The NY Times recently brought William Kristol onto its editorial pages and the uber-geniuses on the left fairly fell into heart palpitations at the news.
The hatred that liberals so often express against anything conservative is as visceral as it is vicious and the Kristol case is consistent with that kind of caustic commentary.
It’s certainly true that liberals regard the NY Times as their newspaper, just as they regard Fox News as the enemy. The hiring of Kristol, who is despised by the libs for his positions on Iraq and his relationship with the neo-conservative movement that lead America there, must be seen as a sign that things are changing there.
More than that, however, is the fact that the left does not want the Times’ weight and reputation put behind the words of a conservative writer of any kind, let alone Kristol.
Liberals do not want people to read or hear conservative points of view. But if it must be done, let it be through AM talk radio or Fox News, sources that they’ve already lined up against with their buckets of pitch and paint brushes to paint the content of these news sources as inherently biased.
How much more revolting must it be for liberals to see conservative commentary like Kristol’s latest in the Times?
It’s easy to see why. The left has so much to lose in the unlikely-but-suddenly-more-possible scenario that fair, unbiased reporting becomes the standard at the Times. Should that happen we can undoubtedly look forward to more excellent pieces like this editorial in which the Times exposes the distended, pork-laden belly of one of the liberal left’s own, Representative John Murtha.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
btw i found it interesting Bill Kristol wrote an editorial that Mike Huckabee may in fact be the best Republican candidate and everyone is underestimating him: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/opinion/07kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
.
Please inform me, name the liberal who does not, "… want people to read or hear conservative points of view. …".
Name the person (other than right wingers) who "… fell into heart palpitations at the news. …".
It is tiresome to hear sniveling from ‘conservatives’ who insist on blaming others for doing what they themselves do. Your choice of words (… The hatred that liberals so often express against anything conservative is as visceral as it is vicious and the Kristol case is consistent with that kind of caustic commentary. …) is laughable.
Perhaps you can try and tell us how conservatives feel. Does it not indicate Kristols’ extreme right-wing positions are snake oil when he is willing to go write for the "Times"?
Let liberals and progressives speak for themselves. Speak for yourself.
.
Ema,
Have you checked the Daily Kos comments about the NYT publishing Kristol? I think a fair minded reader could see a lot of comments which appear to be liberals objecting to the NYT publishing Kristol. One might reasonably interpret that as an objection by liberals to Kristol or other non-liberal viewpoints being published by the NYT. The cynic might say, "Free speech for me, but not for thee."
My personal observation (30 plus years) is that it is liberals, far more often than conservatives, who try to suppress speech they disagree with. Check out the Volokh postings yesterday of the Bergen Community College conduct code. I do not think the hostility toward opposing viewpoints is unique to the left, but it is much more frequently expressed in our society by the left than by the right. Where the right tends to suppress speech is in self-selecting ways, like membership in religious denominations. If one does not share the basic tenets of the faith, you are asked to leave.
Kristol? Conservative?. Thanks for the fun.
Liberlas intolerant ? Is NY Times liberal