Quit It Kathleen (Parker Excoriates "GOD" Conservatives, Goldberg Blasts Back)

National Review's The Corner ^ | 11-19-08 | Jonah Goldberg

[norton]

Very well said.

[FrankR]

"Kathleen Parker goes anti-religious-Conservative full-tilt. "

Make no mistake...Parker is NOT a conservative - at least no by our term of reference.

Imagine you were a liberal columnist...in a virtual SEA of liberal columnists. Oh, woe is you...how do you get attention, how do you get syndicated, and moreover, how do you get conservatives to read your column?

Ka-boom, just subscribe to the RINO plan conservative intervention, and just CALL yourself a "conservative columnist".

This will accomplishe the first three objectives, plus, it will cement your popularity by all of the letters you will receive (mostly from pissed off conservatives telling you that you are NOT a conservative...which you already know). Now her Resume' has some meat, some "verified readers"..."1,000 letters a month...", etc.

This woman lives for your complaints...it is her passion, it is her orgasm. Do to her what most women hate to have done to them....IGNORE HER.

She used to be in our local paper back in the 80's, and she was doing the same drivel back then too. Shes a liberal shill, and that's all she'll ever be.

[TChris]

Umm...actually Kathleen, yes it does work that way. Christianity is a rescue religion.

Kathleen has fallen prey to the common falsehood, "I have not experienced that, therefore nobody has." or, "I have not seen that, therefore nobody has."

The more self-centered a person is, the more he will think in that way.

Millions of Christian converts, beginning perhaps with Saul of Tarsus, could point out the error of her assertion.

[LiteKeeper]

Why do the heathen rage?

[Old Professer]

The problem with Parker is that she is a neophyte in the emerging community of born-again iconoclasts; having come late to the party she failed to see the feller-that-brung-her slip out the door so she dances the empty floor, alone.

[Uri’el-2012]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition,
revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[RegulatorCountry]

And I think Kathleen Parker knows this and is scared out of her $100 panties

You'd think she'd be able to get big girl panties, for a hundred bucks. Apparently not.

[Cheburashka]

I can agree with Kathleen Parker about only one thing: I wish to gracious our wonderful Sarah would stop saying, “I’m like” when she means “I said.” Please, Sarah.

---

The downside of children is that they can be a bad influence on the parents.

[NinoFan]

That’s nice.

So what’s your take on the Kathleen Parker piece this thread is about?

[WestTexasWend]

Another pathetic sideshow from the Big Tent crowd.

Big Tent = clowns, freaks and fresh manure.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Liberals and apparently RINOs do not hold the Christian view of the nature of man. They see people as essentially good and willing do “the right thing” when the proper environment is created. The see government as the vehicle for creating those circumstances. The only reason socialism/communism hasn't worked yet is that it wasn't done “properly”.

This world view is the sole reason their policies fail time after time after time.

[penelopesire]

It really IS getting old. It is people like Ms. Parker who have ‘trashed’ the republican party. May I sugggest that we stop posting her dribble and spittle on Free Republic? She jumped the shark long ago.

[Cecily]

Sarah would do herself a world of good to listen to tapes of Mrs. Thatcher speaking on a daily basis. Become a better and more powerful speaker through study and osmosis.

As for Parker, feh. How pathetic are you when you turn into a MoDo wannabee?

[HappyinAZ]

“i’d rather be a GOD conservative, low-brow and a real person than a liberal RINO Elitist Republican anyday.”

You’ve missed the point....many are neither. There is a very big middle group that don’t want the face of the party to be some crazy bible thumping preacher. One can share moral values...without sharing your religious zeal.

[Scotswife]

“I think she simply enjoys the persecution and revels in being a “martyr.””

I think she enjoyed bashing a woman she was jealous of, and tried to paint it as something other than that.

She really needs to get some counseling for her obsession with Palin.

[nathanbedford]

I posted the following before the election and I would like to repeat it now because I think it is relevant:

I believe that the big battle in the party will not be between conservatives and moderates but between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives who are primarily libertarian. Both flavors of conservatives find common ground in strong defense. Fiscal conservatives are generally not as enthusiastic about Second Amendment rights, but the issue is not a dealbreaker. Social conservatives are almost universally fiscal conservatives but not all fiscal conservatives share social conservatives concerns about abortion and the ancillary issue of the morning after pill, education, religion in the public square, homosexual union, stem cell research, and pornography, marital fidelity as a prerequisite to public service, and evolution.

I consider myself to be a social conservative with a pesky libertarian reflex. In other words I am ferociously opposed to abortion but I am less exercised about what homosexuals are doing to each other in private. I am very concerned about the war being waged against Christians by our own governments but I'm not very exercised about adult pornography. I recite all of this because I think the way I resolved my apparent dilemma is the way everybody should do it: look for the victim and protect him. The classic arguments in support of legalizing alcohol, drugs, prostitution and gambling all point to the "absence" of a victim so the traditional conservative bias towards individual liberty weighs very heavily. But I sure see a victim in partial-birth abortion so I don't give a damn about the mother's convenience. Indeed, I see no reason to grant exceptions to prohibitions against abortion for incest or rape because those circumstances do not justify victimizing innocents, that is, to kill babies. Life of the mother exception, to the contrary, makes sense to me because one can identify the mother now as a victim. So if all conservatives would only just do as I do, (you know, be as reasonable as Henry Higgins and I) which is to weigh the balance in behalf of an identifiable victim but otherwise to respect individual liberty, we would find much overlapping common ground upon which to build long-lasting compromise.

If social conservatives would accept formulations of public morality the organizing principle of which is the protection of an identifiable victim rather than the vindication of a moral precept, fiscal conservatives and libertarians would be much more comfortable in the party. Fiscal conservatives, for their part, must go to bat for Christians when they are embattled by the secularists who would rob them of their faith through the arm of government. Fiscal conservatives owe Christian conservatives one more consideration, they must stop their smug condescension and their eye rolling whenever Christians express their faith in public. Consider for example the execrable figure of the son of William F. Buckley Jr. abandoning the McCain/Palin ticket for ill disguised abhorrence of Palin's faith. This is probably the last kind of bigotry that is socially acceptable in America but it must no longer be acceptable among conservatives. Buckley claims that he is a "small government conservative" but I claim that no matter how small his government, he is no conservative at all but something quite alien to us.

If the conservative movement is to be salvaged, this dichotomy will have to be resolved either along lines that I suggest or some other way. The alternative is a further splintering of the party and that would be very, very unfortunate.

[MrB]

Liberals and apparently RINOs do not hold the Christian view of the nature of man. They see people as essentially good and willing do “the right thing” when the proper environment is created. The see government as the vehicle for creating those circumstances.

So... where'd you get that analysis? :) It's exactly right, by the way.

Christian (truthful) view of the nature of man - inherently sinful. Must not be allowed too much power over his fellow man. Only through a spiritual rebirth in Christ will someone choose a different path away from sin.

Secular Humanist worldview of man - perfectable, given the right societal environment. And that environment can be created by giving the "more perfected" people enough power to do so.

[vetvetdoug]

Parker suffers from attention deficit syndrome. She'd sell her soul for attention.

[Scotswife]

I’m curious - where do we pick up some of those armbands?

I’ve never heard of them - but if they irritate Parker, then there must be something good about them.

[NinoFan]

If one must pick between conservative christians and people who call others “crazy bible thumping preacher[s]”, the choice is pretty easy.