Who will be the new Bill Kristol?

Bill Kristol has lost his perch on the New York Times' editorial page. The Times is looking for a conservative to replace him. But who? And why should anybody care?

Last question first: because for better or for worse, the Times is the most influential newspaper in America. More than any other, it sets the news agenda. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page is much better more consistently, but I think it's fair to say that in the new Washington, it will have much less influence. The Washington Post's editorial page is also much better more consistently, but the Post doesn't have the same reach of influence beyond Washington as the Times does. The conservative the Times adds to its roster will instantly have a platform and credibility with a broader audience.

The Times does have David Brooks, who is easily one of the most talented columnists now working. He's a socially liberal to moderate neoconservative whose best work comes when he's investigating sociological topics, and social psychology. You don't read David Brooks to know what conservatives are thinking. That, presumably, was what Bill Kristol was for. For a long time, that would have been a smart call. But Kristol never found his footing in his column, and his worldview became increasingly out of touch as the Bush administration's popularity tanked. You do read Kristol to find out what Establishment Republicans think, but given how discredited they have become, this is not so important anymore.

So, who then? The Times, in my view, needs a conservative who thinks and writes from a recognizably conservative intellectual base, but who has shown the ability to be flexible and visionary in his or her writing. IOW, the new columnist has to be able to explain and defend conservative principles in his analyses, but also be intellectually nimble enough to help lead the rethinking on the Right. And the Times, if it wants to reach beyond the narrow New York-Washington corridor, ought to hire a social conservative. I don't know how you can hope to be a national newspaper without having a single social conservative in your op-ed roster.

I've long believed that Ross Douthat is the best candidate for the job. My Beliefnet colleague Aziz Poonawalla floats an intriguing name from the coming conservative generation: Josh Trevino. I also think NR's Ramesh Ponnuru would be a vigorous and hyperintelligent voice on policy and Washington politics, but I'm not sure he's interested in broader cultural themes.

Politico floats some other names: David Frum; Peggy Noonan, NR's Byron York, Megan McArdle and -- it is to laugh -- Rush Limbaugh. Of this roster, Frum's the only one who makes natural sense to me as a Timesman. Someone else suggested Mark Steyn, who would easily be the liveliest Times op-ed columnist (though that might be the soft bigotry of low expectations).

The best candidate I hadn't thought of -- and really, she's a brilliant pick -- is the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald, suggested here by The New Republic. I'd be thrilled to see her on the page, even though she's very, very secular, and would do nothing to help the Times readers understand the religious sensibilities of Americans, and how they shape politics and culture. Still, she's absolutely fearless, and a great writer. So, while Ross remains my favorite, it must be acknowledged that his youth (he's 30, or thereabouts) runs the odds way up against his being picked; my close second preference is Heather Mac Donald.

Your suggestions?