The irony is that the New York Times is one of the few places in America where David Brooks and Bill Kristol could even be considered “conservative” by any stretch.
Times also should get Pat Buchanan.
I think that’s actually a pretty pithy quote from Marshall.
He’s actually pointing out that that kind of half-way, sort of, neocon, apologetic for-any-real-conservatism from TWS is the particular stripe that the Times likes—those who are already half co-opted and show signs of being thus totally manageable. Sure, Kristol has a tad more belief and backbone than Brooks, but not that much more.
Ah, libs are like beginning pilots. When the plane runs out of airspeed and stalls, their reaction is pull back further on the stick. After all, back means “up”...all the time. I, for one, am awaiting the ensuing spin and crash of the NYT. They long ago lost their credibility.
One of Rupert Murdoch’s boys has a foot in the door at the NYT. Let the takeover begin!
Just goes to show that liberals aren’t very liberal. (Of course, I’m using “liberal” in its true sense; not the modern, leftist corruption of the word.)
liberal tolerance and diversity...not
Oh, those wacky liberals. Gotta love them. They really are tolerant and open minded, aren’t they?
A step in the right direction, but still a long way from editorial balance. Solution: publish columns by Mark Steyn, Thomas Sowell, and Victor Davis Hanson as well. ...for starters.
Hire Ann Pinch. She ain't house broken but oh the fun we will have
.
Should read, "The New York Times decided to bring another faux conservative commentator... "
After all, his aims are the same as that of the NYT: increase the power of the state. How is his appointment contradictory?
So, one columnist equals five calumnists.
cal·um·ny [káll?mnee] (plural cal·um·nies) noun (formal) defamation: the making of false statements about somebody with malicious intent.