Why Kathleen Parker was doomed on CNN

[Calypso Jones]

"But the primary reason why the program couldn’t work is also the very reason Parker got the gig in the first place. She was clearly hired because she was perceived as a “conservative” who was willing to vigorously attack Palin, while not holding any particularly strong conservative opinions which might offend the largely liberal CNN audience. It is hardly a secret that the best (and perhaps only) way for an unknown or career-challenged conservative to achieve mainstream media acceptance is to be a sellout to their supposed cause (just ask Arianna Huffington, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, David Frum, Michael Smerconish, or Joe Scarborough, to name only a few).

Criticizing Palin (along with endorsing Obama) has quickly become the most reliable path to instant notoriety/credibility for ambitious “conservatives,” and Parker became the poster child for this phenomenon."


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-zieg...doomed-at-cnn/

[NJCardFan]

I never thought Smerconish was particularly conservative at all. I'd say he was moderate to left leaning.

[fettpett]

I never thought Smerconish was particularly conservative at all. I'd say he was moderate to left leaning.

That IS conservative to those clowns at CNN and their ilk

[txradioguy]

E.D. Hill is another one that's not Conservative. I used to hear her on BOR's radio program.

[Adam Wood]

Once upon a time, Parker wrote some pretty interesting and insightful columns. That changed pretty quickly after the 2004 election. Nowadays, she's pretty much like Maureen Dipshit or David Brooks: they write/talk to see their names in print/see themselves on TV. That's it. They ceased to be thinking individuals a long time ago, and Parker is among them.