Not off to a good start IMO:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/op...ristol.html?hp

Cliff's notes: Huckabee would make a strong General Election candidate.

Kristol has always put me on tilt. Why do they need him when they have David Brooks?

It's like peering in the mind of a person who's hallucinating.

It might not be for long. I think the NYT is trying to be less overwhelmingly liberal in its op-ed pieces after dropping its subscription service called TimesSelect. If you can't charge for content, then you have attract readers across the political spectrum for advertising.

However many NYT readers are angry, like in these letters to the editor. Look at the reactions at the liberal blog The Huffington Post. One person writes,
Of course few people, including the "reality-based community", want to listen to someone who disagrees with them.

"He began by calmly mentioning his and Obama’s contrasting views on issues from guns to life to same-sex marriage."

Americans calmly don't care about these things from a presidential candidate.

"Could he be our strongest nominee? He could be.”

He's more likely their weakesets nominee, and it's not close. Here's the reason why:

“Gee, he’s not some kind of crazy Christian. He’s an ordinary American.”

No, he's not. He's some kind of crazy Christian. Wait 'til they find people who were present at his sermons and who retell what he said. Wait 'til they talk about how he speculated about Mormons' thinking about the devil and how he doesn't believe in evolution.

Obama or Clinton beats Huckabee in a landslide.

I hate Kristol, but there is no denying that Huck is one of the top two general election nominees the GOP could put forth against Obama. He wouldn't be in the top 3 against HRC because the pro-Huck people would turn out against Hillary regardless, but the major chance the GOP has against Obama are 1)a candidate with independent appeal (McCain) or 2)a big fundie turnout (Huck). Rudy and Fred are poor McCain substitutes and Romney is a horrible candidate for everybody, so who else is there?

...don't even try to answer that

Meh, Kristol's a bloodthirsty hack, but I'm not particularly upset that he's a NYT columnist. It's not as if his wacky ideas weren't already getting out there.

Although I disagree with Huck, is anyone willing to question that he is the best campaigner on the Repub side?

McCain's the only one that has a real chance against Obama IMO. Obama's lack of experience is still a concern to voters. What does Huckabee attack Obama on? He's just as liberal as Obama. He has the same lack of foreign policy experience. If Huckabee wants to run on the flat tax, he might as well start his book on how to lose all 50 states in the general election.

Exhibit A.

Exhibit B.

Honestly, in a general v Obama, if Huck can get the best GOP advisers out there to knock off the amateur hour mistakes and show an ounce of knowledge of foreign affairs, I prefer Huck's chances to McCain's.

(edit: I haven't read the oped in the OP yet, as far as I know the author is indeed horrible, I'm just saying)

A William Kristol blast from the past: "...a double album of smarm, horrifying ignorance, and bald-faced deceit."

Kristol's the worst. Paying him is kind of like feeding a troll.

The Kristol hire was not an editorial decision.

It was a marketing decision and an attempt by publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr to throw his mutinous board of directors a bone.

The Times is losing money at an alarming rate, was weakened by the Blair/Raines/Boyd scandal, and is in real jeopardy as a family-controlled business.

The LA Times is in deep trouble, The Washington Post is struggling and Rupert Murdock has The Journal. It's twilight for the great papers. Shame...

All the papers you mentioned are still cash cows.

Revenue may be falling but all are still extremely profitable. With respect to the NY Times the family will never relinquish the voting stock. They will answer to no one.

As an old newspaper guy and lifetime Times reader, I do hope you are correct.

But these properties are not just experiencing a downturn in revenue. They are hemorrhaging money, cutting staff by the hundreds, closing bureaus, and have not yet found their proper place in the new 24-hour news cycle (whatever that might turn out be).

I am far less sanguine than you are. And I don’t see you offering any evidence to support your hopeful view. Or you anticipating whether they will be worth reading if they do survive as little more than cut-rate advertising vehicles. If the great papers can no longer afford to offer a comprehensive, independent, authoritative voice, they are great papers no longer.

Newspapers make bank. From
a 2007 article on small newspapers.
LA Times editor quitting over cutbacks.
Newspapers have lots of real problems. Hemorrhaging money is not one of them.

Chips... So what am I missing here? You reckon an $800 million write-down is just a little scratch?

(Footnote: Stock down again after McCain story...)

The value of a business is a reflection of its assets and the present value of future earnings. The NYT has some newspapers it owns. They appear in the books as assets worth what the Times paid for them. The Times paid $1B for the Boston Globe in 1993, but the Globe is worth a lot less today. The write-down brings the Times book value on paper in line with today's reality.

The loss in the write-down didn't happen today, and it wasn't a case of the cost of ink and reporters being greater than advertising revenue. The loss happened when the Times overpaid for the newspapers they acquired. They just realized the loss today.

Newspapers used to have growth and fantastic profits. Now they are shrinking and have above average profits. That change in conditions destroyed their valuations.

In short, newspapers don't lose money, but newspaper owners are losing their shirts.

Kristol's on a roll.

Hey, I can write hackneyed drivel. Maybe they'll hire me too. I could use the money.