Go Home

Kathleen Parker

30 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (172)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1296)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Republicans have done a whole lot of things to damage their "brand" and still haven't figured out what to do to quit being the "stupid party" after their losses in the last election, but note to Kathleen Parker -- refusing to raise taxes in order to lower the budget deficit is not one of them. The majority of their own constituents don't agree with them on this issue, but that didn't stop Parker from pretending it would damage them on this Sunday's Meet the Press:

GREGORY: What's striking to me is that these issues are still so hard and that the elections didn't seem to solve them completely enough. […] Is that true? I mean, why didn't it?

PARKER: Why didn't it? Because, look, the Republicans cannot give on taxes. They simply can't. It would damage their brand permanently and the President is unwilling... he is insisting on raising revenue through taxes. There's no way for them to have a meeting of the minds when those differences exist and that's not going to change.

Republicans are not worried about damaging their brand on tax increases with anyone other than the members of the one percent who are paying to keep them in office.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (376)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1013)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Here we go again. Earlier in the week we had Joe Klein repeating this nonsense. Now it was Chuck Todd filling in for Chris Matthews on his weekend show, making the claim that the Obama campaign is somehow “Swiftboating” Mitt Romney.

TODD: Dan, we know that this is, it feels right out of the 2004 Karl Rove playbook. In fact I think Charlie Cook wrote earlier this week that Karl Rove ought to get royalties from the Obama campaign on what they're doing. Essentially, they're Swiftboating Romney.

And Dan Rather agreed with him. I don't expect any better out of Gloria Borger or Kathleen Parker who will gladly repeat Republican talking points ad nauseum, but after what the Bush campaign did to him while the Swiftboat attacks were going on against John Kerry, you'd think we'd get a little more honesty out of Rather, and some push back as to why what the Obama campaign is doing with the Bain attacks is not the same as the attacks on Kerry's military record. Instead he was happy to play along and help Todd compare the attack ads to Karl Rove as well.

Kathleen Parker goes on to carry some water for the dishonest so-called “fact checker” Glenn Kessler over at the Washington Post who lied and claimed there was nothing to the attacks on Bain Capital, even discounting the other reporting from journalists at his same paper. For some background on why no one should be calling him a “fact checker” on anything, I'd recommend reading Marcy Wheeler's post about him from earlier this week before anyone else holds him up as some “journalist” who can be counted on to tell the truth: Yesterday’s Some-Sayers Have Become Today’s Fact-Checkers. Just go read the whole thing but she's got a very long list going back to the George W. Bush years on how Kessler's been doing this same sort of thing for a very long time now. All things are not equal when you have one side continually just making stuff up out of whole cloth and the other side attacking you for things that are true.

And all of them on the panel this week were completely dismissive of what a nasty, dishonest, mean spirited presidential campaign Mitt Romney has run from day one, but oh my goodness, don't dare let the Obama campaign run any nasty ads attacking Mitt Romney, or voters might not think he's a nice guy any more and there's going to be blow back. Funny how that only seems to apply to one side with our Villagers in the beltway media.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (247)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2435)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

This has to be one of the more pitiful displays that I've witnessed in a while. Andrew Sullivan was on Chris Matthews' weekend show doing his best to give cover to the Republican establishment. While Sullivan has been famously sneering at those who criticize Obama, he has no problem with the race to the bottom on wages and competing with slave labor overseas. There's no other reason for him to defend both Mitt Romney and Steve Jobs and how both men managed to make themselves some of the wealthiest men in America.

There are absolutely lessons to be learned about how to fix the income disparity in the United States and what solutions we should be moving towards. But voices like Sullivan's--who glorify the state of being wealthy for an elite few to the disadvantage of most--are the last ones to whom we should be listening to if this interview is any indication. Sullivan's basic message here is that we're going to be competing with slave wages overseas and if that upsets you, well, there's nothing that can be done about it, as though our Congress and President Obama don't have any control over our trade laws, or how imports are taxed and whether we're on a level playing field with our competitors overseas.

Sadly, Sullivan's embrace of globalization and our inability to do anything about it wasn't necessarily the worst part of this interview here. He also lambasted President Obama for not doing more to promote the failed Simpson-Bowles Committee, pretending that anything that came out of that debacle ever passed Congress to sit unsigned on Obama's desk.

Here's more on the interview with host Chris Matthews leading it off this way.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (145)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1222)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

On this Sunday's Meet the Press, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker thought that a recent poll by Gallup was very "interesting" and something to watch, which naturally fed right into the meme that our beltway Villagers love to espouse, which is that Americans really aren't that concerned about income disparity and have bought into that talking point we constantly hear out of the right wing, that "big government" is the source of all of our problems and something to be more concerned about, rather than whether CEO pay is out of control with executives making hundreds of times more money than their average employee.

Parker seemed to be parroting much of what was written by Washington Post columnist Charles Lane, who recently poo-pooed President's Obama's talk about income disparity as "overly simplistic" and who wrote this about the recent Gallup Poll:

In a Dec. 16 Gallup poll, 52 percent of Americans called the rich-poor gap “an acceptable part of our economic system.” Only 45 percent said it “needs to be fixed.” This is the precise opposite of what Gallup found in 1998, the last time it asked the question, when 52 percent wanted to “fix” inequality. [...]

The American public intuitively shares Okun’s concerns. Consider the responses to another question in the Gallup poll. Asked to rate the importance of alternative federal policies, the public saw both economic growth and redistribution as worthy objectives — but put the former well ahead of the latter. Some 82 percent said growth was either “extremely” or “very” important; only 46 percent said “reduc[ing] the income and wealth gap between rich and poor” was “extremely” or “very” important.

In short, the public wants fairness but retains a healthy skepticism about the federal government’s ability to achieve it.

As such, Gallup’s numbers do not bode well for President Obama’s effort, launched in a Dec. 6 speech at Osawatomie, Kan., to win reelection as a soak-the-rich populist.

I would argue in response to both Parker's statements on Meet the Press and to that Washington Post op-ed, both the way you frame a question matters, along with whether you're dealing with an informed electorate, and you'd better consider both before you go dismissing the real concerns from those who are paying attention to what's going on in America and what needs to be done to fix it.

If you simply ask someone whether you "should reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor" as Gallup did and you don't give those people any numbers as to how horribly income disparity has become worse over the last few decades at the same time, you're assuming they've had time to follow the issue. I'd love to see what those poll results would look like if say, they'd been given the information in this post by Jon Perr first, and then asked to respond.

Sadly what that poll by Gallup likely shows is just how many people they canvassed don't actually follow the issues and aren't aware of just how terribly the income disparity in America is out of whack and the fact that if they watch our corporate media, they're often overwhelmed with a barrage of right wing pundits and politicians blaming "big government" for all of our woes.

Heaven forbid we could have a Christmas holiday go by without someone on Meet the Press doing their best to invalidate the concerns of the Occupy Wall Street movement and those of everyday Americans who are getting hammered in our current system by the Scrooges out there who no longer care about America or their fellow citizens, but a race to the bottom on wages and a race to the top with just how much the upper one percent can line their pockets with.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »



The Poverty of Centrism

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (247)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (584)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Thomas Frank lays out the reasons why the pick of William Daley for Chief of Staff in the Obama administration is completely politically tone deaf to the mood of the average voter out there.

From CNN's Parker Spitzer:

SPITZER: Joining us in "The Arena" tonight are CNN political contributor James Carville and Thomas Frank, "Harper's" magazine contributor and author of several books including "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

PARKER: Thanks for joining us. So we're all talking about the changes at the White House, particularly the new chief of staff. Why should the American people care about who the president hires as his chief of staff, James? Go to you first.

CARVILLE: Well, first of all, you know it's one of the most powerful positions in the United States government. It's not confirmable. So I think it does matter and I also think it's a reflection of the White House strategy of policy which appears to me to be a continuation of the December policy that cooperate with the Republicans and to not be very confrontational.

And I think that president picking Secretary Daley sent that signal. I think it's a manifestation of an ongoing strategy that the White House has adopted.

PARKER: Well, everybody loves him, it seems like. I have found no one on either side of the aisle who's critical of him. And I'm sure Tom Frank would join us here and congratulate the president for picking such a rationale chief of staff, right?

FRANK: You know what, Kathleen, this -- this whole thing, it just -- you remember when I was on your -- I was up there in New York and I was on your show a couple of weeks ago and we were talking about -- the term that I use is the poverty of centrism, right?

The sort of exhaustion of this whole way of understanding politics. And this gives you another, you know, really big clue as to what's the matter with the Democrats. There's just no imagination out there. They seem to just be completely clueless with regards to, you know, how to play the political game. This is their response to the shellacking that they took.

SPITZER: You know, Tom, I got to jump in here and agree with you 100 percent. It seems to me there's another factor we've got to bring to the table here.

On the same day that Bill Daley comes in, Paul Volcker goes out. Paul Volcker, of course, the esteemed, highly respected former chairman of the Fed, was the only one in the administration who was really pushing for fundamental Wall Street reform. And so he is gone and we bring in a banker, somebody from Morgan Chase, who is now going to be at the center, as James said. Being chief of staff for the president is being arguably the second most powerful person in the United States government.

FRANK: Right. But, you're not -- you're not being fair there. It's a balanced choice because at the same time they brought in Gene Sperling who I believe used to work for Goldman Sachs.

SPITZER: That's right.

FRANK: So you've got -- you know you've got both sides represented there. JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (671)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2730)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Digby has more on this exchange on CNN's Parker Spitzer and Jeffrey Toobin tying himself in knots trying to defend Attorney General Eric Holder's statement that the US government might use the Espionage Act to go after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, so go read her whole post over at Hullabaloo. I just wanted to highlight something Naomi Wolf said during that discussion on how dangerous it is if the government does end up taking that route.

SPITZER: And back to Woodward, where does Woodward fit in to this?

SHIRKY: So I think that Woodward is not a criminal for publishing leaked documents but I also think that Assange is not a criminal for publishing leaked documents. However, I also, also think that if I'm wrong about that, that the way in which I would be wrong is going through the court system. Not through an extra legal running of WikiLeaks off the network.

The damage to me -- Jeffrey to your earlier point about the slippery slope, the non-slippery slope argument is the State Department has currently committed itself to making it very difficult for autocratic governments to force information off the Internet. And we're suddenly providing not just a recipe but a rationale that's making everyone from Lubchenko (ph) to Kim Jong-il laugh.

TOOBIN: But see, you know, again, this is a slippery slope argument.

SHIRKY: No.

TOOBIN: It is, it is. Because the fact that someone takes United States government documents, secret, no foreign distribution, and says that shouldn't be on the Internet. To say that North Korea shouldn't have a free press, to say that Russia shouldn't allow journalists to -- I mean, I think it is easy to draw a distinction between the two.

WOLF: Jeff, can I talk about the Espionage Act because that's really what's at stake now that they've invoked it. I predicted in my book "The End of America" that sooner or later, journalists would be targeted with the Espionage Act in an effort to close down free speech and free criticism of government. And we have a precedent for that. In 1917, the Espionage Act was invoked to go after people like us who are criticizing the first World War. Publishers, educators, editors. Wait, and people were put in prison. They were beaten. One guy got a 10-year sentence for reading the First Amendment. And that intimidation effectively closed down dissent for a decade in the United States of America.

The Espionage Act has a very dark and dirty history. And when you start to use the Espionage Act, to criminalize what I'm sure you've handled classified documents in your time as a serious journalist, you know perfectly well that every serious journalist has seen or heard about classified information and repeated it. When you start to use the Espionage Act to say reporting is treachery, reporting is spying, it's espionage, you criminalize journalism. And that's the history that our country has shown.

Continue reading »



Naomi Wolf Debates Jeffrey Toobin Over WikiLeaks Release

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (331)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (715)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

From CNN's Parker Spitzer, author Naomi Wolf debated CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on the WikiLeaks release and whether Jullian Assange ought to be treated any differently than the news outlets that published the information his site passed on to them. Jeffrey Toobin sadly did a whole lot of water carrying for the US government during this debate to the point where it made me wonder, as it did Klein, if he was willing to throw his own employer under the bus for his views. CNN was more than happy to get ratings from reporting on the leaks. It seems they're happy to make the profits from it with none of the risk after watching Toobin defend the network here.

SPITZER: Joining us in "The Arena" for more on what today's ruling means, Naomi Wolf, road scholar, author of "The End of America," and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Thank you for joining us.

Look, Naomi, let me begin with you. You have been intensely critical of the Swedish government for even bringing the case. You're basically saying had he not been the individual who released these documents --

NAOMI WOLF, AUTHOR, "THE END OF AMERICA": Absolutely.

SPITZER: -- then --

WOLF: Absolutely.

SPITZER: This law would not have been brought to bear against him in this way.

WOLF: Exactly. Exactly.

SPITZER: And this is government from the U.S. to Sweden and Britain, basically saying we're going to shut you down.

WOLF: Exactly. That's right. I am saying that.

SPITZER: And you're saying that's wrong?

WOLF: Well, obviously, I can't say conclusively until the man has had his day in court.

SPITZER: Right.

WOLF: And the women, too, need to have their day in court.

SPITZER: Jeffrey --

WOLF: But I am saying it -- from 23 years of looking at how rape is treated, this is so anomalous that it sure --

(CROSSTALK)

PARKER: OK.

SPITZER: You're a (INAUDIBLE), does that bother you?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: No, not a bit. I mean, you know, Sweden has the right to enforce their laws however they want.

WOLF: Selectively?

TOOBIN: The idea -- the idea that Sweden of all of a sudden has become a wing of the FBI or the American Republican Party is totally inconsistent.

WOLF: Just not -- that's so naive of you. Of course United States brings pressure to bear against governments like Britain which is a total lack --

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (538)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4218)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Phil Donahue joined Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker to discuss his long career as a talk show host, the dangers of media consolidation and his ouster from MSNBC during the run up to the invasion of Iraq for daring to speak out opposing it. You generally don't find too many conversations like this one on cable news since I'm sure their bosses wouldn't want to shine a light too brightly on the need to bust these companies up. Every once in a while one slips through like this one though.

PARKER: If you think Oprah has the longest running syndicated talk show in history, think again. That particular honor belongs to our next guest.

SPITZER: Phil Donahue invented the daytime confessional format, aiming both high brow and low in his 29-year long career. We spoke to him earlier.

SPITZER: Thank you for joining us. It's an honor to have you here.

PARKER: I'm thrilled. I watched your show for years and years. I think my entire life.

DONAHUE: Well, I thank you. You turned out anyway, didn't you, watching me?

PARKER: Do you sometimes think maybe you created a monster?

DONAHUE: Well, I have said they are all my illegitimate children and I love them equally. But it is true that the game has changed, really quite something. In many ways it's changed from when I went often the off the air which was '96 with my daytime show.

And even the cable, nighttime, your arena, since 2002, when I was on MSNBC, it's totally different now, totally.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (422)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3353)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Congressman Anthony Weiner appeared on CNN's Parker Spitzer to discuss the deal made between the Obama administration and Republicans on the extension of the Bush tax cuts and expressed a lot of the same frustrations that many of us have had with President Obama. Instead of taking the case to the public and trying to move public opinion to get legislation passed, he's acting like those vote counts are static.

SPITZER: So, let me ask this question. The president is negotiating against himself on the tax issue. Has he caved? Or is this a meaningful compromise where the wealthy are going to get all their tax cuts and the Democratic Party gets nothing back?

WEINER: Well, we'll see. And, by the way, you know, compromise is a device. Somehow, I have no problem with it -- I mean, we often have to do it. That's why we go to Washington and govern about.

But it seems almost as if I missed the part of the fight, like where was the fight where he said what he believed in, campaigned on it hard, tried to get people? You know, the problem with the president -- and I think he's trying to do the right thing -- he believes that these vote counts are static things.

You know, he's the president of the United States. He can move the meter on these things. Considering how many people agree with his fundamental position that we should extend tax cuts for the middle class and those struggling to make it, and even people doing fairly well, he hasn't really made the full-throated fight for it.

Now, what I'm hearing is this deal is being worked out. It's more than just unemployment assurance. Other things are going to be put in there. But whatever it is, I think that to some degree he underplays his hand. As I said today, it's almost as if he wants to punt sometimes on third down.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (309)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (931)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

You've just got to love the framing they used for this segment from CNN's Parker/Spitzer earlier this week -- Can a centrist movement in the U.S. succeed or is it too 'mushy' to hold up?

This just smells of more Republican re-branding with some of the so-called Republican "moderates" wanting to distance themselves from the teabirchers that have taken over their party. They may have done well during the mid-term elections just catering to their base, but that's not going to work so well in 2012.

Former Rudy Giuliani staffer John Avlon's been pushing this nonsense for some time now, but as Karoli pointed out last week, there's a new group jumping on his bandwagon as well. Kathleen Parker never mentioned the "No Labels" group during the segment, but it may as well have been an infomercial for them by Parker and Avlon.

It's really a shame that Thomas Frank wasn't allowed to speak more to counter Avlon's talking points. Kathleen Parker and John Avlon can put all of the "mushy middle", "we're a center-right country", bipartisan spin on this they want. It's not going to change the fact that they're both a couple of right wingers. There's not a lick of difference between their economic policy positions and those of Dick Armey and the Koch brothers.

CNN's off air interview with Frank looked a lot more interesting than listening to Avlon's claptrap about how voters just really want all the bickering to stop and for our politicians to all just get along, which is doublespeak demanding Democratic capitulation.

Q: If we could arrange a private conversation between you and Rep. John Boehner, what would you say to him?

FRANK: I was struck by his line about Democrats “snuffing out the America that I grew up in.” It’s a charge that I frequently apply to conservatives, who have so resolutely smashed the middle-class society where I grew up in favor of a nation that is heaven on earth for the very rich—and an endless, losing struggle for working people. It’s also something I often say about market forces generally, which are the most radical and disruptive cultural influences I know of. Conservatives always claim to love the market and to deplore what’s happening in “the culture,” but they never explain how they can hold these two views at the same time. Wouldn’t it be great to have John Boehner himself sort out these things out for us?

I’m also always been impressed by his luminous neckties, and I would of course tell him so.

Q: What credit do you give the Tea Party for changing American politics at this moment?

FRANK: They demonstrated two important things:

- That the supposed power of centrism is in fact just a comforting beltway fairytale. That the “median voter” doesn’t really determine things. That politics really is a battle of small, committed groups—and also of money.

- That there’s a place in politics for class-based discontent. That conservatives can speak to that emotion just as readily as liberals can. And that if liberals don’t understand this—if they just blow it off on the grounds that working-class people will always vote for Democrats because duh—that they will keep losing, and they will deserve to lose. [...]

Q:As you get older, do you find yourself becoming more or less liberal?

FRANK: Not speaking strictly for myself here, but what I find people outgrow isn’t liberalism per se, it’s the tendency to treat politics like a branch of aesthetics, where what matters are gestures and what you’re after—the object of politics—is a demonstration of your originality and your surpassing cleverness. When you get older you realize how impotent that approach is, and you also understand the disastrous consequences things like, say, banking deregulation have for people.

Full transcript of the clip above below the fold.

Continue reading »