I Hate It When Conservatives Whine

The latest from Kathleen Parker responding to critics of her Palin is out of her league item simply continues Parker's apparent passion for short-sighted analysis:

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?

I won't defend any outrageous emails allegedly sent to Parker. Yes, that's unfortunate and I don't support such things. But America hasn't changed in this respect and significant partisanship has always been with us in a political sense. What's changed is that thanks to new technology pundits like Parker are simply now part of the public discourse from which they were previous insulated.

Welcome to the Brave New World, Kathleen. Buck up. Make the most of it, or die, career-wise, that is.

And for Heaven's sake, stop whining. I could be wrong, but I rather suspect that's something Sarah Palin simply wouldn't do.

Comments

[SacTownMan]

What a tool!

She needs to spend more time at the troll mothership, Daily Koz, if she thinks that kind of response is too tough!

Who cares what this hag thinks?

[chris]

Since Sarah Palin clearly does not read newspapers (or anything else for that matter) what's the big deal?

Watch out for that pesky witchcraft though!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj-on3kfWuE

Boo!

[mary]

Well, the liberals do a great job of whining too. I'm tired of hearing Frank, and Dodd and Chuckie on the financial channels, geez they sound like a bunch of high school girls for God's sake.

[mary]

Gee dan, you nailed this one and the implications before anyone else. Kudos to you and here is where everyone is seeing what you saw:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/01/columnist-needs-lesson-on-what-stalinist-tactics-are/

[Worst President Ever]

You missed the point of her column - partisanship is fine, death threats aren't. In fact, they're decidedly un-American. In her own words:

"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."

[Terry Gain]

There were 6 American combat deaths in Iraq last month. Iraq has now reached the point where even clueless Barack Obama won't be able snatch defeat from the the jaws of victory

But if Barack Obama had had his way Al Qaeda would now be well on its way to establishing a safe haven in oil rich Iraq. The consequences of that would have been disastrous for Iraq and America.

On the most impotant issue facing the nation in the last two years Barack Obama was as clueless as the boob from Stamford.

Everything else is trivial. And no Obama, there are not 58 states in the United States ("57 down, one to go"). And no slow Joe Biden, partitioning Iraq against the will of the vast majority of Iraqis would not have secured the peace in Iraq. No genius, it would have plunged the country into a full scale civil war.

But none of this matters - as compared with Palin's talent, at this stage, for handling gotcha questions.

[Worst President Ever]

No, if Barack Obama had his way, we'd have never gone into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMDs, and had no Al Qaeda.

But McCain preferred to back Bush's mistakes than think for himself.

[BobInStamford]

Let us all be thankful that the SURGE worked! Victory has been achieved in the wrong country!

Sadly, Steve Fossett may have been found but OBL is still out there somewhere.

Mission Accomplished, Terry Gain! Your service inspires us all!

[seekeronos]

"---
No, if Barack Obama had his way, we'd have never gone into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMDs, and had no Al Qaeda.

But McCain preferred to back Bush's mistakes than think for himself.
---"

That's right, Worst.

You preach that!

Obama wanted instead to invade Afghanistan, a country that had little to do with 9/11 (the terrorists who flew the jetliners where mostly from Saudi Arabia), and unlike Iraq, certainly had no WMDs, and plenty of Al-Qaeda.

Of course, one man's unconstitutional and illegal war is another man's CRUSADE, right?

Or should we be consistent and say that *both* wars were a transgression against the Constitutional division of powers, and served only to trade freedom and liberty for fear and the security state?

[Worst President Ever]

If you're going to war, it's usually best to attack those who attacked you. Actually, without Afghanistan and the Taliban, there probably wouldn't have been a 9/11. No safe have, no training ground. But Afghanistan was home to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Bush was president and the republicans had majorities in the House and Senate. Your constitutional argument is with them, not Obama.

And yes, trading freedom / liberty / rights for security is a false choice.

[Terry Gain]

"If you're going to war, it's usually best to attack those who attacked you." Worst Commenter Ever or at least as dumb a commenter as the boob.

--

Those who attacked America (al Qaeda) went into Iraq in 2004 to derail the establishment of a democracy. The Surge targeted al Qaeda and peace broke out throughout Iraq. Al Qaeda has suffered a devastating and humiliating defeat in Iraq - at the hands of Americans and Iraqis.

Once al Qaeda entered Iraq, the choice was to defeat them or allow them to have a glorious victory and gain a foothold in Iraq. Only a fool would believe that conceding Iraq to al Qaeda will make America safer.

Facts are stubborn things.