The Inaugural Most Overpaid, Useless Op-Ed Columnist on the Planet Contest

Mick Arran of Factesque and Arran's Alley recently wrote that David Brooks is the most overpaid conservative wingnut warrior masquerading as a centrist columnist.

While I do find Dr. Bobo-in-Paradise to be an utter dolt, I commented that Thomas Friedman is the most overpaid, useless op-ed columnist on the planet. I find his pie in the sky dreamcasting and computerized column-spouting to be utterly ludicrous.

Mick rejoined that we throw the vote to the floor.

So, there you have it. Tom or David. Who is the most overpaid, useless op-ed columnist on the planet? Other suggestions are welcome, but do give us your opinion on these two New York Times bigwigs.

Comments

[Frederick]

The Mustache wins. I expect Op-eds by Conservatives to be nutty.

[eric]

It's a trick question. They are obviously the same person, using some very clever theatrical make-up. Have you ever seen the two of them together?

[zenyenta]

It's a very, very big field. I'd pick Friedman out of these two. Brooks is indeed overpaid, but he does have some entertainment value. I enjoyed him on TV and in print during the presidential election. His conservatism was so at odds with his man-crush on Obama.

[OM]

And yet, we all wet our pants like good Pavlovian dogs every time one of them says anything remotely clever (like "Sarah Palin is an idiot"). We deserve some of the blame here.

[Sarah Deere]

Six of one, half dozen of the other. I would say the worse of the two would be the one most informed, intelligent people feel has the most influence. They're both wrong, they're both venal and self-serving.

[Montag]

what Frederick said. the moosetache.

[Proton]

Friedman no doubt. I base that partially on the rave review of Friedman's "Flat Earth" screed offered up by our former dentist (framed pictures of the bush family in his office) who came highly recommended, but turned out to be quite the wingnut. Needless to say, we found another dentist posthaste.

[The CultureGhost]

I'm with OM: we deserve at least half the blame. We keep these idiots in print by actually paying attention to them.

The Spectacle can't be maimed or destroyed by anything, but you can retard its growth by refusing to acknowledge parts of it. Put Freidman and Brooks in a paper bag and shake them up...you can't tell the diff. They are paid hacks.

[Lisa]

Whoa -- this Is a tight one!

I cannot bear Brooks's pink ties and shirts and pathetic, smarmy, wanna-be-one-of-the-boys ethos.

Friedman -- how do I count the ways? At one time, he was good. Several years back. then came the switcheroo on Iraq, and the FU. All was lost.

I will choose Friedman, because he betrayed me. he could have done better, but chose not to.

Brooks was always a glaring little prick, therefore less dangerous.

[Agi]

Now that I think of it, all op-ed columnists are overpaid and useless - except maybe Crispin Sartwell when he had a paying gig.

[blogenfreude]

Suck. On. This.

Friedman, hands down.