In true Kristolian fashion, I'm gonna see your prediction and double down. Not only the above, but Kristol will argue explicitly that absolute, total support for Israel is in fact a measure of American patriotism.

(Remember, this is the guy who seriously argues that "supporting the troops" logically requires actively supporting the president.)

You likely are dead on, editors. Charles Krauthammer would have been an infinitely better choice. Or Fareed Zakaria. Or anybody. Conservatives are correct that standards have declined and Kristol's column is prime evidence. Whatever one thinks of Irving Kristol, he wrote elegant essays but in his son we have a definite regression to the mean. Ditto the case of John and Norman Podhoretz. The neocons by birth are slightly less impressive than the neocons by conviction.

I think it will be a moving elegy about the fragile state of man's role on earth, as shown by the cyclone and the earthquake, and that given the awesome power of nature, and  its unconcern for any of our petty squabbles, we need to move forward, together.

Or something about appeasment.  Whatever.

It's time the right (especially in their neo-con form) faced the fact that their ideas are worn out and their thinking stale and that this means they should just shut up. Instead, they keep on trotting out the same crap that is clearly not working for them anymore, which just goes to show how intellectually bankrupt and myopic they have become that they can recognize there is a problem with the message (think dog food), but still can't stop themselves from repeating it. Intellectual Tourette's perhaps?

liberal reformer: I agree entirely. Do you think Bill Kristol and Johnny Podhoretz are examples of regression toward the mean? I think so. (Though Norman's “What’s a Kurd, anyway?“ question wasn't comforting. Especially  when it comes from a man who is a campaign foreign policy advisor and supports bombing Iran.) Those guys aren't as smart as their dads and their intelligence, such as it is, is more smart-ass than an indication of great intelligence.

Regarding  Charlie K and Fareed--bletch!!

My turn, my turn:

He's going to call Obama arrogant and egotistical for thinking that Bush's comment was directed at him in the first place. "Not everything is about you, Senator Obama, but, if the shoe fits...."

Agreed with the editors.  In the meantime, next time you post a picture of Kristol, make sure it looks like one of these sexy mama's:

www.hsmfgco.com/spreadermain.cfm

I usually save these pics for the E&E blog, but Kristol's articles match up all too well with them.  I prefer the hydraulic pusher or the model 600 to be better representatives for Kristol as both support industrial size capacities.

I think bhunziker has it -- it's going to be a thin condescending smile aimed downward at Obama from the podium of unpopular but necessary wisdom, not everything's about you, classical hubris, inflated ego, no experience, rhetoric isn't reality, ominous implications, personality over experience, yadda yadda yadda

I suppose the other possibility is the he will, only now, after the affair is pretty much settled, jump on the neocons-for-Hillary bandwagon.

Nah, go with the appeasement thing.

Tec619: Charles Krauthammer has a formidable intellect. When he prattles on about Iraq, I pay no attention, though. Fareed Zakaria is also an interesting read. I remember a good piece he wrote in the New Yorker a few years ago in which he scored conservatives for their whining and the sense that they were in the opposition at a time when they controlled all three branche of government.

Krauthammer uses his formidable intellect for pure evil. He is just a bad guy, plain and simple.

Zakaria is a reasonable, honest person who I frankly wouldn't mind seeing in an Obama administration.

Genius feature, BTW.  Let's get this some buzz over the web and really take the wind out of his sales, I mean sails.

Anyway, Andrew McCarthy at The Corner (which has been reduced to screaming on the sidelines) said something to the effect that, if Obama spent 20 years at Rev Wright's church and didn't hear anything bad, then how did he get so astute with 5 minutes of Bush's speech?  Utter sloganeering nonsense, but I wouldn't put it past Kristol to plagiarize this.

I looooooooove Fareed Zakaria.

About the prediction, I can only agree, also with the bit that O is egotistical for thinking it's about him, then continuing to make the point as though it were about him.

Kristol will start out criticizing Obama for elitism and arrogance -- because Obama assumed Bush's comments were directed at him.  But Kristol will then reveal the REAL reason Obama thought Bush was talking about him: because Bush's criticisms rang true in his heart.  "The president's comments were aimed at a way of thinking, not a particular person.  But those comments may have struck Obama as personal because some part of him recognized that his personal beliefs are based on the exact mistake the president was describing.  Deep down in his heart, Obama knows that his desire to talk with terrorists constitutes appeasement."

I predict that Bill Kristol is so intellectually lazy, so creatively depleted, so morally bankrupt, that he will shamelessly plagiarize the Editors' prediction, as well as the predictions of posters on this thread, weave them all together, then pass the resultant hodgepode off as his own.

cnalls,

I think that's about right, but I doubt he could put it together so nicely.

I'm guessing 150 words about snatching defeat from the jaws of the yet undefined "victory" and another 50 about the unwillingness of liberals to acknowledge the threats that face America. It will be written like a bitter, discredited drunk with the skills of a high school junior. Toss in a few adverbs - presto - collect your check from the Grey Lady.

This is hilarious, and great comments.  Times are changing when you see "jeebus" come from "The Editors."  As for Kristol, I think he has a computer program.  He runs

PROC NYTCOLUMN / WORDS = 150;

TYPE=NEOCON;

run;

Hell, throw in that pendejo who Chris Matthews incinerated a few nights ago. If you're going for entertainment value, that lamebrain brings it in spades...

I'm starting to get the mildest of impressions that Bill Kristol is not liked too much in these precincts. I like him fine.

Thus the matrix of opinion shifts and reforms, if ever so slightly.  But basman -- it's kind of unlikely that he would find a large fan base around here, surely?

WoodyBombay: I think that demonizing political opponents is usually not a good idea. Charles Krauthammer has nothing against liberals, unlike a lot of chip - on - the - shoulder conservatives. He just thinks that they are naifs in a hostile world. I vociferously disagree but I do not think that he should be so characterized. Michael Kinsley and Krauthammer have been friends for a long time; Kinsley is a staunch liberal but they can agree to disagree.