'Please fire Kathleen Parker'

by CynthiaYockey on November 28, 2009

Dear Stacy asks today, “Is Kathleen Parker’s evil under-rated?” and provides his 2009 Evil Top 10 rankings.

First — regarding Kathleen Parker: yes, Stacy. Yes, it is. My headline has quotes because one of the very first indications to me that I was becoming a fiscal conservative was that after one of her more egregious columns — probably an attack on Sarah Palin — I wrote those words in an e-mail to the editors of National Review Online explaining why I thought they should fire Parker’s ass forthwith and that if a liberal Democrat lesbian was explaining this to them it was something they take very seriously, by which I meant, “Do immediately.”

They didn’t, and a few months ago I was mentioning this to a friend who said that she owes her position at National Review to her wealthy husband’s generosity. Gentle and Better Informed Readers, is that true? Did Parker, um, how should I put this — sleep her way to prominence? As a conservative, does Parker hate women who have not ascended in their profession the old-fashioned way, to wit, on their backs? Is that the real reason she hates Sarah Palin, who has overcome amazing obstacles and vanquished powerful enemies by dint of her own efforts — a hatred that surely has only been intensified by Gov. Palin’s new wealth as an author and her proven ability to pwn the president of the United States, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid FROM FACEBOOK?


Anyway, back to Stacy’s list: mostly I agree, but I think the number 2 slot should be considered a wild card, to allow for customization. I nominate Obama — he is destroying the U.S. as a capitalistic democratic republic.

As for number 3, it’s not a tie because Charles Johnson is now effectively working WITH Osama bin Laden. However, since the precedent of a tie has been established, I move to have the number 5 slot be a tie between Fidel and Raul Castro and Kim Jung Il in order to open up the number 7 slot for Oprah Winfrey, who is demonstrably more evil than Charles Manson because she used her public platform and our trust to choose Obama as president, while number 8, Charles Manson, has been restricted to a considerably smaller field of influence for decades now due to his unfortunate incarceration.

In fact, I move to bump Manson in favor of the leaders of the victim identity, race-baiting, capitalism destruction and totalitarian-hugging industries: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Donna Brazile, La Raza, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Naomi Wolf, Arianna Huffington, ACORN leader Bertha Lewis and ACORN founder Wade Rathke, global warming hoax-monger and profiteer Al Gore, the scientists spearheading the global warming hoax at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, science czar John Holdren, and the editors and publishers of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and pretty much everyone at MSNBC and CNN. What? Liberals LOVE diversity and it was their idea that self-esteem comes from praise rather than achievement — they would be offended if just one person were nominated in this slot. Everybody gets a ribbon just for showing up.

Well, well, well, this is a surprise — Maureen Dowd still does not make the cut. I hate when that happens.

So, gentle readers, I would love it if you compare our nominations and share your own.


For heaven’s sake, do not confuse Kathleen Parker with NRO editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, since they both write for National Review Online. Ms. Lopez took quite the e-mail flaming last year from people who were angry with Kathleen Parker but too lazy to make certain they were writing to the correct target of their wrath.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

smitty November 28, 2009 at 2:46 pm

“number 7 slot for Oprah Winfrey, who is demonstrably more evil than Charles Manson because she used her public platform and our trust to choose Obama as president, while number 8, Charles Manson, has been restricted to a considerably smaller field of influence for decades now due to his unfortunate incarceration”

Wow. Please consider cluebatting me via email when you quote us, just in case my fallible eyes miss it in the RSS reader, Cynthia.
.-= smitty´s last blog ..Facts Make Jiggery-pokery Really Arduous =-.

Peter November 28, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Parker and Dowd should not make anyone’s evil list. Now stupid, yes. They are each near the top of the stuupid list. They, like most in the media, are the type that is called smart in school, dumb on the bus.

Unfortunately the education system is failing badly. We’ve managed to ruin a couple of generations now with these new (and obsolete before they were put into practice) ideas. So, we have all these people like Dowd and Parker who can spout off the misinformation they have learned from their betters, or those whom they consider their betters, but cannot think their way of a wet paper grocery sack.

Meanwhile we’ve mangaged to raise a couple of generations of kids that have never cleaned a fish or taken a punch.

Dowd would lose a thinking contest with a toadstool. Parker is slightly smarter, being smart enough to catch and hold a husband who can help her career. She might tie that thinking contest with a turnip.

Did Parker sleep her way to “the top”? I do not doubt that her husband helped. After all, businesses usually consider marriage as a sign of stability. Did his money help? Of course. Whether or not he donated her way in, I have no way of knowing. I do know that having the ability to eat and drink with as well as dress like those people is important if one wants to work with them.

Still, both Parker and Dowd are dim. They like to look down on people like Palin and, for that matter, me. I’d bet money, though, that if you put Sarah, Dowd and Parker down in the forest, fifteen miles from the road, it would be Sarah that would walk out, and she wouldn’t be hungry, either.

rose November 29, 2009 at 1:13 am

As a charter subscriber to MS magazine, a feminist who spent 8 years in the Navy, 10 years of religious study and 15 years of teaching Juvenile Delinquents. Peter hit it on the money. Dowd, Parker and Palin 15 miles from the road. No Question it would be Sarah Palin walking out. In addition, she’d beat out most of Congress in the same situation.

Steve Poling November 29, 2009 at 3:26 am

I think you’ve fingered a key dynamic. Despite all the rhetoric, many powerful woman acquired that power via sleeping with a more powerful man. For Mrs. Palin to achieve success by dint of her own efforts alone must gall those who rose to the top, as you so picturesquely said, “on their backs.” That Mrs. Palin is younger, prettier, smarter, and nicer than these harridans has to be galling. That she’s doing exactly what she wants with her integrity intact has to drive them nuts.

If you’ll excuse a little Baptist malarky, I wonder if guilty consciences contribute to Palin Derangement Syndrome.
.-= Steve Poling´s last blog ..Who is Norah O’Donnell? =-.

Rich Fader November 29, 2009 at 7:54 am

To clarify Peter’s post, I assuming he didn’t mean the gov would eat Mses. Parker and Dowd. There are some free-range rude that even Hannibal Lecter wouldn’t eat, let alone Sarah Palin.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: