This is William Kristol's last column.Kristol never seemed to have much respect for the Times before he got there. That didn't change while he was there. His aspect was that of an overrated draft pick, knowing his time is short, and thus out to bed all he can in the meanwhile. Thus in the parlance of our time I say one great thing came out of all this--Like Bo crushing Bosworth, Bill Kristol has been exposed.
« On being a liberal | Main | Mrs. Jones » Don't let the door hit you...26 Jan 2009 09:00 am
Was just breezing through the Times edit page, when I saw this at the bottom:
Comments (35)Post a comment |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Ah, but it's not that simple.
For the rest of his life, he'll be identified as "former New York Times columnist Bill Kristol." That's why he took the gig in the first place, even if he never had any attention of fulfilling its responsibilities. Until now, when he's appeared as a talking head, he's been tagged as "Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard," a label which succinctly warns viewers and listeners that what follows will have at best a tangential relationship to truth, and will be intended primarily to advance the cause du jour of the American right.
Now, for the simple act of spewing forth mindless, poorly-researched, unoriginal pablum on a weekly basis, he has been endowed with a veneer of credibility. Sure, people who actually read his columns hold him in lower esteem than before, it that were possible. But most viewers and listeners will now regard him as carrying the seal of the establishment.
If you want a football analogy, he's more like Rich Gannon - or should I say, NFL MVP Rich Gannon. Gannon had some modest success, due more to circumstance than innate talent, before being exposed as a hack in Super Bowl XXXVII - a lot like Kristol joining the Times. But that MVP title, however undeserved, was enough to land him a job at CBS. Some mistakes never get undone.
In the first place, I never had any respect for him. He is the prime example of what I called a parasite of incoherent intellectuality that enables ignorance in America. Juan Williams is another confused opportunist.
Can't recall any of his columns being memorable...well, apart from the one that claimed that Obama heard one of Rev. Wright's sermons on a day when Obama wasn't in Chicago.
There was lots of stuff like that (trying to make an impact in whatever the issue of the day was). How did he get a reputation as an "intellectual"? Pales in comparison with, say, David Brooks.
Cynic
I am with you on the substance of your post but I would have to say that Rich Gannon at least actually had some talent. I think who you are really looking for is Trent Dilfer. Talk about a guy making a career off of being the starting QB for one year on a team that one the Superbowl no thanks to him. And now he is one of the usual suspects on ESPN.
"Can't recall any of his columns being memorable..."
You mean you forgot when he gave the McCain/Palin campaign totally contradictory advice in two successive weeks? That was a high point.
I agree that he probably just did this as a resume builder, but i have to admit I'm kind of pleasantly astounded that after that year of hackery and lazy, unimaginative writing, the NYT didn't drive a dump truck of money up to his house, make him columnist for life and offer him Paul Krugman's office. It's just so strange to see ANY sort of accountability in the self-important bizarro world of newspaper opinion writing.
Excuse my excitement, but I say good fucking riddance.
Garbage in, garbage out.
If he hadn't done so earlier, he really showed his true (ridiculous) lack of judgment in going whole-hog in support of Palin. My gosh, that was a shit show.
More like a bad free agent. He's the Hideki Irabu of column writing.
And check out this quote at Balloon Juice on Daddy getting William all his jobs but opposing affirmative action:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=16210#comment-1133259
And there he is, divisive to the end. Throughout the campaign, I got tired of Kristol and his ilk (read Krauthammer) continually questioning my patriotism because I didn't support a clearly dumb and opportunistic war, or I think that my body is my own to govern, or that a family can be made in many ways, or that I expected the government to do their job and PROVE that the detainees are criminals. And the list goes on. It was an insulting and arrogant stance, as is the final paragraph of his final column...like I have no interest in defending liberty; Kristol's definition of "liberty" of course. Gah!
I'll finish your thought, TNC. ...Where The Good Lord Split You.
Kathryn
Kristol had no choice but to rabidly support Sarah Palin. He is the one that promoted her as a VP candidate in the first place.
Oh come on! He's not anymore culpable than juan williams...slangin' that con-crack is just what they do! and they call Nas a gangsta!?
How did he get a reputation as an "intellectual"? Pales in comparison with, say, David Brooks.
That's a pretty low bar to clear to begin with, but the answer to your question is, "the same way all conservatives earn their reps--from their parents." See Jonah Goldberg for another example.
Incertus:
Really? You're going to attack hereditary privilege on the website of James Bennet's publication?
I have no problem with those who choose to use the privileges they have inherited to contribute to the public life of the mind. Why bar Bennet from the debate just because of his father's success? My problem is with those - like Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol - who detract from public discourse and poison reasoned discussion. Aren't we better off judging writers by their prose than their paternity?
But they're keeping The Moustache of Wisdom? I don't know if this is a net gain in quality for the NYT op-ed pages. Friedman would get a stupid idea and you could point out to your liberal friends that Kristol had just come up with the same stupid idea, and vice-versa, nullifying the deleterious effects of teh stupid with an authorial dilemma.
Buermann,
I agree with you on nullifying Mr. opportunist Friedman's contract, he is indeed, one of the most dumbest chattering class we have now. His widsom? ill-served. Both of these men should be caged at least the next 4 years. Our economy is in dire strait and we can't afford to be distracted.
Cynic,
I never suggested that Goldberg or Kristol should be barred from "the life of the mind" because of their heredity. I only said that Kristol and Goldberg are where they are because of their family connections, which is to say that neither has done anything of note which would warrant their current levels of success. It's not that I begrudge them the opportunity--it's that they've done so little with it, and in the meantime, they've hogged up space that other, smarter voices might have done good things with.
How did he get a reputation as an "intellectual"?
Well...just as it is very easy for a black man to get labelled a gangsta, it is very easy for a Jewish person to be considered an intellectual. Prety much any Jewish guy who writes anything will be called an intellectual. Sometime it isn't even necessary to write anything -- just wearing glasses will do the trick.
What a pale shadow of his father. I wonder if he has a Dubya-style inferiority complex/set of daddy issues.
P.S. peep: Really? Really Do you really want to make that argument? Because it seems to amount to saying that he only ever got taken seriously because he's Jewish. Which, you know, is a pretty messed up sentiment unless, the internet being the internet, I've not picked up on your sarcasm.
That's not fair, Gannon was a damn decent quarterback. Not his fault they went to the SB and ran into not only the best defense in the league, but also one coached by a guy who knew every detail of the offense Gannon was running.
The Tampa D was accurately calling the plays out loud as soon as they got a look at Oakland's formations because the Raiders hadn't bothered changing a thing offesively after Gruden left. That's Bill Callahan's fault, not Gannon's. You'd think a team could make adjustments ahead of time or in game, but as a Nebraska fan I can assure you Callahan's ability to adjust to problems is pretty much null.
/off topic
I have an almost irrational hatred for Kristol. I don't understand how somebody who has been proven wrong on so many issues maintains any credibility. But there he is---all the time, everywhere!---on t.v. (not just FOX either, he's been on MTP more times than I care to count). I'm more than happy to hear the Times has dropped him so, at the very least, I don't have to read his bullshit propoganda. But I'd be even happier if the news networks, as well as the Weekly Standard, did the same and canned him. I want to erase all evidence of him.
homais,
Well...it wasn't intended exactly as a serious argument.
I do believe that Jews are stereotyped as being smart and intellectual.
I'm continually amazed at the number of Jewish columnists -- Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, David Brooks, Jonah Goldberg, Richard Cohen etc.
As a Jewish person myself, I would like to say it is due to our smarts -- but more than a few of those guys are clearly not all that bright.
I want to erase all evidence of him.
Unfortunately, he's moving onto that bastion of liberalism, the Washington Post Op-Ed page, but only once a month. I suspect he'll carry on the same tradition of factlessness and inanity that he brought to the NY Times Op-Ed page.
am i the only one whose gaydar starts swinging when you see
Thomas "s... on this" Friedman yappin away in interviews (e.g. Daily Show) ?
don't mean to be inflammatory, just curious if anybody else caught that vibe
off topic but here's Matt Taibbi's take on Thomas Friedman...
http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-flat-n-all-that.html
"Like Bo crushing Bosworth, Kristol has been exposed."
I love that line.
Ta-Nehisi? Let me guess: Swahili for 'incoherent'
I knew Rich Gannon. I employed Rich Gannon on my fantasy football team. I watched Rich Gannon lead a Raiders team to heights which it had not seen and has not since seen. Bill Kristol is no Rich Gannon.
As a lifelong Seahawks fan, thank you for reminding me of some of the deepest epic fails from an organization which until recently has set the bar when it comes to horribad draft picks (Bozworth, Mirer, good god could I go on), coaching choices, and bad luck injuries. Thankfully that mantle of disaster has been completely taken over by the Detroit Lions (although the Seahawks DID pick up their ex-coach this off-season, standard move for us).
Now if only those refs had let us play the game in the 2005 superbowl we would have our championship and I could die a happy man.
FUCK THA REFS and the Steelers for "steeling" our ring thanks to epic fail officiating.
Oh, and Kristol sucks ass.
I am a conservative, but found Kristol's Times columns dull, lazy and sloppy. (His other work doesn't do much for me, either, but the Times stuff seemed particularly weak.) Neither his ideas nor his words were memorable.
The Times has one of the least lively and diverse op-ed pages among major newspapers (The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are both far better).
They can use another conservative with interesting things to say. If they do a thorough search, rather than just pick a "name brand" as they did with Kristol, they can find someone much better.
Kristol's columns were lazy drivel that didn't deserve the space the paper according it. David Brooks, another conservative, at least argues his points cogently and uses facts and figures to back them up. Kristol columns were mainly composed of his musings and self-obsession, a mark of a vain, smug and delusioned person. I hope the Times uses the space for more eloquently argued points of view.
The New York Times hasn't been credible for quite some time. From Judith Miller and her reporting on WMD in Iraq during the run up to the war to the hit piece on John McCain that used anonymous sources to allege he had an affair with a lobbyist during the 2008 election. The New York Times lost it's credibility a long time ago and in my opinion has a very, very long way to go to regain it.
"Kristol had no choice but to rabidly support Sarah Palin. He is the one that promoted her as a VP candidate in the first place."
Ross Douthat of this publication had promoted Palin too, but after her disastrous interviews he admitted it was a mistake.
My biggest problem with Kristol is that he's an undisguised shill, interested only in advancing his causes, not in honestly analyzing issues.
Kylopod, I agree. Kristol comes off as a partisan shill instead of a commentator. You feel you are getting nothing more than Republican party talking points. (Note I did not say conservative talking points--that implies principles).
Certainly, some liberal commentators do this as well. But I've never felt it as acutely with any commentator as I did with Kristol on Palin. He had a personal stake in the nomination and offered the lamest excuses and justifications for this nitwit. (For the record, I thought Caroline Kennedy was equally unqualified.)
Scott Horton suggested that the reason Kristol got shitcanned was the sloppiness of his writing, not the politics. Since his columns read like they were literally phoned in, and they kept the corrections department busy, that's not too hard to believe. Safire respected the slot; Kristol plainly didn't.
Does this make Bob Herbert Mario Williams?
Off topic but here's Matt Taibbi's take on Thomas Friedman...,/i.
As opposed his take on the thread's other discussion: nepotism in journalism?