Yeah, Reinhard doesn't seem to be very original a lot of the time. Talking points, distortions, etc. Beyond him disagreeing with me, his columns just don't seem very thoughtful or honest, so it's doubly troubling.

It seems like keeping him on is really bad newspapering, but bound to be done, as he's apparently a really nice guy. And hey, every now and then he does his own work and says something thoughtful.

Dude,

Charles Hurt writes for the Washington Times, not the Post.

Easy mistake to make.

Reinhard is always ommiting key facts,and he always pens to the blind. Anybody who is truly informed Knows better, his arguments are always rehashed spin with just a little varient, as to not plagiarize. His job must be so easy, and they pay him for this? I'm in the wrong business.

The Fishwrapper knows that to keep up the appearance of imparitality they must have at least one token conservative. They just don't want one who writes well. They will run a syndicated column form a conservative when it fits their view. Think William Krystal of the Weekly Standard. They ran his column calling for the ouster of Rumsfeld, that was the only time his words have been put in print by the Oregonian. Then you had Rich Lowry advocating for lax marijuanna laws the other day, you know that was in every Fishwrap in the country. As a conservative I turn to other places than the mainstream media to get my fix.

Daniel's Political Musings

For years I've had a low opinion of D. Reinhard because he has generally represented the worse aspects of conservatism. He borders on being a stiff-necked social conservative while lapsing into fiscal weenieism (he endorsed the M28 tax increase for Chrissakes!).

I once wrote (on B!x's blog I think) that the big O' was happy with Reinhard playing Alan Colmes to Sarasohn's Sean Hannity.

I still think that is true, but I have to acknowledge that he seems to be getting marginally better as of late. I only cringe about a third of the time when I read his column.

PS - I second Pat Ryan's motion for Rob Kremer.

He is so far to the right that he and lars should walk hand in hand. The same could be said about larson, why does Oregon put up with his shenanigans and half-truths, please throw in Daniel (ditto head) in the same ring, and come up w/something original. From my point of view I don’t think the Oregonian is lib enough and the “right” there of the mind set it’s not conservative enough.

I read the Oregonian editorials, signed and unsigned. Its some sort of pioneer penance, I think, but that's probably more information than you wanted.

I would think there is a buyers market for rightie pundits now, but Caldwell sticks with his man Reinhard. His Charles Starr logic is a constant roadbump, incongruious and funky with the rest of the page. Along with the Oregonian's policy of never firing anyone, some writers have gone to pot (Nicolas, Sarasohn), but some just get better with age (Landauer, Bates), its unlikely change is on the horizon.

Davey, like most conservatives, is a coward.

He's written half a dozen columns on "fixing" Jefferson High School, but has never been there. Never.

If The Oregonian ever buys a crane to get him out from behind his desk, he'd be a dangerous journalist. Until then, he's "Cut, Paste and Slime" Davey. Nothing more.

"Contrast that with Reinhard, who never seems to be able to put pen to paper without subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge."

Ouch. It just gets funnier and funnier. Didn't you people read that he was a nice guy? Why are you trying to make him feel bad? ;-)

I agree that he is a weak columnist of any stripe. However, I do not agree that a degree in journalism is either necessary or even the best background for a "real" journalist -- Mr. Reinhard aside. A broad general education is as often as not thought to be the best soil for a journalist to plant feet in. Then of course graduate work at Columbia for the elite.

Don't get too worried about a journalism degree. I expect you would find historically that most great journalists did not have them, and that even currently most good journalists will have good liberal arts educations rather than a concentration in the mundanities, which can be learned or earned as a minor concentration.

Screw the originality angle: David Reinhard is nothing more or less than a hack. If I were a GOPer, I'd inundate the Oregonian with demands that he be replaced.

I'm with Daniel (somewhere way up there): there's decent conservative thought out there - even stuff that doesn't agree with my views - but it's at least intelligent argument that can expand one's understanding of an issue.

It's out there and I've read it, but apparently Reinhard hasn't...otherwise he might write a decent column from time to time...

I can't disagree with you there charlie

Heya Chuck. I remember that speech by Lars. Earlier in the day, at that AP convention, he hosted a forum on "newsroom diversity" attended by an entirely white audience. The irony escaped Lars completely. I guess he lost his sense of humor sometime around marriage two or three. Or was it four?

"special assistant to the assistant secretary of energy for conservation and renewable energy in the Reagan administration"

Haha, hahaha. Well, what can you expect? Reinhard came to the Oregonian with valuable experience at dismantling the energy initiatives of the Carter administration while pretending to promote conservation and renewable energy. Since his history degree programs probably did not include much study of energy engineering, I imagine his job was communication. More precisely, he would have invented and arranged the lies coming out of the Reagan administration about energy policy, while the big boys made sure we would remain dependent on the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Given our present addiction to oil and the tons of high-level nuclear waste looking for a home, he must have done a good job for Reagan.

This was perfect training for a conservative pundit, whose function, after all, is to weave convincing fantasies to cover rape of the planet, rape of our livelihoods, and rape of our minds and bodies.

As far as originality, we must understand that almost all rightwing pundits work off the same list of talking points. There are only so many ways of saying that resistance to extreme polarization of wealth is "class warfare", or that wanting clean air and water is "environmental extremism." Cut David a break, he has a tough job.

"special assistant to the assistant secretary of energy for conservation and renewable energy in the Reagan administration" = the recycling guy!

The Oregonian's editorial - Form, not necessarily substance (May 21) - missed the most compelling point in George Galloway’s exposure of the U.S. Senate as a house of naked emperors. So too, apparently, did the herd of sheep known as the American people.

In 1954 Army counsel Joseph Welch asked the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency?” These words reversed the McCarthy vendetta and the shame he brought to the U.S. Senate and the nation.

In 2005 George Galloway told the U.S. Senate and the American people, "Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.” and few people seem to care. If this is not evidence of moral bankruptcy of the American people, I don’t know what is.

<h2>What a difference fifty years make.</h2>