Here is the link: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/editorial/98/01/07/will.0-1.html
You may legitimately disagree with my reasons for thinking Will capable of hypocrisy; I was just answering Scratch1300’s request that I provide reasons. It would indeed require two separate threads to discuss under what circumstances one may condone lying, or under what circumstances one may read something into the First Amendment.
Bill O’Reilly
Go ahead, flame me. 
In reading new posts, I read my earlier post and realized I made a huge error: when I said David Chapman, I substitued his name for a much better writer, Clarence Page. My apologies to Clarence Page, who is a columnist I very much admire.
Best, moderate-to-liberal: William Raspberry, E.J. Dionne, Jr., Richard Cohen, Molly Ivins. Raspberry deserves a particular mention for still being amazingly good after so many years. Unlike some others I could and do name (see below), he’s not, by any stretch of the imagination, coasting on his rep.
Best, conservative: Charles Krauthammer, Joseph Sobran. John Leo has his moments as well.
Most overrated: David Broder, George Will. You have the feeling that both of them have spent too much time at Georgetown soirees, talking with people who don’t really challenge them. Broder has had almost nothing new to say in decades; I’ve long had the sense that Will, whose columns wander without a point (other than to be an apologist for the corporate elite - right on, elucidator!), would have a tough time defending any of his propositions in GD.
**Absolute worst:**Cal Thomas. If papers didn’t feel the need to demonstrate ‘balance’ of some sort by including the views of an apologist for the religious right, just because they represent a significant portion of the population, this pathetically moronic man could not possibly earn a living, doing what he’s doing.
George Will would have a tough time defending his columns in GD, and would fail in a considerable number of cases, but he’d get better over time as he realized what was and wasn’t defensible; he does have a few brain cells. (The character of his columns would improve as a result, I suspect.) Cal Thomas, OTOH, would simply get chopped into tiny little pieces. And there would be much rejoicing.
And yes, he’s worse than Charley Reese, whose columns may have the same sort of fascination as a car crash, but also the same unpredictability as one. As a result, occasionally Reese actually comes up with a worthwhile thought or two. But Cal Thomas is so predictably and flatulently evangelically correct that there’s never anything to be learned from one of his columns. He’s a guy who said that Jim Bakker was punished too harshly, that Nixon was ‘misunderstood’ (Ha! we understood the Dark One all too well), and that’s just the ones I remember after all these years. To say he felches dead goats is to insult those who actually engage in that activity.
Yeah, that’s what George Will needs. Why, a few rounds with the likes of Chronolicht and Mercutio and the old boy would finally start to learn a few things about rational debate.
:rolleyes:
What do you think of Camille Paglia?
At first I thought she was bringing a breath of fresh air to the fuzzy thinking some feminists have, but it seems that she is always defending conservatives. In reading her columns I can’t think of too many times she was supported the woman’s point of view. Her praise of Rush L is beyond understanding since Camille is so overbearing and aggressive, what Rush would call a femi-nazi.
Of course, anyone who praises Limbaugh is someone whose critical thinking skills and respect for the truth I would hold in low regard. So though I haven’t read her stuff, she’d be starting off with a strike or two against her, in my estimation.
William Safire and Joel Stein.
Some of the dittoheads might call Paglia a feminazi, since they’ve transformed the term into a meaningless insult, but Rush wouldn’t. Rush explicitly defines a feminazi as a feminist who considers abortions a positive good and wants to maximize them. (I’m not sure such a creature exists, but Rush is). Paglia wouldn’t fit his definition.
I can’t believe I didn’t think of Safire. And nobody else did either. Thank you, Lizard! 
I’ll join in seconding Safire. I didn’t name him initially because it’s been about 6-7 years since I got a paper that had his column, but he was pretty good then.
Richard Cohen
I just assumed he hadn’t been mentioned because he isn’t very goood. At least he hasn’t been much worth reading since his 118th birthday and that was, what, 15 years ago?
Camille Paglia: Very good when she forces herself into a tightly focused piece of writing, but her Salon columns are just terrible. She does, of course, support many liberal people and ideas, but in recent years her disappointment in Clinton has really poisoned the well for her.
Rush Limbaugh: Behind all the showmanship and opposition hype is a man who really understands conservativism as an intellectual pursuit. Now, I disagree with much of what he says and I am disappointed when much of the good stuff gets hidden behind the showmanship. Many of the people, I’ve learned, who slam him so vociferously have never listened to him for any lenght of time. (Disclosure: I probably only listen to two weeks for of shows in a year; I wander the dial on the radio too much, when I get bored with Stern, I switch to Rush, then to mindless top 40, etc.)
George Will: Those saying he is a hypocrite or couldn’t hold his own in GD are really underestimating him (IMO).
Molly Ivans is just awful, awful. Her “voice” is so fake. She tries to appear as a good ol common sensical southerner, but she’s simply a big-city liberal in blackface.
Florence King, however, is great. Too bad she only comes out monthly.
And most of these columnists can be found on the internet, you don’t have to get their papers. William Raspberry is available at washingtonpost.com, ferinstance.