Oops. Kristol erred again, claiming Obama was at Trinity church when his pastor made questionable remarks about race and the United States, using...get this...Newsmax as a source! Only Obama was on his way to Miami that day.
My initial concern about the Times hiring Kristol was rewarding failure - this guy has been wrong about every major policy issue for years. But these concerns have evolved. The more notable problem, after two months of columns, is that Kristol is just an awful columnist, a weak and sloppy writer, and a boring political observer. (And he's been wrong about every major policy issue for years.)
How bad is it? Even William Safire agrees with the Hoyt piece that described the Kristol hire as a "mistake."
When reached by phone, Safire told me: "I saw the excellent piece that the public editor wrote the other day, and that pretty much tells the story."
Is there anyone outside the paper's leadership who still thinks this was a good idea?
Kristol is a GOP man, disingenuous, overtly political, and a crappy writer. I'd love to read a decent, well thought out conservative writer in the pages of the New York Times -- or any newspaper, for that matter - and the sooner the Mona Charens, Thomas Sowells, and Bill Kristols of the world are exiled to Newsmax, the better.
