Desperately Seeking Conservatives

Daniel Larison

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/

. . . it should be a genuine, dedicated, smart, reality-grounded, conservative's conservative . . .

Okay, I was going to snark that there are no such things, but then I remembered Bruce Bartlett.

The thing is, though, that any conservative you can name who fits that description has no doubt been excommunicated by the freaks currently in control of the GOP, and so thus becomes a de facto 'liberal's conservative'.

I was strongly suspicious of Kathleen Parker, who I thought was a shill for forever paid her salary, but I am re-thinking that.

She seems to have understood that some so-called 'liberal' policies are actually conservative in the old sense and are to be embraced.

Give her the gig.

Steve Benen

I don't know. Raising the blood pressure of liberals is a bit over done as a literary art form. At some point the national review gets so predictable I think I could write it myself.

How about a thinking conservative? Someone who isn't working for the Republican's in DC and isn't considering higher office for themselves. Someone who isn't writing a romantic novel about Reagan or Nixon. Someone who isn't fixated on a single issue like immigration or taxes. . . Maybe a 70 year old from the Ford administration.

Larison. Has to be Larison. He drives me crazy, but dude can write.

It may be disqualifying, but it would be great to find a conservative who both tells the truth and is reality based.

Don't bother, conservatism is dead as a serious movement. It's now exclusively the domain of angry whackos who aren't worth reading.

George Will has pretty much acknowledged that the movement is dead. Andrew Sullivan calls himself a conservative, but there just a few issues where I disagree with him.

Digby!

Then, by comparison, the rest of the NYT stable will look more conservative. Plus, she has great insights, and consistently. A lot of folks are under the mistaken belief that Friedman is liberal. Digby will put in strong contrast Friedman's "Ooh golly, I just spoke to a dozen tech CEOs and this is what they told me" schtick.

Tony Blankley

it should be a genuine, dedicated, smart, reality-grounded, conservative's conservative — someone who will drive liberals crazy.

A conservative who is dedicated, smart, and reality-based IS a liberal's conservative, at least for this liberal. Thus, I read Larison. A conservative's conservative would be Kristol, who drove liberals crazy because he was GIVEN a platform from which he peddled lies.

I second Pamela's point that a real progressive voice would be the best addition. Bobo Brooks and the Friedman Unit can continue to represent the right.

Larison is not serious. He's a fucking theologian. Screw 'im. Only that'd be a sin.

It's obvious: Sarah Palin.

There's nobody left in the wake of Bush's historic bottomless pit of approval rating.

I'm guessing it'll be someone affiliated with Buchanan's American Conservative magazine. The National Review and Weekly Standard are parodies of themselves, and Pajamas Media never had any credibility to begin with.

Heck, maybe it'll be Buchanan himself, if he can fit it in with the 20 hours a day he spends on MSNBC.

Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of CBO and economic advisor to John McCain. He's smart as hell, a very good speaker and writer, and intellectually honest.

Brad DeLong's suggestions.

Memo to Self: People Whom the New York Times Should Have Given Kristol's Op-Ed Slot in the First Place

Clive Crook, Reihan Salaam, Bruce Bartlett, Tyler Cowen...

They are unlikely to do it, of course..,

Douthat and Salaam are even more ridiculous than Kristol. What passes for intellectualism on the Right is only slightly a cut above adolescent yammering.

Douthat and Salaam aren't accepted by the conservative mainstream - however out of the mainstream their mainstream might be.

Ramesh Ponnuru would be my choice. He's not as honest as Douthat, but he's way smarter than Kristol, and that makes him interesting.

I don't know, wasn't Brooks supposed to be a "liberal's conservative"?

Be nice if the NYT could find a real old time conservative who would NEVER dream of torture or wiretapping, an old style lynchpin of the law kind of guy. Of course that kind of conservative died before Ronald Reagan came into office. Republicans are nothing now but mobsters who only do the will of the biggest corporate bribery money and nothing else.

I'd like to second Anonymous, seconding Brad Delong, nominating Tyler Cowen. Now there is a thinking conservative, if Tyler counts as conservative. Plus he not only balances the liberal/conservative spectrum, but adds a sort of supply side economist to balance out Krugman on that front. They already clash with each other (respectfully) enough on their blogs, it would be great to have them published in the same paper.

P.J. O'Rourke. He's funny and not crazy.

George W. Bush.

I would pay money to read his column, provided he really wrote it. Really. Just think of the possibilities.

John Dean

Steven Colbert. Failing that Steve Chapman, who is basically a libertarian and not a tool of any political faction.