A real serious question: is there a rightwing pundit who is not an idiot?

[Buzz Clik]

I just viewed a Michelle Malkin clip on the political videos were she wickedly insulted a guy she was interviewing. Malkin has promoted herself endlessly, and now she's sitting in for an absent Bill O'Reilly.

We're all aware of the list of brainless GOP talking heads, but are there any who are worth a listen?

I'm quite serious in my question -- I'm actually looking for names of intelligent right-leaning pundits.

[muntrv]

1. David Brooks is the only right-leaning pundit

I can stand listening to.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Does Brooks have a regular program/segment on the tube?

[Forkboy]

21. Every Friday on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

[Hamlette]

28. don't read his columns...your head will explode

he is more reasonable on tv for some reason. I guess he thinks he can be "real" in print?

[katsy]

2. Let me see if I can help...

Not under the chair.

Not under the table.

heh heh heh

Nope - maybe they're hiding in the same place as the wmds.


:silly:

[Warpy]

3. Whether or not they're idiots is beside the point

The greatest genius in the world will come up with laughably idiotic conclusions if he starts his thinking process with false premises.

The falsehood at the root of conservatism? "The ends justify the means."

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. How can there be any left at this stage?

[Buzz Clik]

7. I'm looking for the broadcast equivalent of Chuck Hagel:

A solid rightwinger who disagrees with Bush on a couple of key issues and has the ability to think.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. A couple of issues, eh? Very promising...

[Buzz Clik]

33. My standards are low because my hopes are not high.

[Madspirit]

6. Buckley but he's passe

...and he's a Libertarian not a Republican. He supports legalizing pot too! Anyway, he's still Evil but you just asked for intelligence, right?
Lee

[Buzz Clik]

8. Well, native intelligence combined with rational thought and reasoned speaking.

Another poster above pointed out the flaw in my question -- intelligence is not enough.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. You can't have seen him being taken apart, piece-meal, by Noam Chomsky.

It was a video clip on here recently.

There he was, sinking ever lower in his chair with a wry, embarrassed grin. Chomsky kept correcting him with actual factual information, based on data in the public domain, and he was as helpless as little Tommy Tucker against Schumer.

[leftofthedial]

9. no

you have to be either an idiot, mentally ill or a criminal to be a repuke.

[jeff30997]

16. "an idiot, mentally ill or a criminal to be a repuke"

Or all of the above.:)

[MADem]

11. William F. Buckley is not an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.

[Greyhound]

22. Not an idiot, but not worth listening to either.

The fact that he has been proven wrong on nearly every stand he has taken for well over 40 years is ample proof that intellect alone is often insufficient to understanding.

[MADem]

25. Well, the question wasn't "Is there one worth listening to?" The question asked which ones weren't

idiots. And Buckley is a helluva conversationalist. Firing Line was the template for the TV stuff you see nowadays, only he did it much, much better.

[Greyhound]

27. It was inside the post,

"We're all aware of the list of brainless GOP talking heads, but are there any who are worth a listen?"
:kick:

[MADem]

31. Well, I would assert he's worth "a" listen. Maybe not 24-7, but easily worth "a" listen.

His metamorphosis on the issue of illegal drugs is pretty interesting. He's now in the decriminalizing camp, at the very least, last time I checked.

He's also come round to opposing the war. His argments on that score are surely worth a listen--gives one a glimpse into the conservative mindset on issues of wars of choice.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp From well over a year ago:

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ....Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.

He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.

Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

[nam78_two]

12. I never agreed with anything that William Sapphire said

but I could read his stuff. Many of the conservative oped columnists for the NY Times, the Wa Po etc. (George Will/Sapphire/Buckley) are extremely annoying in their own ways, but they do/did seem less scary than the Malkins and O'Reillys. The older guard was definitely more palatable than the Fox News generation imo. I can imagine having an actual conversation with some of them without being told to "Shut up, shut up, shut up", being called "America-hater" etc.
Of course I never was convinced by anything they said, but they were certainly less uncouth, less barbaric than these Coulters and Michael Savages.

[Jed Dilligan]

39. His columns on language are ok. nt

[cloudbase]

13. Pat Buchanan

While some of what he espouses might be a bit off the wall, the man is anything but an idiot.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. Most of his stuff would be off the wall, but he never ceases to surprise

with sudden shafts of honesty and lucidity. Remember his incredulity that he'd won, I think it was Miami Dade, in the 2000 selection?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

30. Pat Buchanan thinks global warming is caused

by the aids quilt.

[11 Bravo]

15. Is this a trick question?

[uppityperson]

18. Krauthammer!

:rofl: cracking myself up here.

[nam78_two]

20. LOL

Good one.

[Perky]

19. I would George Will in that category.

[Buzz Clik]

34. I would, too, but Will is (to my knowledge) merely a guest.

Does he ever does his own thing -- a spot on some show or a show of his own?

[Perky]

38. Guest only

But he writes for the WaPo group (I think) three times a week.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. Although there are things about him I don't like. Andrew Sullivan didn't

vote for Shrub in 2004 and even wrote an article with his reasons.

[Marr]

24. There a two types of pundits: the kind that speak to policy makers, and the kind

that are only meant to help stir up their idiot base. I'd say the latter group really comprises everyone from Ann Coulter to George Will.

People who actually articulate right-wing political goals accurately are rarely covered in media outlets like cable TV, because those goals are not to be paraded in front of the idiot freeper peons whose votes they need.

There are plenty of right leaning pundits and authors that make rational, logical arguements without all the empty jingoism- but the world they describe is, in my opinion, a very ugly one.

[ljm2002]

26. Here's my list...

...all of whom have been mentioned by others:

William F. Buckley Jr. -- always interesting; at his best, does repartee well
George Wills -- well read; makes a rational argument here and there; knows baseball
Patrick Buchanan -- an actual populist with some interesting ideas; but he's a complete bigot
William Safire -- really enjoyable wordsmithing; however, false premises == false conclusions

Note, their not being total idiots doesn't mean that I agree with them on much of anything!

Also note, they're all old guys. None of the new conservative pundits are worth a warm bucket of... well, you know.

David Brooks is an idiot through and through, just not as obnoxious in how he expresses himself as some others. Tucker Carlson, well, what is there to say. Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, yikes.

Actually it's pretty grim out there in pundit-land, on either side of the fence. They have idiots, we have wimps. Some exceptions of course.

[Buzz Clik]

36. "...not being total idiots doesn't mean that I agree with them..." Exactly.

I'm not looking for affirmations of my own point of view. It's more entertaining and challenging to listen to the other side.

I appreciate your list.

[Hamlette]

29. Andrew Sullivan and Joe Scarborogh don't make me crazy all the time

Sullivan hasn't pissed me off in almost 3 years. (The last straw for him was the purple heart bandaids at the GOP convention in 2004. I've not heard him really diss a dem since then...although he doesn't like the Clintons he will give credit where due.)

He's a huge Obama fan, hates Bush and his whole crew and the reigious right.

When he starts talking religion I tune out but I must say I admire him for having a serious online debate with Sam Harris wherein he did not trash Harris. In fact, when Romney said you have to believe in God to be prez Sullivan was all over him for not considering atheists worthy of office. My guess is its his minority status that makes him stand up for other minorities.

He still loves Thatcher and every once in a while tries to make sense out of conservative thought. I ignore most of that too.

I read him every day and have for years. I want to know what the right is thinking and he links to the best of it and the worst of it.

I've not listened to Joe since he went mornings but he wasn't driving me nuts in his evening slot.
My son says Rich Lowrey isn't totally crazy. I'm not sure I agree.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Thanks. That's exactly the kind of analysis I was looking for.

[mitchum]

32. Not since Florence King retired

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. Is there a fraction that represents exactly the square root of 2? -nt