both Tracinksi and MacDonald can reason well, and display a delightfully acerbic wit to boot, neither would ever be considered. They also lack many of the weak spots of most conservatives that Progressives can exploit so effectively.

    Since its influence is waning almost daily, however, it hardly matters much.
15. Snippet says:

    January 30, 2009 at 5:40 am

    I think Heather MacDonald would be a superb choice.

    She is the kind of conservative that more people need to realize exists.

    The NYT crowd, and about 90% of smarty-pants types think “conservative” means simplistic, poor-people-hating, bible-thumping, evolution-denying religious fanatic with hair that wouldn’t budge in a hurricane.

    Ms. MacDonald would bring a thoughtful, non-religious, fact-based conservatism to a readership that sorely needs to see that there is such a thing.

Comments are closed.