Personally, as much as I find Stephen Chapman more up my alley, I could care less. As far as I see it, it's just another target for me to take from the NYTimes op-ed page.
Via Reason, I came across a Slate article written by Jack Shafer defending the Kristol hiring.
Calling Kristol's addition to the page redundant because David Brooks, a former Weekly Standard-bearer, already works there reveals a lack of familiarity with both men's writings. Brooks is "pro-choice and pro-gay marriage," as Ross Douthat noted three years ago in the National Review. Kristol is neither. Brooks is a journalist first and always has been. Kristol is a political operator. Brooks tries to persuade his readers of his views gently, as if he's a guest in the house. Kristol lives to brawl and make enemies. To him, writing is fighting.
Good. Bring on the fight. Give NYTimes readers a swift kick in the ass. Hopefully, he'll send a few my way (albeit indirectly of course).
What fun is consistently reading people you agree with anyway?