Dear New York Times,<\/p>\n
Word has it that the Times’ publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., decided last fall that it was time to add another Republican columnist to the paper’s op-ed page, and the decision early on was to find a “lightning-rod conservative<\/a>.” For reasons that I’ve never entirely understood, you picked the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol.<\/p>\n Now, it’s always difficult for any large institution to admit a mistake, especially on the heels of some high-profile embarrassments. I understand that. This is especially true when someone in a position of authority makes a poor employment decision, hiring the wrong person for an important job. (I suspect it’s tempting to adopt the president’s approach, and pretend that the unqualified hire is doing a heckuva job, no matter how humiliating the person’s on-the-job performance.)<\/p>\n But there comes a point at which the paper’s reputation matters more than the embarrassment that would come from admitting a mistake. <\/p>\n If Kristol were just a conservative hatchet-man, his columns would simply be predictable. After nearly five months of columns, however, the problem is more jarring — his work is that of an awful columnist, a weak writer, and a boring political observer. This isn’t about ideology; it’s about talent, or in this case, the lack thereof.<\/p>\n Take today’s column<\/a>, for example.<\/p>\n Every presidential campaign has to produce a stream of appropriate statements for religious holidays, patriotic commemorations, and the like. Campaigns don’t expect to win votes with these messages. They produce them because there’s a risk of giving offense to some group or other if they don’t.<\/p>\n And candidates do it because it looks presidential. After all, a substantial portion of any White House’s output consists of official messages recognizing various national milestones, group anniversaries and dignitaries’ birthdays.<\/p>\n So, last week, in the midst of the excitement over the pope’s visit, the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaigns found time to issue Passover greetings. They were of course staff-produced, and somewhat formulaic. Still, differences among formulaic statements can be revealing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes, without a hint of satire, Bill Kristol devoted his entire 800-word column in the nation’s most important newspaper to scrutinizing Passover press releases.<\/p>\n He is, in other words, making the New York Times look silly.
\n
\nI suspect some of Kristol’s recent gems have given the paper pause. His inaugural column<\/a>, four months ago, went a long way in making his critics’ concerns look well grounded. It was filled with predictable Republican Party talking points; it attributed a quote to the wrong person; and it heralded Hillary Clinton’s demise as a presidential candidate — just one day before she won the New Hampshire primary.<\/p>\n