More Bill Buckley, Less Boss Hogg

"It is a measure of the health of the Right that we have gone from Bill Buckley to Bill O'Reilly."

Excellent point, but in opting for an intellectual insurgent (like WFB), one would not go wrong in picking Rush Limbaugh (though he'd never consider a lowly post like the NYT). 

I'm led now to wonder if these people that criticize Rush actually listen to Rush.  Take the "Rush wants Obama to fail" buffoonery.  The "drive-by" media [as Rush calls it] swept in and took a snippit out of context and replayed it on an endless loop.  If anyone had an attention span longer than that of a 5 year old's we would all know Rush said he didn't want Obama to succeed if he followed his socialist promises.  One also would have learned the meaning of drive-by media in the same interview.

So please, let's stop the friendly fire and the outright, grotesque demonization of the 'last man standing' Rush Limbaugh.

I am going to agree with you, here. I love Rush but he is not known as a writer. We need a good writer, not merely a good communicator, as our advocate in enemy territory. Rush is perfect for what he is doing. But he has never made his mark as a writer of constant and consistent work. At least right now, I have no idea if he could keep up with a weekly column of high caliber.

Why must we choose between Buckley and the Rush Limbaugh?  The Conservative movement is a body with many parts.  Conservatism can be layed out with the utmost intellectual clarity, while at the same time be simply layed out for the masses.  That was the beauty of Reagan.  An orator with the ability to define Conservatism to the common American and intellectuals alike.  Rush Limbaugh has his place.  He is a watchdog of sorts that is able to energize our base, as well as make waves against liberal hipocracy.  However, the Buckley types, the columnists, and intellectuals, are equally important acting as a Conservative compass, and keeping the movement relevant.  I reject the notion that Conservatism must be defined be either.  A body has many parts with many different functions.  Why cut off one, to prop up another?

Rush Limbaugh is a pure propagandist, and he's damn good at it.

BUt propaganda is difficult to disseminate in a medium like the NY Times.  Investors' Business Daily, Yeah! The Washington Times, Yeah! The WSJ, for sure.  The Weekly Standard?  But of course!

But the people who read the NY Times and who caught Kristol out with statements that had to be later retracted and embarrassed the Editorial staff would be the same people who would read Limbaugh's "stack of stuff", where he combs the universe for doctored snippets and edited versions of items that support his Conservative views, and they would tear him to shreds.

If you're looking to defend Conservative values or the concept of a New Right, credibility, sober scholarship and impeccable facts and research MUST be the criteria.  Anything else and you end up huriting rather than helping.

Sure, it's LOADS of fun playing a song your staff guy wrote called "Barack the Magic Negro" 17 times in one 3-hour show, and explaining for an hour how it's really the LA Times which is doing it, and it's really "comedy and satire and parody".  But people see through that. 

I should say, SOME people see through that.

Honestly, why does the NYT's token conservative get to be "the face of the movement"? This is a northeastern elite-centric view of how opinion actually gets made. Let's face it, the party/movement isn't going to have a specific face for a while. This is probably okay. The NYT columnist will be a voice, but not the voice of conservatism.

Are we so desperate for a single leader that we have to look for a columnist at what someone called a "middle-brow rag" on a different comment thread, with some justification? Are we so habituated to having a President speak for us that we're incapable of speaking for ourselves? We've got a lot of movement stuff to figure out in the next couple of years. Now is not the time to have one person attempting to speak for a broad movement.

As for this slot, think of it, instead of as the "voice of conservatism", as our ambassador to a hostile country. Our perspective conservative columnist should actually be less concerned with "making the case for conservatism" than undermining, constantly, consistently and with clarity, the case for the left. It's an opposition and a reactive position, as you'll never convince the latte-sipping lotus-eaters that conservatism has any merit until you first make them question their own unexamined faith in the left. This, I think, was Cristal's mistake; he tried to make a case for conservatism rather than a case against the rest of the editorial page. It needs to be someone sharp, combative, highly fact-oriented, unflapable, not given to hyperbole, who understands but does not sympathize with the kind of upper-class boutique leftism common to NYT readers and writers, and can disect it with style and substance. Conservative intellectuals are, God bless them, often times too timid. Conservative populists are, God bless them, too emotional. What we need is a cold-blooded fighter. Steyn wouldn't be too bad, though he gets populist sometimes. Andrew Clavan--despite being a novelist--is definitely combative enough for the job. Paul Johnson would make'em cry into their lattes. He'd sight so many historical examples of left-wing policy failure by the end of the piece every liberal's head would spin. J. Nordlinger is, I think, a pretty brilliant anecdotalist, but this really isn't his forte. Still, he really gets the kind of readership the NYT has in a way many cons don't. Thomas Soul is suigenerous, and would be a good choice, but isn't he in his seventies? Ponuru would be good. Don't know McCardle, isn't she pretty much straight down-the-line libertarian? Not necessarily a disqualifier, but I'd like to see her limit her attacks to economic nonsense if this is the case (of which there'll be plenty). And one of the problems with Cristal is he was a foreign policy guy writing about domestic stuff a lot of the time. We need someone who can do both foreign and domestic. Like I said, haven't read her stuff; maybe she can hack it, in which case a sharp up-and-coming lady columnist on the right would help break the Coulter/Crowly mould, and that'd be all to the good. I respect Rush as a very effective populist communicator. I think Rush-bashing is like throwing uncooked steak before a werewolf; it only strengthens him and makes him hungry for more. While the importance of his role is undeniable, putting him in this role would be like putting your speedy first-basemen on the pitcher's mound. It's an entirely different game, and I think Rush knows this full well.

Chris:

They might consider it, for the reasons you suggest. But two things make me think it's unlikely:

1. Bush and the NYT have a long-standing hate hate relationship.

2. Bush, unless I very much misread the man, is going to spend that portion of his post-presidency which is active at all focussing on Africa issues, and perhaps helping Laura with her campaign for greater freedom in Burma. I'd expect a GWB column space to mostly focus on these issues, thereby largely disappointing those who expect partisanship. GWB is no Carter to try and undermine US foreign policy from the bench, so to speak, and so anything he does say about Africa or Burma will be very careful not to even implicitly limit the current president's options.