Ramesh Ponnuru.

I was pleasantly surprised by how good the terribly titled 'Party of Death' was. A lot of the strategic and historical stuff matched up pretty well with what Scott Lemieux tells us -- for example, about the importance of Roe. And when my review came out, we had a good debate.

I'm tempted to say Ross Douthat, but Ross is too much like Brooks, so I'd go with Ramesh Ponnuru.

I also think Rick Brookhiser would be a good pick.

I also love John Derbyshire, but only because I love his writing. His opinins are too retrograde to give them a dignified spot on the back page of the Grey Lady.

The problem that the NYT faces, as I said when the Smirk was first announced, is that this is the Bill Safire Memorial Op-Ed Spot, and demands someone who's a movementarian with very good connections. Brooks didn't quite fit the bill, even though he was hired from the Weak Standard, and Tierney was a flop, so they went to the top.

I'd go on bended-knee and ask Safire back, in all honesty. In spite of his many disagreeable moments, and his clinging to Cheney-fed bullshit, he knows the art of the 700-worder, and even his phoned-in columns weren't atrocious.

Ramesh, period.

Ross has to wait a couple of years, and yes, Nate, he is too much like Brooks.

I also love Derbyshire. He's a total nutcase, but he can write very well sometimes.

Because I have such trouble with following the assignment - whatever it may be - I'd say the problem, which is also the NYT's problem, isn't the answer, it's the question. "Which Republican view would a Democrat find acceptable?" is one of the questions that's really almost useless - I read a lot (alot) of conservatives; I get what their saying, I rarely agree with a lick of it. Ponnuru is a hack. Derbyshire has wit, but he's a raging homophobe. Malkin's got interesting ideas, and isn't afraid to criticize her own, but she's also sarcastic and mean. Coulter's act has gotten old. Jnah Goldberg? Well, we all know how that's worked out.

Is Kristol terrible? This first column is surprisingly weak, but it also underlines his approach - courtly, slightly lecturing, as if he needed to school you rather than defend his ideas. It's the idea that liberals are simply children who need to learn more, every bit as patronizing and insulting as it seems. Brooks does it too. And it's probably natural. If I wanted a conservative voice that was fresh to the Times' op-ed page I'd probably suggest a less known name like Matthew Continetti, who's not so doctrinaire, and not so infected with a sense of eternal rightness. But again, do I want a conservative on the NYT op-ed page? Maybe, maybe not.

4th Ramesh Ponnuru.

That's a hard question. Just about every conservative writer I'm familiar with is a shallow, pathetically lying hack who has been deeply discredited by the events of the past several years.

I do, however, have a lot of respect for Christopher Caldwell. He's a wingnut, to be sure, but as close to a worthy conservative opponent as I can think of -- smart and unusually honest. He used to write a column for the New York Press, and now currently writes articles about Europe and immigration for the New York Times Magazine and other publications. Perhaps his most memorable article was a 1998 Atlantic Monthly piece that prophetically predicted the crack-up of the Republican coalition (which I believe we are now witnessing). You can find it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jun/gop.htm

Then there's Florence King -- is she still around? She is or was a writer for the National Review. She's a great stylist and wrote a hilarious memoir called Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady.

After that, I come up empty, though.

The premise of your question is wrong. There should not be a *Republican* columnist on the op-ed page of the Times. After all, there are no "Democrat" columnists there. Yes, they lean liberal, but not one of them has ever been a party hack. They are indepent-minded, thinking journalists (plus one academic) who wrestle with the deeper meaning of the news--exactly what newspaper opinion should be. Exactly what Kristol is not.

As for who, besides Brooks, should fill the Safire chair, my vote would be Tyler Cowan, a good balance for Krugman.

Why have any of these clowns taking up important information space?

I'd like to see the NYT do something creative like giving a spot to a non-partisan writer like Jared Diamond. Maybe we could get the information we need to move on rather than play out this ridiculous and tiresome liberal -conservative drama.

Matthew Continetti, who's not so doctrinaire, and not so infected with a sense of eternal rightness.

And yet he plays the smug American version of 'Tory Boy' so well on Hardball.

I'd actually back BobN up on Cowan, for the balance with Krugman. Neoconnerie is not exactly an area that requires op-ed promotion, and Brooks, in his own way, has the angle on social conservatism.

Scarily, though, if you did want a 'National Greatness' conservative, you could easily go with Niall Ferguson, who has been writing columns for the British press for donkey's years. That would, however, give him yet more excuses not to do any primary history.

Thomas Sowell

Megan McArdle

Tyler Cowen

Ramesh Ponnuru

Walter Williams

Roughly in order of preference.

"Thomas Sowell"

(Sprays keyboard with beverage)

Really? Really? Atrocious prose, boilerplate wingnut opinions, and an undeserved reputation for intellect.

Cowen would be interesting, Ponnuru would be unobjectionable. I'd actually like to see a proper (ie-non-partisan) libertarian have a major op-ed gig, not the bullshit variety we've been overexposed to lately.

I'd like to see the NYT do something creative like giving a spot to a non-partisan writer like Jared Diamond.

Isn't that what Krugman was supposed to be? Goodness knows they'll never make that "mistake" again.

PS: If Diamond were to get a column I'd buy a subscription. The man is an amazing polymath, and a damn good writer.

I wish they would bring John Tierney back. Not because he was thought provoking or intelligent, but because his columns helped me learn, at a very young age, just how stupid conservative "thinkers" are.

This reminds me of the time when Jay Tea over at Wizbang asked why there weren't any "thinkers" on the left of the blogosphere and I posted reminding him of the huge resources he was missing (including our dear Ezra).

p.j. o'rourke

Forgot one:

Radley Balko

Maybe Bruce Bartlett?

(As for Ponnuru; Anybody who goes with a title like "Party of Death" is off my list.)

Note to BobN: The adjectival form of "Democrat" is "Democratic," NOT "Democrat."

Greg Mankiw

Conservatives are most interesting to me when they are in touch with political reality. Like, Ramesh Ponnuru is evil, but at least he's not stupid enough to believe, a la Instapundit, that the Republicans lost Congress because people were fed up with pork-barrel spending.

Mankiw would be decent intelligence-wise, but his writing style is unreadable. Ponnuru gets thrown out right away because of a stupid title. For full-blown evil and good writing, they could get Kissinger's last good years.

Wait a second; all you people that think Ross is too much like Brooks--really? Do you guys read them? Brooks is for a secular, TR style national greatness, whereas Ross writes for a family oriented domestic policy informed by his Catholic faith. Their quirky interests are also really different.

I would also say Jim Manzi.