In honor of Bill Bennett (and the spirit of truth) maybe they can call it craps

I'm sure it will be a great success, just as Fox' conservative comeback to "The Daily Show" was.  What did it run - 2 extremely unfunny episodes?

I can't wait to see the conservative version of Mickey Kaus!

A new political magazine is hiring?  Are they going to be paying their interns?

Conservative take on 2G1C would parallel the conservative take on all things obscene:

"Do you see what happens? Do you see what happens? Do you SEE what happens when you let Democrats let men f**k a stranger in the ass??"

"intellectual honesty and conciliation rather than polemic"

that is some mighty fine lip service...but to use an old cliche, the proof is in the pudding.

Very few movies have ever triggered my gag reflex, it takes a lot more than projectile pea soup; 2g1c triggers my gag reflex just thinking about it.

The problem for not only conservatives but also Obamaphiles isn't that Slate's biased, rather, Slate's ace journalists-- esp Jack Schafer and John Dickerson--  tend to play it straight, and the candidate they'd like to support isn't terribly honest. Here's John Dickerson's devastating analysis of Obama's blindness and contortions re. Iraq and the surge: www.slate.com/.../2196068

Key passage:

"If Obama was wrong about the tactical gains that would be made by the new strategy and wrong about how the Iraqi political leaders would react, can his larger theory about how Iraqis will respond to a troop pullout remain intact? Perhaps, but he has the burden of explanation. Does he elide contradictions, claim they're irrelevant, and generally spin? In his interview with NBC's Brian Williams, he suggested that he'd always said the surge would decrease violence in Iraq.

*** That's not just spin. It's not true. ***

At the time Bush announced the surge, Obama said: ' "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.' "

Note in anticipation of the usual flood of predictable mindless snark 'n' spam: please direct your vitriol to John Dickerson of Slate, not me. Others are on to Obama's BS, now, and many more will follow. The fault lies within our candidate, dear Bruit-us.

gspinks, I never saw the video (when slate did that column I gave it a pass). Unfortunately for me I decided not to give it a pass today.I couldn't make it through the video even though I am not convinced it is not a fake. (at least that is what I tried to tell myself) There is a great documentary from the BBC relating to our senses, pictures of earth worms don't bother most people but pictures of tape worms do even though they bare superficial resemblance. It seems to be hardwired in our genetic code.

I am not as convinced like everyone else is that the surge has worked, we simply can't know until we leave. Applying a tourniquet and stopping the flow of blood is not a cure. McCain himself has to run around claiming we won the war but the victory requires we keep fighting the war lest we lose it.

And if Obama was wrong about one tactic, then compare it to the 5 years of disastrous Bush strategy (which had McCain support for most of that time). My mistake in supporting Bush in Iraq was I had no idea he could be so incompetent, so I can understand how some people could foresee this would be handled incompetently as well.

But Obama must be perfect in everything he does, but Saint John of the Hanoi Hilton (let us genuflect when we say his name) must never be called on his complete BS.

Of course I notice how you don't quote other articles by Dickerson about Iraq, only culling those quotes that you like.

"Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama and John McCain have seemed to get perilously close to agreeing on what to do in Iraq. Obama continues to talk about a 16-month withdrawal but would let military commanders determine the pace of the withdrawal. McCain is also now in favor of a 16-month timeline—as long as the commanders determine the pace of the withdrawal. After the withdrawal, how many soldiers would be left and what would they do? Both candidates agree on that, too. U.S. forces would continue to train Iraqi soldiers, fight al-Qaida, assist Sunni tribal leaders, and fight Shiite militias. How long they would do all of this, and in what numbers, would be up to the commanders on the ground."

But yeah, lets forever rehash the results of one tactic (which we truly don't know if it is successful or has simply bought us time) and never talk about the road forward.

Tep, come on.  I daresay most people who read TNR also read Slate, and are not in fact offended by Dickerson.  But we are also not offended by, say, Fred Kaplan, who has also done far more devastating work on how McCain doesn't even seem to understand that our military is stretched to the breaking point.   How he doesn't seem to understand anything about how these wars we are in need to be fought.   Where is the outrage there, tep?   Non eof us here think Obama is perfect, but on all the issues you care about - including, based on the evidence, the wars- he is a towering head and shoulders above McCain, who thinks shows of strength equals a coherent policy.  Isn't Obama vindicated at all that the majority of actors are coming around to his point of view on FP? Also, this thread had nothing to do with Obama.   At all.   Stay focused, my friend.

Tep, at least be honest like Channy and come out for McCain and provide reasons why you are doing it.

You don't like Obama, that is fine, but to latch onto pretty much the only questionable decision he has made (which I find as a supporter of the surge to be reasonable, since did we thrww a couple of hundred billion dollars for a short term dampening of violence) as evidence that he is nothing but a BS artist is tiresome. Have you ever even watched any of his interviews? McCain is the one who has become a parody lately.

yeah, I know bone, but do you really want to talk about 2g 1c? Well, maybe you get off on that kind of thing.

There was 1g too few for my likings on that video, blackie.  

Jesus H., tep, this thread is about a conservative version of Slate - not another opportunity for you to bash Obama and claim that since he's not 100 percent perfect, he's as bad or worse than John McCain. I know you're disappointed to find out that he's not the Messiah and just a mortal man, but give it up. You should stick to re-jumping this particular shark on threads that deal specifically with Obama, the far inferior John McCain, or both.

Anyway ...

The ridiculous notion that Slate is "liberal" shows just how bankrupt the Right's "liberal media bias" fight is. Slate distributes its cheers and jeers pretty evenly across the spectrum, and sticks mostly to jeers anyway. If Bennett is running it, I suspect we can expect a lot of moralizing and hand-ringing over RAP MUSIC! and similar Threats To Our Way Of Life.

Good, I hope this succeeds.  I used to read The Weekly Standard when I wanted to get a fairly reasonable right wing take on something but after a while I stopped because I couldn't stand the grating tone

Slate isn't liberal but it is definitely neoliberal, ie, staffed by ex-Washington Monthly editors raised in Charlie Peters' neoliberal school of skeptical, intelligent, no-BS commentary. Tim Noah and Mickey Kaus both came from Charlie Peters' TWM, as did, IIUC, Fred Kaplan. I met him in DC in 1981 when I had lunch with Noah and some other TWM writers; he'd just written his anti-Reagan book, Wizards of Armaggedon. Other neoliberals include the sublime Anne Applebaum and the best journalist writing in English today, Htichens. Gross is pretty good on economics and Jack Schafer is a treasure on journalism. There may be some other gems on the site but I don't have time to get to them.

A glance at Slate's homepage for news and politics on any day will tell you where they stand: there are at least two, often 3 pro-BHO or -Dem  pieces for every pro-McCain or -GOP piece.

Anyway, the point isn't the orientation but the level of SKEPTICISM and INTELLIGENCE that the writers bring to their daily rounds. Regardless whether you're partial to Fred Kaplan or to Hitchens, Slate generally ranks high on both counts.