WurfWhile

Today’s New York Times was different. There were four entries in its Op-Ed section, p. A 23, and all four represented moderate to liberal views. Someone must have been asleep in the NYT Office of Balance, because usually you need at least one, if not two conservative views each day (something that papers like the Wall Street Journal seem to have no qualms about, as my father once pointed out). Let me be extremely clear, I have no problem (and in fact welcome) honest, well thought out conservative views - I’ve been known at times to agree with them, and I see their value even when I disagree (I can say the same thing for well thought out, honest liberal and moderate views - you can learn a lot potentially from any viewpoint). But the New York Times’ relatively new hire, David Brooks, is a misleading hack (more on him another time), and while I can read William Safire with interest and pleasure on occasion (often regarding civil liberties, where his libertarian streak shows), he is often painfully, if appropriately Nixonian. But today one could read Ryan Lizza, Bob Herbert, Joshua Micah Marshall and Paul Krugman all in one day. The quality varied a bit. Lizza’s piece was underwhelming, covering some nuances of Bush’s poll rise through the eyes of each party, and it seemed to beg an obvious question: is national polling the right way to measure the effect of Bush’s advertising campaign in select, crucial battleground states - or would it be better to look at state polling data where Bush was advertising? How is Bush doing in those states - better, good enough to win? Perhaps I missed something. I liked Marshall’s basic insight, some voters may see Bush’s failure as America’s failure, better than Lizza’s thoughts, but my criticism of Lizza can be leveled at Marshall too. While I am a big fan of Krugman, today’s piece did not break new ground. Herbert did better, but didn’t came close to blowing me away, something all of these writers are capable of doing. So while today marked an unusual day in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times, it was not a day for celebration. Well thought out, informative and interesting viewpoints know no political label, and even among the skilled, they are not an everyday occurrence.