"A give-away came in the form of four corrections the newspaper was forced to run over factual mistakes in the columns,"

As opposed to dozens (to understate the matter) of corrections either not made or buried on page Q-18 beside the obits concerning Bush and or Rep politicians or policies.

And need I mention the NYT refusing to run an opposing editorial by McCain defending his Iraq policy to counter Barack Hussein Obama's in the middle of a heated campaign?

The shock to this story is yet to be seen, that is, if NYT hires another Conservative writer to replace Kristol.

I'm thinking fat chance.

Kristol related:

Matt Damon has called Kristol an idiot, that has led to a challenge to a debate between the two offering $100,000 (to the charity or carbon credit of his choice) if Damon agrees.

As I said in the preceding comment - FAT chance.

There's a better chance Damon would debate mythical dinosaurs.

Krtistol will still have an opportunity at the Washington Post to tout his favorite living conservative Clarence Thomas, whom he calls,

"the most impressive conservative in American public life," for the 2012 GOP nominatation and the American presidency.

Best of luck, Bill Kristol. Enjoy your new assignment. Yes, Kristol will need more than luck if Thomas, by Kristol`s evaluation, would have made such a great vp nominee in 2008! What a pundit!

Actually, Clarence Thomas's silence is impressive, and maybe Kristol is just envious of Thomas's job security.

Once again, the conservative avatars of the work ethic and the meritocracy defend laziness and mediocrity.

Seriously, guys, some of the editors on the Bang are better writers than Bill Kristol.

Here is the previous link to Thomas.

Seriously, guys, some of the editors on the Bang are better writers than Bill Kristol.

Considering that the NYT also has Paul Krugman and Frank Rich on the payroll, this is pretty f'n funny.

Kristol vs. Damon. I'd buy tickets to that.

Kristol came to the New York Times just a year ago and now that the administration Kristol had close contacts with has passed into history, Kristol's value is diminished and his contract was not renewed. With their finical problems the Times could no longer afford Kristol, and showing their petty nature, took some cheap shots at Kristol. The comments about Kristol's talent and fact checking are comical coming from the likes of the New York Times.

Should be "With their financial problems..."

The NYT is NOT the organization to be trumpeting it's fact checking and writing abilities.

Kristol will bless this day when the NYT's paychecks start bouncing.

d noble - "Seriously, guys, some of the editors on the Bang are better writers than Bill Kristol."

And we can expect a conservative replacement for Kristol just when?

P.S. As long as the NYT is "cleaning house" maybe they should give this disingenuous hack the ole heave ho. (I'm nothing if not redundant - FAT chance!)

Although I find myself disagreeing with Kristol at times, I find it very humorous the reason the NY Slime gave.

And Davy, if you want to champion laziness, it is most the the democratic party that has its' hands out for everything but work. You are a joke if you think the majority of the democratic party has a strong work ethic. Come on! Get serious. ww

marc

From your comment #1

"The shock to this story is yet to be seen, that is, if NYT hires another Conservative writer to replace Kristol.

I'm thinking fat chance."

Ever hear of David Brooks? You know the guy from the same newspaper as Kristol? No numbnuts, not the Times, the Weekly Standard.

You're the gift that just keeps on giving.

JFO - "Ever hear of David Brooks? You know the guy from the same newspaper as Kristol?"

Brooks to replace Kristol??? Who knew???

Obviously not you, Brooks has been on the NYT payroll since Sept 2003.

So, go ahead brain-child, explain how he replaces someone who was just fired.

New York Times: Isn't that a Mexican newspaper? Let's see if Krugman or Rich will work for 75 cents an hour.

Update from the NYT: "It was mutual agreement," Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, said in an interview. "We discussed this before the election, and decided that we would end now."

As for whether The Times would find another conservative voice for its Op-Ed page, Mr. Rosenthal said: "Sadly, I can't answer that question, except to say stay tuned. We have some interesting plans."

Could be, on the other hand we've seen some of the NYT "interesting plans," like $250 million loans from a Mexican billionaire at 4-plus times the going interest rate.

Marc (and whoever else thinks that link shows some dishonesty on Krugman's part): he stated people who think lower taxes are always better are not worth paying attention to. That is not to say that *all conservatives* are to be ignored, but only those ideological cultists like Grover Norquist and idiots who talk about "tax freedom"--as though anybody would live freely in a civilized society were we to be relieved of the burden of paying taxes.

Krugman's point is only that cutting taxes or spending is not an answer without providing specifics; and that post you cite, Marc, supports Krugman's accusations of dishonesty against his conservative detractors.

Not saying the guy is infallible, but he sure knows a lot more about this stuff than everybody in this thread who doesn't get to call themselves a Doctor of Economics.

I'm not sure why you conservative folks would care whether the Times hires another conservative commentator or not. I doubt many, if any of you, ever read it anyway. What I hear from conservatives all the time is what an awful paper it is. Why is this even a story here?

HughG - "What I hear from conservatives all the time is what an awful paper it is. Why is this even a story here?"

So you're saying the only reason the NYT has been down-graded to near junk bond status and had to get a bail-out from a foreign national vice, say, Warren Buffet or another American, is solely due to a loss of conservative readership?

Surely you jest.

As for the reason for it being noted here, how about the paper either firing, or by mutual agreement losing one of the few conservative writers it has?

That's NOT a notable story on a conservative blog? How so?

hyper - "Doctor of Economics - I never claimed he wasn't, but it IS instructive how you overlooked the dis-ingeniousness of the piece as pointed out in the linked post.

Why is this even a story here?

We just want to see if the NYT is going to continue it's pretense at being somewhat balanced.

Not saying the guy is infallible, but he sure knows a lot more about this stuff than everybody in this thread who doesn't get to call themselves a Doctor of Economics.

Dude. There are entire websites devoted to documenting Krugman's factual errors and lies. Your defense of him is, basically, "He knows his stuff." Try to imagine how impressed we are by that.

Marc,

I believe you meant to say "disingenousness."

Yeah, Marc, he's a professor of economics at Princeton. Whadda hack! Please see my post at #4.

Sometimes you can watch the dumbing down of our political discourse happening in real time right on this blog.

And before anybody asks why I'm here, note that I said "Sometimes." Marc, your posts on this thread, long on tude and short on thought, are a case in point.

hyper took the time to address the link you posted to and you ignored him because he didn't roll over and concede your point. You didn't bother to address his pointsat #18

Oregon,

You can find entire websites devoted to Holocaust denial, white supremacy, and alien abductions. What does that prove, Dude?
It never ceases to amaze me how often people ignore the fact that, with all its' opportunities for real education, the web is to a very large extent "Amateur Hour." Martin Luther advocated the concept of "every man a priest." Far too often the web and the blogosphere promote the idea that everybody with a keyboard and an ISP is a genius.

The hypocrisy of this whole scenario is colossal. Sloppy writing? Failure to fact-check? Isn't that what the Times specializes now? The NYT is digging it's own grave as fast as it can.
http://www.rightklik.net/

There it is. Dave N. said that any pointing out of Krugman's errors is in line with holocaust deniers. Believe like Dave says or you are wrong. ww

Marc

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't know how you took what I wrote to say the Times was failing because conservatives don't read it. What I clearly said was that why do you care whether they hire another conservative commentator? Do you read the paper? Did you read it just to read Kristol's 1x per week piece.

Since there seems to be an uproar here from the conservatives I wonder just how many of you actually read it? Lets start with you Marc.

d nobel - "hyper took the time to address the link you posted to and you ignored him because he didn't roll over and concede your point. You didn't bother to address his pointsat #18"

First of all he is, many times, easy to ignore.

Secondly there was no need to address them specifically. It's obvious his (hyper's) opinion varies from mine.

It's just as obvious many others in reading the linked post would agree that despite Klugman's degree he wasn't telling the whole story and plainly used "funny math" in formulating his conclusion.

hughG - "Please don't put words in my mouth.

Who Me? Attention to detail guy I didn't place anything in your "mouth."

So you're saying the only reason the NYT has been down-graded to near junk bond status and had to get a bail-out from a foreign national vice, say, Warren Buffet or another American, is solely due to a loss of conservative readership?

Making it a query to you as opposed to a declarative statement.

"Do you read the paper? Did you read it just to read Kristol's 1x per week piece.

Why yes, yes I do, and will continue to do so. Along with many other sources like the WaPo, BBC, CNN, and hell even Al Jazerra on many occasions.

No, Marc. It's what is called a rhetorical question. It's a way of disguising a declarative statement as a question.
You know what it is? It's disingenous.

Wow, this marc person seems like a very angry conservative. Gosh, I didn't know there were any.

Good. I was getting sick of that guy besmirching their sterling reputation.

I see JFO has a sockpuppet on this thread.

Do you want me to out you, JFO, or are you
honest enough to do it.
I'll give you until tomorrow to decide.

Maggie

I'm not a sockpuppet maggie. I am JFO's son, staying with him. My mother is ill and I am home with them using his computer.

My views are mine. My dad's are his. Do whatever it is you want to do.

That was quick in response.
The son, eh?

Do you have your fathers permission to use
his computer? I'll need to see some proof
he knows you're posting on Wizbang.

I'm not sure why you conservative folks would care whether the Times hires another conservative commentator or not. I doubt many, if any of you, ever read it anyway. What I hear from conservatives all the time is what an awful paper it is. Why is this even a story here?

You are right, I don't care at all, considering that NYT is close to bankrupcy as it is. A year from now, it will be a moot point.

And conservatives care about Kristol, why?

Kristol thinks the Republican ideas and leadership suck so bad that getting behind them would lead to disaster. Here's his latest in the Weekly Load of Crap:

"Where's the coherent message? What's the strategy? Why the disunity? Who's going to lead us out of the wilderness?

To which the answers are: Calm down and be careful what you wish for."

OH, and he knows O WON:

"Calm down because Obama has just become president and the ball is in his court. There are severe limits to what the GOP can do over the next couple of months. In fact, Republicans might be better off doing nothing at all."

Urging the Republicans to, to . . . Wah? Not do squat?

There's some wizbang leadership right there.

Here's the rest of your boy's article:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/050fvcoy.asp?pg=1

For the last three weeks, I've been driving by this dead cat on the side of the road. No one will do anything about it. It decays more each day. Just a dead, rotting husk that no one cares enough about to even kick into the ditch.

Much like the Republican party.

"Death really does suck."

d nobel - "No, Marc. It's what is called a rhetorical question. It's a way of disguising a declarative statement as a question.
You know what it is? It's disingenous."

And you full of more sh*t than 20 acres of cow patties.

hughG - "Wow, this marc person seems like a very angry conservative. Gosh, I didn't know there were any."

Angry? No.

The largest A-hole you're likely to ever meet.

Probably.

And I'm far from conservative. Remind me again what happens when you assume something?

dick[less]man....larry dick[less]man... you have a call on line one

i would think real conservatives would be quite ready to disown kristol. the guy has cheerlead every blatant bu$hco lie.. oops cough cough i mean "intel failure".. to ever have come down the pike, constantly adjusting as each one fell apart, and always with an elasticity that takes the word "glib" to never-before-seen heights

is it his writing that is sloppy? ...or is it rather his flawed human character?

hmmmmmmm!

"But his sloppy writing and failure to fact check what he wrote made us queasy."

So 'fake, but accurate' made the Gray Lady, what, ravenously hungry?