Over at TheNextRight, GOP online consulting guru Patrick Ruffini calls for Rush Limbaugh to replace Bill Kristol as the token “conservative” regularly gracing the op-ed page of The New York Times. It seems pretty clear that a good deal of the mainstream media also wish for Limbaugh to be the new voice of the right:

For all the talk of new politics and a new start with a new administration, the media person who has emerged as the chief voice of opposition during the first week of Barack Obama’s presidency — Rush Limbaugh — has been doing this for 20 years.

Personally, the thought of Limbaugh being considered the voice to counter the Obama administration scares the hell out of me. Another GOP online guru (but a more “libertarian”* one), Jon Henke, thinks the right needs “More Bill Buckley, Less Boss Hogg:”

I would start with a few of the people mentioned by David Brooks in a recent NYTimes column about a group of smart, young writers. Will Wilkinson, Julian Sanchez, and James Poulos are fascinating and thoughtful writers. Matt Continetti is an exceptional story-teller.  Ramesh Ponnuru approaches policy as an intellectual, rather than a mad partisan.

Brooks also mentioned Megan McArdle, now writing at The Atlantic. Unpredictable, intellectual, policy-oriented, witty, with a brain the size of a planet.  If there a better public intellectual for our day, I don’t know who it is.  In Megan McArdle, I see the potential to transform the Right; to tear down the sacred cows and rebuild a much more coherent, effective movement.

I also read an article at BeliefNet recommending Josh Trevino for the role. Josh and I don’t always see eye to eye on issues, but he’s an exceptional writer who always makes me think.  I would be very pleased to see the NYTimes select a superlative writer like Trevino.

It might also be interesting to see the NYTImes pick up James Lileks or Mark Steyn, each of whom  has the sharpest wit and the most devastating turn of phase.  Don’t undermestimate the power of ridicule as a tool of persuasion.

While I disagree with a lot of McArdle has written about the Iraq War, she’d certainly be a heck of a lot better than Kristol or Limbaugh. Julian Sanchez or Will Wilkerson would provide a greater level of “libertarian” zing at the Times, perhaps. As with McArdle, they are both thought-provoking writers.  Michael Calderone has added Peggy Noonan to his list of possible replacements.  While Reagan’s former speechwriter isn’t libertarian, she hasn’t been afraid to criticize big-government Republicans, Bush while he was in office, or even beat the hell out of Sarah Palin with a piece of newsprint.

Andrew Sargus Klein went out partying with the folks over at reason.  After he recovered from his hangover, he suggested:

And it is with confidence that I nominate both men as possible candidates to replace Bill Kristol as The New York Times’ new op-ed columnist. Kristol, who cold not find it in himself to utter anything of worth for an entire year, left a legacy of boilerplate drivel and a hard-to-conceal erection for Sarah Palin. Good riddance.

As for his open position, we see a parallel in the tough choices governors must make in the appointing of a senator to fill a vacant seat. There are a lot of factors to consider, and chief among the Times’ situation is the notion—gasp—of balance: “How do we present a diversity of opinion and thought that reflects the whole spectrum?” Surely we’re not all Dowds and Kristols.

And while most of us are not libertarians, Gillespie and Welch have the presence of mind to keep the debate fresh and lively. It’d be hard to pick one, but my gut is leaning toward Gillespie, mostly because he rocks a great leather jacket.

On the extremely unlikely off chance that the Times is even remotely considering someone libertarian-leaning to fill the spot, here are some brief recommendations:

I’ll start with Peggy Noonan.  While we’ve attended some of the same events, I’ve barely shaken her hand in the past.  She is an extremely skilled writer and doesn’t seem beholden to anyone.  She’s not afraid to buck the GOP machine.  While I disagree with her on quite a few issues, if the Times isn’t going to replace Kristol with a libertarian, Noonan has my inconsequential vote.  She’d at least provide the right a much more rational voice than Limbaugh’s.

If you want hip, then it’s Julian Sanchez.  While he’s a decent writer, I think some of the others on this list are slightly better.  However, he maintains an ability to think outside the box often missing in policy wonk circles.  He’s also fun to hang out with.

Will Wilkinson is a promising writer with some legitimate “libertarian” cred.  I’ve quoted him to illustrate points explaining my opposition to U.S. involvement in Iraq more than once.  He hangs out with some of my DC drinking buddies from time to time.  He’s also shares an interest with my wife: understanding the the moral psychology of liberalism.

Megan McArdle is a skilled writer who would bring much to political discourse.  She’s also probably more capable of persuading conservatives to take a more “libertarian” approach to public policy.  Considering that stimulus mania will probably overshadow the Iraq War for the next few years, McArdle’s ability to translate economic concepts to newspaper-ready terminology will be a bonus. She’s fun in person and she’s got great legs, too.

I like Matt Welch a lot.  His articles would make for pleasant reading at the Times.   If one were to cast an overall score for each factor I find important in a major op-ed writer, he’d probably win.  He’s probably a bit more “libertarian” than McArdle, but not quite as good a writer, IMO. Like McArdle and Noonan, he’ll connect well with most opposition to the Democrats, though.  He’s more hip than folks mentioned here by Gillespie and Sanchez, and not so hip that he would scare away the suit and tie crowd.  And I probably owe him a couple of beers.

Nick Gillespie shares a blessing and a curse with Sanchez: he’s hip and thinks outside of the box. Many of us will applaud while some of the suit-and-tie conservatives and “libertarians” will be a bit turned off by him.  He’s a skilled writer and very thought provoking in person.  Clearly not a traditionalist, his irreverence would likely place many new and interesting items in the national thought-processing apparatus.  Of the people I mentioned, he’s got the greatest likelihood of standing up to a James Carville-type figure on the Sunday talking heads programs.  Even if he loses, his black attire and leather jacket will, in the very least, leave a lasting impression. And I owe Nick a few drinks, too.

With the names suggested so far, I’d throw Gillespie’s name at the top of the stack.  I also probably owe him more drinks than all of the others on this list put together.

I’d like to add another name to the mix, though: Doug Bandow.  He thinks critically and expresses his thoughts well on paper.  As a personal reason, we worked together on a recent project and I’ll note that not only are his conclusions the same as mine, our individual thought processes leading to these conclusions are the same. As our relationship isn’t tainted by pay drink-for-play politics, my trivial job recommendation (which isn’t worth the electrons killed writing it) goes to Doug Bandow.

* I’m placing the word “libertarian” in quotation marks to indicate that I’m not trying to get into the ubiquitous battle over any definition of the word.  Most of the people mentioned are self-described libertarians and are described by others as libertarian.  My point pertains to a decision to be made by a major newspaper and not internal dispute over minor philosphical nuances.