Tag Archives: kathleen parker

CNN’s Spitzer Twice Refers to START Treaty as Being With the Soviet Union

It seems that Eliot Spitzer's mind is still in the 1980s, as he twice stated on Thursday's Parker-Sptizer on CNN that the new START Treaty was with the Soviet Union. Spitzer trumpeted “the all-important START Treaty, that will finally cement a nuclear disarmament agreement with the Soviet Union ,” and then noted that the treaty would deal with the ” nuclear warheads that are pointed by the Soviet Union at us ” . The former New York governor and co-host Kathleen Parker led their 8 pm Eastern hour program with the current affairs of the lame-duck Congress. Spitzer highlighted the recent Gallup poll that found that only 13 percent of American approve of the job the legislative body is doing, and bemoaned how “for the past couple of hours, they have been spending your tax dollars in a debate about- and I don't know how else to say this- how they're going to debate.” After Parker replied that the House debate was specifically about extending the current tax rates, her CNN co-host focused his attention on the Senate and made his first gaffe about the START Treaty. Parker must not have caught his error, as she didn't correct him: [ Video embedded below the page break ] read more

Link:
CNN’s Spitzer Twice Refers to START Treaty as Being With the Soviet Union

Kathleen Parker and Eliot Spitzer Unanimous in First CNN Appearance

CNN offered a sneak preview of their upcoming Parker-Spitzer program on Wednesday’s Anderson Cooper 360 with the new hosts, pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker and “Client Number Nine” Eliot Spitzer agreeing that the “well-spoken” Imam Feisal Rauf changed few minds with his recent interview. The two also forwarded their network’s charge that “Islamophobia” is growing in the U.S . Anchor Anderson Cooper began the segment by asking the two about Soledad O’Brien interview of Rauf, which took place the previous hour. Parker, the ” Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator ,” as Cooper called her, endorsed his appearance and went on to characterize the two sides of the debate over the planned Ground Zero mosque. In her view, those who oppose it “were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was…trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist .” On the other hand, the supporters of the mosque ” understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who’s well-spoken and has something important to say .” The former New York governor agreed with his future co-host: SPITZER: I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in…Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don’t create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe. Later, the CNN anchor brought up some of the wider controversies involving Islam in the United States and raised the “Islamophobia” charge: “We’ve seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, ‘Look, this is Islamophobia.’ Do you buy that?” Spitzer went further than just accusing people of “Islamophobia.” He all but said that the country has always had a streak of bigotry: SPITZER: I think there’s a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said …..I dug out George Washington’s letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do . The Democrat actually erred with his history, as the U.S. wasn’t three years old in 1790, but fourteen years old, if you date it from the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. His future co-host raised another common liberal argument, that many were just ignorant of Islam and Muslims: “We keep hearing this, ‘they’re going to do this, if you let them get in.’ You let them do this, then they’re going to demand, demand. Who is the ‘they’? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? …I think we’ve got to stop thinking of Muslims as being ‘them.'” One might surmise from this appearance, given the former governor’s liberal credentials, and Parker’s swipes at conservatives, as she did earlier in September against Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin , that CNN’s upcoming program is going to be less like Crossfire and more like an Amen corner. The full transcript of the segment from Wednesday’s Anderson Cooper, which began 38 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour: COOPER: Joining me now are Elliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, and Kathleen Parker, Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator. In October, their new program begins right here on CNN at 8 pm. Welcome, thanks very much for being with us- good to have you here. KATHLEEN PARKER: Thanks, Anderson. Thanks for having us. COOPER: What did you think of the imam tonight? PARKER: You know, I thought it was very good that he came out and spoke and that people could see him in person and hear his voice. I think he probably changed very few minds. I think people are going to see exactly what they were already prepared to see. If you’re against it, you were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was playing some role- you know, in trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist. And then, if you were for it already, then you understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who’s well-spoken and has something important to say. I doubt that he really changed many hearts and minds, but maybe, it’s a start, as he says, toward a conversation that needs to take place. COOPER: Elliott, do you think he changed minds? ELLIOT SPITZER: No, I don’t think. I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in, and you saw that on your panel earlier in the show. Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don’t create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe. And I think he was well-spoken, but- COOPER: The lines are so clearly drawn, right? SPITZER: The lines are so rigid, and the views about this are so deeply ingrained and the passion- when you’ve lost somebody on 9/11, and the pain is so real, it’s very hard to change minds. COOPER: So, are we beyond a place where there is dialogue or possibility of coming together to- you know, David Gergen talked about some sort of solution of having- you know, a multi-faith center, is it- or are we beyond that? PARKER: I think that’s a great idea. I think that’s a great idea. I don’t think we’re beyond that. But I do think we have to be so careful as we give attention to these people who are, essentially, crackpots, okay? Let’s talk about this fellow- COOPER: You’re talking about- not the people who oppose the mosque? PARKER: No, no, no. Not, not- certainly not. I mean, look- COOPER: The Koran burners? PARKER: There is some crackpot-ism involved in this. I mean, there was a time when the headlines were fairly rational and straightforward and news-oriented, and you can see that was last December, as he said. And then, if you look at the headlines beginning last May, then they get increasingly inflammatory. And so- you know, I think that the rhetoric has been highly exaggerated in many cases. The media- you know, we all have a role in that and we have to be so careful, because when we do give attention to people like- for example, this fellow in Gainesville who’s threatening to burn the Koran. I was talking to a friend of mine earlier tonight who lives in Gainesville. And I said, ‘Do you know this character?’ And she said, ‘Yeah, my church is about a quarter mile down the road from his.’ His church is a metal building. He’s got approximately 50 followers. COOPER: And sells used furniture on eBay. PARKER: Yeah, and I would like for the Muslim world to understand that this is just one individual who doesn’t represent anyone but- you know, a handful of folks. That’s just- and that feeds, though, and builds this sort of- the sense that this is an awful thing going on. SPITZER: We need for time to pass. When emotions are this raw, you cannot address the issues rationally, because emotion overwhelms rationality. Andy [Sullivan], in your prior panel, said something very interesting and very important. He said this was the last straw for a middle class that is disenfranchised. Now, this issue is one of many that has led to an outbreak of anxiety, anger, venom- in many cases, legitimate because of emotions that derive from 9/11. In other instances, it is just a focal point for an upset with the way our economy and our national politics is playing out. And so, we need to understand this in that context, and I think when you view it that way, you understand how hard it is to bridge this chasm right now. COOPER: There’s- you know, we’ve seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, ‘Look, this is Islamophobia.’ Do you buy that? SPITZER: I think there’s a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said. COOPER: This is just the newest group? SPITZER: This is (unintelligible)- COOPER: From Catholics to Jews to the- SPITZER: Precisely, the newest incarnation- and, in fact, before I came on the show, I dug out George Washington’s letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do and what David Gergen spoke to, which is to get people together and say, ‘wait a minute, let us not’- COOPER: But that’s not what our political life is about now. PARKER: But we keep hearing this, ‘they’re going to do this, if you let them get in.’ COOPER: Pat Robertson saying that (unintelligble)- PARKER: You let them do this, then they’re going to demand, demand. Who is the ‘they’? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? You know, there seems to be- I just feel like this has become a misunderstanding on a broad scale. And while- absolutely, when you talk to people whose families died in this and- you know, on 9/11, you can’t not take that seriously. I mean, that emotion is real, and it’s still raw. But I think we’ve got to stop thinking of Muslims as being ‘them.’ COOPER: We’ve got to take a quick break. Elliot Spitzer, Kathleen Parker, appreciate you being with us. Thanks very much.

See the original post here:
Kathleen Parker and Eliot Spitzer Unanimous in First CNN Appearance

Kathleen Parker Uses Her WaPo Column to Play Up Her Humility…and Her New Lucrative Star Turn on CNN

Naturally, Kathleen Parker used her Sunday space on the Washington Post to do what every other Parker column in The Washington Post has sought to do: prepare for the next career step. That would mean proclaiming her humility, shock and/or horror that she would get a nightly prime time hour on CNN, defending/excusing Eliot Spitzer, and declaring that she’s keeping her syndicated column (after all, the ratings might not be promising). Her tender solicitations for Spitzer and his genius in tackling Wall Street are the pink-nausea-pill part: He was prescient about Wall Street, in other words, long before the recent financial crisis. Who wouldn’t be interested in what he has to say about financial reform today? I’m not defending Spitzer or condoning his behavior. [Ahem, yes, you are.] Ultimately, I decided that his obvious intelligence, insights and potential contributions outweighed his other record. As far as I’m concerned, especially given that he has resigned from public office, the flaws that brought Spitzer down are between him and his family. Like most Americans, I believe in redemption. In the Parker career plan, then, this is the motto: I don’t believe in the creepy G-O-D people who are ruining the Republican Party with their “oogedy-boogedy armband religion” of redemption, but I do believe in the redemption of people who can be my meal ticket on CNN at “almost $700,000 a year.” In addition to that number, the New York Post also reported that former CNN host Connie Chung dumped on the new project: “It’s sadly comical…and this is terribly disillusioning. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will give you more solid journalism than this program could possibly give.” Ouch. Parker’s Sunday column-slash-commercial has moments that are beyond parody. Mrs. Parker writes from “The Bunker,” and she is so writerly and anti-social that “Except when out for interviews and reporting, I mostly keep the company of one tiny blind poodle recently adopted from a shelter.” (Please report this to the NutraSweet Toxicity Information Center.) She loves shelter dogs, and those drooling, cheating politician dogs.    But the commercial continues. You’ll love this CNN show, she promises, because it will be like a “very interesting dinner party” (without the food or drinks). She is overcoming her quiet life with the Bunker and the poodle to be the Republican version of Alan Colmes:  That relatively quiet life is about to end, and I leave it with a mixture of excitement and trepidation. The trepidation is no mystery. It is the same for me as it would be for you. The excitement has to do with trying something new and challenging, as well as having resources at my disposal to explore the issues that really matter. For me those are the things we consider on our deathbeds — not who is up or down on a given day but how we have occupied our allotted space. Did we leave it better or worse? Did we cause someone to smile or laugh? Although the show is still in development, we intend to include regular contributors and guests selected in part from our own Rolodexes. Think of it as eavesdropping on a very interesting dinner party. It will be “interesting” because it won’t be a “food fight.” I’m sure that’s what CNN promised with the last several failed shows in the 8 pm hour. At this point, they ought to promise that watching Eliot and Kathleen fight will be almost as interesting as Mr. and Mrs. Spitzer fighting. If you’re going to build a show around shameless tabloid adultery, you ought to go whole-hog. But Mrs. Parker is above all that. In fact, she’s above the demeaning sphere of television:  I’m on record about my general dislike of the food-fight mentality of most television programming, which we hope to avoid. I’ve also expressed my kinship with aborigines who believe that the camera steals the soul. I think they’re on to something. If she really believed her own sales talk, she would have turned down the job, and the embarrassing you’ll-love-Eliot talk that comes with it. The first time I attacked Parker for selling out the conservative side to get on TV, she e-mailed me protesting that she wasn’t doing this to appear on the Chris Matthews Show, which she then began regularly doing. I would hope she’s beyond pretending now that she’s not selling out to get on liberal TV.

Here is the original post:
Kathleen Parker Uses Her WaPo Column to Play Up Her Humility…and Her New Lucrative Star Turn on CNN

WaPo Paints the Spitzer-Parker Show as a ‘Democrat’ and a ‘Conservative’

The Washington Post Style section promised an article on CNN’s new Eliot Spitzer-Kathleen Parker chat show with this front-page blurb: ” Odd couple on CNN: New show pairs a conservative with a Democrat.” Inside, in an article surprisingly shy on her typical snark, TV columnist Lisa de Moraes also described the pairing as the “disgraced/rehabbed former governor Eliot Spitzer, the New  York Democrat” vs. “Pulitzer-prize winning conservative columnist Kathleen Parker,” syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group (this could explain the lack of snark against Parker, if not Spitzer.) The TV columnist made no attempt to assess whether conservatives felt she was one of them (they don’t). She did see this as a turnabout for “Crossfire”-canceling CNN president Jon Klein, but she reproduced his sales chat without much objection: In an interview with The TV Column, Klein said that Spitzer and Parker “can address an appetite that is not being satisfied now — the 99 percent of the country not watching” the other 8 o’clock cable news shows. “We’d like to begin the long, slow, steady process of reaching the underserved. . . . We think America’s ready for that. . . . I can’t think of two people better suited than these super-intelligent, ultra-opinionated but rational individuals .” Leave it to Klein to make a talk-show sound like a soup kitchen. The cable-news “underserved”? Then, he tops that by making them sound like a super-ultra comic-book pairing, a pundit Wonder Twins? In TV terms, they’re green-as-Shrek rookies, but Klein isn’t bothered:  Klein said he’s not worried that neither Spitzer nor Parker has extensive on-air hosting experience yet are joining forces for a new show in a punishing time slot. “We cast a very wide net, and after looking at scores of potential anchors, Kathleen and Eliot demonstrated they belong at the head of the pack,” he said. I’m sure you could find the same sales talk when CNN acquired Campbell Brown from NBC. That’s pretty empty blather — and at least Brown was a broadcaster, with no vice-squad “buzz.” Actually, Spitzer also had a Washington Post connection to tame the poison tip of the de Moraes pen: Recently, Spitzer has been doing the old phoenix-rising-from-ashes thing as a TV personality, as have so many fallen men before him. He got high marks when he subbed on MSNBC. (Spitzer is also a contributor to Slate.com, which is owned by The Washington Post Co.) Parker made the show sound like it would merge “Crossfire” with “Take 5,”  the hip-friends pundit show they tried with Jake Tapper in 2001. Parker told The TV Column the show’s goal is “to change people’s mind.” To that end, they are rounding up a stable of regular contributors for the show. “We’re looking for the smartest, coolest, hippest, funniest friends.” What she likes about the new show, she said, is that “we are from such different worlds in every way….And, I informed Eliot, there are lot more people like me than him.” This apparently means there are more opportunistic moderates (some who trash popular conservatives to get famous on TV and in the WashPost) than there are partisan liberals with a zipper problem. At least de Moraes rehashed Klein’s old trash talk when he killed “Crossfire” that “CNN is a different animal. We report the news. Fox talks about the news.” Klein told the Post writer “We think Eliot and Kathleen are a can’t-miss show. It’s like your favorite blog — you think, ‘I can’t really understand how to think about what’s going on today until I’ve checked out XYZ blogger.’ We think that’s how their show is going to feel.” Lisa went really, sadly soft here, or an editor slashed some copy: right next to Klein’s “different animal” boasting in the New York Observer in 2005  is his blogger-bashing: He dismissed bloggers as “guys in pajamas” (he coined the phrase while defending Mr. Rather on Fox News) and told NPR that pundit shows on cable news were “crack.” And: “There is always going to be an important role for the guys who grab the cameras and shoot the pictures of stuff that’s actually happening,” he said. “What happens after that in the great repurposing engine that is cable news and the blogosphere is out of our hands.” Already, Mr. Klein’s flip comments had hit the blogosphere. Mickey Kaus at Slate seemed all shook up that former Crossfire conservative Tucker Carlson had been unceremoniously released from service. “Boy, people at CNN do not like Jonathan Klein!” Mr. Kaus wrote. “Doesn’t he realize it’s hard to be a highly unpopular boss in the Web era, especially at a big media enterprise the press will pay inordinate attention to? Ask Howell Raines.” “It’s a little early for Mickey to be rooting for my downfall,” said Mr. Klein, who said he didn’t have time to read blogs. But earlier, Mr. Klein had been happy to compliment the blogs with an easy backhand: “I don’t think that blogging, which is, you know, glorified Web-site hosting — that’s what it is. I had a blog for a while, but I just didn’t have time,” he said. “I don’t think that blogs topple news organizations because of the difficulty of sifting through reliable information and mere opinion. But they certainly have arrived on the scene as a player.”

Read the rest here:
WaPo Paints the Spitzer-Parker Show as a ‘Democrat’ and a ‘Conservative’

Greta Van Susteren Says Spitzer-Parker Show ‘Bad News for Keith Olbermann!’

Fox News host Greta Van Susteren says the just-announced new CNN show pitting former New York governor Eliot Spitzer against faux conservative Kathleen Parker is bad news for MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. Writing at her Greta Wire blog Wednesday, Van Susteren said, “[I]f CNN is to be successful, it will have to draw viewers from Keith Olbermann’s viewers.”   She continued, “The total number of cable news viewers seems to be a limited number so they have to grab from Olberman [sic].” Van Susteren elaborated as to why she doesn’t think Spitzer-Parker will take viewers from “The O’Reilly Factor”: You might ask why I don’t mention above Bill O’Reilly whose FNC’s O’Reilly Factor also airs at 8pm? That’s obvious — O’Reilly is SO FAR AHEAD OF EVERYONE IN ALL OF CABLE NEWS that NO ONE can lay a glove on him. No one even tries to compete with O’Reilly so I don’t include him in this discussion! O’Reilly dominates the cable news business. He has been #1 – by a giant margin – in ALL of cable for almost 10 years.  Is she right? Will this new program hurt Olbermann’s ratings, or has CNN become an also ran in this time slot? Stay tuned. 

See the original post:
Greta Van Susteren Says Spitzer-Parker Show ‘Bad News for Keith Olbermann!’

Crime Pays: CNN Hires Prostitute-Plying Ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer to Star in Debate Show with Kathleen Parker

The rumors were true. CNN is without shame. They are hiring disgraced Democrat Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the hypocritical “Sheriff of Wall Street” who hired high-priced hookers, as a talk-show host. Spitzer’s co-host will be pseudo-conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who won the Pulitzer Prize for being a conservative-basher . CNN’s press release said “she describes herself as a ‘rational’ conservative.” That’s a nice way to endear her to the “irrational” conservatives who might have considered watching this show. It’s set up to be Liberal Lion vs. ‘Rational’ Lamb. Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S., the man who canceled the long-running left-right show “Crossfire” after Jon Stewart lamented they needed to “stop, stop, stop, stop, hurting America,” has reinvented the format as just the latest liberal-media attempt to rehabilitate Spitzer’s career. Klein said in a statement: “Eliot and Kathleen are beholden to no vested interest – in fact, quite the opposite: they are renowned for taking on the most powerful targets and most important causes.” They’re actually spinning this “unbeholden” Spitzer as a moralist and guardian of the public interest. CNN’s press release suggested that little prostitution thing is hardly a disqualification for such a “well-respected political mind.” They even re-used the ridiculous “Sheriff” moniker: Spitzer, a Democrat who resigned as governor in March 2008 after acknowledging visiting a prostitute, is a well respected political mind and a take-no-prisoners prosecutor who has been often referred to as the “Sheriff of Wall Street.” Parker was required by her new job to kiss Spitzer’s ring: “I’m thrilled by the opportunity to discuss the issues that matter to me — and that aren’t heard often enough on television — in a conversation with one of the nation’s most brilliant, fearless and original thinkers. With Eliot Spitzer as my co-host, Wall Street and Main Street will finally meet. It can’t possibly be boring.” Last year, Parker also felt pain for Spitzer in a column knocking David Letterman for his nasty Sarah Palin joke (ever the balancer): Everyone knows by now that Letterman made fun of the Palin family’s trip to New York last week. He quipped that Palin’s daughter got “knocked up” by Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez during the seventh inning. Unable to stop his slide into the gutter, he said the hardest part of the visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter. How will this show cover the next politican sex scandal? Or are they hoping CNN will be the “hot corner” on those stories now?  James Poniewozik at Time has the first boos from the media establishment:  The first is not that Spitzer has been chosen despite his sex scandal. It’s that he seemingly was chosen, at least in part, because of the scandal: that is, because of the short-term blast of notoriety and buzz that he will bring with him. Now, for all I know, CNN genuinely sees special and distinctive broadcasting talent in Spitzer, but if they do, it’s eluded me in his long recent history as commentator and guest-host on CNN and MSNBC, where—to my ears, anyway—he comes off grating and supercilious. If he didn’t come with the name and the headlines, I have a hard time believing he’d been chosen on the basis of ability alone. (As for Parker, I’m not familiar enough to say whether she’s a good choice or not, though her résumé is strong enough. But I do have to guess that—call me cynical—given Spitzer’s history it would have been hard for CNN to even consider pairing him with a man. Not that the underrepresentation of men in cable news is exactly a problem, but the idea that pairing Spitzer with a woman makes his choice any better is just icky.)

Excerpt from:
Crime Pays: CNN Hires Prostitute-Plying Ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer to Star in Debate Show with Kathleen Parker

Meet the Conservative Intellectual Elite: Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Christopher Hitchens?

There’s one big problem with the presentation of “ The Party, In Exile ,” Pamela Paul’s snobby but interesting front-page Sunday Styles section piece on so-called conservatism in exile. As Karol Sheinin noted on her Twitter feed  — it doesn’t feature many actual conservatives. The caption under John Cuneo’s illustration made the disparity clear: “Insiders On The Outside: Members of the conservative intellectual elite at a party include, clockwise from left, David Frum, Michael Oren, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens, Laura Ingraham and Kathleen Parker.” Of those six names, only one (Laura Ingraham) would be unanimously waved in to a garden party strictly for “conservatives.” The prolific, peripatetic, atheist writer Christopher Hitchens, is a long-time socialist who allied with conservatives on the Iraq War and some other issues (Paul noted he is a member “of the disenchanted left”). Former Bush speechwriter David Frum’s main interest of late is lamenting the popularity of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker is an inconsistent conservative ally at best. Ayaan Hirsi Ali — in whose name the party was held — may qualify as conservative in some respects. Yet the brave feminist apostate from Islam, who currently works with the American Enterprise Institute, has only been in America for four years after being forced to flee Holland. Michael Oren is Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Otherwise, the ambience at this intimate cocktail and buffet in honor of the Somalian-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali — a woman who faced death threats even before she wrote a film that led to the murder of its director, Theo van Gogh — was one of ease. Wearing a Michelle Obama-esque sleeveless emerald dress and sipping wine, Ms. Hirsi Ali, who has spent recent weeks traveling to Britain, Denmark and her former country of refuge, the Netherlands, while on tour for her new book “Nomad,” warmly met guests as they circled in admiration. “Nice to see you,” total strangers said upon introduction, as if fearing the failure to recognize someone possibly met on a previous occasion. Or perhaps in certain Washington circles people assume they already know everyone else. Either way, here at the stately Wesley Heights home of the former Bush speechwriter, David (“axis of evil”) Frum, and his wife, the writer Ms. Frum, nearly everyone did. Far from the typical New York book party, this was more a bunkering of the conservative intellectual elite, a group that domineered its way through the Bush years but is now sidelined, a somewhat baffled shadow of its former blustery self. Whither the conservative establishment in today’s bilious political landscape? Certainly the typical Tea Party denizen, with his “I Wanna Party Like It’s 1773” T-shirt and “You Lie!” trucker hat, would seem out of place on the Frums’ well-tended grounds, nibbling chicken skewers and mini-B.L.T.’s. In the presence of Ms. Hirsi Ali, at least, there was a sense of shared purpose. Paul addressed the controversies surrounding Frum, who “lost his salaried post at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, in March, after calling the passage of health care legislation the Republican party’s ‘Waterloo.'” Also present was The Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, prom-girl pretty and winner of a Pulitzer this spring for “gracefully sharing the experiences and values that lead her to unpredictable conclusions,” including a rebuke of Sarah Palin. “Like all the best conservatives, I started off as a liberal,” she trilled. In a similar display of the intellectual right’s discomfort with Wasilla-brand populism, Ms. Frum mocked a speech by Ms. Palin in April on The Huffington Post. (“There was not a single memorable line, not a single new political idea, not a single proffered solution beyond the cliché.”) And lending a poignant immediacy to the rejiggered state of affairs was the Republican Senator Robert Bennett, ousted last month in the Utah primary for his votes on health care and Wall Street reform. A certain kind of nomad, all. If you can get past the knee-jerk “ick, Palin!” snobbery and mockery of the Tea Party movement, the latter half of Paul’s party piece contained some interesting anecdotes about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Islamist turned crusader for women and her shunning by her supposed liberal allies. Paul, to her credit, illuminated an issue Times Watch has discussed — the prickly response from the liberal media to Hirsi Ali’s crusade for women’s rights and against Islam: Not surprisingly, though she favors both gay and abortion rights, Ms. Hirsi Ali has alienated what might otherwise be fellow liberal travelers in her crusade against religious oppression. In The New Yorker, Pankaj Mishra dismissed Ms. Hirsi Ali’s “simple oppositions” and “growing familiarity with right-wing touchstones.” The Los Angeles Times called “Nomad,” which is dedicated to the former president of A.E.I., an “anti-Islamic screed” and “a tough jeremiad to read.” The historian Timothy Garton Ash and the Dutch-born academic Ian Buruma have both written dismissively of Ms. Hirsi Ali to the point that the N.Y.U. professor Paul Berman devoted much of his new book, “The Flight of the Intellectuals,” to mounting a defense. The Times review of Berman’s tome is here.

Original post:
Meet the Conservative Intellectual Elite: Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Christopher Hitchens?