Jun
19
19
Voting pundits off the island
Survey time: if you could make one pundit who has a regular gig at a major newspaper or magazine stop writing forever, which one would it be?
I’ve narrowed my choice down to Easterbrook, Bill Kristol or Hitchens. However, I recognize there are several other worthy candidates (Maureen Dowd, anyone?).
UPDATE: Oh, I forgot that Jonah Goldberg writes regularly for the LA Times.
Crap. This is gonna be harder than I thought.
UPDATE II: Hoo lordy. Dean Broder just shot up the charts with this:
David S. Broder: Joe Biden and Richard Lugar offer hope for foreign policy that crosses party lines.
We’re going to need to do an actual vote to resolve this, methinks.
Ken Lowery said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:26
George Will. His pretensions are damaging, because they make people feel smart for believing stupid, stupid shit.
dBa said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:28
Kristol obviously, I don’t think any of the other ones enjoy war and getting Americans killed more than he does.
christian h. said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:28
I don’t think I’d go by sheer stupidity (or drinking problem), but rather by influence. That makes it Friedman, beating out Broder by a hair. But seriously, it’s harder to find one pundit I wouldn’t fire.
Malignant Bouffant said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:30
Wouldn’t it be better to ask if there is even one major dead-tree medium pundit it would be worth keeping?
Clem said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:30
Jeff Jacoby, because If Krauthammer could walk, he’d be Jeff Jacoby.
Brad said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:31
Krugman is very worth keeping. He’s basically the reason I buy the Times on Monday and Friday.
Anne Laurie said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:32
Truly a wealth of choice — nobody’s mentioned David “Bobo” Brookes, yet. I agree that Kristol is probably Most Individually Evil, but George Will personally annoys me even more. And then there’s Max Boot, and the semi-late Peggy Noonan, and V.D. Hanson…
Jennifer said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:32
Joe Klein.
DrDick said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:34
I don’t know, this is a really hard choice. Have to decide whether to weight for stupidity or for evil. For evil, it’s Bloody Billy Kritol, hands down. For stupid, it has to be the Pantload. Decisions, Decisions.
Malignant Bouffant said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:34
As an Angeleno of 35 yrs. (I now qualify as a native) I can assure you all that the L. A. Times is not a “major” fish-wrapper any more. As a matter of fact, it literally keeps getting smaller & shorter. They just stopped publishing the glossy Sunday magazine, which was down to one Sunday a month anyway. Virtually all the good reporters went to the NYT or WaPo some time ago.
Master of all internet traditions said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:34
Too late to make Kristol disappear, now. The damage is done and he’s already disgraced. Even David Brooks says that no one takes Kristol seriously anymore.
Now if the effects of this wish were retroactive, sure, I’d take Bloody William in a heartbeat. As it stands, he’s much more valuable as an object of scorn and ridicule.
Save the magic vote for somebody else, like Limbaugh, or Savage Weiner.
Davis X. Machina said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:36
Freidman. That veneer of sanity is very insidious.
Most people recognize bat-shit insane.
Cangrejero said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:37
ahem.
Although, he probably won’t be bothering us much longer. Doughbob is probably a better choice.
Evan said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:38
Dowd.
Jennifer said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:39
Anne Laurie - I had a hysterical email back and forth with one of V.D. Hanson’s flunkies a couple of years back.
Simba B said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:41
Although, he probably won’t be bothering us much longer. Doughbob is probably a better choice.
Oh?
jcasey said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:41
Not George Will! I wouldn’t know what to do without himl–he makes up many of the logical fallacies examples on my logic tests.
Candy said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:41
Coming at it purely from the perspective of who annoys me the most, ol’ Cal Thomas would get the axe right away if I ran the news world.
Not the most influential punditl, but for sheer irritant ability and bringing Teh Stoopid, along with a heapin’ helpin’ of fundie fuckwadity, he’s hard to beat.
dbt said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:47
Loophole: how about pseudo-categories, and you can crown a champion in each one and knock them off?
Colonel Danite said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:51
The Prince of Darkness, Bob Novak.
El Cid said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:52
Fred Hiatt. He doubly sins: Idiot hawk pundit, and editor of a major U.S. daily.
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:52
How … exactly … would we make this person stop … writing?
Oh well. Let’s assume they’d be sent to a nice tropical island and not - just by way of example - shoved head first into a mountain of medical waste. Since I’m a latte gargling elitist islahomo who lives inside the Beltway Bubble, I pick UpChuck Krauthammer.
If I couldn’t stop him from writing forever I’d at least send him to The City Paper where his Epic Fail won’t stand out so much.
stogoe said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:53
Richard Cohen?
ali_in_arabia said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:54
Hitchens? Nah, he can write! And the whole athiest schtick must really be unnerving for the Godbothering section of Winguttia (ie, all of them except Hitchens)
Michael said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:55
Given that his legacy status gets him listened to by people with their hands on the actual reins of power, I gotta go with Kristol.
They’re all annoying and wrong, but that useless mound of soulless flesh is dangerous as well.
gbear said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:56
Kristol’s writing is bad, but great to tear apart. I would like to see him get 86′d from any and all television access.
However, my first choice is local columnist Katherine Kersten at the StarTrib in Minneapolis. She’s the soccer mom equivalent of John Boehner.
I can get behind Candy’s choice of Cal Thomas too, but I think he’s been left pretty far behind in the game already.
christian h. said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:58
And the whole athiest schtick must really be unnerving for the Godbothering section of Winguttia (ie, all of them except Hitchens)
You forget he’s a Brit. Their warmongers are almost without fail rabid atheists.
Anyway, I retract Friedman and agree with El Cid that to remove Hiatt (how? Legitimate target…) would be most cost-effective.
sdf (Stu) said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:00
Seriously, choose only one?
There need to be at least two categories:
1) Confessed conservative [e.g. Krauthammer, Kristol]
2) “Reasonable liberal” [e.g. Broder, Cohen]
Even then it’s pretty tough.
Actually, you might want to add a third category for those that are in fact certifiably certifiable for Snitchens’s sake.
Malaclypse said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:00
“For evil, it’s Bloody Billy Kritol, hands down. For stupid, it has to be the Pantload.”
Agreed. I’d also nominate La Malkin in the “Bile-Driven Hatred” category. For me, the ultimate tiebreaker is the fact that Kristol never stops smirking as he helps get people killed. If I never, ever had to see that smirk ever again, and the tradeoff was reading every book Loadbob ever has ghostwritten for him, I’d read Loadbob.
Susan of Texas said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:01
If we could be retroactive, Limbaugh, for his poisoning of the American Heartland mind.
Presently, Michael Leeden. He’s less pundit and more dirty secret agent, but I can be broad-minded.
seventwentyfour said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:02
Friedman. Too influential.
My first choice was Dowd but I get the sense that she’s not too influential anymore. People got off that train and they’re just enjoying the wreck now.
Erik Pontoppidan said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:03
So this is where leftys congregate after smoking pot and sipping their lattes.
Enjoy your delusions of granduer liberals because America is a right of center nation, and will not vote for a guy as far-left as Obama.
I mean, come on now! The guy doesn’t even pretend to be moderate! At least Hillary Clinton does the usual song and dance about pretending to believe in God and support a strong national defense.
Your guy Obama isn’t even trying! Despite so called “Bush fatigue”, your guy is going to lose because he’s just too far to the left for normal Americans,
Candy said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:04
I believe I picked ol’ Cal because he appeared in the paper this morning. He was even worse than usual, but I can’t say why because I seem to have blocked the subject of his column from my memory.
Hmmmm
Oh! Now I remember. He was bashing our old friend habeus, iirc.
Actually, I think all these MSM pundits are running on empty. If Obama is elected, their influence will fade at a faster rate and over the next few years they won’t be able to sway a small town city council race.
I hope that’s not wishful thinking.
christian h. said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:05
The fact is, Erikkk, that I prefer LSD to pot and resent your insinuation to the contrary.
ali_in_arabia said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:06
Yeah, maybe I’m just loyal to a fellow British drunkard journalist.
gbear said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:07
someone sounds like an expert at not really trying.
Simba B said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:09
Erik Pontoppidan said,
Yeah, come on. You expect us to fall for that after the SowellFan thing downstairs?
Sadly, no.
Simba B said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:10
heh
Candy said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:10
If we can also get rid of a cartoonist, I nominate Michael Ramirez.
Red said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:11
Can’t we just have them all shot?
Bullsmith said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:12
Gerson’s pious holier-than-thou, middle of the road re-verginified gee-shucks nice guy compassionate sympathetic guy routine is pretty galling.
mikey said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:12
Easy.
Kristol..
No. Wait.
Friedman.
Nah.
Kristol. The fuckwad.
No. Dammit. Friedman. Lying piece of shit.
No wait. Gotta be Kristol, just on principal.
Umm, wait. Fuck principal. Friedman or Bobo have GOT to go.
No, wait.
Krauthammer. Fucker’s a murdering asshole.
Yep.
Krauthammer is the one.
Fer sure.
Ummm.
Unless it’s Friedman.
Dammit…
mikey
Me said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:17
Hitchens? Nah, he can write!
Thank you. His latest book sits proudly on my shelf. We will always need good writers.
Madame Defarge said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:18
Sow down, dammit! I’m knitting as fast as I can!
(Disclaimer: This scarf only contains the names of pundits to be removed from a fictional island, and in no way implies that they will be given headectomies.)
Madame Defarge said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:19
Slow down, dammit. Dammit.
kebernet said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:26
Friedman.
Kristol and Hitchens are tempting, but too many people pay attention to friedman.
mdhatter said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:27
Can’t we just ~move~ the island and not tell anyone where we moved it to?
mdhatter said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:27
And I vote to remove that vein from Kristol’s forehead.
Erik Pontoppidan said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:27
This is exactly the kind of President America wants.
One who refuses to cross his heart during the National Anthem. One whose “pastor” sings a song with the words ” God-damn America” and who says America brought 9/11 upon itself for its “racism”.
One whose friends include the likes of weatherman terrorists and Louis Farrakhan. One who threw his own grandmother under the bus in order to appease his black nationalist supporters.
One who looks down on working class Americans who believe in God and practice their right to own a gun for self-protection.
One whose wife, the woman who wants to be first lady said that ” The first time in my adult life that I’m proud of my country was when my husband decided to run for President.”
Sounds like a first couple that really represents the majority of Americans, huh?
mikey said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:30
Well, it’s fair to say that I’m still waiting to be proud of my country.
And hey! I’m a “hero”…
mikey
ice weasel said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:30
Which “one”?
What kind of fucking masochism is this? One?
Any one of the asshats mentioned above would make the world a better place if they developed a permanent writer’s block and were convicted of sex with, and ritual sacrifice of, goats (sorry goats).
mikey said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:31
Oh, and I pretty much look down on anybody who “believes in god”.
Did I mention I’m a “hero”?
Just checking.
How’s your head?
mikey
Brad said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:31
Thank you. His latest book sits proudly on my shelf. We will always need good writers.
Yeah, and that’s why I *don’t* want him in our public discourse.
Hitchens is a lot like Spider Man if he used his powers for evil instead of good. Yes, the dude writes like a champion, and yes, he did some useful work back in his heyday. But his Iraq war arguments were and are made on such astonishingly bad faith that it’s poisoned everything the SOB has ever written. Ergo, good writer, shit judgment. That’s why I want him gone.
With Kristol, my logic is just that he’s pure evil. With Easterbrook, it’s the fact that he’s wrong about a multitude of subjects.
John said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:31
Michael Gerson.
Snorghagen said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:32
I’d vote for Broder. He’s long been very influential and extremely pernicious. There are plenty of pundits far more evil than him, but probably no one has played a bigger role in fucking up the general outlook of the news media over the last couple decades.
Good point, but I’ll still go with Broder. Hiatt might be my number two choice.
Agreed. I’m eternally indebted to him for his columns in the months after 9/11, back when the mainstream press worshipped Bush and the left blogosphere was still embryonic. In those days, Krugman was almost the only voice of sanity out there. I disagreed with him on Hillary during the primaries, but that was small shit.
owlbear1 said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:33
Nuke the island from orbit! Its the only way to be sure!
John O said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:33
Hitchens is a brilliant writer and often funny and even correct, though completely moronic about the WOT. He’s out.
Dowd is taken care of fantastically on a weekly basis by Molly Ivors, so I say booyah to free speech. Dowd never got out of high school, but more and more of us can see it.
Kristol is too good an example of being 100% wrong, along the same lines.
The German Hammer is a candidate, but he’s sort of Kristolnachtish in terms of his stupidity batting average.
Friedman is an ass, but at least he gets something right from time to time. Out.
Cohen and Broder? Dead soon enough. Out. I would vote for Brooks but I laughed with his books. Novak is also metaphorically dead, and possibly actually dead, too, though kept alive by some freakish secret GOP zombie machine.
George Will, Pat Buchanan? No way. At least they have principles, insane though they may be.
Fred Hiatt is way in the running.
If I had to vote today, it would be Michael Gerson
But you’re right, this is way harder than anyone could imagine even in Fantasy Politics.
Brad said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:34
Can’t we just ~move~ the island and not tell anyone where we moved it to?
Touche. How very LOST of you :-)
jim said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:34
Kristol for me too - & he should have to wear a veil to boot, so we don’t have to ever see that shit-eating “What, Me Worry?” grin, ever again.
But it’s all rather academic to me, since I usually don’t catch any of the “wisdom” of these goombahs anywhere else but right here.
MY preferred option would be to lock them all in a gymnasium somewhere & let them devour each other until only one was left alive, thus creating a “King Rat” Mecha-pundit - & if ANY politician anywhere on Earth gets overly snotty, we threaten to give the creature a full hour’s live global simulcast in which to destroy them.
Kathy G. said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:35
Maureen Dowd, by far. She does far more harm than anyone else in the media. She’s more responsible than anyone else for laundering the wingnut smears and making them usable for the mainstream media. She’s toxic for the Dems, especially when it comes to attacking them in viciously gendered ways — painting all Dem females as ball-breaking beeyotches and all Dem males as effete girly-men.
The caricatures she creates of liberals and Democrats drip with contempt, and the rest of the media picks up on her nasty talking points — she’s extremely influential, and they are deeply in the thrall of the stereotypes she creates. Over the past decade, I think she has single-handedly done more harm to this country than any other single pundit.
Brad said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:35
If I had to vote today, it would be Michael Gerson
An excellent choice. Smarminess, bad-faith arguments, sucks up to people in power… wow, how did I leave him off my original list?
jrm78 said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:37
What, no Kathleen Parker yet?
craigie said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:37
Can we call what the Pantload does “writing”? I’d love to make him stop typing, that’s for sure.
Lesly said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:38
Too many possibilities. Not enough time.
Sorry for cheating but I’d fire every guard/lap dog in addition to the war chearleaders, and keep the scant watchdogs. Hitchens is manageable with the right editor. His snark is amusing. More than anything I can’t stand journos that unquestioningly disseminate the ruling party’s rhetoric. They should ignore the bullshit or at least tear it apart, not provide a sounding board.
John O said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:41
Kathleen Parker would be in the running if anyone knew who she was outside us junkies.
K-Lo should get some votes, but I wouldn’t want to deprive S,N! of such quality material.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:42
Survey time: if you could make one pundit who has a regular gig at a major newspaper or magazine stop writing forever, which one would it be?
Does “making” involve a hammer or something?
Blue Buddha said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:42
Speaking of Doughbob Loadpants, his latest screed in the LA Times has him lamenting about how the Human Steyn (praised as being “the most talented political writer working today”) is being oh-so-oppressed by the Nazi Canadian thought police.
Brad said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:42
John - yeah, the low-hanging fruit should be out of the running, since they at least provide entertainment (which means Jonah shouldn’t really be in consideration… although Christ, I can’t believe he has a job at the LA Times).
Brad said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:43
Does “making” involve a hammer or something?
I leave it up to your imagination.
GoatBoy said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:45
“Hitchens is a lot like Spider Man if he used his powers for evil instead of good. Yes, the dude writes like a champion, and yes, he did some useful work back in his heyday. But his Iraq war arguments were and are made on such astonishingly bad faith that it’s poisoned everything the SOB has ever written. Ergo, good writer, shit judgment. That’s why I want him gone.”
I can’t go for that. We’d have to chuck Céline and I don’t wanna.
Mr. Poppinfresh said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:46
Krauthammer obviously.
John O said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:46
Yep, Brad, Jonah should be in the running, not because anyone should pay any attention to him, but due to his platform.
His entertainment value keeps him out of the race. Gotta have someone to laugh at.
Gerson pissed me off so bad today I’m blinded by rage, so not an honest broker where he is concerned.
Indeed, a tough call.
Susan of Texas said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:46
Eric ignores the fact most people don’t follow politics and know very little about the candidates. They vote with their pockets, and right now “Republican” means “expensive.”
Plus:
–a war hero who made traitorous broadcasts for the enemy. Imagine if a liberal candidate did that!
–a family values Republican who dumped his wife for a new, prettier, richer, less damaged model. Middle aged women just love that.
–a maverick who has flip flopped more than a cook at IHOP.
Bring it on, baby. I can’t wait for McCain’s war record, which he is hiding, comes out.
Lesley said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:48
Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn, and David Frum.
joeyess said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:50
Personally, I’d like to see Michelle Malkin out of my local paper, the KCstar.
John O said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:52
Malkin needs to be kept alive and writing as an example of pure Republicanism. Out.
SowellFan said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:52
Bill Press, a liberal who thinks he has all the answers, when he actually creates all the problems. Much like many liberals, including the residents of Sadly, D’oh!
WereBear said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:52
Well, since Malkin was the one whose reader sent the false anthrax to Keith Olbermann and other people who were trying to get the truth out, she seems outright dangerous.
Limbaugh has to get my vote for longevity and outright influence.
Yeah. An island.
A hot island.
Cangrejero said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:52
Simba,
Okay, I screwed up in about 20 different ways. That ahem was supposed to point to Broder’s page at the Post. I meant he won’t bother us much longer because he’s old. I hope that didn’t look like some death threat. Ugh. Okay I’m getting offline now.
John O said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:52
Plus, she’s clinically insane, which is central to my point.
Jeff Jacoby said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:56
I really suck. Howbout me?
Erik Pontoppidan said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:57
I never said John McCain is the perfect candidate, he isn’t. All candidates if you did deep enough have skeletons in their closets. It just so happens that Obama has more of them.
All I meant is that compared to Obama, John McCain better represents the values of most Americans. And he has far more executive experience.
He is a war hero who served his country valientely. He is a staunch fiscal conservative who promises to cut pork barrel spending. (he has the voting record to back this up.) He has been involved in national security issues almost his entire life beginning with his military service in addition to his 20 plus years as a U.S. Senator. And he has a moderately conservative voting record, though which far from perfect is significantly more mainstream America than Obama’s tax the rich, strangle the corportions, gun-grabbing voting record.
Mona Charen said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:58
It would be typical liberal reverse sexism to not include me in the All Time Suckitude altitudes.
John O said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:58
Time for bed. School night, and already way past my bedtime, largely because of Gerson.
Great thread. Enjoy the quandary madness.
Excellent poll question, Brad.
PhysioProf said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:01
I vote for Brooks just because his prose does so much grievous harm to the English language it would be worth stopping him just on that account. Dowd is a close second, though.
Hey, here’s a thought! How bout we just shut down the NY fucking Times?
christian h. said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:01
“War hero” = “war criminal”, I guess? The guy bombed civilians. The NVA shouldn’t have tortured him, but certainly nobody could have complained if they had shot him.
Swoof said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:07
It’s gotta be Friedman. I have several liberal friends who love his books and his columns and I can’t seem to get them to see how fake and stupid his BS is. He’s got too much mainstream mojo to let him go on any longer.
D.N. Nation said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:08
Jay Ambrose. Guy’s never been covered here, but he’s pretty fucking awful. Dude does the David Brooksian I’m a moderate! song-and-dance, but he’s wingdumbnut to the core.
Scripps Howard carries his shit. Here’s his latest droppings. For wingnut context, a quote:
Fuck this guy.
Erik Pontoppidan said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:09
Typical liberal attitude. Expressing hatred for American war veterans.
War is brutal. Innocent people get killed. It is unavoidable. McCain was just doing his job, defending America to the best of his abilities.
America at least takes all necessary precautions in order to avoid civilian casualties. Our terrorist enemy takes no such procautions.
Susan of Texas said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:10
I’m sorry, Eric, you fail. Thanks for playing.
Sleepy McBoring will inspire nobody and young America swoons over Obama. Prepare to peck at the powerful from the sideline, sucker. You’re yesterday’s news, and your old man is going down.
Susan of Texas said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:10
And, once again, as the daughter of a dead soldier, fuck you.
Erik Pontoppidan said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:16
Unfortunately, neither candidate is right on one of the most important issue of our times. Energy independence. I’m sure you liberals can agree with me that gas prices are too high in this country.
You know what can stop that? Drilling for oil in Alaska and off our coasts. Thats right, in addition to making us free from dependence on hostile regimes for our energy, domestic drilling would make the price of gas go down.
But thanks to Congressional Democrats and a few spineless Republicans, the bill to allow drilling in ANWR was voted down. If President Bush the man you liberals love to hate, had his way gas prices would be much lower than they are now.
But thanks to left-wing enviro-wackos domestic drilling is prohibited.
Snorghagen said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:19
Erik Pontoppidan - If you’re a parody troll, please cool it. This thread is pretty interesting and I’d hate to see it get derailed.
ali_in_arabia said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:22
Erik , aren’t you all about free markets? Then how can gas prices be too high? They’re perfectly OK, given the supply demand situation. (Especially for me,driving around in a big V8 in a land where our petrol is still subsidised to a ridiculous degree I don’t even notice what the price is when I fill up. About 305bucks to fill the tank, i think)
Righteous Bubba said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:23
For the sensible Greasemonkey users:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13541
another jim said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:23
David Brooks.
He’s so insidious. He pretends to be reasonable.
johnbinpt said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:24
Broder, through his alleged legitimacy, does more damage than all the rest combined. Out of the Village! Um, I mean, off the Island!
comsympinko said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:26
Mine would be Little Tommy Friedman.
At least the Goldbergs and Kristols are up front about their desire to kill everybody.
Little Tommy gives them the rationale for empire(The World Is Flat) then gives them the approval for attack (Suck. On. This.).
It wasn’t necessary until it was. And then it wasn’t again. Or something.
Little Tommy: Fast-Talking Fiscally Fascist Fucktard.
Erik Pontoppidan said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:27
Believe me Susan, Obama’s popularity like that of every false Messiah will fall.
And when he is exposed as just another touchy feely, happy talk fraud the same people who once supported him will run his little rear-end out of town like a bat out of hell.
Snorghagen said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:29
If I was going to pick a right-winger, Gerson would be slimy enough to qualify, as would Brooks. Limbaugh would make sense on the basis of influence and general shitwaditude. But I’m disinclined to pick a pundit who’s a reactionary. I’m hoping that the country is starting to move away from noxious wingnuttery, and that there’ll be a major decline in the influence of far-right pundits. Of course, that assessment could prove to be very, very wrong, but at this point I think the pseudo-centrists could do more damage than the extremists.
Friedman sucks, but I think he’s too incoherent to have much effect.
Broder is getting pretty old - but I remember thinking he was getting senile and wasn’t going to be around much longer back in 1992. He could wind up writing till he mummifies. Still, I might swing my vote to Fred Hiatt if I could pull the plug on his editorship along with his fucking columns.
Madame Defarge said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:29
A hot island.
I got a vivid mental picture of Survivor 800: Pundit Island. On the island, we have all the above mentioned pundits, plus Suzanne Fields and Linda Chavez, (Personally, now that I think about it, I’d really, really like to make that mean mean meannie mean meanie Chavez STFU.)
Split them into two groups and let ‘em have at it. Enough backstabbing, whining, blaming others for your own failings, lying, vindictiveness and greed to make Donald Trump green with envy! Hilarity ensues!
Candy said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:31
Oops, forgot to switch my name back. Wasn’t tending to my knitting, I guess.
comsympinko said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:32
I just thought of something:
Can’t we just declare Brooks and Broder the same entity and call them “Brobro?”
BRO-oks and BROder.
Brobro.
As in “Brobro got their pearls all in a clutch when Senator Obama…”
comsympinko said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:38
Snorghagen–
“Friedman sucks, but I think he’s too incoherent to have much effect.”
I don’t know. The liberal hawk/Blue Dog wing are acolytes. They use him all the time to promote their passive imperialist neoliberal asshattery.
Before the war I had “intelligent” Democrat friends quoting Friedman constantly in their defense of the Iraq War.
Fear the mustache, my friend. It twitches not for thee.
Smut Clyde said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:40
foreign policy that crosses party lines.
At least they’re not reaching across the aisle any more. I was getting sick of people passing notes back and forth during the service.
K. Ron Silkwood said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:44
This is one of those Zen questions, isn’t it?
Travis Disaster said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:44
Man all the good ones are taken. I’ll go with Brooks, though, as he is not only awful, but he KNOWS he’s being awful, and revels in it.
Lesley said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:49
Vincent Bugliosi makes the case for prosecuting Bush for murder in an American court.
another jim said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:49
Erik, here’s the deal:
1) we can save more oil than the total output of ANWR by raising fuel efficiency standards.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=transportation&id=20067&a=
That means we should at least do that, too. Why isn’t the Republican party pushing that?
2) the effect of any increase in offshore access will have NO effect on the at-pump price of gas, according to the US government itself.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
So if offshore drilling won’t help the average US citizen, why would the Republican party push it?
3) US Energy companies aren’t even pumping out the gas from 83% of offshore oil they ALREADY HAVE access to. Which, by the way, amounts to more oil and natural gas than several ANWR’s.
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2141#nucleus_cf
http://courtney.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Natural%20Resources%20energy%20report.pdf
Now, please familiarize yourself with those facts.
Once you’ve done that, please ask yourself: why isn’t the GOP or conservapundits telling you this?
Why, it’s almost like they want to blame the current (and coming) mess on the Democratic party. Rather than the GOP pursuing it’s energy policies of their own policies.
Hoosier X said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:50
Michelle Malkin has a real dead-tree format column?
JESUS! Maybe my local newspaper (with its delicious and mind-nourishing selection of Thomas Sowell, Bill O’Reilly, Jonah Golderg, Thomas Friedman, Kathleen Parker, Diana West, George Rusher, Jeff Jacoby, David Brooks and Ann Coulter) really IS center-right.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:50
Rotting Coati Urine with Swirled Ethyl alcohols
Ingredients:
4 cups rotten coati urine, militaristically strained
1 cup ethyl alcohol, possibly iced
1 splash ordinary malt liquor
Stir all ingredients mockingly with ice, strain contents convincedly into a tough cocktail glass and serve.
Snorghagen said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:54
Now that you mention it, they do both have a similar, annoying I-understand-how-the-common-people-think shtick going.
I’ve detested Friedman for years. But the guy babbles. You can read almost anything you want into what he writes without understanding what he’s actually trying to convey, if anything. I still don’t have a clue about what ‘the world is flat’ was supposed to mean. He’s horrible, but I just think he’s too vague and garbled to get his ideas across in anything more than a general way.
But if I was making a top-ten list, there might be a place for Tommy.
Candy said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:55
Man all the good ones are taken.
I wish someone would put together a Wingnut Field Guide. It could be split into Greater and Lesser Wingnuts, then further subdivided: Pundit Class, Internet Only, AM Radio, Far-right Whack, etc. The attributes of each wingnut would be listed in full detail, major talking points and so forth, and to be fair, any redeeming characteristics would be duly noted.
Or perhaps someone could create wingnut trading cards, similar to baseball or Pokemon cards. Perhaps some sort of game could be developed. World of Wingnutcrap.
Okay, I am so tired I’m seeing double. Must crash.
Matt T. said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:55
I used to keep up with all the dead-tree pundits. Now, I pass over most everyone besides Leonard Pitts and the occasional Krugman column.
Opinion columnist. What a silly job. Thought about doing that once, actually, using Pitts as a guide (he started in music criticism, too). Thank Al for the internet, so’s I could see the combination of raging ego and no self-awareness it takes to be an up-and-coming political pundit. “Why the fuck should the rest of the world care what this dumb cracker ass thinks,” was the question I asked myself, and saved the world another gasbag.
But I like Leonard Pitts.
Dan Someone said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:56
Does Podhoretz count? Or has he stopped killing trees and restricted his writing to patterns he makes with his back hair?
mikey said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:59
Serves four facetious assholes…
mikey
Matt T. said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:00
1 splash ordinary malt liquor
That cracked me right up. ‘Course, I’m stoned and have been listening to old Goon Show broadcasts all evening, so what do I know.
another jim said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:01
Believe me Susan, Obama’s popularity like that of every false Messiah will fall.
So true. Only true metal bands like the *REAL* Messiah will stay popular forever!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Swiss_band)
FALSE messiahs like Sleaze Messiah or MessiaHwill fade and be crushed by the hands of time! AAAAaarrrgggggggghhhhh!
…Altho, actually MessiaH sounds pretty good. Maybe they’ll stay popular.
Righteous Bubba said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:04
Ethereal Panda Semen with Iced Black Muscat Wines
Ingredients:
1 can panda semen
1 jar black muscat wine, intelligently swirled
Add the panda semen tellingly to the black muscat wine since it’s lighter. Serve in a medium darkling conch shell. Phone the authorities.
JGabriel said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:06
PhysioProf:
And another vote for David Brooks, here.
Brooks’ prose style is like a limp washrag, without the fiber or water to give it structure. Plus Brooks is a jackass, an idiot, a knave, and a tool.
Brooks’ faux-centrism and pseudo-intellectualism make him sound reasonable to those lacking analytical reading skills, which makes him dangerous. Finally, there’s Brooks’ ignorance on everything from the Middle-East to Middle America.
I suggest we condemn Brooks to an eternity at the non-existent Applebee’s Salad Bar. It would be like Sartre’s No Exit - as a monologue with iceberg lettuce.
.
The Raven said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:13
Can’t believe nobody named Robert J. Samuelson yet. I’m not yet certain what exactly it is, but he pisses me off more than any of the others. He’s worse than Coulter, Malkin, Klein, Gerson, Kristol or Goldberg.
He’s just a sad hack, and he shouldn’t be. It’s very irritating. The others are simply sad hacks who should be. Big diff.
Snorghagen said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:15
If you’re talking about hairy backs you must be talking about John.
But don’t forget Daddy Norman. A neo-con founding father and an unabashed shill for war, war, and more war, he deserves to be on a short list.
Picking just one name isn’t enough.
JGabriel said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:15
mikey:
Why not combine the two, and vote for David Brooks?
.
Dick Durata said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:17
Why do we have to stop at one?
Easterbrook and Hitchens are clowns, Kristol is too spooky to be a clown, but he works in the same area, denial of reality.
I particularly dislike hate-mongers such as Krauthammer, but his shtick is hardly as harmful as that of Friedman’s.
Dowd is poisonous on the political level, but meaningless anywhere else.
Being a Bay Area person who used to subscribe to the Chronic, Debra Saunders has always held a particular horror for me. But she’s a bush leaguer.
Ha, I made a pun.
Anyway, take Friedman out and shoot him. Basta!
Snorghagen said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:19
Usually, but not necessarily.
Robert Green said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:34
friedman because half the time he is rational and borderline good, especially on energy policy. this, plus his status as a billionaire by marriage, makes him perhaps the most un-self-aware human being in global history, and makes his stupid all the stupider. as if goldberg has a fucking clue.
taibbi’s takedown in NYPress remains a thing of legend as well.
but what i’d really like to do is exhume the corpse of abe rosenthal. now that motherfucker couldn’t write a coherent opinion if you spotted him the thesis statement AND the conclusion, plus the auto-nepotism of giving oneself one’s own column.
the NY times op-ed has always been clowns in a VW IMHO.
Snorghagen said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:49
A couple more choice candidates:
Marty Peretz, the man who transformed The New Republic into a chunk of garbage.
And fucking Bill O’Reilly writes a print column.
Brandi said,
June 19, 2008 at 8:08
I suppose this means Ann Coulter has become well and truly irrelevant, since I seem to be the first one mentioning her.
That said, she inspires a truly irrational hatred in me– and the fact that I know that’s what she’s trying to do makes it burn hotter.
noen said,
June 19, 2008 at 8:17
You know, this whole thing is an exercise in futility. These people are hired by the powerful to do whatever it is they do so the masses will blindly accept their chains. If you really want to change things then you have to have the kind of wealth and power it takes to buy a newspaper, a pundit, a senator. But individual liberals rarely have that kind of power.
Collectively however, we do. The netroots project is working. More and more Dems are getting elected who are not beholden to K-Street. The really big news about Obama is that his campaign got a significant part of it’s financing through individual donations over the internet. If this fall goes as many think it will I think we’ll have lots of moderately liberal senators and congressmen who are not owned by the corporate power structure.
The shrieks of horror from the media should be deafening. So what should we do about the media? Nothing, let them die on the vine. Imagine that one day all of the pundits mentioned above wake up and finally realize that no one pays any attention to them. Let them become tomorrow’s talk radio.
Johnny Pez said,
June 19, 2008 at 8:36
Cal Thomas.
He was bad enough as a solo act, but now that he’s teamed up with alleged liberal Bob Beckel to do his own personal Hannity and Colmes act his awfulness has been magnified tenfold.
Bloody Bill Kristol said,
June 19, 2008 at 8:43
I have a circus in my pants.
Mauro said,
June 19, 2008 at 8:55
GOOD GOD GET RID OF KRISTOL.
sarah said,
June 19, 2008 at 9:11
1. thomas friedman
2. victor davis hanson
justme said,
June 19, 2008 at 9:18
I don’t know from voting off the island, but I’d like to vote the whole lot of them into an oubliette. Except perhaps Kristol, whom I’d like to vote “Most Likely To Fall Into A Damp Hotlime Pit While Afflicted With Mysterious Debilitating Knee Injuries”.
But really, I wish him the best.
Testo T.Rone said,
June 19, 2008 at 10:07
Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out.
Hurr hurr
Major Woody said,
June 19, 2008 at 10:25
Candy said,
I wish someone would put together a Wingnut Field Guide
There’s already a pretty good one. It’s called “TV Guide”. Ba-da-bump!
Oh, and pundits who must just go away? Has anyone nominated Camile Paglia yet?
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 19, 2008 at 12:18
If we consider the “chilling effect” it would have on other writers, Broder in a heartbeat. But Broder’s getting on in years, he’s close to being put out to pasture anyways.
Pantload’s got a lot of writing ahead of him so cutting him off now spares the world from a lot of garbage. But Jonah’s following ain’t that big, and perhaps I’m too much of an optimist, but I don’t see it getting any bigger.
If there was a reason for these people to stop writing (i.e. they are no longer able to) then I’d like to point out that Uncle Karl has a gig at Newsweek, but if we’re just talking about no more columns, then this wouldn’t stop Turdblossom from inflicting the damage he’s so good at.
Sadly, Drudge doesn’t have a regular print job.
So, my short list based only on the criteria are Hiatt, Halperin, Brooks and Friedman.
Is it too soon to pick Tim Russert?
big environmentals™²³®© said,
June 19, 2008 at 13:03
Broder phoned in once again:
Judging by the rhetoric coming out of the Obama and McCain campaigns this week, the United States is fated to endure another four years of bitter foreign policy partisanship, whoever wins this election.
—————————————–
This is the same column you’ve been writing since we got rid of Richard Nixon.
“Why can’t we all have nice bipartisanship.” Which to “Dean” Broder means everyone gets together and agrees to do whatever the Rethuglicans want.
Frankly, Broder, that kind of bipartisanship got us into a quagmire in Iraq, massive indebtedness, a depreciated U.S. dollar, and $140/bbl oil prices.
I’ve got a better idea, let’s finish what we started in 2006 and kick the rethuglicans to the curb.
~
N.C. said,
June 19, 2008 at 13:25
Whoever ghost-writes the anonymous editorials for the New York Post. In a sea of crap, those microblasts of asininity make my brain shut down in protest.
JPhillips said,
June 19, 2008 at 13:26
Christian H. : “…he’s a Brit. Their warmongers are almost without fail rabid atheists.”
Dude, what? I’m a Brit and I can’t think of *one* “rabid atheist” warmonger other than Hitchens; Nick Cohen *maybe* but that would be pushing the definition of warmonger severely. Our Iraq War cabinet were almost uniformly god-botherers.
N.C. said,
June 19, 2008 at 13:27
Oh god I just saw a Ramirez cartoon can I switch my vote to him immediately
A drawing of a few dozen caskets draped with flags, with the caption “Habeas Corpses” and one of the caskets is saying “THANK YOU, JUSTICE KENNEDY” and rhghfrhghghhrhrhrrghghhrr
kiki said,
June 19, 2008 at 13:43
This idea has way too much potential for a single thread - I see a whole awards program.
Most Punchable Shit-Eating Grin: Kristol
BIggest Parody of Self: JLoad? O’Reilly?
“Still Lives With Mom” Award: JLoad again? Adam Yoshida?
Dumbest Goober: Conf. Yankee? Surber?
Special Award for Most Generally Vile and Fucking Worthless Fucking Sub-Human Piece of Fucking Shit: Kristol again?
And so on…
javafascist said,
June 19, 2008 at 13:46
Line ‘em all up against the wall when the revolution comes, tell ‘em to “suck on this” and let God sort ‘em out. Is it responsible to speculate on a proposal of mass murder? It would be irresponsible NOT too!
(I believe David Broder supports my position since it’s bi-partisan and quite civil.)
Blue Buddha said,
June 19, 2008 at 14:11
Last time I checked, corpses weren’t typically employed as pundits. Then again, with the brain-dead stupidity of some pundits, NBC might be better off keeping Russert on their payroll.
Blue Buddha said,
June 19, 2008 at 14:13
Ann who?
WCW said,
June 19, 2008 at 14:15
Another vote for George Will
jcasey said,
June 19, 2008 at 14:42
If I really could choose, I’d replace one of the “liberal” pundits with someone who writes like she means it. This means they take on the BS, rather than attempt to step over it. So, if no one has offered this, I say get rid of E.J.Dionne and replace him with Glenn Greenwald or Eric Alterman.
OTB said,
June 19, 2008 at 14:45
Forget pundits. Just keep looking at Scalia and Thomas’s big fat ignorant bellies and hope they both pull Russerts soon.
Those two fat evil frauds can’t die soon enough. The future and safety of the nation needs them both to have massive coronies right after Obama is sworn in. It’s our only hope to restore good American values to the SCOTUS with those sick republican monsters Alito and Roberts on board.
bjacques said,
June 19, 2008 at 14:51
I’ll go with Howard Kurtz, who sells himself as an impartial analyst but never seems to call bullshit on the Right.
Speakout said,
June 19, 2008 at 14:56
Novak.
christian h. said,
June 19, 2008 at 14:58
After reading today’s editorial on Gaza in the Post, I think it’s most urgent to drag Hiatt out of there right now.
JPhillips: what, Aaronovitch and Norm Geras and those wankers at Harry’s Place and Oliver Kamm don’t count? To be honest, they might be keeping their inner Christian/Jew/whatever on the down-low. I guess it’s more that they are rabid islamophobes without also being outspoken about whatever faith they may have….
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 19, 2008 at 15:06
George Will? This George Will? Sure blind squirrel - nut, yadda yadda. And the correction at the end is a correction to a truly miserable piece of excrement from before. Sure I agree that the political landscape would be greatly improved by the removal of George Will, but come on, George Will instead of Tommy Friedman? Fred Hiatt?
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 19, 2008 at 15:07
Oooo, impartial Howard Kurtz, media critic, Malkinite. There’s a good one.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 19, 2008 at 15:12
Oooo, if we pitch one Kagan, do we get to pitch them all?
How about that fierce Iraq war critic Michael O’ Hanlon?
mmm...lemonheads said,
June 19, 2008 at 15:30
Thomas Sowell. No verifiable facts or statistics, broad generalizations and leaps of logic that a Logic 101 survivor could tear apart in his sleep.
But he IS dreamy. Sigh.
D.N. Nation said,
June 19, 2008 at 15:31
Hoosier- I used to be somewhat in your shoes…copy editor (later night news editor…boy howdy, that was fun) at a winger-friendly newspaper. Here was our illustrious op/ed lineup: Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Jay Ambrose, David Broder, Michael Barone, George F. Will, Jonah Goldberg, Kathleen Parker, Diana West, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell, and the big fat cherry on top…K-Freakin-Lo. We also carried a state-syndicated asshole who would get his jollies baiting gays and Muslims. Dark days, those.
HemlockEcho said,
June 19, 2008 at 15:31
Charles “German Mallet” Krauthammer.
D.N. Nation said,
June 19, 2008 at 15:33
George F. Will, for this election cycle at least, is our useful idiot. His burning McCain hatred can only help us.
After that, though…to the wolves.
thefunx said,
June 19, 2008 at 15:47
Easterbrook. After hearing him on NPR this week saying that America is better off than we were eight years ago if we forget about the Iraq war and compare today with 1900, I see how dangerous he is. Kristol, Pantload etc are more well-known, but their clownishness has pretty well been established. Easterbrook still gets taken seriously every time he makes a nutty “contrarian” argument.
Speaking of tired-ass contrarians, William Saltean gets my vote for “web columnist who gets kicked of the island.” His Slate article on how horrible it would be to legally require pharmacists to dispense legal mediations tops his “teh blacks is teh dumb, liebrals!” columns from a few months back…
fillerbunny said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:14
The Mustache of Freedom, Mr. Friedman, solely on the amount of influence he has over the others…. Though Malkin, it seems, is still a regular contributor in Seattle….
"Oh Stewardess, I Speak 'Nut" said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:16
My vote goes to the next person who repeats the idiotic notion that the U.S. is a “right-center” nation. This is, by definition, impossible. Yet regardless what such person means to say, the fact is Al Gore got more votes than George Jr. in 2000. Just as Clinton got more votes than George Sr. in ‘92, and more than Dole in ‘96.
On the other hand, the idiotic electoral college definitely skews right. As long as the good but benighted folk of Wyoming have four times the per capita electoral weight as Californians, and as long as there are a lot of little Wyomings, and only a handful of Californias, the good ship America’ll be listing heavily to starboard.
Hmm. Or maybe that’s what meant by “America is a right-center nation.” OK then.
I vote for Joe Klein.
smiling dog said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:19
Thomas Friedman, of course.
Raphael said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:20
Dowd. All the other possible candidates at least pretend to talk about relevant stuff, and occassionally come up with some new stupid talking point that can be fun to take apart.
charlotte said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:21
What if they gave a column and nobody came?
Hard to choose given the embarrassment of riches on the despicable front. I’m torn between Maureen and the ever detestable Kristol. And let’s not forget Peggy bow down and worship my soaring cadences Noonan.
What if they gave a soaring city on a hill and everyone stayed home?
DAS said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:24
I vote for firing any (actually as many as possible) of the “reasonable liberal” types (and the more “liberal” the more necessary to get rid of them). The more people think “liberal”=”someone like Richard Cohen”, the worse the prospects for the liberal agenda. And the more people can think “even the liberal [X] supports [whack-job] conservative idea [Y]” the more marginalized will be those of us who don’t support [Y] — leading to the continual marginalization of good ideas (and the promotion of bad ones) in our body politic.
Conservative pundits at least make conservatism look bad. “Sensible liberal” types make liberalism look bad.
D.N. Nation said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:25
On the global scale, America is indeed a center-right nation. Electable progressives here would generally be centrists in, say, Europe.
Many reasons for this. No 1848 here in America, no proportional voting (making Greens unelectable on a national scale), a get-off-my-lawn mentality in this country’s early stages, etc.
DAS said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:30
As long as the good but benighted folk of Wyoming have four times the per capita electoral weight as Californians, and as long as there are a lot of little Wyomings, and only a handful of Californias, the good ship America’ll be listing heavily to starboard.
Not so fast! Speaking as a native Californian, what most people don’t realize is that Cali is not all LaLa Land and San Francisco. Much of California is very, very red and full of the whackiest whack-job wingnuts you’ll find anywhere. The thing is that the left coasters have a slim, but nonetheless reliably robust population advantage over those whose brains have been fried by the desert sun. Thus, switching away from the electoral college will actually mean that a number of wingnuts will also get enfranchased and may be more likely to bother to vote if they realize that their vote’d count for something.
I agree with getting rid of the electoral college on principle … but don’t expect it to be the boon for our side that you might think it would be. Most “blue states” have very red parts (although some red states, like Virginia, have some deep blue parts).
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:35
If he weren’t so small TIME, I’d also nominate Michael McCain Fluffer Scherer. Check this out. After the scathing reviews of McCain’s brilliant “that’s not change we can believe in” speech, he cobbles together a highlight reel of JiSM3 at a “townhall meeting” - attendance by invite only. It’s pretty weak tea, especially considering that he’s talking in front of vetted supporters. trifecta in the comments over there nails it by quoting fluffer Scherer’s voiceover:
I’ve heard that when he was at Salon and MotherJones he was actually a good writer. I guess once he got a taste of that mavericky goodness, he just lost all ability to do anything other than pine for JiSM3.
Athenawise said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:41
Hell, I’m still fuming over Buckley, and he’s dead. His wit masked the deep damage he did to this country.
OK, this is hard. Kristol, Friedman, Klein, Krauthammer. The jerks on America’s national birdcage liner, the opinion page of the WSJ … what to do, what to do …
If I had to pick one, I’d go with that faux erudite, the unreadable and pretentious Will.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:41
Oops, trifecta’s quote is actually from the video intro, not the voice over. The voice over quote would be
Mike T said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:49
If Slate counts, I’d vote for Mickey Kaus
Gerald Curl said,
June 19, 2008 at 16:56
Most Punchable Shit-Eating Grin: Kristol
Therein lies my difficulty in choosing — a lot of these guys have regular television gigs and they’d still be subjecting people to their awfulness. Also, I think a few of them (Kristol and Brooks) are even worse on TV.
If this were changed to what Fox News Sunday panelist I would wish away to the cornfield, I still wouldn’t be able to decide on one. Brit Hume with his idiotic pomposity, the aforementioned Kristol, the “liberal” professional concern troll Juan Williams — O Fox, to tell thee how I hate thy pundits.
kindness said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:16
Debra Sauders of the SF Chronicle hands down.
Ever since Hearst Corp bought the paper they’ve had that wretch of a dittohead write 4 or 5 columns a week for their Op-Ed page.
I’d vote her ON the island and then bomb the island.
Gus said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:26
Richard Cohen, hands down.
Sir Craig said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:28
The choices seem endless, and the degrees to which many of these hacks affect readers/viewers is quite diverse, so it is hard for me to pick out one truly bad pundit (although Kristol for me comes closest to filling every possible niche, from being massively wrong enough that he gets people killed and still has a platform to his cheesy grin that simply screams, “Damien! I’m doing this for you!”).
I have to ask, though: Doesn’t it feel a bit like, when Faux News employs these knuckle-draggers to support whatever right-wing point they are attempting to push, that they have entered the punditry version of celebrity’s “Hollywood Squares”? For whatever reason, their just being utilized by Faux feels like their A-list status is forever doomed…
kindness said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:32
can we throw Erik Pontoppidan into this wasteland while we’re at it? Or does he have to wait for the Troll we throw off/on to some god forsaken wasteland?
If so, how ’bout we pick the wasteland too?
OneMan said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:33
I’d suggest instant-runoff-voting for this one.
My top three:
1) George Fucking Will because he uses three-dollar-words and false statistics to obfuscate his bullshit
2) Chuckie Kraphammer because he has an incredible ability to twist the truth in ways that defy argument without tons of research
3) Bill Kristol because…just because he’s such a smug asshole, even though he’s wrong on every point.
Honorable mention: Ayn Rand wannabe Robert Samuelson.
res ipsa loquitur said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:45
David Brooks.
MysteriousTraveller said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:50
Ye olde goat fucker, Mickey Kaus.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:58
Okay, looks like I’m in the woods on Mark Halperin, but let me present some evidence:
Dear Hugh
Here pussy pussy
The one you’re probably already familiar with
Currently the top two stories on his Drudge inspired “The Page” (seriously I think they used the same web designer) are about Obama’s opt-out of public financing. Guess the spin - hint the responses he got are: first someone from the McCain campaign, second the RNC, and third an Obama spokesman. Guess the # of mentions of JiSM3’s own FEC issues - hint it’s zero.
fadgeophile said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:58
M. Bouffant wins the thread before it barely gets out of the gates.
I can’t decide between Kraphammer, Kristol, Brooks, Broder, Goldberg, Friedman or MoDo.
Do I have to pick just one?
fadgeophile said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:59
I have to say that George Will occasionally says something sane, so he’s on the second tier of ejection.
Jay C. said,
June 19, 2008 at 17:59
Easterbrook.
I know he isn’t the worst offender, but I just want to dunk his head in a toilet.
shane said,
June 19, 2008 at 18:02
No one comes close to Kristol for sheer loathesomeness or for the degree of sociopathology he shamelessly broadcasts.
SomeNYGuy said,
June 19, 2008 at 18:09
Perhaps that’s because he’s married to GOP media strategist Sheri Annis; Kurtz is literally in bed with the right-wing noise machine. Of course, neither the Washington Post nor CNN see the Republican party financing Kurtz’s lifestyle (and his children’s education) as a conflict of interest for their “impartial” media critic. And that, kiddies, is one of the reasons why this country is as fucked as fucked can be.
Strangefate said,
June 19, 2008 at 18:17
Gotta be Friedman or Klein. The fake liberal moles are the most damaging. Clowns like Kristol are at least openly fascist and doesn’t damage the left through association by pretending to be on our side.
Plus Jonah Goldberg is simply too hilarious to wish away. His disappearance would vitually slash the combined output of alicublog and Sadly No! in half…and clearly that’s no victory for our side.
Snorghagen said,
June 19, 2008 at 18:19
It’s too hard to pick just one. Here’s my long short list of print commentators from hell:
Lifetime Achievement Award, Liberal / Centrist Division (Senior moderate commentators who deserve special recognition for grossly misusing their influence, for empowering the extreme right, for horrendously damaging political discourse, and for generally not knowing what the fuck they’re talking about.)
David Broder
Marty Peretz
Lifetime Achievement Award, Rightwing Division (Senior conservative commentators who deserve special recognition for decades of hard work selling reactionary ideology to the American public.)
Bob Novak
Norman Podhoretz
Irving Kristol
William F. Buckley (posthumous)
The Sellout Badge (Purportedly moderate commentators who have shown exceptional dedication in sucking up to the far right.)
Tom Friedman
Maureen Dowd
Howie Kurtz
Joe Klein
Gregg Easterbrook
Richard Cohen
The Neocon Order of the Avenging Eagle with Quadruple Golden Oak Leaf Clusters (Commentators who have courageously promoted wars for other people to fight.)
Fred Hiatt
William Kristol
Little Peter Beinart
Max Boot
Victor Davis Hanson
The League of Respectable Rightwing Jerks (Conservative commentators who have consistently presented themselves as serious and judicious, without once falling on the floor laughing.)
David Brooks
Charles Krauthammer
George Will
Michael Gerson
Robert Samuelson
The Legion of the Golden Wingnut (Prominent conservative or libertarian commentators who have shown extraordinary talent at being flagrant incompetents, hopeless loons, or swinish assholes.)
Ann Coulter
Jonah Goldberg
Peggy Noonan
Kathryn Jean Lopez
Megan McArdle
The Academy of Elevated Intellect (Cultural commentators with scrambled synapses.)
Camille Paglia
Christopher Hitchens
Lee Siegel
Special mention:
Most Hopelessly Fucked-up Op-Ed Section in a Major Print Publication: Wall Street Journal
Saddest Decline of a Once-Respected Political Journal: The New Republic
Saddest Decline of a Once-Respected Daily Newspaper: LA Times
I’d still go with Broder if I had to, but there are so many other worthy contestants,
Strangefate said,
June 19, 2008 at 18:20
Honorable mention: James Lilek, for his reliably knee jerk op eds, but mostly because there’s just something about him that makes you want to give him an atomic wedgie every time you read him.
Chris said,
June 19, 2008 at 18:29
The sheer number of candidates is depressing. One gets the feeling these guys are being extruded out of a machine. If you killed one, would the machine just replace him with two more?
If the journalist is best imagined mouth open with frothy saliva, he is only preaching to the choir. So Novak, Krauthammer, Podhoretz, Thomas, etc. are all right out. Ditto the numerous lesser wingnuts.
The one you want is studied reasonableness and affability, all while twisting the hilt of the knife:
Kristol. Will. Friedman. Brooks. Cohern. Samuelson.
Believe it or not, I’d go our the self-appointed economic “experts”–Friedman and Samuelson. They pretend to transcend lowly political bias (Samuelson makes a big deal about not voting) in order to speak the economic truth.
Deadly.
Susan of Texas said,
June 19, 2008 at 18:34
If you took out one of their backers, the big money guys, you could eliminate multiple pundits with one blow.
Jake H. said,
June 19, 2008 at 18:56
There’s a list of worthy candidates obviously (all from WaPo, cuz that’s what I read). Richard Cohen sprang to my mind first, then Der Krauthammer, and Kristol is obviously a gimme. Plus, duh, teh Dean.
But I gotta go with Robert Samuelson on this one. I think he is the most willfully dense, lazy, and unimaginative columnist in the world. I actually find him to be much worse than openly wingnut hacks like Kristol, Kraphammer and Novak. Samuelson is so much lazier, less imaginative, and willfully fatuous than them. Of all the stupid signature routines in punditry (Krauthammer - “It’s 1938 FOR EVARRRRR!!!” Broder - “Political parties should set a