Does Safire disapprove of Kristol at NYT?
By on Jan 24th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Does Safire disapprove of Kristol at NYT?
The New York Times hired Bill Kristol as a weekly columnist with a conservative voice to replace William Safire, who retired in 2005. On Jan. 13, NYT public editor Clark Hoyt said of Kristol’s hiring: “This is a decision I would not have made.” Gabriel Sherman at The New Republic reports that when reached by phone for reaction, Safire told him: “I saw the excellent piece that the public editor wrote the other day, and that pretty much tells the story.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
So Safire smelled Kristoline scat editorial and it smelled nice to him. thank you but I don’t need to do that, Do you?
January 24th, 2008 at 10:04 amI believe it’s safe to say the only person supporting this is Billy Krisco himself.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:05 amBilly Krisco’s idea of a stimulus package is Jeff Gannon.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:06 amOT, but important: Jell-o Jay is on the Senate floor right now, trying to justify Bush’s spy program and to give telecoms immunity (”they were being patriotic”). If you can, call or write any Senator and tell them to vote against Harry Reid’s bill. Glenn Greenwald’s site and Firedoglake are both watching this very carefully. There have been lots of phone calls and emails to all the Senators. Add your voice if you can.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:12 am“They were being patriotic” might be a mitigating factor, but it is NOT a basis for retroactive immunity!
January 24th, 2008 at 10:26 amSafire was old school conservative, not a pompous neocon like Kristol. I may have disagreed with him on a regular basis, but at least he could be taken seriously and built his arguments on real information and real thought. He wasn’t a grinning, stupid baboon like Kristol.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:28 amAnd by referring to Safire in the past tense, I meant “Safire’s columns”. Obviously, he’s not dead.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:32 amI agree gummitch, I could read Safire’s opinions and even though I would disagree with most of it, I could see where he was coming from and how he arrived at his opinion. Kristol’s a pure liar, creating facts from whole cloth to support his pre-determined conclusions.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:33 amOT, but important: Jell-o Jay is on the Senate floor right now, trying to justify Bush’s spy program and to give telecoms immunity (â€they were being patrioticâ€). If you can, call or write any Senator and tell them to vote against Harry Reid’s bill. Glenn Greenwald’s site and Firedoglake are both watching this very carefully. There have been lots of phone calls and emails to all the Senators. Add your voice if you can.
Comment by lefttown — January 24, 2008 @ 10:12 am
“Being patriotic” means honoring your oath of office, which states you will “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, not follow the twisted path of a wannabe dictator and his synchophantic lemmings.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:38 am“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” – Samuel Johnson
Let’s hope he was right about the ‘last’ part.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:44 amI usually disagreed with Safire’s opinions, but I respected his long tenure as a columnist who looked at the issues and came to a different conclusion than I.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:46 amI join nanlichi and gummitch on this.
Liberals, Progressives, Conservatives… at one time, we all got along (mostly) and had good vigorous debate. It was healthy for the country to have these diverse viewpoints and exchange of ideas.
Then neo-Conservativism came along and poisoned the well.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:47 amNow Feingold is speaking. Go, Feingold!!!
January 24th, 2008 at 10:53 amLiberals, Progressives, Conservatives… at one time, we all got along (mostly) and had good vigorous debate. It was healthy for the country to have these diverse viewpoints and exchange of ideas.
Then neo-Conservativism came along and poisoned the well.
Comment by raynman — January 24, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Well said, raynman. And the reason they poisoned the well is because they realized it was the only way they could win any support. An honest debate wouldn’t do, because their positions were and are built on faith rather than facts. The America they wanted to create would never appeal to middle America, liberal or conservative, so they had to adopt a hysterical patriotism, strike a devil’s bargain with the religious right, and use divide-and-conquer politics in order to install an unqualified figurehead in the White House.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am