B#t#h and I have had about enough of her.
Correct me if I am wrong here. Those of us that worship the one true GOD came out and voted. In large part of Sarah palin. IIRC, it was those that were pissed off about JSM’s support of the bailout that stayed home.
Thank you, Jonah, for calling the harpy out today.

Hey,Jaded,I like your diary,as usual. However,you have a typo in the last paragraph. It’s not clear if you’re trying to say “great” defense. Right now it says “geat” defense.

I don’t know when this woman decided to take a long walk off the short pier of sanity, but she went 100% flake over Sarah Palin.

And like alot of people with her viewpoint vis a vis SoCons, she is completely irrational if she thinks there is even a PARTY without the SoCons.

that bigotry is unbecoming.

n/t

That has been my drumbeat. Social conservative issues win at the ballot box much more than the lose, & the work better in one’s life. We look at the SSM votes because they’re in the news, however many anti-second amendment proposals went down in flames on Nov. 4. For those who say we need to water down social values, I say wrong & the data demonstrate these are winning issues.

We’ve railed against the big government proposals from the Bush Administration & will continue to rail against them in the Obama Adm. What we have to do is communicate to our leaders the critical need to reclaim limited government fiscally responsible conservatism, because that is what has been missing & reclaiming it will be the key to winning & actually putting in good policies for our country.

I canceled my subscription back in 2003. With a very few exceptions, the regulars at NR and NRO have become intellectually vapid, toe the line Washington-insiders. Many times in the past few years, I have pulled up NRO, then The New Republic’s homepage and compared the content; the results were disappointing, but hardly surprising. Like TNR, NRO is far too establishment and far too attracted to K-street and the Washington circuit. Take them with the proverbial grain of salt.

Subject: I’m not buying the National Review.
My wife offered today to buy me a subscription for the coming year to your magazine.

I refused.

The reason I refused is the bigotry evident in Kathleen Parker’s writing. It’s bad enough that in the “age of tolerance” the only politically correct group that the left is allowed to be bigoted against is Evangelical Christianity.

But to have someone writing for your once proud magazine who parrots this bigotry by calling those she has issues with “low brow” and then claiming to be a martyr for insulting the education of people she does not know is not journalistic integrity. It is pandering to the opposition. It is support for discriminatory practices. It is simply Un-American.

That Kathleen Parker has chosen to support the RINOs is not the issue. The fact that this article is manifestly wrong on every point, as I pointed out in my blog on Redstate, is also not the issue. The issue is that in the process of trying to drum the Social Conservatives out of the party, so she can preside over another thumping with the RINOs who would be left behind, she will stop at nothing and stoop to any level. Including insulting the intelligence of people she’s never met. Including bigotry of the meanest and lowest stereotypes.

I don’t know whether I am more intelligent than Kathleen Parker; although I have an earned Masters and have learned 5 languages, including the two primary Biblical languages. I do know that Wisdom is evidences by deeds. And the deeds of this individual are the epitome of Churchill’s “unwisdom.”

I will not subscribe to the National Review as long as Kathleen Parker contributes to it. And I call on Townhall and any other Conservative site to end the facade of supporting RINOs who will insult their fellow conservatives to get ahead.

Most Sincerely,
Shawn W Gillogly

thanks you from the heart for this.

NRO Authors

I see David Frum and Cosmo, but I do not see Kathleen Parker on this list.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

I’m a liberal, and an atheist, and yet I still agree with the basic premise of this diary. I don’t think God, or mentions of God, are a problem for Republicans. I tend to think it has much more to do with the economic points of the party, and I don’t think the Republican Party is somehow mortally damaged. It needs to make some clear choices on economics, but both parties have shown the ability to adapt in the past.

More to the point, even as an atheist, I wasn’t comfortable with Parker’s flippant tone about religion. My own views on religion have taken years to develop, and nothing about them is flippant, so I am offended when someone insinuates that people who are religious are somehow cavalierly choosing to believe.

I think Democrats (of which I am one) also need to be very careful not to start believing that all liberals are atheists, or they won’t be in power very long. Most Democrats believe in God, as well.

For Kathleen Parker and her acolytes: “Battered Republican Syndrome.”

As someone who has suffered from it in the past, the symptoms are evidenced whenever you lose an election and pounce reflexively on the people who have supported you for a long, long time and who don’t deserve the abuse.

Parker does it because she’s surrounded by liberal commentators who have been bludgeoning her for the past two weeks about what the election “really meant.” Combine that with the fact that she’d probably rather be metropolitan and cosmopolitan (meaning Christian with a C so small you can’t see it) and then lump in the electoral defeat and it didn’t take much to give her a nosebleed and make her identify with her captors.

If you support him please sign and just so you know it is preliminary and will change and grow BUT be one of the first to sign up in it’s infancy

Proud Catholic PROLIFE candidate for RNC Chief….SO TAKE THAT Kathleen Parker!

Well thought out criticism of Ms. Parker.

to earn a coveted “Strange New Repect” award that leftist elites hand out for such conservative apostasy.

Social conservatism can be a winner, but only with candidates who speak with moral confidence on the issue. But Bush/McCain/(and I’m afraid)Palin Republicans act like they have something to be embarrassed about when it comes to social issues. If they confidently challenged Democrats and the media on them, they could be a winner.

I thought I’d done it earlier but must have forgotten to hit the second button…

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

I hadn’t recommended yet because I hadn’t read the Parker article yet…now I have done both. One passage caught my attention and I want to address it:

But they need those votes!

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows.

The first portion in bold; I may be wrong here but my understanding is that the use of the soapbox for speeches originated from not being allowed to speak out against the Crown while standing on British soil. Seems odd that Kathy would want to relegate Christian Conservatives back to that status of enemy of the state. I am sure Kathy would love to get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment for those who are not in the press.

The second portion in bold; Hey Kathy, did you really just call Christian Conservatives low brows, as in Neanderthals? Really? How do you expect to be taken seriously with comments such as that.

Oh well, I guess I should be happy that you have exposed yourself as nothing more than an anti-Christian, anti-Free speech hack of the highest proportions.

Oh and well done Jaded!!!

…but I didn’t see McCain or most of the fallen GOP lawmakers thumping Bibles on the stump this fall.

Fatigue among the general electorate for prolonged military engagement overseas, large federal deficits, a popped housing bubble and tanking stock market led the electorate to switch brands.

Sen McCain and Gov. Palin didn’t offer compelling answers to any of these problems–they didn’t explicitly describe how they would alter our present path.

Instead, McCain said almost nothing, and Palin focused mainly on cultural differences between “us and them”.

KatPa thinks this small-town/big-town, folksy/cosmopolitan, common sense/high-minded idealism “us and them” argument has something to do with God. I agree with Parker that it’s a campaign strategy the GOP should dump, but Parker is entirely mistaken that it’s all about God.

Kathleen Parker has a most unusual HATE for those who openingly acknowledge their GOD and their religion and I for one am puzzled by that.

I don’t know Kathleen Parker. In fact, before she took out after Sarah Palin, I’d never heard of Parker. It’s difficult to determine what motivates her distain for religion, and distain it is. I suspect it has something to do with guilt, and something in her life that she doesn’t want God telling her to bring under his lordship. Rebellion is the original sin. Someone doesn’t have the visceral kind of reaction to faith and God, and those who by faith are devoted to God, that KP has unless there are some “issues” in her life. I don’t know what they are, so I’m not standing in judgment. But it’s pretty clear that her animous toward God and Christians is something personal, not intellectual.

Can we copyright the names “Republican” or “Conservative” so that we can somehow stop these limousine liberals from calling themselves by these names and tanishing them for real conservatives?

I mean it, I am sick of this. The media would not go to Zell Miller or Ben Nelson to get the Democratic / Liberal point of view on things, why do we let them get away with going to elitist feminazis and manhattanites to speak for conservatives or the GOP?

I want any person who ever interviews someone like Parker, or calls into a show where she is a guest, to force her into saying why she is a conservative, in other words, force her hand and make her admit that she really is in favor of liberal values, and hates women who are not.

**It’s not like anybody cares what she says or reads her rag. Now if this moron was a former governor and recent (and possible future) presidential candidate with her own show on FoxNews, maybe her attempts to distract and divide the GOP would rate the hysteria.

Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame, Kathleen. I’ve forgotten about you already.**

I know I had told you I spoke with someone and it is in the update….

This needs to be known.