Wednesday, November 19, 2008
|
|
Oogedy-Boogedyism?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
1:52 PM
|
I just came from the excellent National Review Institute, so maybe they are on my mind more than usual ... In any event, in perusing the Corner, I see that even the most erudite among us are now in agreement that Kathleen Parker is really an Extra-Terrestrial who is attempting to take over the world (Okay, that's really me. But they do seem to agree she has gone too far).
... Jonah Goldberg's advice to Kathleen:
"Please stop bragging about how courageous you are for weathering a storm of nasty email you invite on yourself by dancing to a liberal tune. You aren't special for getting nasty email, from the right or the left." ... K-Lo seems to think Kathleen just needs a vacation from email:
"I wonder if after some time away from her e-mail and newfound attentions she'd be using some of the same words she's been using lately about many of the buyers of her book ... I won't ever pretend to know her or anyone's mind. But I do know she is smarter than her column recently has suggested." May I offer my own observations/predictions?
First, Parker's ridiculous notions are not what makes me cringe most. Instead, it's her Peggy Noonan meets Maureen Dowd cutesy writing style (who says oogedy-boogedyism?) that is the most intellectually insulting. Of course, this style almost always goes along with flawed political analysis, so...
Second, just as Arianna Huffington was once a conservative writer who was even found on these very (web) pages, Kathleen Parker has gone over to the Dark Side. This is not one column we're talking about here.
|
|
Alan Keyes has filed in Ca Supreme Court proving injury as a Presidential Candidate from Obama failing to prove he is a natural born citizen of US...is Petitioning a Stay of California's electoral votes.
............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9qQv9UXc........... |
|
Again, The Dixie Chick syndrome.
Some people are jerks, they send mean
e-mails, they make prank calls, they
stomp their feet and hold their breath
and then stick their tongue out at you.
I'm sorry for that.
But, most who disagree w/your columns
do what? They go 'oh, ho hum, that's
kind of cold Kathleen...', put the paper
down, go to another online paper or site,
and that's it.
They don't care that much about your
writing. Or that of Noonan or Brooks or
even Kristol in this pile on period.
Obama is going to be President.
The guy the left and right bashed for 8 years
is leaving office in a sad way, despite success
in Iraq, his predictions on Iran now coming
true, two solid conservatives on the Supreme
Court, delivering on tax cuts and being pro-life and anti-Kyoto Treaty, and pro-2nd amendment.....
because of the decades of govt. intervention
in housing, lending, and business practices.
Where we now await a president who is promising
to increase big spending, big taxes, and a
weak foreign policy........great solutions!
Dont' worry, the christian conservatives will
have 4 or 8 years to hear more Kathleen Parker
type attacks from the Democrats and the liberal
wing of the GOP. |
|
She's free to express her opinion, whose stopping her? But, like The Whinig Dixie Chicks, she's so full of herself, she still
can't fathom that others may disagree w/her.
Or that perhaps, she was wrong in how she
said something, or why she did.
She doesn't like Palin. She doesn't like
those silly openly Christian Republicans
either. OK.
So what Kathleen. The GOP lost an election.
It saw millions of Republicans sit it out,
vote for Paul or Nader or Barr, or even vote
for Obama in disgust w/what the party offered
them this year.
It was not the Christian conservatives who
created the amnesty plan that permanently
stunted Bush's base support. It was not the
Christian conservatives who told him to shoulder
all the blame for Katrina errors of Nagin & Blanco. It was not the Christian conservatives
who told the GOP Congress to remove their spines
when dealing with Democrats for 6 years.
|
|
She lost me when she criticized Pastor Warren for the first election 'debates'. I learned more about the candidates than all interviews, debates, and "vetting" in the MSM.
She criticized a forum where we were able to hear the candidates reveal themselves at detail; using simple questions. Pastor Warren trumped the media; including Parker. Her complaint: it was held in a chruch.
Essentially, Parker's criticism came off as jealousy. She didn't get 1 second of face time; Warren had 2 hours and changed the face of debates for future elections. |
|
much better writers than Parker. Noonan used to be a great writer before the green devil of envy took control of her. |
|
has lost her direction and is meandering through an alternate reality.
The fewer posts made after her columns the smaller her audience.
A smaller audience is the best cure for her irrational turn. |
|
better of both Parker and Noonan. Once a person embraces their sin, it is very difficult (not impossible) to repent and change direction. |
|
a writer that got her job with family connections.
Her articles wander throughout. They are nice prose and poetry, but never get to the point until the last 2 para's. Seems that she thinks that we are held in literary "suspense". Please.........
This writer, as we are finding with many, doesn't know anything outside of Wash DC. And the world is bigger than that.
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I never thought of Darth Parker as a political columnist before this election; I suppose I saw her as more of a cultural commentator. She's never been anything but a Noonan wannabe in my book, I agree with Matt Lewis's point about her cutesy writing style, and I wish that NRO and Townhall wouldn't carry her columns.
Also, I never thought of Christopher Buckley as a conservative writer on politics. He seems to have labored to distinguish himself from his more intelligent and talented father in that regard. |
|
Welcome to the emergence of Darth Parker. Her last 16 columns or so have all been about:
1.) Hating Palin and making absurd claims (can't form a coherent sentence? Give me a break)
2.) Lamenting McCain's "seduction" at Palin's hands
3.) Preaching about female genitalia
4.) Praising education as an international means of reducing poverty and disease when it's been shown to do neither (for disease, compare San Fran to Moldova, and for poverty, compare an average American's test scores against those overseas)
Yeah, she's embraced the Dark Side. |
|
documentation (quotes from writings/compare and contrast, etc., you know, the old college blue book trick) to demonstrate that "you will see just how amateurish they [Jonah and k-Lo] are as compared to Parker, Buckley, jr. and Andrew Sullivan."
|
|
proposes Andrew Sullivan as a standard to compare to.......
this lying pack of dung claims to be a "conservative"......
every column he writes is anti-conservative.....
Sullivan in fact, is a British citizen and a self-professed homosexual.......
he HATES our government because he desires American ctizenship, but is denied that because he is HIV positive........
a bitter, bitter man who hates the Bush administration, the GOP, and all conservatives.....
comparing anything other than a hyena to this guy is laughable!!!! |
|
Hey Mark,
Thanks for coining the term "Obamaloompas" in your comments! The whole Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie comes to mind, and I'm trying to come up with all the other political parallels. It's clear that Obama is Charlie, but who is Willy? What is the Golden Ticket? What is the candy? Which "obamaloompa" is Kathleen Parker? When does she sing the "Oogedy-Boogedy" song? The questions abound.
Wizard of Oz was originally written as a kind of political commentary in its day. Who knew that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was written to be both political and prophetic? |
|
As an acknowledged "oogedy-boogedyist" I was actually intrigued by Andrew Sullivan's arguments back in the day, that allowing marriage would encourage gays toward a more responsible, monogamous lifestyle. I still didn't agree, but he had a fair point and I thoughtfully considered it. But then he turned and came to hate anyone "born again". It's sad to watch the same thing happen to another intelligent conservative writer.
It's one thing to argue that evangelicals are wrong to oppose legalized abortion and gay marriage. It's another thing to say that evangelicals should be ostracized from your party or your presence because being confronted by their existence is too offensive for you. |
|
"...gone over to the Dark Side" is more correct than you know.
This will be happening more and more as the weaker "journalists" throw in with the Obamaloompas, ostensibly to not be fired in the coming purges.
The fact that she folded so early just makes Ms Parker all the more pitiful and pathetic. |
|
|
Jack and Santa killed Oogedy-boogedy at the end of the movie. Oh noes! Hes back! |
|
I am a Oogedy - Boogedyist and I am offended by the content and tone not only of her column but by the offhanded way we are treated by both sides of the political spectrum.
We have suffered too long in silence. It has been scientifically proven that Boogedyism is genetically caused and our Oogedy tendencies are acting only behavior that has predestined on our kind by an unfeeling society.
Oogedy and proud!!! |
|
|
....the MSM would have invented her. |
|
other than the supposed "side."
as far as I can tell nothing has substantively changed about her writing.
You say her new point of view is disappointingly shallow, but you don't elaborate or back up that point at all. Again I am left to wonder if the only thing "shallow" about her viewpoint is that it doesn't agree with yours.
I'm all for a well reasoned debate/dismissal of her ideas if it's warranted, but that hasn't been offered here. |
|
|
I have limited time to read and gather information and she just isn't worth reading anymore. It's not that I don't appreciate views that are different than mine, but hers just don't have enough depth or reasoning behind them. It seems very superficial and now she's probably getting a lot of attention thus encouraging more of this new, disappointingly shallow point of view. |
|
So in your mind this persons views are no longer worth reading because she has "gone over to the Dark Side?"
One would assume that her brain has not physically changed much over the past election so I have to question how someones ideas are no longer valid simply because they stop agreeing with you.
If you'd like to debate the points she makes go right ahead. However, to simply insult her writing style and say that the ideas she expresses no longer have value simply because of what "side" you think she's on seems childish. |
|
|
|