Good Riddance William Safire.

[Cyrano]

William Safire has been a columnist for the NY Times for 30 years and yesterday, he wrote his last column. (The Times gave him the entire Op-Ed page.)

Safire is not Limbaugh, or Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Coulter. He's more intelligent, thoughtful, nuanced and human. Which makes his being a right-wing conservative pundit all the more puzzling and unforgivable. Any rational human being who can hold the beliefs Safire holds is beyond my comprehension.

For the life of me, I'll never understand people like Safire. He wasn't being "paid off" to peddle the conservative crap he endorsed for 30 years. He genuinely believed it and still does. (If you don't know, Safire was a Nixon speech writer who wrote Spiro Agnew's famous line, "Nattering nabobs of negativism.")

Can it be that there are intelligent human beings who are missing some unidentified gene or chromosome who buy into the Republican shit that's been spouted from Herbert Hoover through King George the Second? I don't know. Nor will I ever understand people like William Safire.

All this having been said, Safire was never a mean-spirited Neanderthal in the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Coulter mold. Nonetheless, his world view and beliefs were probably more damaging, because they were coming from someone with a brain and a respected platform (the New York Times Op-Ed page).

[fryguy]

1. where's he off to now?

focusing on language?

[rock]

3. His language expertise is actually pretty bad

He's a "pop" grammarian. Just my opinion.

[fryguy]

7. i agree

his column usually sounds more like a whiny old man who can't adjust to the change in usage and vernacular than any true discussion of grammar or language - but then again randy cohen's ethic column doesn't exactly push the outer limits of reasoning and depth either. guess that's the bane of the NY Times magazine - appeal to a common denominator.

[Cyrano]

4. His Sunday column in the magazine section of the Times will continue.

[rinsd]

2. His book Scandalous was pretty good. (nt)

[The Doctor.]

5. Laura Ingram.

Intelligent, witty, well-informed.

So much so that the logic she uses to support her positions is beautifully convoluted.

Charles Krauthammer keeps it simple, and is very fair.
But also holds view contrary to reason.

[yinkaafrica]

9. Krauthammer spews hatred. Rude as hell. And ugly to boot.

[illflem]

6. Even though he doesn't say it

I'm sure his motivation for playing dumb is money.
Or as Dennis Miller said when asked why the switch from lib to con, "Why settle for half the candy bar when you can have the whole thing?"

[Cyrano]

8. I don't buy it. Safire has held his views since he went to work for Nixon.

That was 1968. There wasn't a lot of money in being a conservative back then.

Unfortunately, Safire really believes the shit he spouts. Whether it's him and his ilk, or we liberals that have a missing gene of some kind, is a question that may never be answered.

Nonetheless, I won't miss his columns. It will be interesting to see who the NY Times chooses to replace him.