'"[NYT Publisher] Sulzberger and [editorial page editor] Rosenthal made a mistake."'

They're just now figuring out that Kristol slammed them over a year ago?? Or has their circulation dropped since the announcement of his hiring?

Get with the program, dudes. You could have saved yourselves some unnecessary grief.

The NYT was looking for a well-articulated conservative point of view "in line with what you might call the conservative Republican movement" for the Op-Ed pages, to 'strengthen the discussion', eh?

Unfortunately, due to the unending barrage of fraudulent and base tactics that has characterized the 'voice' from that neck of the woods for all of living memory thus far, the concept of a 'well-articulated neocon' translates all too easily as a contradiction of terms; a laughable oxymoron.

However, for the sake of satisfying my yea-long deprived desire for a GOOD political argument, I'd like to believe there is such a creature.

There must be writers of integrity who are capable of representing credible modern conservative perspectives in an honest, educated, informative, dynamic and stimulating manner - with class and style.

But Kristol is NOT it.

What Sulzberger's idea of a "strong discussion" looks like is a limp-wristed and very disappointingly opportunistic stab at perpetuating the vacuously divisive bullshit that the neocons infamously mainstreamed and the general public is abysmally sick and tired of, despite whatever profit-leavened statistical skewers may seem to indicate.

BILLY KRISTOL IS PURE PLASTIC --SUPERFICIAL AND
USES THE SAME TACTICS AS ALL NEO-CON''S--THEY
ISOLATE ISSUES ON THEIR OWN TERMS ,FRAME THEM
IN ISOLATION AND THEN DECLARE A VICTORY.
ONE SUNDAY I RISKED HELL AS A CATHOLIC TO MISS
MASS TO WATCH KRISTOL ON FOX NEARLY SIX YEARS AGO CONFIDENTLY ANNOUNCE THAT THE BAAATIST
COULD BE DISSOLVED, SADAM'S FALL WOULD SEAL EVERYTHING­--RELIGIOU­S SPLIT WOULD NOT STOP POLITICAL RUTURES AND,I QUOTE CLEARLY,"IRAQ WILL
BE JUST FINE." WHAT CREDENTIALS CAN HE HAVE? My laundry lady has more place on the TIMES than he--she pronounced him a "pure horse's arse"--and fortunately I got to an evening Mass thanks to John Paul ll's revamps of the Sabbath time. May he rest in
sainthood soon, and may Bill Kristol find employement
at 8.00 an hour which he once heralded also as
"just fine" for undocumented Mexican families.
James McCormick

Kristol's mother and father made a mistake.

And top honors for the "Well Duh Moment of the Year" for 2008 goes to the New York Times. Cheers all around! We have most of the year still to go but no ones gonna top this. Well okay, george will several times no doubt, but he's won the award so many times already.

He is beyond extreme

The New York Times had to replace J. Miller with some one and Kristol fits the bill just fine, he is a war lover as long as somebody does all the Bleeding and Dying. Next IRAN.

A contrarian point of view - the neo-con ideology needs to be expressed in a way that reveals what it is. With Kristol, there is no suggestion that one is getting rational thought. If more people had read Mein Kampf, perhaps Hitler would not have been elected. If more people knew what it means to be a neo-con, perhaps the worst traitors since Benedict Arnold would not have been elected our current Pres. and V.P.
I say give Kristol an outlet for his radical ideas, the better to understand what they are and the threat they pose to democracy. Kristol should be required reading in college, as a way to understand the right-wing attack on our country.

There are other perspectives to issues that are neither right or left. What the Times needs is more variety, like, let's say, a Hispanic columnist. And some Humor. Anybody remembers Russell Baker?

LOL - I could have told him it would be a mistake and I'm just a dumbass. LOLOLOLOL

Well of COURSE it was a mistake. He's not even even human

Kristol has been wrong about virtually everything for the past eight years (at least) and has zero credibility with rational people. The justification for hiring him was that it brought more "balance" to the Times' op-ed lineup, but being balanced does not mean you have to give space to every fanatical nut case out there. Should the Times offer a column to a neo-Nazi skinhead or the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in the name of achieving "balance"? The neo-con extremist Kristol's opinions have no more credibility than theirs would.

And Pinch Sulzberger can't figure out why no one under 40 reads his paper anymore.

Keep your friends close
and your enemies closer.

In a nutshell, again the Times is caught cheating.