Cheney for President?

That's what The New York Times' newest columnist penned in his first column for the Grey Lady. Ross Gregory Douthat, a former columnist for The Crimson, argues that it would have been best for the Republican Party to have Cheney run for President because it would have proven how hopeless the Republican Party is? See how Douthat describes Cheney's conservativism after the jump.

"...precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability."

That is a euphemistic way to say that a campaign by Cheney for President would have put it right out in the open that the "much-reduced" Republican Party was screwed in a diversified America.

Although bloggers originally lauded Douthat's choice as a thoughtful one for the conservative columnist spot, many comments on this column were scathing. One commenter calls him an "irritating 30 year old Generation Y Harvard Grad who is not demonstrating much thought in his first column." Another claims that he "has taken leave of his senses." But many also lauded him for writing a column that acknowledges both sides and does seem to have required some thinking. It appears NYT readers don't have very high standards for conservative writers after all. How else could FlyBy have grown up watching David Brooks on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer every night? That vacillating man.

Douthat's first column may have been decent--considering that he is replacing Kristol--but it was not mind-blowing. FlyBy is still awaiting that column on Gen Ed and the state of undergraduate education at Harvard. Also, why does he highlight his New Haven roots in his bio? Not cool, Mr. Douthat.

Photo courtesy of http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/