Kathleen Parker ignores the first rule of holes; UPDATE: Parker in 2003

The syndicated columnist continues to "David Brooks" herself. Her column asking Palin to get dumped from the ticket has had two results: lofty mentions in every MSM story on Gov. Palin since it was published and negative reaction from most conservatives.

If I were a conservative and something did was praised by the MSM and decried by most conservatives, I'd take time reevaluate my position. But I guess that's why I don't et paid the big syndicated column dollars:

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn't, I should "off" myself.

Those are a few nuggets randomly selected from thousands of e-mails written in response to my column suggesting that Sarah Palin is out of her league and should step down.

Who says public discourse hasn't deteriorated?

Hmmm....she does say there were conservatives who respectfully disagreed and offerered reasoned statements to try to change her mind. But since she chose to throw bombs with the few randomly selected emails we may never know the true ratio.

Of course, no...ahem...intelligent defense of a dumbass column would be complete without a cry of CENSORSHIP!!!11!!!eleventy!! and a declaration of sistahood with the poor, poor Dixie Chicks:

Readers have every right to reject my opinion. But when we decide that a person is a traitor and should die for having an opinion different from one's own, we cross into territory that puts all freedoms at risk. (I hear you, Dixie Chicks.)

I'm sure it is coincidence that, upon the Palin column's publication, a conservative organization canceled a speech I was scheduled to deliver in a few days. If I were as paranoid as the conspiracy theorists are, I might wonder whether I was being punished for speaking incorrectly.

Or, perhaps, this organization wanted people to show up to their event?  Maybe they acknowledged, as you in this column do, that most conservatives are very displeased with you right now?  Is it possible that they could have received emails an phone calls form their supporters asking them to cancel your appearance?  

Nah, that can't be it.  It's the vast, right-wing conspiracy out to get you. 

Update: Tim Graham at Newsbusters weighs in. 

Update II:  It turns out that Kathleen Parker did have some interesting words on the issue back in 2003 when celebrities were being featured in nearly every TV show, radio interview, newspaper, magazine, and online forum discussing how their anti-war views were being censored by the media (emphasis mine):

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the cancellations (I disagree for the same reason one ignores a showoff), one thing needs to be clear. That chill wind Robbins feels isn't coming from a censorious or conspiratorial White House - which is busy frying somewhat larger fish - but is the cool response of consumers enjoying a free market. Welcome, in other words, to the real world.

Just as Robbins and Sarandon (and I) have a right to speak as we please, a free marketplace provides that consumers have a right not to buy, or listen to, or otherwise subsidize products, ideas or people they find unappealing. It's called choice, which everyone seems to understand when they're doing the choosing.

So in 2003, Parker disagreed with cancelled appearances, but respected the rights of organizations to do so.  It seems her position has gotten a bit more nuanced. 

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 11:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.