Posted on 11/15/2004 1:05:31 PM PST by neverdem
Ann Coulter would be a good replacement....
Safire considered himself the moderate among the
Nixon speech writers. Buchanan was the conservative,
and I don't remember who the leftie was. But the
moderate in a moderate administration? Safire stood
out only because he worked on the times.
I wish they got rid of Nicholas Kristof, Fox Butterfield(He might be gone), Paul Krugman, and Dowdy instead.
I don't blame him. With a flagship like the NY Times, it's a bit downgrading to be with the likes of Rather at CBS.
He has a refutation to protect.
Since the liberal press is saying that Colin Powell is leaving because he is too liberal for this ultra conservative administration, can we say Safire is leaving the NYT because he is too conservative for this ultra liberal newspaper?
Well this will open up a spot from James Carville, much better fit for the NY Times then Safire.
I don't think Pinchy bothers to read his own newspaper.
Trouble is Carville cannot read or wright LoL LoL
Fox Butterfield appears to be at the national desk still writing mostly about crime and gun control. I just ran his name through the Times search.
If the Times wasn't just a bunch of leftist, elitest snobs, I would almost feel sorry for them. But remembering what a great news paper the Times used to be in the 50's and even 60's, 70's. All I hope for is to see all the editors and most of the reporters fired by the publisher. The Times needs to do a complete rebuild. These days the Washington Post is more believable then the Times. The Times is little better then a tabloid now. All pretense of objective reporting is gone. . I never thought I'd live to see that!
He's VPC's boy.
Replace him with Ann Coulter
Safire was strongly pro-abortion. He wrote an occasional good column, like the one in which he called hillary a congenital liar. But they were few and far between. Maybe about one a year in the last decade or so.
David Brooks is reliably pro-abortion and pro-homosexual too. He's the New York Times's idea of a conservative. Compare either of these guys to the token conservatives at the Boston Globe or the Washington Post, and they look pretty poor.
She wouldn't want to tarnish her good name by appearing in the NYT regularly!
They have David Brooks. You can have Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich and that's the Gray Lady's idea of "balance" on the op-ed pages. Hire more than ONE conservative and suddenly the paper is in danger of turning into a right-wing rag. No wonder the paper's liberals want to make sure readers are not exposed to dangerous ideas more often than necessary. And that's why incidentally, they are out of touch with the country.
Something I don't understand for all of you who seem to think no paper is worth anything unless they only allow columnists who are okayed by the White House, is what would a paper be if they only had columnists and editorials that supported the conservative agenda? (The Fox News Times?)
What would be the point?
There are plenty of rightwing papers like the Washington Times and a lot of New York daily papers are rightwing.
So why worry about the Times and if they have conservative columnists?
Besides the Times has already said they are going to get another conservative columnist, so why are your pants in a wad?
Coulter would only make the paper lose most of it's readers if not all. She's a nutcase.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.