Should Kristol be out at the NYT Op-Ed? Who then Should Take His Place?
Hat Tip to the Liberty Papers .
A rather interesting post by Steve Gordon at the Liberty Papers.
He links to an article from The Next Right where Patrick Ruffini calls for Rush Limbaugh to replace Bill Kristol as a token conservative on the NYT Op-Ed page.
I personally don't think that such a move would make too much difference. They strike as coming from the place and I don't particularly care for it. However, at the same time, I hardly feel I have any room to talk since I'm not "of the right" as it is commonly understood.
Gordon seems to agree. In fact, he says the idea of Rush being the voice to counter Obama and the Modern Left "scares the hell out him".
Well, that's all fine and good. I can empathize with kindred spirit at the Liberty Papers on that but the fact remains that this "Right" is not "OUR Right"...if the term "Right" even applies. I personally don't think of myself as "of the Right" nor do I like the term but I guess, in the modern context, we are indeed "of the Right" in many respects...much to my displeasure.
In an competing article at The Next Right, Jim Henke rebuts by speaking more for my voice and those of many from my POV. After all, on website called "The Next Right", I find the nomination of Limbaugh to be simply a passing of the baton to someone else of the "Same Ol' Right".
Says Henke:
I think Rush Limbaugh would be a horrifying choice for many of the same reasons he didn't work out as a football commentator.
There are many better options for the New York Times.
Indeed.
He goes to name the sharp, young, high profile libertarians who break the mold of the Ol' Limbaugh/Hannity/Kristol/Red State Right like Will Wilkinson 
, Julian Sanchez and Megan McArdle ....people whose blogs I happen to read almost everyday. Our Old friend Josh Trevino even got a mention.
The one problem with these choices, a part from Josh, is that they are not partisans...heck...they are not even Republicans! But they could nonetheless be a "A Next Right" and help broaden the tent...or even change the idea of what it means to be a Republican. For now, they are not. But the idea is for all this to change. So, I think it's a great way to start.
Gordon goes to give some brief comments on each writer mentioned along with some others that I did not mention.
Personally, I'm a little biased toward Will But also think Megan and Julian and great young minds with a lot to offer. They would certainly jar the idea of what it means to be "Right" and may even piss off a lot of conservatives along the way. But that's cool with me.
A common theme with the people mentioned...besides being libertarians...is that they are as far away from being neo-conservatives as one can possibly be....even more so in many respects than some the liberals on America's most read Op-Ed page.
If the Times is interested allowing the paradigm to take a serious shift away from the status quo's in the Project for a New American Century and the not-so-progressive Progressive Policy Institute, any of these writers would help immensely in that respect.
- John's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
This highlights the problem of two dimensional politics
If the "Right" is only going to get one voice than obviously there's going to be some very important philosophical viewoints that are left out. You can't have one voice represent Buchannan conservatives, and Rush Conservatives. I think those who claim the right are much more ideological diverse, than those who claim the left. So if NYT really wants to give a full picture they ought to hire more than one for the "Right".
That is a view that has had...
...no shortage of expression by conservatives for a long time.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I don't know about Kristol
But they don't need Limbaugh.
Limbaugh, Hannity, et al are not journalists or even columnists. They are entertainers. Nothing else.
And before I get charges of bias, there are a lot on the left who are the same thing.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Agree
Rush is an entertainer, not a journalist. Besides, Rush's forte is the spoken word, not the written word.
It's agreed, stinerman.
Rush Limbaugh would be a disaster as a replacement of Irving Kristol for the New York Times, because he'd turn that paper into another tabloid, which isn't needed.
Rush Limbaugh????
Are we worried that the Oxy-consuming, Dominican sex-peddling constituency is under-represented?
qui tacet consentire
I don't like Rush because of
I don't like Rush because of his simplistic hyper-partisan way of looking at things, however, I think judgment on his drug use is uncalled for. Getting addicted to painkillers is an easy thing to fall into.
Hopefully you apply that same
standard to others who have fallen into the trap of addiction.
There is a perception out there that if you are rich you are sophisticated enough to handle your drugs.
I'm only half stupid
Rush opened up the door himself
Rush had no problem passing down a judgment when it was selling ad space and he wasn't in legal trouble. But low and behold when it come time for him to pay the toll...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The sick thing is that
The sick thing is that attacking Rush about his drug use is a partisan thing. If Rush was a Democrat, Republicans would be mocking him, and Dems would be defending him. If you have a familly who's struggled with drugs, you take the issue a little more seriously.
Not for all
I've had a cousin with an Heroine addiction, the difference between Rush and my cousin is, my cousin went into rehab and it was because he was about to become arrested.
Oxy is called hillbilly heroine for a reason.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Rush gets up, runs one of the countries larges brands...
...is one of the most productive people on the planet, and is doing very well thank you very much...
This was an incident that happened 6 years ago, and was over zealously prosecuted following TWO YEARS of investigation...absurd. Two years of investigation because a guy came out and admitted he had a perscription drug problem...
But you get caught selling crack and the charges are dropped because they have to many of those convictions on the books...
Move on...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I think there is one difference, JM
It's like when a conservative gets busted for prostitution. Yes a lot of us progressives jeer, not because we have a problem with sex, but because conservatives do. It's the hypocrisy. See also Ted Haggard. I don't give a damn if he's gay or straight. The reason I give him ^%$# is because he's gay and he takes it out on other people telling them that they are evil for being gay. If Rush had an addiction problem then that's sad and he should get help for it. But when Rush, knowing first hand the difficulty of addiction gets on the radio and rails against drug users and claims they deserve harsh sentences, and then when caught tries to weasel out of the punishment he prescribed for others...
Well that makes him and @$$hole of the first order, and he deserves to be continuously and roundly mocked for being such a douchebag.
Also add in that despite Rush crucifying the ACLU all the time that when he was in court he was awfully happy to have their help. They were consistent to their principles, he wasn't. That tells you which of them is decent and honest and which is full of ^%$.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I used to listen to Rush a
I used to listen to Rush a fair amount ( not because I liked the show, but he was the only talk-show on in his time-slot, in the rural area where I lived, and I was really into talkradio during my teen years) and I really don't remember him speaking much about drugs. Maybe you're right, but if it was before his drug use that he was judgmental on drug users, than I would give him a pass on it, since it would take experiencing it, or having a familly member experience it to really have an appreaciation of the fact that decent people get caught in their trap.
Are you IM'ing w/Miss L? Cause...?
Ya, you are so stereotypical, funny for someone who tries so hard to not be.
Conservatives hate sex.
Ted Haggard is Gay.
Haggard is christian, Christians are republicans, republicans are hypocrites.
Listen, the same deficient logic could be applied in any direction, it is useless in terms of understanding anything any better, and is nothing more than food for bi-partisan mockery.
Keep up the good work.
Oh, and the ACLU being true to their principles...LOL! That's a good one...that gives the word "principle" a bad name.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Lack of qualifiers by Tlaloc, I assumed.
That did not make sense
[for the most part]
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Rush would be great at the NYT's...Why not...
Thats what they need to counter the 99.7% of everything else they say. He would make it fun to read again.
PART 1
PART 2
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
"Democrat Party??" he can't stop himself
His insolent petulance wouldn't last.
His rabble-rousing turns off all but his base.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
To be more exact,
"His Rabble-rousing turns off all but his base" If Rush Limbaugh keeps it up long enough, even his base will be turned off by it, hereby completely isolating him.
20 years of calling it how he see's it has worked for him...
...pretty well.
You can wish him away all you want, but he's not going anywhere.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Indeed.
In a way, it's we on the left's failure if he remains so popular. He taps into genuine emotions among his listeners.
I too have become enraged at government beaurocracy and been irritated at dinner parties by unthinking political correctness. I believe Code Pink does more to drive republicans to the polls than anything else. I don't understand the rationale behind the Out Games either (are gay people banned from regular Olympics?). I can confess to all these things despite being a proud liberal.
I want the left to deny Rush his strawmen by beating him in denouncing the excesses of liberal philosophy and policies. If he makes suble appeals to bigotry, instead of denouncing him as a racist and making him a martyr to his listeners, we should emphasize the virtues of diversity, explain the benefits of immigration and how a properly run government program can curtail whatever abuses he's ranting about.
And you folks who pertain to be real journalists: please, do not treat Limbaugh as a policy analyst. He is simply the most successful shock jock in the country. If you believe informing the public to be one of the sacred duties of journalists, well, you are not doing that by amplifying him.
You've made a good point, corph.
Rush Limbaugh, is, indeed, a shock jockey, and a very successful one at that, who knows how to tap into the basest emotions of his listeners, and he has a pretty humongous following, to boot. Acknowledging the Left's excesses and mistakes is probably the best way to beat Limbaugh at his own game, but maybe, just maybe, if people on both the Right and the Left just totally ignored Rush Limbaugh, he might just retreat into the night due to having nobody to listen to him.
By the very virtue that you hate him so much...
...is proof positive he is on the right track... (Pun intended ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Who's on the right track? Rush Limbaugh?
Sorry, but I disagree here, Red_Wing. While it's agreed that maybe the Left should concentrate less on constantly denouncing him, people on both the Left and the Right should do one of two things:
A) Either rebut him if they disagree with what he's saying (but make sure you're armed with facts).
B) Ignore Rush Limbaugh altogether by turning him off and refusing to listen to him, hereby isolating him not only from the Left, but from his base, also. Then, he might go into the night, because he's got no more audience.
I vote for Joe the Plumber
He would appeal to your average Joe Conservative.
I'm only half stupid
Markopolos
a whistle blower who tried for years to blow the whistle on the Madoff scheme is testifying before Congress about what happened at the SEC. Of note he was worried for his life for exposing the utter rank corruption that is the SEC.
Hair raising testimony, likely to singe and embarrass more than a few elites!
I'm only half stupid
PJ O'Rourke?
He can at least be funny. I don't buy his "prosperity as a pizza" simplicities any more than when they come from Sean Hannity or Dick Cheney. But he seems to at least try to be honest and consistent.
I would say the same for people like Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, although the latter can be really annoying with his fake laughs. They can occasionally make a point that doesn't sound like an RNC press release.
I would certainly like to read a convincing conservative columnist. Where is the right's Paul Krugman? Just give me someone who does his research and knows what he is talking about.