Ziegler: My spot proves CNN’s bias

posted at 10:45 am on November 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

John Ziegler offers his side of the story regarding his appearance last week on CNN’s Parker & Spitzer in discussing the rerelease of his documentary, How Obama Got Elected. The big story, Ziegler writes at The Daily Caller, wasn’t really Kathleen Parker’s admission that she “led” the character assassination of Sarah Palin in 2008, but rather the manner in which CNN rebutted his allegations of media bias against the Republican candidate afterward.  But it may have been the next night that showed just how inept CNN and Parker really was:

I was told when I arrived at the studio that the segment would not air the night of the taping (last Thursday) and this convinced me that I had made a mistake even coming to New York. After all, knowing I was in the lion’s den of CNN’s obvious liberalism, I would have to be edit myself just to make sure that anything I said had a legitimate chance of airing (I decided telling Parker & Spitzer that they were a perfect team because one was a “John” and the other was a “whore” probably wouldn’t make the cut).

So instead I decided to throttle back to about a 5 on my 10 scale of outrage and still plenty of fireworks ensued. Most of the focus has been on Parker responding to my attempts to get her to admit the treason she committed in 2008 by going in the other direction (in what I perceived at the time as a knee-jerk “fight or flight” response) and actually bragging that she “led” the “assassination” of Sarah Palin 1.0 (which is a term I have used to describe Palin’s pre-Fox News persona, which I see as fundamentally different than the one she was forced to create due to the media’s unfair targeting of her).

Apparently sensing that something had happened that people might actually find somewhat interesting, the moment I got off the set I was immediately told by CNN producers that the interview would be cut into two segments and would lead that night’s show.

While Parker’s admission about “leading” the “assassination” of Palin (1.0) was both bizarre and shocking (and elicited a rather perfect tweet from Palin herself), almost totally lost in that skirmish is that Parker blatantly lied when she denied ever endorsing Obama as a presidential candidate. A simple look at Charles Krauthammer’s evisceration of Parker’s Obama folly reveals that this was really the most remarkable revelation of my appearance.

As for the larger issue of “media bias” which was allegedly the primary topic of my appearance, the big picture of what transpired here proves the case of my film as well as any of the hours of facts and details I spent over a year compiling for my film and its DVD special features. Here I was, a “conservative” (immediately identified as such, unlike most liberals on TV) having to bend over backwards and self-censor in order be on a show on the allegedly “non-partisan” cable channel, hosted by a disgraced Democrat (when was the last time a scandal-ridden conservative got a prime-time show of any kind?) and a sometimes “conservative” willing to sell out in a heartbeat. Then, the next day the show decides to follow up on my episode (now calling me “ultra-conservative”) by examining the issue of “Palin bias” by inviting on … wait for it … a liberal commentator most well-known for having hosted a show on MSNBC. Shockingly, the verdict was that there is no anti-Palin bias, but without even once going beyond the most superficial analysis that, “We all know Palin is stupid and so the negative coverage is warranted.”

Now, I’m a friend of John’s, but it doesn’t surprise me that he needed to turn the dial down to 5 or so on his amplifier as a strategy.  Like the amps in Spinal Tap, John gets to 11 rather easily.  He did a commendable job in this appearance, and his strategy worked, in that he did get Parker to brag about her leadership in the character assassination of Palin.  Dan Abrams, the commentator to whom John refers, did run MSNBC for a brief time as well as having  two shows on the network from 2001-8, at which time he left and founded Mediaite, which does a credible job at giving a fair look at conservatives as well as liberals.

It would have been better, I’d say, if CNN had a couple of people on the next show with some diverse perspectives on the bias in the 2008 election as a follow-up.  Supposedly, the pairing of Parker with Eliot Spitzer is supposed to provide that balance, but as John showed, Parker is not exactly a heterodox voice on media manipulation.  But Abrams’ presence — as well as the volley of criticism Parker received over her braggadocio — had its effect.  By that time, Parker wanted to walk back her extemporaneous comments to John after 24 hours to think about their implications:

After asserting that she “led” the charge againstSarah Palin in 2008 the day before, Kathleen Parker revisited her comments and the greater media bias against Palin last night, adding a few revisions. For one, she didn’t really lead the charge against Palin– “the liberal media” did– and did treat Palin, in some instances, “cruelly, and partly because she’s a woman.” She and co-host Eliot Spitzer further explored the relationship between Palin and the media with Mediaite founder Dan Abrams.

Parker modified her earlier statement about “leading” the assassination, toning it down to being the first on the right after Palin’s damning interview with Katie Couric to question her qualifications.

Can that actually be walked back?  After proclaiming oneself to be the leader of a media assassination movement, can one credibly backtrack to a position of sadness over its success?  I’d say that either Parker realized that she had crossed a line — or CNN did.  John’s point is validated in this retreat.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

He did a commendable job in this appearance, and his strategy worked, in that he did get Parker to brag about her leadership in the character assassination of Palin.

I agree. I was stunned to hear that revelation by her.

ted c on November 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Is anyone watching this damn show? I don’t.

HondaV65 on November 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM

I agree. I was stunned to hear that revelation by her.

ted c on November 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Also – look at KP’s eyes and face as she says “I LED IT!” … and listen to the hate and pride in her voice. It’s like she’s talking about hanging some woman who slept with her husband or something. It’s pretty creepy.

Anyway – I’m sure Palin never slept with KP’s husband – if she even has one. He can’t be a very attractive guy married to her and whatnot.

She’s one of the women that give women a bad name – one that always brings her hormones and vindictiveness to her art – like MoDo and Peggi Noonan.

HondaV65 on November 15, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Lost in all the yammering was Spitzer’s statement that the press loved Nixon and Reagan. There was plenty to pick apart in that segment.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM

The Most Busted Name In News…

Del Dolemonte on November 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM

On the other hand, I don’t see where Ziegler is getting his proof that skank Parker endorsed Obama. It certainly isn’t anywhere in the Krauthammer or Parker columns cited.

Jaibones on November 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Can that actually be walked back? After proclaiming oneself to be the leader of a media assassination movement, can one credibly backtrack to a position of sadness over its success? I’d say that either Parker realized that she had crossed a line — or CNN did. John’s point is validated in this retreat.

Speaking of holes , you can always dig it deeper..

the_nile on November 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Is anyone watching this damn show? I don’t.

HondaV65 on November 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM

I wonder sometimes if the only people that watch this crap (such as Olbermann and Spitker)are the 10 fringe lefties and a huge boatload of rightwing bloggers trying to stir the pot.

I managed to watch 5 mins of Parker and I was like, “Yep, she’s overpaid.”

MeatHeadinCA on November 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM

I won’t watch Spitzer and Parker. John is going to have to show up on a program I watch.

The MSM is Liberal. Parker – Water is Wet. Parker wanted attention. The only way to get it was to ho’er herself by attacking the focus of everyone’s attention “Sarah Palin”. It appears ho’ering herself is something Parker has decided is the only way she will get any spotlight turned on herself. Some role model for women who want to work in the media/ Parker must suffer from very low self esteem. Example: She agreed to be seen on air with Spitzer.

Dr Evil on November 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Can that actually be walked back? After proclaiming oneself to be the leader of a media assassination movement, can one credibly backtrack to a position of sadness over its success? I’d say that either Parker realized that she had crossed a line — or CNN did. John’s point is validated in this retreat.

No, it can’t be walked back. But anyone who suffered through those segments with Ziegler and Abrams witnessed a pathetic attempt to essentially rewrite history. According to Spitzer, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush were all beloved by the press, at least early on in their Presidencies. I don’t even think the folks at MSDNC would try to sell that BS.

They also claimed that no one went after Palin til AFTER the Couric interview which is also a load of crap. The personal attacks on both her and her family began the moment McCain announced her as his running mate.

At this point, who really cares? We know what these people are. After 2008 with the media coverage of both Obama and Palin, there’s no going back. All they can do now is keep doubling down on a losing hand and watch their ratings and circulation sink until they go the way of the dodo(or Newsweek in this case).

Doughboy on November 15, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Gotta love the Zig!

Prefer him at “11” though……way more entertaining!

Tim_CA on November 15, 2010 at 11:04 AM

They also claimed that no one went after Palin til AFTER the Couric interview which is also a load of crap. The personal attacks on both her and her family began the moment McCain announced her as his running mate.

Doughboy on November 15, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Yes Palin even had to criticize the media in her acceptance speech , long before Couric.

the_nile on November 15, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Another show I don’t watch… How can Parker sit there night after night with a man who lost his office over adultery with prostitutes..my how low some women sink…

CCRWM on November 15, 2010 at 11:11 AM

How can Parker sit there night after night with a man who lost his office over adultery with prostitutes..my how low some women sink…

CCRWM on November 15, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Parker isn’t exactly a woman of high standards. Yeah, she likes to look down at people, but that doesn’t make her some pure woman or something. Sad, really.

MeatHeadinCA on November 15, 2010 at 11:14 AM

…And it will never “undamn” the Katie Couric interview because most of it was sitting on the cutting-room floor.

onlineanalyst on November 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM

At the end of the day, Parker is just a chick that wants to be invited to all the cool party’s. Forget what’s best for the country.

Hummer53 on November 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Unbe-freaking-lievable. Speaking of media bias…

Looks like the current odds-on favorite for Person of the Year from Time is none other than militant Islamofascist and noted Jew-hater Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey.
Way to go, Time.

KingGold on November 15, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Unbe-freaking-lievable. Speaking of media bias…

Looks like the current odds-on favorite for Person of the Year from Time is none other than militant Islamofascist and noted Jew-hater Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey.
Way to go, Time.

KingGold on November 15, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Wasn’t last year’s “winner” Mr. QE himself, Ben Bernanke? Time sure knows how to pick em.

Doughboy on November 15, 2010 at 11:21 AM

It always amazes me when lefties claim there is no media bias and also that Palin was treated unfairly. I have a rejoinder to such claims:
.
How many AP researchers were assigned to fact-check private citizen Sarah Palin’s autobiography? I’ll answer that: 14.
.
How many were assigned to fact-checked presidential candidate Barack Obama’s two autobiographies. Zero.
.
Nothing can ever spin away this simple, clear fact.

MaxMBJ on November 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM

It always amazes me when lefties claim there is no media bias and also that Palin was treated unfairly. I have a rejoinder to such claims:
.
How many AP researchers were assigned to fact-check private citizen Sarah Palin’s autobiography? I’ll answer that: 14.
.
How many were assigned to fact-checked presidential candidate Barack Obama’s two autobiographies. Zero.
.
Nothing can ever spin away this simple, clear fact.

MaxMBJ on November 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM

In fairness, I think it was “only” 11 fact-checkers assigned to Going Rogue.

Doughboy on November 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Is anyone watching this damn show? I don’t.

HondaV65 on November 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM

I don’t even know where CNN is on my channel lineup. Seriously.

joejm65 on November 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Spitzer’s statement that the press loved Nixon

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM

That is … amazing. Never thought I would hear anyone make that claim.

jwolf on November 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Parker’s revelation doesn’t matter. Those who watch CNN are already carrying the liberal water bucket. No one right of center is surprised by the bias and those to the left are too blind to see it.

jbh45 on November 15, 2010 at 11:33 AM

On the other hand, I don’t see where Ziegler is getting his proof that skank Parker endorsed Obama.

This is pretty close, approximately at the 5:25 mark.

Fallon on November 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM

How many were assigned to fact-checked presidential candidate Barack Obama’s two autobiographies. Zero.

Wait. Remember all those stories about his tranny nanny?/

Fallon on November 15, 2010 at 11:36 AM

His ho would get better ratings.

flyoverland on November 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Like the amps in Spinal Tap, John gets to 11 rather easily.

Try dialing it up a little yourself sometime. Our age demands it.

rrpjr on November 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Oh–I didn’t know that show was still on.

varnson on November 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Take off every Zig!
For great justice!

The Monster on November 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Why is this a surprise to anyone who has the capability to breath and walk upright…?

“BLITZER: It’s 4 p.m. here in Washington. So you’re getting the first look right now at our brand-new poll. The president’s job approval rating has taken a downward turn again, falling to only 36%. [break]

This represents his lowest rating ever in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. [break]

The president’s poll numbers are pretty bad, pretty awful right now, rock bottom as far as the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. [break]

The president’s Iraq problem and his new low point in the polls. [break]

His approval and policies now are at new lows. [break]

The president’s job approval number in this new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, rock bottom, the lowest it’s ever been. [break]

It’s 5 p.m. here in Washington where President Bush takes a beating in our latest poll. His approval rating at a low ebb. [break]

Our latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll just out in the past hour shows the president at an all-time low. [break]

His job approval rating at a new low. [break]

That’s rock bottom as far as our poll is concerned. [break]

It’s 7 p.m. here in Washington. The war in Iraq comes home to roost for President Bush. Our latest poll numbers showing his approval rating at a new low. [break]

Also: President Bush hits a new low in the polls. [break]

Now back to our lead story: President Bush’s approval rating now at an all-time low. [break]

As we noted, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows his job approval rating at a new low. [break]

President Bush’s approval rating at a new low.

aquaviva on July 23, 2010 at 3:24 PM”

Seven Percent Solution on November 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I don’t bother to watch shows entitled “Left and Lefter”.

landlines on November 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I like how Fonzi wore his leather jacket when he jumped the shark.

John the Libertarian on November 15, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Would LOVE to see Zeigler on The Daily Show. He doesn’t back down.

Go RBNY on November 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM

a “John” and the other was a “whore” probably wouldn’t make the cut).

Hmmmm… John & Hooker would be a good name for a show!…

cartooner on November 15, 2010 at 11:58 AM

I don’t even know where CNN is on my channel lineup. Seriously.

joejm65 on November 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

LOL, me neither. I have DirectTV, it’s not anywhere around the FOX News Channel (Ch. 360), but I have never bothered to look.

By the way, “Parker Spitzer” hit a new all-time low in ratings last week. Pathetic.

Norwegian on November 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM

More Eeyorish crapola.

TexasJew on November 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I don’t even know where CNN is on my channel lineup. Seriously.

joejm65 on November 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

LOL, me neither. I have DirectTV, it’s not anywhere around the FOX News Channel (Ch. 360), but I have never bothered to look.

By the way, “Parker Spitzer” hit a new all-time low in ratings last week. Pathetic.

Norwegian on November 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM

On DirecTV, CNN is the very first “real” channel. 202. Followed by CourtTV, Headline News, and then the ESPNs.

Del Dolemonte on November 15, 2010 at 12:06 PM

How many AP researchers were assigned to fact-check private citizen Sarah Palin’s autobiography? I’ll answer that: 14.

How many were assigned to fact-checked presidential candidate Barack Obama’s two autobiographies. Zero.

Nothing can ever spin away this simple, clear fact.

MaxMBJ on November 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM

In fairness, I think it was “only” 11 fact-checkers assigned to Going Rogue.

Doughboy on November 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

And let’s not forget that CNN also did a “Fact Check” segment on a Saturday Night Live sketch mildly mocking O’bama. What a joke they are.

Del Dolemonte on November 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM

So Ziggy considers Parker’s animus toward Palin “treason?”

I’m beginning to think ol’ Lonesome John is going to be the first “Palin Troofer.” He’s as pathetic as the people he dumps on.

Long after Palin has done whatever it is she’s going to do, Ziggy will be wandering around increasingly lower-rated shows whimpering about “grassy knolls” and “second assasins.”

MrScribbler on November 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM

On the other hand, I don’t see where Ziegler is getting his proof that skank Parker endorsed Obama.

This is pretty close, approximately at the 5:25 mark.

Fallon on November 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Yeah, don’t get me wrong. I know she endorsed him and I know she voted for him. But she thinks she’s this clever and objective journalist, and not the uninformed and poorly educated liberal nitwit that we know she is.

She endorsed Obama by talking about Republicans who were voting for him, and by spending all of her column space attacking McCain and Palin. But I don’t think Ziegler has a recording or a column which says “I endorse Obama” or “I voted for Obama”.

Jaibones on November 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM

No bias against Sarah Palin!?!? Did anyone see the first 3 episodes of PoS… I mean P&S, they spent their first 3 episodes with guest who called Palin an idiot.

HAExpert on November 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Like the amps in Spinal Tap, John gets to 11 rather easily.
Try dialing it up a little yourself sometime. Our age demands it.

rrpjr on November 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Yeah, at some point – ya know, by now? – if you’re not at 11, there’s something wrong with ya…

Midas on November 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM

In the past during the 2008 election and before I have followed links from HotAir and others to CNN articles. What I noticed when I went down to the comments was they were not just left-wing they were Daily Kos left-wing. It occurred to me that CNN is aware who they still have left watching when I was reading complaints that CNN wasn’t biased enough (my words not theirs). The people at CNN are really in no better place than MSNBC with only hard-core leftists and wandering people of other stripes watching. They have fallen behind MSNBC because they are not delivering red meat in the quantities the Kos kids need to tune in. CNN is now in no man’s land too liberal for the rest of us and not liberals enough for the moonbats. Their business model is dead as a news outlet no one trusts as unbiased.

Conan on November 15, 2010 at 12:28 PM

The good news is that the lie that Parker is a conservative is now well and truly demolished.

jnelchef on November 15, 2010 at 12:28 PM

what I find funny is that after KNOWINg that Palin was smeared, that none of what the media said or did IRT to Palin held any truth to it, after the exposure of journalolist their are many on the right saying that “palin is damaged goods” and “unelectable” or in other words they ACCEPT that the left lied, smeared and defamed a top GOP candidate and they are willing to accept their conclusions and never defend the lady in question. Instead people like allah simply pile on and re-enforce the narrative of the left which is based on a lie.

people like Parker should never again be taken seriously, should never be linked, should be treated as an outcoast and those that use her articles to push their own narrative should be treated the same.

unseen on November 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM

What is keeping Cnn alive?

They have been exposed as total a propaganda machine.

Is their entire audience overseas?

There is little point in repeating that they are left in all their programing. But no one takes them seriously anymore so that is enough.

It is sad we only have one place on all of tv to get news.
And it gives fox too much power. But that is the lefties choice.

petunia on November 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM

I’m kind of surprised they aired that. It was hilarious. No one I know watches CNN anymore. I wouldn’t have heard about it if it weren’t for hotair. But I’m glad I saw it. Is there more? Looks like it got cut off at the end there.

MrX on November 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM

people like Parker should never again be taken seriously, should never be linked, should be treated as an outcoast and those that use her articles to push their own narrative should be treated the same.

unseen on November 15, 2010

And how should Allahpundit be treated with such a metric? Should he be an outcast too?

JonPrichard on November 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

So Parker fancies herself an intellectual, fit to run with the liberal pack. And yet, that enormous brain couldn’t figure out who Obama really was, eh?

Now Kathy, why didn’t you just admit that you’d rather vote for a foaming liberal liar without a birth certificate which proves his citizenship, than lose your liberal cred?

Why don’t you just stop pretending that you’re a conservative and let let it all hang out? While you are much less attractive than Sarah Palin (on the inside as well as the outside), you’re still way more attractive than most liberal women, and more on your toes as well.

You’ve really got nothing to lose, dear. So give it a shot.

disa on November 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM

The unasked question, was Parker a member of journolist during the 2008 election? That would be the icing on the cake.

eaglewingz08 on November 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM

And how should Allahpundit be treated with such a metric? Should he be an outcast too?

JonPrichard on November 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Hell no – AP is our own confused Eeyore and we understand him.

disa on November 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM

What is keeping Cnn alive?

They have been exposed as total a propaganda machine.

Is their entire audience overseas?

petunia on November 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM

No, but close – they’re transients in the airports, waiting to have their junk fingered by the TSA. Talk about a captive audience.

disa on November 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM

So, particularly after Parker joined CNN and Spitzer, does anyone see her as credible?

rogersnowden on November 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Of course not – how can she say that Palin is stupid, when Palin knew exactly how Obama would govern but Parker is supposedly surprised?

1-0 Palin.

disa on November 15, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Should he be an outcast too?

JonPrichard on November 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

unlike Parker allah has publicly stated his view on Palin. He does what he does in the open and is honest with it. I donb’t agree with him but I do respect that honesty. He also allows people in the comments to call him on his anti-palin views. But when allah uses articles from people like Parker to support his anti-palin slant he should be laughed at for the fool he is.

there are plenty of sources out there that give fair rebuttles tp Palin and do not try to hide their are anti-palin views to link instead of linking someone trying to pretend to be something they are not.

Allah has never misrepresented himself. He has never pretended to be anything else but a “moderate” RINO.

unseen on November 15, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Parker — “I guillotined Palin but now I want to glue her head back on”.

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM

That Parker comeback line sure was a replay of Jack Nicholson’s Col Jesup’s proud admission in A Few Good Men. She is a southern lady. Although that makes her a conservative by choice, she is still an elite southern Lady that can never bring herself to support a worker woman type. If Palin was from the right family, then she could. There is still a caste system alive and well in small town southern communities. Parker was raised in an area where you are either a favored high class lady or an untouchable trailer park low class person. But that does show the true obstacle in the way of Sarah The Commoner being nominated.

jimw on November 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM

I’m amazed.

First, that CNN is still broadcasting. Second, that anyone bothers to watch it. And third, that anyone deems it important enough to get upset over.

CNN jumped the shark many years ago, and their fate was sealed as soon as Fox News hit the market.

~~~~~~

The terrible mistake McCain-Palin made was in allowing long taped interviews with Couric and Gibson. Why not just paint a target on Palin’s chest and have her walk slowly back and forth across the range? In such situations, EVERY time the editing will be carefully constructed to make the conservative look as bad as possible while leaving her best points on the cutting room floor.

NEVER go into that situation, you are playing the media’s game.

Remember George H.W. Bush as VP and running for President. CBS wanted an interview, and he agreed but ONLY if it were aired live on the Evening News. As a result, he made Dan Rather look like a complete idiot.

If that interview had been taped, that footage would never have seen the air.

Rather, of course, learned his lesson and just made up the news he wanted after that.

Adjoran on November 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Adjoran on November 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM

was it a mistake or part of the plan? the mor eI think about it the more I think they did it on purpose once they saw how popular Palin was and thought maybe McCain could win the race. In fact looking back on the cmapaign anytime McCain looked like he could win his staff threw a wrench into it.

unseen on November 15, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Did anyone see the first 3 episodes of PoS… I mean P&S, they spent their first 3 episodes with guest who called Palin an idiot.

HAExpert on November 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM

You mean the show “Spitz and Swallows”?

malclave on November 15, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Dan Abrams, the commentator to whom John refers, did run MSNBC for a brief time as well as having two shows on the network from 2001-8, at which time he left and founded Mediaite, which does a credible job at giving a fair look at conservatives as well as liberals.

Absolute nonsense. Mediaite’s writers and editors are only slightly closer to the center than the vulgar, drooling lefties at the Gawker archipelago, which, along with Media Matters, is a frequent source of Mediaite’s material.

Editor Glynnis MacNicol, who co-hosted a daily radio show with Ana Marie Cox and Rachel Sklar on Air America (that is, until its backers got tired of losing their a$$ets) tries on a daily basis to manufacture an anti-Palin meme from whole cloth, and steadfastly refuses to correct herself when she’s proven wrong. And believe me, I’ve proved her wrong many times. In fact, we’re coming up on December 1, 2010, the one-year anniversary of the day she wrote that a full-page ad taken out by “birthers” using the well-known imagery of the “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” chimpanzees were “comparing Obama to an ape.” My evisceration of that scurrilous accusation is here.

I know you have a good working relationship with Colby Hall, and to be fair, Hall HAS corrected himself, as when he falsely accused Sarah Palin of making up the word “mandation.” But Hall also banned me from commenting on the site even though he admitted I violated none of the rules or terms of service; in his words, they decided that the commenting experience was more pleasant when I wasn’t around. What caused that to happen? Likely, someone didn’t take it well last January when I flipped a fat joke at Rush Limbaugh’s expense around and made it a Ted Kennedy joke. Ooooooh! That was beyond the pale, to speak ill of the dead.

Oh, BTW — the topic of of the thread in question? MacNicol had approvingly linked to a vicious TheOnion.com piece imagining a pill-popping, guilt-ridden Limbaugh hoping he is assassinated because he doesn’t have the guts to commit suicide. Wrote MacNicol: “It is a fake op-ed piece penned by an imaginary Rush Limbaugh, though likely there are parts to it some folks very much wish were real…”

More about that incident here at L.N. Smithee’s REACTOR.

L.N. Smithee on November 15, 2010 at 5:54 PM

The unasked question, was Parker a member of journolist during the 2008 election? That would be the icing on the cake.

eaglewingz08 on November 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM

No.

Parker had a reputation for years as the token conservative female at the Washed-up Post, and was frequently referred to as an intelligent alternative to the likes of Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin, but was no more notable than that. Then, she called for McCain to dump Palin and install Romney, making her a MSM superstar overnight. But she was NEVER a Journolist type, which included people who were afraid Obama wasn’t sufficiently radical.

Earlier this year, The Daily Caller got the archives of the Journolist, and Parker was nowhere in there.

L.N. Smithee on November 15, 2010 at 6:14 PM

She’s gonna be suspended w/o pay in 3, 2, 1…nevermind.

ProudPalinFan on November 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

On the other hand, I don’t see where Ziegler is getting his proof that skank Parker endorsed Obama.

This is pretty close, approximately at the 5:25 mark.

Fallon on November 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM

I don’t think anyone can find where Parker specifically endorsed Obama or said she would vote for him. But all you have to do is read between the lines to see that her protests are pretty much meaningless.

She can try to walk it back, but when the media was going after Palin, Parker was leading the parade. It would take someone really dense to believe she would then turn around and vote for McCain.

tom on November 15, 2010 at 7:58 PM

The terrible mistake McCain-Palin made was in allowing long taped interviews with Couric and Gibson. Why not just paint a target on Palin’s chest and have her walk slowly back and forth across the range? In such situations, EVERY time the editing will be carefully constructed to make the conservative look as bad as possible while leaving her best points on the cutting room floor.

NEVER go into that situation, you are playing the media’s game.

Remember George H.W. Bush as VP and running for President. CBS wanted an interview, and he agreed but ONLY if it were aired live on the Evening News. As a result, he made Dan Rather look like a complete idiot.

If that interview had been taped, that footage would never have seen the air.

Rather, of course, learned his lesson and just made up the news he wanted after that.

Adjoran on November 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Very well put. But I remember that the McCain campaign didn’t just allow this long interview, they pretty much insisted she do it. She said in her book that she was tired, and saw little or no point to continuing the interview. I would gather that she had been strongly requested to give the interview.

I don’t think McCain himself was out to get her, but it’s obvious some on his campaign staff were sabotaging their own VP candidate. This interview may well have been designed to clear the way for their preferred candidate in 2012.

tom on November 15, 2010 at 8:07 PM

On the other hand, I don’t see where Ziegler is getting his proof that skank Parker endorsed Obama. It certainly isn’t anywhere in the Krauthammer or Parker columns cited.

Jaibones on November 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM

(Strikethrough mine)

You’re right. 1000% percent right. John Ziegler was out of bounds coming to the round table of CNN’s new hit series Parker/Spitzer and claiming Kathleen Parker endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy. Ms. Parker has never written the words, “I endorse Barack Obama,” and anything less than that ought not be interpreted as an endorsement.

Right?

For the unconvinced, let us go to the printed record. To recap the closing months of the 2008 campaign on Planet Parker: After receiving the mother of all backlashes when she insulted Palin in her September 26, 2008 column, Parker responded by portraying herself as the victim of intolerance, and began insulting her audience and continued to denigrate Palin in her next three columns. This delighted the MSM, which said in effect, “If you have nothing good to say about Sarah Palin, come sit by me … on TV.” Of course, that just made matters worse among her shrinking loyal readership (or, at least among readers of Townhall.com, the increasing number of people who wanted her gone).

After that column in which she urged Palin to make up a reason to step down for the sake of America, Parker’s first piece in which Palin was not the primary focus was titled “To Appalachia … With Respect”. Here are the first words of the first sentence of that column:

If you’re a Democrat who needs help getting the votes of rural white folks …

Parker — proving herself to be the bonafide conservative that so many said she was not — went on in this vein:

[S]ometimes you can learn more about a people and their place through literature than by hiring consultants. So I called Ron Rash, poet, author and purebred Appalachian whose newest novel, “Serena,” should be at the top of Barack Obama’s reading list.

[…]

I asked Rash, with whom I’ve visited on occasion: What does Obama need to do to win the hearts and votes of Appalachia?

[…]

African-Americans built this country and got nothing back, he says. So did Appalachians. What Obama may not know is that most mountain communities were pro-Union during the Civil War. These often-impoverished descendants of the Scots-Irish weren’t slaveholders, after all. In a sense, blacks and Appalachians are natural allies.

As Virginia Sen. Jim Webb wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “The greatest realignment in modern politics would take place rather quickly if the right national leader found a way to bring the Scots-Irish and African-Americans to the same table.”

[…]

Thus, when Obama visits the region, Rash recommends that he say the following…

Just in case people doubted Parker was a conservative stalwart, she ended with this line (bold mine):

Straight talk without condescension is all anyone asks. It may be all Obama needs to finish the race.

But that’s not an endorsement. Right?

In her October 17, 2008 column “The Buckley Son Rises – And Runs” in which she addresses Christopher Buckley’s endorsement of Obama (which I also evaluated on my blog), Parker wrote:

Christopher Buckley’s endorsement of Barack Obama — followed by his abrupt departure from the back page of the magazine his father [William F. Buckley, Jr.] founded, National Review — has caused a ripple of contempt from the conservative right.

Nay, make that a tsunami of hostility. An avalanche of venom. A cataclysm of … well, you get the idea. People are mad. Good riddance, they say, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

[…]

I am not a passive bystander to these events. Buckley is a friend … Like Buckley, I have enjoyed a decent fragging for suggesting that Sarah Palin excuse herself from the Republican ticket.

Parker ended that column with (bold mine)…

Republicans are not short on brainpower — or pride — but they have strayed off course. They do not, in fact, deserve to win this time, and someone had to remind them why.

Christopher Buckley, ever the swashbuckling heir to his father’s defiant spirit, walked the plank so that the sinking mother ship might right itself.

No doubt his seafaring father is cheering from heaven: “Ahoy there, Christo! Well done, my son.”

But that’s not an endorsement. Right?

On October 22, 2008, Parker wrote regarding correspondence she insists she received in recent weeks from folks who said they’re Republicans:

Sitting quietly at their desks are an unknown number of discreet conservatives who surprise themselves as they mull their options. Appalled by McCain’s erratic behavior, both in dealing with the financial crisis and his selection of an unsuitable running mate, they will quietly (and with considerable trepidation) vote for Obama.

Are they are worried about higher taxes, a premature withdrawal from Iraq, and Obama’s inexperience in matters executive? You betcha. But they do not want to vote for a divisive, anti-intellectual ticket headed by a man who, though they admire him, lately has made them embarrassed to be Republicans.

Nope. No endorsement dat. Am I right, peoples?

Two days later, on October 24, 2008, Parker’s column “Maverick’s Big Mistake” got off to this (ahem) rousing start:

My husband called it first. Then, a brilliant, 75-year-old scholar and raconteur confessed to me over wine: “I’m sexually attracted to [Palin]. I don’t care that she knows nothing.”

After citing a doubtlessly unbiased treatise on McCain’s decision on Palin by a writer for the New York Times, Parker opined:

[T]here can be no denying that McCain’s selection of her over others far more qualified — and his mind-boggling lack of attention to details that matter — suggests other factors at work. His judgment may have been clouded by … what?

Science provides clues. A study in Canada, published in New Scientist in 2003, found that pretty women foil men’s ability to assess the future. “Discounting the future,” as the condition is called, means preferring immediate, lesser rewards to greater rewards in the future.

Drug dealers, car salesmen and politicians rely on this affliction and pray feverishly for its persistence.

So Parker cited a study about sex appeal turning men’s brains to Jell-O in the same breath in which she wonders “…what?” could have been McCain’s reason to select Palin.

Who among us would call that an endorsement of McCain’s opponent? Anybody? Anyone? Bueller?

Finally, let’s consider Parker’s final column before the 2008 election, which kicked off with this definitely un-snarky remarky:

It is hard to imagine that “undecideds,” like restless phantoms with unfinished business, still haunt these final hours.

What can they be waiting for? An epiphany? Some final bit of information to tip the scale? A hidden corpse, an illegitimate child, a beloved aunt living in public housing?

After dismissing the “Auntie Zeituni” discovery in the final countdown to Dixville Notch’s polls opening, Parker focused on Obama’s final appeal via a his nationally-televised informercial with six days remaining:

What else don’t we know, and how much does it matter to the undecideds, who represent about 8 percent of the voting public? If they tuned in to Obama’s Wednesday night infomercial, they were greeted by a man more Reaganesque than Reagan. Calm, soothing and reassuring, he presented real-people stories and real-people solutions with the voice and demeanor of Mr. Rogers. One kept expecting him to trade his shoes and jacket for sneakers and a dye-free sweater.

What did Parker say when she met one of those mysteriously betwixt folk? Let’s listen as she tells the tale:

So what are these zombies of the voting booth really waiting for? Something they won’t find: The perfect choice. It doesn’t exist. The clear path is dappled with doubt.

[…]

A friend’s late-night call cast light on the undecided’s milieu. She was filling out her ballot at home and had made every choice but one. The presidential ticket. “I just can’t quite bring myself to do it. I hate Sarah Palin. Help me out here.” I laughed.

[…]

Here’s what I told her. Make two lists — one of tangibles (war, taxes, health care) and one of intangibles [(hope, change, the end of race in identity politics, Jesse Jackson’s permanent retirement)] — assign a value (1-5) to each, and take out your calculator. Discount race unless it really matters, in which case, shred your ballot. If McCain gets the highest score, then pray he inherited his mother’s longevity gene.

Parker’s final words before she cast her own ballot:

Four years ago, Obama famously described his vision of America as neither liberal nor conservative, neither black, white, Latin nor Asian. “There’s the United States of America,” he said. “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.” Should he win on Tuesday, let’s hope he meant it.

So, my long-suffering readers, there you have it. John Ziegler is most definitely mistaken, if not slanderous in his assertion; there’s no way any fair person could objectively suggest that Kathleen Parker “endorsed” Barack Obama’s candidacy for President in 2008.

Right? Right.

Now that we’ve settled that, if you’ll excuse me, I have to leave. I don’t want to be late for my flight to Atlantis. That pegasus won’t wait.

L.N. Smithee on November 16, 2010 at 3:37 AM

Can that actually be walked back? After proclaiming oneself to be the leader of a media assassination movement, can one credibly backtrack to a position of sadness over its success? I’d say that either Parker realized that she had crossed a line — or CNN did. John’s point is validated in this retreat.


Only if a full apology, in triplicate, is submitted. Including the spending of equal amounts of time, energy, and money to repair the damage as was expended doing the deed.

Even then, the long term future credibly of this woman will be a breath away from Zero… forever.

RalphyBoy on November 16, 2010 at 10:45 AM