...isn't that he's a conservative, it's that he's that he's insincere. As Andrew alludes to in his post, Kristol's take on Biden really could have been a press release right out of the RNC's offices. Look I'm a liberal, but the only thing I look forward to more than Barack Obama winning, is gadflying him after he wins. It's one thing to be a conservative writer, with the sort of take on the world that liberals simply don't agree with. It's another thing to basically make a career as the RNC's house organ, under the guise of "journalism." Kristol may be the only case I've ever seen of the press trying to spin the press.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm right-of-center-ish, and will occasionally defend conservative journalists, but Kristol is nothing but a hack. It says nothing good about the NYC that they hired him, and nothing good about other conservative journalists/pundits who give him links/nods/airtime.
correctamundo!
kristol is the very personification of a "hack"!
the bad thing about it is that his insincerity is well-known - apparently - in d.c. circles, and it is one of the things that people mention routinely: that he really doesn't mean most of the crazy stuff he writes.
this quirk is offered as a recommendation, curiously. being dishonest and insecure is supposed to be a positive.
the biggest question becomes: why would a supposedly respectable newspaper provide prime real estate to someone who is widely-regarded as a phony, dishonest, insincere political hack?
I haven't read a column of Kristol's in years and I kind of zone out whenever I hear him on TV. There are too many pundits, columnists, bloggers, assorted hacks, who just serve as a voice of their politian, and it makes for some boring reading.
Besides, some of the most insightful criticisms of politicians or political philosophies come from those within or those closely allied. Orwell had great criticisms of the left in his essays that would have been completely dismissed by the left if written from a right winger. Orwell had first hand knowledge of leftist thought, so he was more cautious about lapsing into stereotyping that a right winger outside the movement might use.
I know it is very popular in the blogosphere (right and left), to bash the media, and often it is worthy. I just tire of some of the holier than thou attitudes. I heard it put best by someone whose name escapes me, but the mainstream media runs with a story because they think it is newsworthy, while a lot of political blogs run stories if it is useful to the cause.
OF course people argue over what is newsworthy, but there has been huge emphasis on blogs placed on McCain's houses , Obama's birth certificate, John Edwards's hair, Mitt Romney's underwear, etc.
Kristol may be the only case I've ever seen of the press trying to spin the press.
Well, I think it's a stretch to call Kristol part of the press. He's a polemicist who runs a money-losing magazine and writes an often error-riddled column for the NY Times.
It is impossible to read that piece and not think it's a Republican flack piece. So far this year, the Times has run four or five corrections on him (if you count when the Times edited his Saddleback piece after local editions but before the national..and I do think you have to count that one while chortling.)
His fellow Times writing hate him. Can you being an Ivy Leaguer scoring that NYT gig only to find your piece running next to that incompetent blowhard's? My personal favorite was a column that essentially served as a job reference for his buddy, Mike Murphy.
Calling Bloody Billy "insincere" doesn't come close to describing what he is. He's a bloodthirsty duplicitous bastard.
I'll be surprised if he sticks with the Times after the election.
Mr. Coates,
Have you seen the clip of Mark Halperin from last Sunday's This Week on ABC zipping round the internets? Did you hear David (Salad Bar) Brooks on Public television Friday night saying that McCain's "how many houses do I own?" gaffe was no big deal? Have you heard of Ron Fournier?
That's just off the top of my head.
Kristol is not a conservative. He is a Republican. It is all about his team winning, not his ideas or principles.
Kristol is the immediate occasion for the discussion, but the same is true for most of the commentariat, especially on the right. That's why so many of them who shunned McCain as a heretic six months ago now see him as the embodiment of Republican virtue.
Kristol is a bore to read because he clearly never challenges or rethinks his own assumptions. He's a hack and at heart an operative. While not every Brooks column is a gem, he's an interesting thinker (and writer) who often takes on people on his own side. there's no comparison.
But Kristol has a soulmake in Hugh Hewitt, another hack who only writes glowing prose about the guy he's backing. Back during the primary campaign, he just couldn't imagine why any Republican or conservative wasn't backing Romney. Now he can't see one positive trait or position ever taken by Obama. I like reading conservatives who have something interesting to say. Kristol, Hewitt and Malkin hit the same note over and over again. Predictability is the death of punditry.
Here's the comparison between Kristol and Brooks:
They both carry water for the GOP. Brooks was groping to fit Obama into the GOP *elitist* Talking Points when he said that you could not imagine Obama at the (nonexistent) Appleby's salad bar just as Brooks was flacking for McCain on the PBS News Hour last Friday night. Brooks is an erudite hack, but a hack nonetheless.
Brooks is a conservative and sometimes lazy in his analysis. Yet, he is a 'real' mainstream commentator. George Will is my favorite, a true conservative, not just a right-winger. He can have his bad moments too, but so does everyone with a national column. Even my favorite lefties like Bob Herbert have their own flubs.
Look up hack in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of Kristol smiling back at you. How is this guy writing for the New York Times with his numerous factual errors and blatant obtuseness. However, I don't write him off because he, along with Krauthammer are mouthpieces for the neocon, warmongering branch of the RNC. Thus, those two are too dangerous to simply ignore with such large microphones.
I'm not sure everybody commenting here knows what the term "hack" means, using it mostly against writers with consistent right-wing views.
But perhaps he's like Fox News, over the top, not as "fair" as advertised, and just a more transparent version of his (many) left wing counterparts at NYT and elsewhere.
Carry on in the echo chamber.
I had higher hopes for this thing.
Well start paying attention to AP stories.
I think there is and coninues to be an assault by Kristol and others on the MSM to blur the lines between "newsworthy" and "useful to the cause".
Ask yourself: Why does Fox get to pick Alan Combs as the resident liberal, but Glenn Beck gets two hours every night on CNN to counter the alleged liberal media bias?
Next target: The American Heritage Dictionary to remove the liberal bias from the meanings of words like "standard", "integrity", "journalism", "objectivity", "success", "intelligence", "fair", "balance", and "corruption".
"I'm not sure everybody commenting here knows what the term "hack" means, using it mostly against writers with consistent right-wing views.
But perhaps he's like Fox News, over the top, not as "fair" as advertised, and just a more transparent version of his (many) left wing counterparts at NYT and elsewhere.
Carry on in the echo chamber.
I had higher hopes for this thing."
What is the point of any of that?
I can't think of a better word for Kristol than hack. That there might be a left-wing match for him, (something I'm not sure of), is of no importance. He's still a hack. There are decent right-wing writers. George Will is one, someone already mentioned him. I may disagree with Will often but he's a prince compaired to Kristol.