May
17

Thanks, Fred Hiatt!




Posted at 14:08 by Brad

Welp, here’s yet another low reached by Fred Hiatt’s allegedly prestigious op-ed page:

bigparker.jpg

The Democrats Hug It Out

By Kathleen Parker

Well, at least they didn’t kiss.

I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.

Don’t look at me. David “Mudcat” Saunders, Edwards’s former rural adviser, came up with the idea, saying Obama should kiss Edwards on the lips “to kill this 41-point loss,” referring to Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in the West Virginia primary.

Instead, the two men exchanged a manly air-hug to commemorate the moment when Edwards threw Clinton under the upholstered sofa on his grandmama’s front porch.

As Edwards gave what amounted to a stump speech highlighting his favorite subject — John Edwards — Americans were reminded of why the North Carolina son-of-a-millworker won’t be their presidential nominee.

Enraptured by his own message, Edwards seemed reluctant to hand over the microphone. He finally relinquished the stage, after describing, yet again, the “wall” that he says divides Americans: “There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama.”

The “wall” refers to the one Edwards erected in the hearts and minds of Americans who hadn’t yet realized they were miserable, disenfranchised and seething with rage — not the wall that used to run through Berlin.

It’s tough to list all the things that make this column so mind-crushingly stupid, but let’s give it a shot:

  • Parker begins the column by calling Edwards and Obama fags.
  • Then, not having the courage to stand by this novel and poignant insight, she claims that it wasn’t her idea to call them fags, but was instead the idea of one of Edwards’ advisers. But hey, they’re still gay homo fruits who like to take it up the homobutt.
  • Next, she pulls out the oldest trick in the Wingnut Punditry Bible: she lectures us about what Real Americans think! Never mind that she’s spent her entire working life on the Wingnut Welfare circuit – she’s got her hand on the pulse of The People, baby!

To sum up: the WaPo just published a fact-free op-ed whose only “substantive” points are that Edwards and Obama are TEH GHEY OMG LOL IT IS TOO FUNNY FOREVER.

Thanks, Fred Hiatt. If you’re looking for new talent along these lines, by the way, I can introduce you to a promising young writer named Miguel Royas. You may not have heard of him before, but he has some absolutely fascinating things to say about gender-related issues as well.


UPDATE: I just don’t get it. How can any person at such a purportedly Serious and Important paper like the WaPo think it’s cool to publish crap like this? Ditto with whatever asshole at the NYT is keeping Maureen Dowd employed. Assholes.

157 Comments »

  1. His Grace said,

    May 17, 2008 at 14:21

    Brad, Brad… give poor Fred Hiatt and Kathleen Parker a break. It’s hard to promote Republicans these days. Hell, Newt Gingrich couldn’t even come up with more than three reasons you should vote for Republicans. Frankly I’m surprised there is as much substance there as there is.

  2. El Cid said,

    May 17, 2008 at 14:22

    She was able to mention Edwards’ $400 haircut but not the fact that his pretty hair made him a superfag. FAIL.

  3. Ripley said,

    May 17, 2008 at 14:34

    … after describing, yet again, the “wall” that he says divides Americans

    The “wall” refers to… – not the wall that used to run through Berlin.

    Whoa, zinger! I totally wasn’t expecting to find out that the wall wasn’t the one that used to run through Berlin! I thought that was exactly the wall that Edwards was referring to!

    She’s a master of the turnaround, a philosophical sniper, a literary ninja!

  4. pedestrian said,

    May 17, 2008 at 14:41

    Obama and Edwards would make a cute couple though. It would be one of those young, rich, beautiful, successful, power-marriages – God, don’t I hate them already.

    At least Billary is soothingly disfunctional.

  5. WereBear said,

    May 17, 2008 at 14:44

    Is it a rampaging coincidence that I ran across this article:

    http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/191-HOMOEROTICISM-IN-ZULU-THE-ELEPHANT-IN-THE-ROOM.html#extended

    as a result of my common habit of combining Wikipedia with whatever movie I am watching at the time?

    That manly thing. A source of endless winger confusion. No wonder they settle for the simple and direct killing people mode to celebrate manly love.

  6. pedestrian said,

    May 17, 2008 at 14:44

    “the wall that divides Americans” also doesn’t refer to the wall running along the Mexican border. You know, the one that is actually in the Americas.

  7. His Grace said,

    May 17, 2008 at 14:53

    I just don’t get it. How can any person at such a purportedly Serious and Important paper like the WaPo think it’s cool to publish crap like this? Ditto with whatever asshole at the NYT is keeping Maureen Dowd employed. Assholes.

    My guess is that those in the media power structure actually believe the crap that they write about (Edwards’ hair, Obama’s bowling, Hillary’s laugh) is important in the eyes of the common person. Probably because that’s what they talk about at all the banquets. It’s a weird sorta projection thing, combined with a notion that high school life is an ideal model for public discourse.

  8. pedestrian said,

    May 17, 2008 at 14:55

    The tabloids could call them Obedwards. O, bed-wards!
    PROOOOOF!!!!!

  9. Some Guy said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:02

    “Instead, the two men exchanged a manly air-hug to commemorate the moment when Edwards threw Clinton under the upholstered sofa on his grandmama’s front porch.”

    I don’t get it. Is this a reference to something that I’m not aware of? Or is it a clumsy “Democrat as Rural Hick” joke? Baffling.

    “The “wall” refers to the one Edwards erected in the hearts and minds of Americans who hadn’t yet realized they were miserable, disenfranchised and seething with rage…”

    It’s true. So very many Americans blame their problems on John Edwards. Splitter!
    Also, sweetie? Ya might want to tone down your references to the Iraq War. Seriously, have you seen what’s been going on in voting recently? It’s not going so well for your team. Stop pointing to the crazy-eyed, blood splattered elephant covered in shards of broken china; people don’t like it.

  10. Dr.BDH said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:14

    I believe World O’Crap correctly labelled Ms. Parker “The Stupidest Columnist in the World” several years ago. In his race to the bottom of the pundit barrel against the NYT, Hiatt apparently just realized there is someone more wrong-headed than Bill Kristol. Reading Parker is like wandering through a fog-shrouded swamp of ignorance, where wingnut cliches hang like Spanish moss from the trees, until you plunge neck-deep into a cesspool of recycled Rovian shit.

  11. witty1 said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:16

    “At least they didn’t kiss”.

    Damn, they stopped just short of teh ghey.

    “The “wall” refers to the one Edwards erected in the hearts and minds of Americans who hadn’t yet realized they were miserable, disenfranchised and seething with rage — not the wall that used to run through Berlin”.

    In other words, the rich. But, I don’t think he gave them any ideas, Kat. Nice try. Thanks for playing.

  12. MzNicky said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:18

    Print is not quite dead, but its life support system is rapidly running out of informed talent and $$. What we’re viewing is its collective death throes, and it’s never a pretty sight.

    Perhaps we can now begin to say the same about the Failed, Failed, Failed and Tragid Reign of Terror of the last eight years. I have to say that, after having been thoroughly disheartened and disengaged during the Dem campaign of gender-vs.-race ugliness, I’m starting now to get a little — what’s the word? — excited? — about watching Obama get into McCain’s shit. It may start to be fun again! McCain’s being chained to Chimpy’s legacy, and Obama’s deservedly lofty position of and proved ability to thoroughly kick the ReThug ass, gives me … hope.

  13. witty1 said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:20

    By the way, there is something about that photo. You can kinda see the light at the end of the tunnel in her eyes, but it’ll probably be a while.

  14. MzNicky said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:20

    PS — when I say “print,” I’m talking MSM, as in WaPo, NYT, etc.

  15. c u n d gulag said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:21

    Kathleen Parker channeling Dorothy Parker:

    ‘These two dandies are like candies,
    But with liquor, they seem slicker…’

    Kathleen, put down the bottle!
    Give us your address and we’ll send an intervention team of specialist’s from addiction center’s and “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy/Gal.”
    Kathleen, you need a make-over. Your cheek’s remind us of Buddha’s butt. Your hair is way too teh retro-early-80′s.
    And your writing? I guess the infinite number of monkey’s with PC’s theory is true. It aint’t Shakespeare, but it is readable. Doesn’t mean it has to make any sense, though.
    This is what happens when one of those infinite monkey’s escapes from the “Style” section…

  16. J— said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:23

    Instead, the two men exchanged a manly air-hug to commemorate the moment when Edwards threw Clinton under the upholstered sofa on his grandmama’s front porch.

    Wow, Edwards’ grandmother has a bus for a sofa. And a front porch big enough to hold it. Cool.

  17. litbrit said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:26

    But…but…Parker looks like such a wholesome, apple-pie-eating, cheerleader-blonde–or assisted blonde–All-American gal! Surely she has her manicured finger on the pulse of The Real People, the hardworking white people. So if she implies we’re all happy and satisfied with the state of the union, well, who’s going to call her out for being dozens of percentage points off the mark? So what if most Americans are starting to sound like those disgruntled libruls these days, all fuming mad about the body count in Iraq and the profiteering and cost-plussing and the shredded, piss-soaked condition of the Constitution and new Astroglide dispensers they’re putting next to gas pumps?

    Look! A rainbow-colored birdie! Let’s shoot it! Grrrr…where’s the Huckster when you need him.

  18. gbear said,

    May 17, 2008 at 15:53

    Obama and Edwards would make a cute couple though. It would be one of those young, rich, beautiful, successful, power-marriages – God, don’t I hate them already.

    But if they were one of those kind of couples, one of them would invariably be a republican. That always seems to be the case with power couples (in MN at any rate).

    Parker must REALLY know what the commoners are thinking if she has her whole hand on the pulse of the people. Most folks only have their finger on the pulse. But then again it’s much easier to keep them held down when you use your entire hand, or even both hands if required.

  19. Krassen said,

    May 17, 2008 at 16:08

    “not the wall that used to run through Berlin.”(???)

    And here I was thinking that it was the Great Wall of China that divides Americans…

  20. OTB said,

    May 17, 2008 at 16:11

    I believe this post only strengthens their point. The point being, any editorial is good if it causes “controversy”–whether or not the basis of that “controversy” is in fact disgust for the very reasons you illuminate. In the ego-narci-journalism world, ANY attention is “good”, regardless of facts or merit. They’re all Andrew Sullivans now.

  21. Anna Granfors said,

    May 17, 2008 at 16:14

    You’re kind of ascribing something resembling principle to both the WaPo and the NYT by expecting better. They are both devoid of principle, and have in fact been shown to be complicit in the crimes of the last eight years (and, I’m sure, before too).

    Expecting our corporate media to all of a sudden come to its senses and do anything resembling their job is foolhardy, I think. Far better to expect the opposite, and be surprised when/if something good sneaks through.

  22. TR said,

    May 17, 2008 at 16:31

    But hey, they’re still gay homo fruits who like to take it up the homobutt.

    So you’re saying that she was insinuating they were Republican congressmen?

  23. TR said,

    May 17, 2008 at 16:33

    And let me add that Parker’s photo appears to have been retouched more than a Mark Foley congressional page.

  24. Dorothy Boudreau said,

    May 17, 2008 at 16:38

    I am responding to Parker’s other comments about “real Americans”, those with enough generations to have our culture in our bonrd, and are therefore more deeply Amercan and suitable for POTUS. Given this logic, would Obama be a more acceptable presidential candidate if his heritage on his father’s side were African-American instead of African? After all, most African Americans’ ancestors arrived here between 1619 and the 1830s. I grew up in the Mississippi Delta in the mid-twentieth century before the rise of the Sunbelt. In my time, almost everyone, Black & White, had been there for six or seven generations. So by her reasoning, we would represent one of the most desirable presidential gene pools.

    And Parker is a columnist with the Washington Post? Pathetic.

  25. JGabriel said,

    May 17, 2008 at 16:49

    Given the in/famous McCain bear hug of Bush, Parker and the Republicans really don’t have a leg to stand on to support this smear.

    And, by the way, that photo really should be included to illustrate this article.

    .

  26. Jennifer said,

    May 17, 2008 at 17:04

    TR beat me to it. How many layers of cheesecloth did they shoot that photo through? Or did they just smear vaseline all over the lens?

    If my cursory web search is any indication, Parker has labored mightily to hide her age…which means of course that 50+ is the best guess.

    BTW, has anyone noticed that Ann Coulter’s flagging popularity with the media has coincided with her increasing haggardness?

    In rwing world, looking good is a higher virtue than being sane.

  27. Waquoit said,

    May 17, 2008 at 17:04

    Kissing is reserved for Bush and Lieberman.

  28. Arky H8r of VürdPress said,

    May 17, 2008 at 17:05

    Don’t you Lieberuls know anything? Male politicians may only have sexual physical contact with other males when a) Contact is initiated in a public bathroom; and/or b) They’ve paid for it.*

    Needless to say said male pol must also attempt to pass laws that would make sexual physical contact between people of the same gender punishable by flogging.

    *Symbolic sexual contact, i.e. verbal testicle lavage is SOP.

  29. Davis said,

    May 17, 2008 at 17:15

    So maybe it’s a good thing that newspaper readership is declining. And maybe this is why.

  30. distributorcap said,

    May 17, 2008 at 17:27

    parker looks nothing like her picture
    must have been her $400 haircut for the photo shoot

  31. tb said,

    May 17, 2008 at 17:43

    How many layers of cheesecloth did they shoot that photo through? Or did they just smear vaseline all over the lens?

    No, that’s what she actually looks like: a disturbingly over-made-up embalmed corpse. Either that or her skin is so covered with blemishes, acne scars, discolored patches, coarse hair, about-to-explode boils and string warts that they had to push Photoshop way beyond it’s rated capacity. Either way, it’s uncanny how a person’s outward appearance can mimic so precisely the piece of shit soul within.

  32. tb said,

    May 17, 2008 at 17:52

    Oh, look, more Kathleen, via Glen, talking about why that blackie shouldn’t be president:

    It’s about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

    Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry’s political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically — and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century — there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.

    We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants — and we are. But there’s a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.

  33. Worth 1000 said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:09

    Jesus, the airbrushing. Is she made of MS Paint?

  34. White Male, Jew of Liberal Fascism said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:11

    Did the wingnuts ever have anything to say about that other photo, the one of Bush-and-Prince-Bandar-holding-hands?

    If so, I must have totally missed it.

  35. owlbear1 said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:13

    “Go ahead and hit ‘blur’ one more time. See if that helps.”

  36. Rupert Anderson said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:16

    Wait, the GOP lost in Mississfuckingsippi? This is the single most hilarious thing to happen since the Vice President of the United States shot a man in the heart and made him apologise for it.

  37. Pug said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:25

    Kathleen Parker did sort of look like that when she got all made up by make-up artists, but that was 15 years ago.

  38. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:27

    Someone likes the column:
    ——————————————————–
    jfisher23 wrote:
    Again the Democratic elite determine who they dubiously want for president. For myself I believe a TESTED AMERICAN woman is needed for the job ahead and if those who think I will vote differently or accept their suck up conclusions are mistaken, and I WILL VOTE MCCANE
    5/17/2008 11:58:01 AM

  39. Snorghagen said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:40

    I just don’t get it. How can any person at such a purportedly Serious and Important paper like the WaPo think it’s cool to publish crap like this?

    Maybe we’ve got some kind of dark parent-hatred thing going on here, with Donald Graham trying to posthumously drag Mama Katharine’s reputation through the mud. Or maybe Donald and Pinch Sulzberger at the NY Times are just incompetent jerks.

    Reading Parker is like wandering through a fog-shrouded swamp of ignorance, where wingnut cliches hang like Spanish moss from the trees, until you plunge neck-deep into a cesspool of recycled Rovian shit.

    You know, that’s not a bad description of American political life in general over the last eight years.

  40. litbrit said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:45

    For myself I believe…. if those who think I will vote differently or accept their suck up conclusions are mistaken, and I WILL VOTE MCCANE

    Because only a “TESTED AMERICAN woman” or McCane (sic) support supplementing American schools’ English classes with extra grammar and spelling lessons?

    In a related note, I recently received a bulk email from one of my kids’ classmates’ mommies that began thus: “How can you except a man who’s preacher said goddamned Americans? Isn’t John McCain (hey at least she spelled it correctly) the real American hero in this alection?”

    *headdesk*

  41. TR said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:48

    Jesus, the airbrushing. Is she made of MS Paint?

    “I’d like to make her a little more attractive; how far can you pull back?”
    “How do you feel about Cleveland?”

  42. Jennifer said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:51

    But you know, you have to agree: it’s a quite stunning journalistic coup on the part of WaPo to secure for their hallowed editorial page the ponderings of an actual Clownhall columnist…one who carries the extra value of sounding exactly like a jr. high school newspaper gossip columnist. If the intrepid anthropologists at the WaPo, who discern the thoughts, feelings, and struggles of Ordinary Americans from their perches inside the beltway, know one thing about Ordinary Americans, it is that they yearn for a return to the halcyon days of jr. high school.

  43. AJ said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:58

    “Kathleen Parker is a conservative U.S. columnist whose columns frequently focus on family, sex roles, and race.”

    Right. Because her dad showed true his true “Republican Family Values” by marrying and divorcing so often, Kathleen was to learn about “real” family values from her FOUR stepmothers. Works every time.

  44. Jennifer said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:59

    librit – I know I shouldn’t do this, but I respond to those emails. And if the sender is foolish enough not to mask his list, I hit “reply all” when I send my response. I got one that had all this shit about god blah blah and Obama’s a Muslim and blah blah that said, “you can check this out for yourself at snopes.com!” So I went to snopes.com, and since I actually know how to use the site, I searched their stuff on Obama, and lo and behold, that exact email popped up and everything on it was of course debunked. So I sent that link in my response to everyone on the list, and said that if the person who originally forwarded it to them had actually checked into it instead of just spreading rumors, they would have seen that it was all false.

    I know it’s a waste of time in that it won’t change any minds that are already made up, but I also think it’s important to call liars out whenever you see them – especially in front of other people.

  45. Duros Hussein 62 said,

    May 17, 2008 at 18:59

    Jesus, the airbrushing. Is she made of MS Paint?

    Gaussian blur run amok.

  46. e said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:00

    Thank you for this post. I live in the DC area, so I subscribe to the Poop. It does have its good points (like the series they did this week on abuses in immigrant detention facilities)…….but poor Mrs. Graham must be cringing in her grave at that reeking oozing dreck Fred threw at us today.

    I never even HEARD of this Parker twit b4……where TF did he find her??

  47. Arky H8r of VürdPress said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:01

    But there’s a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.

    Okey-dokey you heard the lady. From now on only Native American’s may run for president.

  48. pedestrian said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:04

    We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants — and we are. But there’s a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.

    Wait, I thought Obama wasn’t black enough because his mother was a white midwestern woman. Do Kenyan white blood cells neutralize generations of American sacrifice?

  49. henry lewis said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:05

    How many layers of cheesecloth did they shoot that photo through?

    Cheesecloth + vaseline + No.4 SoftFocus filter + photoshop followed by clumsy airbrushing and it ends up looking like a cheap hologram.

    I kept leaning to the sides of my monitor thinking she might morph into Alvin the Chipmunk’s girlfriend.

  50. mikey said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:06

    Don’t worry, Ms. Parker. I’m sure they’ll kiss on a campaign stop in california…

    mikey

  51. Susan of Texas said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:13

    People have already said it, but I’ll stay it again. A substantial number of us came as indentured servants, maids and laborers, convicts, remittance men, wife-abandoners, and debt-dodgers. Millions more never sacrificed a thing, like Goldbergs and Colters.

    Not even to mention the fact that we all originally came from Africa, way back when. (Something the fundamentalists get to deny, making their religion even dearer to them. When they say “I’m not descended from monkeys,” they really mean they can’t be descended from blacks.)

  52. R. Porrofatto said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:16

    As my fellow lookists have mentioned above, it needs to be pointed out every time this “Joan Collins Filter” misrepresentation surfaces that the real Ms. Parker ain’t even close. It’s my duty as a citizen. It’s every bit a lie as what she writes.

  53. Mike said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:25

    The wall that divides Americans is the Pink Floyd album. Some people like it, and some people don’t.

  54. Susan of Texas said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:27

    The jawline doesn’t lie, even when the person does. That’s either an old photo or a morph-to-look-young job.

    Conservative women seem to think they have it made. Nobody expects them to be equal, so they can depend on youth and looks. Then time passes and some new cutie comes along.

    (None of this explain K-Lo.)

  55. Dr.BDH said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:32

    Like any sane person, I find people like Parker and Kristol amusing and maddenling in equal parts, but that’s not why they’re appearing in major newspapers at this time. We’re being softened up, mentally, for the onslaught of stupidity that will be the 2008 Republican campaigns, presidential and congressional. There is nothing about the present reality that could convince a thinking person to vote for a Republican this fall. Yet, the social well-being of Washington and Wall Street depends on maintaining a Republican hegemony. So WaPo and the NYT are starting right now to fill our heads with high octane stupid in hopes we won’t notice how brainless are the attacks from McCain, the RNC, etc. against any and all liberals. It will work, too, at least to the extent that it will let the talking heads like Matthews and Russert and the whole Fox crew focus on nothing but trivia, homophobic and racist innnuendo and, should Hillary remain a presence through the fall, misogyny. We need a vaccine and snarky ridicule is a good start. Keep it up.

  56. Bonnie said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:35

    Didn’t you hear? WaPo has a name change. It is now Pravda on the Potomac.

  57. Jennifer said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:36

    Oh, R. Porrofatto, you just made my day!

    And Susan of Texas, wouldn’t it be wonderful if they all were to participate in the National Geographic’s Human Genome project? Of course the fundies never would, because they don’t believe in DNA. Unless it can keep them from dying and going to meet Jesus right now. But I never tire of pointing out to them the virtual mathematical impossibility that their DNA is “pure” of African contributions within the last 1500 years, even. So there’s no need to go all the way back to the monkeys. All 7 billion of us descended from the same stock of roughly 190 million people 1500 years ago….and something like 15 – 25% of them were black. As such, your chances of not having at least one African ancestor in the recent past are extremely remote, unless you are a “pure” descendant of some isolated group such as Polynesians or Australian aborigines or the like which became geographically isolated more than 1500 years ago. In which case, in fundie terms you’d be a mud person anyway, thanks to the lack of the cultural healing powers of northern European DNA.

  58. Arky H8r of VürdPress said,

    May 17, 2008 at 19:45

    People have already said it, but I’ll stay it again. A substantial number of us came as indentured servants, maids and laborers, convicts, remittance men, wife-abandoners, and debt-dodgers. Millions more never sacrificed a thing, like Goldbergs and Colters.

    Don’t try to keep up with the Brown Squirts’ goal posts, they’ve been fitted with rocket boosters.

    Kat Spackle-Parker is too smart to make the BUT HE’S A NEGRO argument and instead tries to make the case that some Americans are more equal than others and one must have a certain level of Americaness to run for president. And by the way, only certain Americans have the right to decide who else is American enough and you aren’t on the committee.

    However, if you think back to when Schwartzenegger was first elected governator, a good portion of the fRight Wing suddenly decided that citizenship requirements for the presidency were so stupid and unfair.

    The only reason they shut up is because Arnold failed to go all Terminator on the Democrats, kw33rs and assorted DFHs and pile their heads before the Chimperor.

  59. mcc said,

    May 17, 2008 at 20:08

    Sometimes I toy with the idea of getting subscriptions to the Washington Post and NYT, and then just mailing the op-ed pages back to them every day.

  60. Susan of Texas said,

    May 17, 2008 at 20:27

    Yes, trying to fight the lies is useless; they can lie faster than we can verify. That’s why I believe in mocking and name-calling. It slows them down quite a lot.

    The fundies would just deny again if they actually learned the facts of their heritage. Lie, lie, lie. They’re not just supporting a political candidate, they’re trying to preserve a system where whites can feel racially superior to blacks. We actually need a major push from liberals/Democrats to fight their racist self-pity parties. They need to be called racists as often as possible. Let them prove they’re not.

  61. Batocchio said,

    May 17, 2008 at 20:27

    Holy crap.

  62. jrosen said,

    May 17, 2008 at 20:32

    You could also note that a good many ancestors of those real Amurcans in the rural South fought very hard against the United States of America. If blood tells, what does this say?

  63. Susan of Texas said,

    May 17, 2008 at 20:38

    Yeah, the Southerners have treasonous blood. And since many of them moved North after WWII, there’s probably a lot of treasonous blood all over the Midwest and East. Plus Texas was also a separate country for a while, seceeding from the US and Mexico. They betrayed two countries, if you want to be censorious. More treasonous blood! And what of the Irish Americans who supported Mexicans against the US, and later Germany against Great Britain? What of the Tories, for that matter? Our old Virginny families and others might have treasonous blood too.

    This is very serious. I think we all ought to have blood tests and then execute ourselves for treason. It’s the only red-blooded thing to do.

  64. Lamar said,

    May 17, 2008 at 20:56

    I guess it was OK when John McCain and president Bush hugged on the White House steps, does that make them girly?

  65. Galactic Dustbin said,

    May 17, 2008 at 21:07

    there was no airbrushing or photoshoping of that picture- she really IS that fuzzy- its a side effect of being slightly out of phase with reality.

  66. Robert Green said,

    May 17, 2008 at 21:08

    everyone who is not dutch is filled with hate for this country!

    new amsterdam shall never die, or kill van kull, or something.

  67. Robert Green said,

    May 17, 2008 at 21:09

    also, as the husband of someone who does copious amounts of retouching on celebrities, even i have to say: wow and holy shit does kathleen parker have a ridiculous photo head shot. i mean, seriously.

  68. whalleywhat said,

    May 17, 2008 at 21:44

    It’s hard to take a decent photograph of someone who’s completely hollow inside. Just shy of a vampire, her image will actually print to film, but no amount of soft focus will warm her cold, dead smile.

  69. Pandagon :: Good old Republican Obama-Edwards fag-baiting WaPo op-ed :: May :: 2008 said,

    May 17, 2008 at 22:13

    [...] “Breck Girl” reference to the former NC senator going to make comeback? I leave it to Brad at Sadly, No to break this sh*t down. It’s tough to list all the things that make this column so [...]

  70. Jennifer said,

    May 17, 2008 at 22:20

    I’m pretty sure she had that photo taken at Glamour Shots down at the mall…what’s funny is that even with all the re-touching, they left her eyebrows gray.

  71. Susan of Texas said,

    May 17, 2008 at 23:10

    She doesn’t have the flair of your Kaye Grogan, or the flights of fanciful madness of your Peggy Noonan. It’s hard to stand out in a group that includes pep squad princess Michelle Malkin and homunculus Ann Coulter.

  72. Pope Ratzo said,

    May 17, 2008 at 23:32

    Kathleen Parker looks like the drunk girl who’s still sitting on a bar stool looking for a date at last call. The last guy who was chatting her up about 2:30am pulled the “I’ve got to go to the bathroom”/sneak out the back door trick when he realized she’s a total bore and has dog breath.

    She’s waiting for an eligible Republican male, but they’re all too busy having sex with each other to give her a shot.

    She’ll ask her girlfriend tomorrow morning while waiting in line at Starbucks if “every single man is gay”, which is why she resorted to the whole “faggellah” line about Obama/Edwards. Like Dowd, girlfriend has ISSUES.

  73. Bruce said,

    May 17, 2008 at 23:35

    Photoshop, thy name is Parker.

  74. o'scrod said,

    May 17, 2008 at 23:37

    According to Thomas Frank you can tell a backlash commentator by the absence of economics in their thought. It’s all “them” and their perversion. Parker seems to satisfy this requirement. The little I’ve read of Dowd was also pretty economics-free. Let’s say she seems to fail to get much beyond Brooks’ “Society equals high school” theory. Is she a faux progressive backlasher?

  75. Simba B said,

    May 17, 2008 at 23:37

    In case any of you were wondering where we’d wondering where we’d seen this Mudcat thing before.

  76. Simba B said,

    May 17, 2008 at 23:38

    o’scrod—

    I think that the entirety of Maureen Dowd’s shit output can be summarized by the sentence “society equals high school”.

  77. Gundamhead said,

    May 18, 2008 at 0:11

    Why do right wing women all seem like such freaks? I mean, really, is there any lefty pundit who even comes close to Parker or Malkin or fucking Phillis Shlafley? Is there any righty female who isn’t a neurotic shrew?

  78. akak said,

    May 18, 2008 at 0:40

    let miss airbrush, i mean airhead, know what you think of her:
    kparker1@mindspring.com

    i’m surprised that this hateful screed

    But there’s a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice”

    was published in Jewish World Review, or do they make the cutoff date for “generations of sacrifice”?

  79. a.j. said,

    May 18, 2008 at 1:03

    link from greenwald, huh? nice.

  80. Larkspur said,

    May 18, 2008 at 1:26

    Strictly regarding the glamour photo: I don’t get it, either. I’ve seen the photo that R. Porrofatto links to upthread at 19:16 (5-17), and there’s nothing wrong with it. It is the face of a normal, attractive middle-aged woman. Gah. She must really really believe that O’Reilly bullcrap about how Hillary can’t be president because no one wants to see a woman age in such a public fashion. And that’s just freakin sad.

    I remember Jodie Foster saying something about how it’d been suggested that she get a rhinoplasty to make her nose more photogenic. She decided against it, saying she’d rather have people look at her and say, “God, that woman’s nose is ugly” rather than “God, that woman’s nose job is ugly”. I mean, why cede that power so easily, and so predictably?

    So when Parker opts not just for skillful camera work, a stylist, and excellent lighting, but for the super-sized PhotoShop nightmare, it’s like she’s saying she’d rather have people say, “God, that woman looks embalmed” rather than, “God, that that woman hasn’t been 35 for a while”. Oof.

  81. IceNine said,

    May 18, 2008 at 1:31

    I’m not drinking the kool aid, Kathleen; I recall a previous experiment with your Generations Pedigree principle of citizenship.

    Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Decider.

  82. The Truth said,

    May 18, 2008 at 1:44

    Dr DBH tells us, “There is nothing about the present reality that could convince a thinking person to vote for a Republican this fall.”

    I can think of a few, if this pathetic echo chamber wants to hear it:

    1) Obama is committed to raising taxes
    2) Obama is committed to protectionism, a sure path to continuing and deepening any economic downturn
    3) Obama wishes to “change” the direction of Bush’s prosecution of the war on terrorists, a war that has kept the USA free from Islamic terrorism since 2001.

    I think that’s enough, don’t you?

  83. gbear said,

    May 18, 2008 at 1:59

    ’cause all that stuff has worked out so excellently so far…

  84. HairlessMonkeyDK said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:00

    Hey, Truthyness.
    No.

  85. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:15

    1.Overused
    2.Nobody knows or cares
    3.Go on, talk about the war all you like. We’ll bring up Iraq.

    We vote with our wallet, period.

  86. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:15

    That is, anyone who isn’t sure by now goes with gut reaction, and right now the gut says ouch.

  87. The Truth said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:19

    Um, voting with your wallet would be for lower taxes and free trade. I find it very interesting that your comment on protectionism is “nobody knows or cares” – hoping that ignorance will garner Democratic votes in the fall? You also completely punt on my point about terrorism.

    You have nothing, and you’ve just admitted it. Simple and elegant.

  88. Jennifer said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:25

    The only problem with your hypothesis is that voting for lower taxes is voting against your wallet. Everything costs more now because instead of instituting a sound fiscal policy of not spending more than we take in in taxes, the Bush administration response has been to just print more money, effectively shrinking the value of every dollar in our pockets. Most people are smart enough to realize that the stupid $600 pittance they got in a tax cut hasn’t made up for the thousands of dollars of increase in their cost of living each year.

  89. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:27

    No, voting with your wallet means opening it up and seeing how little is inside there. “Lower taxes” has been a winning slogan for a long time now, but people don’t have more money, they have less. They tend to notice things like that.

    The same thing with your terrorism flogging. I know you guys get down on your hands and knees every day and pray for another attack to make you feel important enough to be persecuted, but nobody else does. You pinned the war on Iraq, you failed, and now nobody cares. You don’t make them feel good about war anymore. It’s a bummer now, and you are the bumee.

  90. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:28

    h/t Neil Simon

  91. rachel said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:33

    If someone tells MoDo that Parker has stolen her shtick, will we get to see a cat fight?

  92. The Truth said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:46

    Susan,

    The way out of a recession is not to raise taxes and protectionist barriers. Economics is barely a science but I’m on fairly solid ground with that statement.

    Islamic terrorists have not struck the USA since late 2001, when the Bush administration began its vigorous prosecution of the war on terrorists. Is it your hypothesis that the terrorists got bored, lost focus, or don’t exist? Or is it more likely that the aggressive, take-it-to-them policies of George W Bush are responsible? It’s impossible to prove a negative but common sense dictates the answer.

    Your own lack of sense shows in your nasty little comment that I’m praying for another attack, which if it occured would actually weaken my argument. But trust a liberal to surrender logic if they can spew venom Michelle Obama-like at Americans.

  93. Henderstock said,

    May 18, 2008 at 2:49

    I’ll leave the aesthetic reviews of Ms. Parker’s mug to connoisseurs of Doris Day movies; the lady should be judged by her prose.

    By her standard of “blood equity,” I wonder how she would rate the relative presidential prospects of her op-ed colleagues Charles Krauthammer and Eugene Robinson. Of course, her standards are Malkinian, to say the least.

    And the least is exactly what she deserves.

  94. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 3:03

    Too bad Bush started his vigorous prosecution (almost none of which has come to fruition) after 9/11 instead of before.

    By the way, where’s that guy who actually attacked us again? Bin Something.

    While the squabbling is entertaining, the facts are very simple. Republicans ran the economy into the ground. They ran the military into the ground. They ran the infrastructure into the ground. They ran the dollar into the ground. They ran our reputaion into the ground. Most of all they ran our image of a superpower into the ground. Bush et al weakened us considerably.

    I don’t worry about elections and internet squabbles. They’re entertainment for the masses. I worry about family and our future. We warned you, and we’re not going to let you sit and bitch about the consequences of of your actions.

  95. Jennifer said,

    May 18, 2008 at 3:15

    The way out of a recession is not to raise taxes and protectionist barriers.

    Funny you should bring that up…because that’s exactly how the ’92 – ’93 recession ended..with raising taxes on people in upper income brackets. As for “protectionist” barriers, it all depends on your definition of the word “protectionist”. Is it “protectionist” to limit or stop importation of food products tainted with dangerous chemicals? Toys with lead paint? Because that’s what you get when the “free market” is king. Sure, those green beans imported from China selling under the Kroger store brand label are cheaper. Therein lies the problem: it’s impossible to grow a low value-added product of that type 6,000 miles away, ship it, and still have it priced cheaper than the beans grown a couple of miles down the road, if all beans are equal. The answer of course is that all beans aren’t equal; the ones grown in China aren’t grown under the health and safety regulations that we rely on in this country, and that even at that are not all that strict. And even taking all of that into consideration, the price of fuel being what it is, it is suspect that this type of product could be moved that far and still be priced less than a domestic product, which makes me suspect predatory pricing designed to cut into the domestic market.

    You could call that “protectionism” as in, providing consumers with reasonable protection from harmful products and domestic producers protection from predatory pricing. I think a better thing to call it would be “common sense”.

  96. Jennifer said,

    May 18, 2008 at 3:20

    Hey, looking at that picture again, you know what would be funny? If someone was to draw a mustache and horns, or black out a few teeth on it. Because, you know, it just looks like one of those pictures that begs for the application of obvious additions in black Sharpee. If I had a hard copy of it, it would already be done.

    Photoshop doesn’t have to just be friends with Kathleen; it can be friends with us snarksters too.

  97. Gundamhead said,

    May 18, 2008 at 3:30

    “While the squabbling is entertaining, the facts are very simple. Republicans ran the economy into the ground. They ran the military into the ground. They ran the infrastructure into the ground. They ran the dollar into the ground. They ran our reputaion into the ground. Most of all they ran our image of a superpower into the ground. Bush et al weakened us considerably.”

    Yes, but Barack Obama would rather eat imported ham from Spain instead of a nice working class sandwich, his middle name is Hussein, and he can’t bowl. Also, Micheal Moore is fat and Al Gore grew a beard.

    Advantage: McCain.

  98. Phoenician in a time of Romans said,

    May 18, 2008 at 3:31

    Dear Kathleen,

    John McCain is not going to fuck you.

    No matter how much you may fantasize about how manly he is, and by extension how girly his opponents are.

    Yrs sincerely,
    Reality.

  99. scott said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:14

    That air brushed photo of KP is freaking me out!
    Look at those glassy eyes!Demonic!

  100. purpleOnion said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:15

    Dear Kathleen has a problem. She thinks her shit does not stink. With so many conservatives kissing her ass, (hoping that an act of god would find them trapped on a desert island,) she must feel like quite the fisherperson. Give only the “right” people a hint of immodesty and they’ll be slobbering all over themselves, be sickening sweet, or arrogantly certain, but polite.

    With her type of writing, I am tempted to ask, “Who’s screwing the pooch?” On a serious note, one must pity women who suffer from the Electra complex, it is so deceitful, and makes other adults uncomfortable.

  101. Bill Wilson said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:19

    Dear Kathleen,

    Thanks for airbrushing and soft-focusing me.

    Next photo,however, try Vaseline on the lens and moving the camera to Cleveland.

    Love,
    Your Face

  102. Southern Beale said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:19

    The two exchanged a “manly air hug” eh? How does that compare to the gigantic bear hug McCain gave Bush?

    Once upon a time crackpots like Kathleen Parker would have been laughed out of the room. Now they’re legitimized by the WaPo? That says a lont about how far the WaPo has fallen.

  103. purpleOnion said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:27

    Yes, but Barack Obama would rather eat imported ham from Spain instead of a nice working class sandwich, his middle name is Hussein, and he can’t bowl. Also, Micheal Moore is fat and Al Gore grew a beard.

    ham from Spain? Is this contraband?
    working class sandwich? Please describe.
    he can’t bowl. Yes, and that means what?
    middle name. True, and…
    fat? Total number of fat people in U.S.?
    beard? Is a bearded man really trying to make his
    face have the appearance of female genitalia?

    What else is relevant to the presidential election?

    Advantage: Obama

  104. Napoleon Bonaparte™³²®© said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:34

    You also completely punt on my point about terrorism.

    Enlist, chickenhawk.

    Take Jonah and the rest of the Cheetos™ warriors with you.

  105. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:49

    Conservatives are crazy. Their only question is “are we winning” and they never seem to wonder if they should be fighting in the first place.

    Once there were two men. One man was drunk and started to pick a fight. He wouldn’t let go. So the second man said okay, meet me outside and we’ll fight. The drunk went outside into the snow and the first man locked the door.

    Which would you rather be, the drunk trying to fight or the man sitting before the fire, laughing his head off?

  106. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:50

    argh, the second man locked the door.

  107. Bob Jones said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:54

    jfisher23 wrote:
    Again the Democratic elite determine who they dubiously want for president. For myself I believe a TESTED AMERICAN woman is needed for the job ahead and if those who think I will vote differently or accept their suck up conclusions are mistaken, and I WILL VOTE MCCANE
    5/17/2008 11:58:01 AM

    I so agree! He really is a woman…

  108. SomeNYGuy said,

    May 18, 2008 at 4:54

    Susan, you’re drunk. I’m locking the door.

  109. The Enemy Below said,

    May 18, 2008 at 5:05

    Too Bad!!I Really Used To admire Kathleen Parker!!
    Now,She’s Trying To turn Into Ann”The Devil’s Grandaughter”Coulter!!!
    Kathleen,Step Away from The Abyss!!
    Don’t Let Yourself Be Lured Into Becoming An Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin Clone!!

  110. John Gear said,

    May 18, 2008 at 5:20

    Kathleen Parker wrote a very, very sorrowful column about the terrible “electronic lynching” that teh gays were inflicting on poor old Dr. Laura (something about her being a vicious homophobic hypocrite).

    This was too much for me and I sent Parker a letter contrasting Matthew Shepards actual lynching with poor, poor Dr. Laura, left only with millions of dollars and thousands of mindless zombie fans like Parker.

    She failed to reply.

  111. Walking Wounded said,

    May 18, 2008 at 6:28

    Kathleen Parker’s picture posted above, literally portrays the lilly-white skin of many of the women I got to know while I was living in the deep South, in Mississippi.

    It’s very familiar to me . . . as is the ignorant, self-delusional and ultimately racist mindset that often goes along with it.

    She lives in the South and she is a southerner. A racist, white-supremacist (those terms are redundant) southerner.

    ‘Nuff said.

  112. alogicbit said,

    May 18, 2008 at 6:49

    well aside from wondering what pathetic and banal intellect could produce such drivel [oh wait a right winger with a tepid IQ might be able to pull it off ...comments?].

    I was wondering if you Ms. Parker, have indeed see the working end of a PENIS? Let alone the underside …would you know where to look?

    buwahahaha.

  113. Richard Silverstein said,

    May 18, 2008 at 7:28

    The WashPo’s editorial pg. is esp. awful on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    But while we’re crticizing editorial page editors what was the NYT thinking when they gave cherished space to Edward Luttwak’s wingnut hysteria about Obama wrecking U.S. relations with the Muslim world because he’s not only a Muslim apostate, but a Christian convert. Again, a fact free piece just like the best wingnutery.

  114. daveinboca said,

    May 18, 2008 at 9:02

    Kathleen Parker is better than 90% of the bird droppings from the moonbat left on every morning’s Op-Eds of the MSM spew-sites, like the NYT, LAT [altho Robert Scheer was evicted]. Bob Herbert is ten times worse than Kathleen. Anyone wanna know about Edwards’ love-child in an NC gated community?

    I guess you degenerates loved Jamie Rubin’s defection from Hillary to the Magic Negro using a hoax-edit YouTube. Just your style.

  115. o'scrod said,

    May 18, 2008 at 9:46

    Dave in Boca,

    You’ve incorrectly used the indefinite farticle.

  116. ReallyEvilCanine said,

    May 18, 2008 at 11:16

    OH NOES! ALL TEH POLLITISHINS AER TEH GHEY!!

  117. Realist said,

    May 18, 2008 at 13:18

    Islamic terrorists have not struck the USA since late 2001, when the Bush administration began its vigorous prosecution of the war on terrorists

    So your argument is basically “At least he did’t let it happen twice!”

  118. CasdraBlog » Blog Archive » links for 2008-05-18 said,

    May 18, 2008 at 13:30

    [...] Sadly, No! » Thanks, Fred Hiatt! (tags: politics) [...]

  119. Stuart Eugene Thiel said,

    May 18, 2008 at 14:10

    Back when Arnold’s star was rising, weren’t the Goops floating the idea of amending the “natural born citizen” requirement of the Constitution? Now, we’re told that you have to have roots several generations deep to be Prez. It’s so hard to keep up.

  120. Henry Bemis said,

    May 18, 2008 at 15:35

    To The truth,Stop giving Bush the credit for the fact that there has been no more terrorist attacks on America.Every clear thinking person knows it is because I have been wearing my lucky Boston Red Sox jersey ever since 9-11.Let’s give credit where credit is due.

  121. Dr.BDH said,

    May 18, 2008 at 15:35

    I’d like to thank Mr. T for proving my point: there is nothing about the present reality that would convince a thinking person to vote Republican in the fall. Hysteria over what President Obama might do, misguided beliefs about the War on Terror, and of course the Muslim-unAmerican-darkie tripe we’ll be hearing all summer — that will make some people vote Republican. But you have to be blind to the present state of our economy, the safety of our ports and reactors, the strain on our military, the erosion of our constitutional protections — to name just a few pieces of the nightmare known as the Bush years — to think putting more Republicans in charge is a good idea.

  122. KAREN HAGGERTY said,

    May 18, 2008 at 16:36

    YOU, MY DEAR, ARE A FOOL.

  123. grascarp said,

    May 18, 2008 at 16:39

    Ms. Parker’s typical Republican response to the Democrat’s newest alliance is just more of the same mis-leading and bitter lies . What a waste.

  124. Mefungu said,

    May 18, 2008 at 16:41

    Kathleen Parker is dead. The Post article and her picture prove it. Her mortician actually wrote the commentary and propped her up for the photo op. Afterwards, she self-cremated when her remains spontaneously burst into flames due to some sort of chemical reaction on her face. The Post will continue to accept and publish random editorial submissions in her name and will occasionally retouch and repost that photo. (Post does the same for all their dead editorial writers)

  125. The Truth said,

    May 18, 2008 at 16:49

    Bush has hardly been a model of small government conservatism. If that is your desire, though, who would you vote for? McCain, who will veto earmarks, or Obama, who grew up in Chicago transferring money from an ever-shrinking tax base to a greedy, entitled constituency?

    Free trade versus protectionism is an issue that Susan hopes no one care about. There is a reason for that; tariffs add to the cost of living to the benefit of small subclasses of the economy. Obfuscate all you want, liberals, this is reality and you can’t handle it.

    That takes care of the economic issues that you liberals inexplicably believe favor you. It all really starts with national security, though. I can’t wait for that discussion to begin in earnest. I bet even you liberals were worried on Sep 12 2001 that the Islamic war against America had begun on a large scale. Bush has pursued them to the ends of the Earth; it is you liberals that are undone by the success of our security policies. You people are pathetic and laughable.

    Then there is the issue of Obama’s character. You can’t unring a bell. Obama’s connections to the extremely nasty Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers have unsettled people; no one is really going to talk about it much but the damage is done, no matter what people tell pollsters.

    You liberals are – once again – on the wrong side of everything. I am starting to think, however, that your echo chambers here and elsewhere have actually got you thinking you are right – how much sweeter then when reality hits! This election is going to surprise the hell out of you liberals. I can’t wait!

  126. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 16:55

    Sorry, dude, you’re the one pissing his pants in fear of invasion, not us. It’s pretty simple. You’re a coward and racist. Everything else is justification after the fact. You see brown skin and your sphincter weakens and hands get tingly and your mind starts racing. Will he kill me? Smother me in brown babies? Steal my women and convert them?

    Ah, well. Enjoy your panic and fear. We have kids to raise and jobs to do and people to help.

  127. The Truth said,

    May 18, 2008 at 17:01

    Susan drops back in punt formation, the snap is good, and the punt is away……..

    I have the same skin in the game you do, sweetie, only I don’t surrender to liberal demagogary. Protectionism sounds good – only it will raise the price of everything. Tax the rich sounds great – until you realize it hits you too. Appease terrorists sounds like the easy way out – until you remember that only aggressively hunting them down has been effective.

    Ah, well. Enjoy your narcissistic echo chamber. I have kids to raise (insert typical S!N self-aggrandizing blah blah blah)

    PS When is the funny coming back? The Truth hurt that bad?

  128. bassman said,

    May 18, 2008 at 17:11

    Is this the same newspaper that broke the Watergate story? Maybe we should start calling you the Washington Globe because you and the rest of print media have turned into tabloid journalists. Maybe that’s the reason the viewership of your ilk is plummeting. The rediculous inuendo that you stoop to these days to “capture our dime”, as Paul Simon eloquently put it, is reason enough to look for alternative sources for real news. I’m kinda tired of the Ken and Barbie doll approach to “catapulting the propaganda” as the idiot in the white house put it. Incidently, where was your outrage when the Saudi Prince and (p)resident Bush strolled hand and hand or the war monger Lieberman and Bushie poo embraced?

  129. Djur said,

    May 18, 2008 at 17:20

    demagogary

    Impostor. At least the real Twooth can spell.

  130. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 17:26

    You go ahead and ponder mightily the issues of protectionism and tax cuts. Pull your chin and stroke your beard and whatever else you stroke. Becuse it’s nothing but autoeroticism. The multi-national conglomerates that run the show will, you know, run the show. The Republican dittoheads will vote for McCain like their masters tell them to, never caring about the issues.

    Your problem is the people who don’t pay attention and have no idea who to vote for. That’s who you should be talking to, not us. You won’t change our minds; you’re just trolling Sadly, No! becasue the echo chamber is too stupid to be amusing. You depend on liberals for the funny, and you can’t stand them. Sad.

    But funny.

  131. Bullsmith said,

    May 18, 2008 at 17:41

    My my, the Truth is sounding awfully desperate these days.

  132. Susan of Texas said,

    May 18, 2008 at 17:44

    Is there in Truth no Beauty?

  133. Bitter Scribe said,

    May 18, 2008 at 18:09

    She was able to mention Edwards’ $400 haircut but not the fact that his pretty hair made him a superfag. FAIL.

    Oh, she’s mentioned that plenty of times before. The “tee-hee let’s tiptoe up to calling Edwards a fag but not quite do it tee-hee-hee” theme is tried and true for her. She basically sees herself, as far as I can tell, as a civilized alternative to Ann Coulter.

  134. Arn Gunnutes said,

    May 18, 2008 at 18:35

    Subject: I LOVED your WP article: “George W. Bush and Jeff Gannon are FAGS”
    Sunday, May 18, 2008 12:14 PM
    From: “Arn Gunnutes”

    To: kparker@kparker.com

    Cc: ombudsman@washpost.com

    Message:

    Oh, wait, you never told us about THAT one.

    Or the TREASONOUS George W. Bush KISSING THE LIPS of Saudi Princes who FINANCE Al Queda and the TERRORISTS.

    But Edwards/Obama MUST be GAY. Especially if YOU SAY SO, right???

    Sincerely,

    NRA Gun Nut(e)s

    P.S. Walter Cronkite requested that I ask you what your line of work is. I told him I thought it was journalism.

    But Old Walter just nearly LAUGHED HIMSELF TO DEATH.

    PLEASE tell us your profession, and PLEASE don’t cause Walter to DIE!!

  135. tontocal said,

    May 18, 2008 at 18:42

    After reading then printing up the article and wiping my ass with it, I immediately put my ‘bitch boots’ on and emailed the WaPo Ombudsman and the Executive Editor.

  136. Jelperman said,

    May 18, 2008 at 18:54

    This is the same Kathleen Parker who used her column to promote death threats against John Kerry, then tried to blame it all on a special forces officer who doesn’t exist.

  137. tontocal said,

    May 18, 2008 at 19:26

    Hey ‘Truth”,

    Give your poor brain neurons and synapses a break. They went on a ‘work to rule’ campaign a long time ago and have been misfiring ever since. As with much of your lot, you failed to notice that they weren’t creating any new pathways anymore.

  138. SomeNYGuy said,

    May 18, 2008 at 19:30

    Leave The Truth alone. He’s very busy. He has kids to rape.

  139. cosmosis said,

    May 18, 2008 at 19:53

    Remember, Kathleen Parkwhore is also a proud member of The Strom Thurmond Institute at U of South Carolina. My guess is she bought one of those racist t-shirts from the Georgia bar.

  140. jitter said,

    May 18, 2008 at 19:56

    I quit reading newspapers a long time ago.
    Who’s Kathleen Parker?

  141. Baldwin Huey said,

    May 18, 2008 at 22:09

    My local newspaper, The Forum, at Fargo, ND publishes columns by Kathleen Parker and Cal Thomas more often than any others, and yet local yahoos write letters to the editor and call talk radio and whine about the liberal bent to the newspaper.

  142. John Dickerson said,

    May 19, 2008 at 0:46

    Parker is a real dick!

  143. Thom Jeff said,

    May 19, 2008 at 1:19

    “Mr Truth” apparently said…

    “McCain, who will veto earmarks, or Obama, who grew up in Chicago transferring money from an ever-shrinking tax base to a greedy, entitled constituency?”

    That’s satire, right? You REALLY want to talk about transferring money from “an ever-shrinking tax base” to a “greedy, entitled constituency”?

    If you’re serious, the irony of the cluelessness of the right has truly spiked.

  144. truman said,

    May 19, 2008 at 4:13

    this self-loathing air-brushed lesbian shouldn’t be throwing any gay stones in a gay glass house…

  145. will said,

    May 19, 2008 at 5:23

    It’s not Turner, it’s the national forum in the name free speech that the corporate controlled WaPo propaganda machine provides that’s really offensive. Just merge this rag of deceit with the Washington Times so everyone can recognize the difference.

  146. Ham I Am said,

    May 19, 2008 at 8:05

    I remember reading this piece in the WaPo and wondering if it was satire (eg, in the vein of the Onion), and doing a double and triple take to see who the author was. Pretty sad stuff.

  147. (Lex) I Don't Want a Lawn (Azagthoth) said,

    May 19, 2008 at 13:43

    Wow, “The Truth”. I’m trembling. Can you come up with anything to induce shaking? How about this one “Truth”: you’re so obsessed with the politics of willing self-identification and seething so hard at those you consider self-identified as “liberals” that your view is too skewed to count. You’re also playing right into the hands of divisive politics that have stratified this country right down to the city level, adding to the urban revitalization that happens when abusive folks like yourselves cause anyone center to left-of center to refuse to live in the outer suburbs (look up “the doughnut model” which has replaced “the white flight model” in urban trends of living).

    Have fun remaining the useful tool of the Kings of Talking Points and let us know when you actually decide to think for yourself.

    And one last thing, when most people I know heard Obama’s “bitter” comments, our response was that finally someone high up on the political ladder had finally told THE TRUTH. Thanks for playing.

  148. TrumanDem said,

    May 19, 2008 at 18:04

    Someone up thread mentioned Ms. Parkers photo in relation to her throwing around inferred homosexuality as a pejoritive. I dare say it obvious Ms. Parker’s photo has been subjected to a massive intrusion of air brushing. For a moment I was flashing back to one of Liz Taylor’s perfume ads that seemed to be filmed through some kind of opaque lens to wash away the years.

    TrumanDem

    Truman’s Conscience
    “The Buck Stopped Here”

  149. A Better Kathleen said,

    May 19, 2008 at 18:47

    Nice of WaPo to shut their comments page. After reading that P.O.S. article I was looking forward to congratulating Parker on her Republican Dick-Sucking skills, but WaPo wouldn’t let me. What a tool. I hope Hiatt at least rinsed his balls to lessen the GOP-stank before she coddled them with her tongue. I mean, every whore has her limits, right Kathleen?

  150. disinterested observer said,

    May 19, 2008 at 19:35

    I believe that the technical term for the writing in this column is gibberish.

    Clearly the author has been studying the work of Maureen Dowd who perfected the art of composing gibberish in her now famous column on Hillary Clinton’s tears – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html

    As noted by Wikipedia: Gibberish is a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but has no actual meaning (such as “ja sun tecumba tapar”) or (“la bgud duyier jusrekd, oh mai!”). This meaning has also been extended to meaningless text or gobbledygook, such as “the cats are eating my shmibbleboop, someone save the prostate gland from defibble nozzle sands”. The common theme in gibberish statements is a lack of literal sense, which can also be described as a presence of nonsense.

    See also : Double Dutch, Grammelot, Jabberwocky, The Ketchup Song, Lorem ipsum, Macarron Chacarron , Mojibake , Mumbo Jumbo, Nonsense, Scat singing, Simlish, Vonlenska

  151. loofabear said,

    May 19, 2008 at 20:38

    don’t forget…

    kparker@kparker.com.

  152. Quentin said,

    May 19, 2008 at 22:34

    This lady is very white. I thought I’d make a silly racist comment, you know, like a bookend for her friendly, loving, backhanded-in-your-face trashing of gays and lesbians and anyone else who happens to be lying around.

  153. johnnynewyorker said,

    May 19, 2008 at 22:54

    Looking at her picture you think of the local tramp that would hang out at the bar of the T.G.I. Friday’s or Houghlihan’s closest to whatever suburban office park; then, after reading her column you realize she isn’t that, but rather she is the stupid tramp that would hang out at the bar of the T.G.I. Friday’s or Houghlihan’s closest to whatever suburban office park

  154. David said,

    May 19, 2008 at 23:32

    Sorry lady–Ann Coulter already played this tune. Can’t anyone on the right be original anymore? LOL

  155. AG said,

    May 20, 2008 at 22:24

    There used to be a much better index of browsable images, but this site will give you nightmares of digitally-retouched children.

    You can also start here for a voyage of the photoshopped damned. Keep clicking on “More Samples” until you can’t stand it any more and/or vomit.

  156. tracy said,

    June 13, 2008 at 8:29

    Would you believe she’s won some sort of H.L. Mencken Writing Award?

    Mencken must be spinning in his grave.

  157. High standards at the Washington Post Op-Ed page said,

    December 14, 2010 at 6:59

    [...] and Edwards are pretty, weak girls who wanted to hug and kiss each other?UPDATE: Brad at Sadly, No notes a few other points about the Parker Op-Ed.UPDATE II: Hilzoy notes that because Parker’s columns are distributed [...]

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()