Judging from this article alone, a naive reader might think Rosenberg is pushing a hidden agenda... There's only the vaguest condemnation of Kristol, and three other "conservatives"... Noonan, Brooks, and even the indescribable Charles Krauthammer... come in for some very undeserved praise.

The whole distinction between neocons (bad!) and regular conservatives (sincere!) is completely bogus. The regular "conservatives" have never taken an interest is conserving anything except the bankrolls of their billionaire patrons, and their patron saint is the senile missile-rattler Ronald Reagan, who turned the previous 50 years of increasing prosperity for working class and middle class Americans into a feeding frenzy for bankers and oilmen.

The sweet little old lady Peggy Noonan that Rosenberg praises was an insider for Reagan's evisceration of unions and environmental law and the down-on-all-fours pig-out and destruction of the planet by oil barons. I happen to subscribe to James Hansens indictment of oil executives for crimes against humanity, and if that case ever makes it to court, I hope their many enablers like sweet old Peggy Noonan hang right along with the rest of the criminals.

Why because he does not see it your way?

Jacob is ok: Fiery, sincere, passionate and not likely to trade with the enemy.

I have to say, I like this post of yours better than the usual, even though I think that you got it all wrong as Jacob points out.

Peggy Noonan when GW Bush came to power famously predicted he was going to be a "great" president in the mould of Teddy Roosevelt. Yeah MJ she said it with a straight face too. On Larry King I think.

Krystol is Boring, but so are the rest. Brooks is seriously (morally) compromised as Sleeper points out. Dowd is an East Coast Irish Catholic misogynistic Bitch etc etc. The only one I like is Krugman.

I have some similar sentiments here: http://www.tagg-theangrygayguy.com

I agree fire Kristol. But why replace him with another "conservative" opinion writer MJ? Aren't there sane writers out there to hire? Noonan is no better. Like I want to hear her pining for the "good old days of Ronald Reagan? I find them all (conservative pundits), including Brooks, to be intellectually dishonest. Some of the very conservative contributors to the op-ed pages are easier to take because the phoniness is so genuine and therefore easier to dismiss their silly rantings. For example Krauthammer...I kinda chuckle when I read him knowing not many people who matter (or in their right mind) put any stock in the hate he spews forth.

Global Warming is REAL. Oil Executives know/knew it was real.
James Hansen is no Stalinist.

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer. Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable. Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading. In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime." He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".

Now here is an exercise in logic
If they knew that Global Warming is real yet they tried to hide it from the public and if Global Warming can destroy the planet are they NOT guilty of Crimes Against Humanity?

Seems to me MJ you take a pretty cavalier position on this serious matter

After reading a recent Kristol column, the one lambasting the 'baby Alex' ad because it's selfish to not go off to war when your country needs you, I went to my dictionary to look up schizophrenia. Why, you ask? Because Kristol opted not to go off to war (Nam) when his country needed him - which meant that he'd just called himself selfish.

Suspicions verified: Schizophrenia is a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.

I find Kristol amusing and entertaining. But then my wife points out that I also find Larry, Moe and Curly amusing and entertaining.

When conservatives are having to split hairs between Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan, it proves that they're in serious trouble. Noonan is certainly more readable and interesting than Bill Kristol, but that's simply a reflection of the fact that there are many small town dailies that wouldn't take Kristol on his writing alone; he is simply there because of who he is.

The NYT's op-ed page is getting to be such a desert that it doesn't really matter, though.

One of Kristol's problems is that he clearly doesn't believe half the things he writes. He is not a conservative but a neocon. I suspect that he's a Republican only because of Israel (like Krauthammer). So his views on other issues are forced. He has to pretend he cares about choice and low taxes because he is playing at being a conservative. All that pretending produces seriously bad columns, inept columns. Krauthammer's columns are crazy but his writing is fine because all the hate energizes him. He loves hating and it shows! Kristol isn't even a good hater.

EXACTLY. If you've ever seen Kristol speak on social conservative issues, you'd see from his body language that you're 100% right. With Krauthammer it's even more obvious, since when it comes to social conservative issues, he's true enough to himself to call it like it is (example: evolution).

Krauthammer's CLEARLY a hater. It's so bad I almost can't watch him on TV when anything Middle East is discussed.

This is one of the best paragraphs I've ever seen written on these two.

Yeah, clearly Krautman (I like that, by the way) has some internal issues he needs to deal with. Usually with him the hate intensity drops when the issue becomes something else other than Middle East issues, but the Reeve comment he made because he was hit close to home due to his personal situation, and the whole episode showed his intense bitterness over his situation. It was disgusting. It's also telling that his intensity level seriously drops when he's not talking about Israel or Iraq.

As an agnostic tending towards atheism, with a father who's a fundie minister, I absolutely cringed when Noonan made her comment over the dolphins. And you're right. SHE BELIEVED IT. Almost freaked me out. Even my father isn't THAT bad.

One standard conservative that I would add to the list of fakers is Bill Bennett. Clearly in it for the money. With him the lack of emotion is the telling trait -- he's going through the motions.

Ann Coulter I also think is in it for the pay, but she's also batshit crazy, and starved for attention. These three things work together to make her one foul person. I once saw her in a restaurant across the street from the Heritage Foundation, and she sat there at the bar chain smoking cigarettes for two hours. Not for more than thirty seconds did she go without a lit cig in her hands. She became impatient when her drink was empty, and the bartender wasn't on it pronto. Her old age will be bitter, to say the least.

No. But that's funny.
I recommend her b/c she is a good writer. If the NYT wants another conservative, as they clearly do, let it be a good writer and a conservative not the abortion of conservatism called neocon.

I don't mind if Sulzberger fires Kristol or not. I don't waste my time reading him, however. I tried quite a few times -- a total waste of time.