Just because he wears cowboy boots and drops his G's doesn't mean he's a dummy. Perry may be a small-town boy who went to an ag school (Texas A&M University), but he's an extremely cagey and strategic politician who has been among the state's most successful governors at getting what he wants. Put another way: Even if he's not book smart by University of Chicago standards, he's plenty street smart - and street smart is still smart. The better lens through which to regard Perry is inside vs. outside, establishment vs. anti-establishment, elitist vs. jus' folks. Don't make the mistake of thinking that jus' folks is jus' dumb.

--Evan Smith ("5 Myths About Rick Perry," Washington Post, 8/21/11)

Whatever his brain power is, he was elected three times governor of Texas. He is now a first-tier presidential contender. He's smart enough to be President of the United States. He's smart enough to be elected, I think. At this point, I think we can stipulate that. So whatever his book smarts are, I think that's irrelevant for this discussion. He has clearly met the bar in Texas several times. The voters in Texas have said three times he's smart enough to be governor, and he's had a record that he's now running on.

--ABC World News senior Washington editor Rick Klein (Fox News' On the Record, 8/29/11)

Liberals often say Republicans are stupid, but they really believe it with regard to Gov. Perry. For liberals, credentials and holding fashionable opinions are more important markers of intelligence than knowledge or accomplishment.... Gov. Perry scorns their opinions, and he went to Texas A&M, not Harvard or Yale. So when a new book said his is "the brainiest political operation in America," liberals were shocked.
--Jack Kelly ("Kicking Rick: Mainstream Media and Democrats Fear the Texas Governor, So They Smear Him," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/4/11)

What those dummies Bush and Perry have in common, other than having been Texas governors, pilots and cheerleaders (what is it with Texas?), is that they're not stupid at all.... They're smart enough to know that most people in this country didn't go to Ivy League colleges -- or any college for that matter.... Until someone emerges to remind Americans of who they are in a way that neither insults their intelligence nor condescends to their less-fortunate circumstances, smart money goes to the "stupid" politicians, who are dumb as foxes and happy as clams when their opponents misunderestimate them.
--Kathleen Parker ("Not So Dumb After All," Washington Post, 9/18/11)

I will tell you: It's three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and the--what's the third one there? Let's see.... OK. So Commerce, Education and the-- ... The third agency of government I would--I would do away with the Education, the ... Commerce and--let's see--I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops.

--Rick Perry (Republican presidential debate, 11/9/11)

Washington Post columnist (and CNN host) Kathleen Parker turned in some thoughts (1/30/11) about what she didn't hear Barack Obama's State of the Union address:

He didn't say it. That word: "exceptional." Barack Obama described an exceptional nation in his State of the Union address, but he studiously avoided using the word conservatives long to hear.

She goes on:

The exceptional issue may be political, but it isn't only that. The idea lies smack at the heart of how Americans view themselves, and the role of government in their lives and in the broader world. Is America exceptional or isn't she? Is there something about this country that makes us unique in the world?

The right-wing obsession with Obama's alleged reticence about declaring the United States "exceptional" is notable mostly because, as we pointed out here (12/21/10), the primary example Obama's exceptional critics cite comes from a press conference in 2009 where Obama said this:

The United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

Apparently that use of the word "exceptional"--you know, the thing Obama refuses to say--wasn't quite exceptional enough. Parker knows that incident, but must write in circles in order to make the criticism of Obama hold up:

Exceptionalism became radioactive a couple of years ago when Obama was asked at an overseas news conference whether he subscribes to "the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world."

His answer has haunted him since:

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

I remember thinking at the time: Bzzzzt. Wrong, Harvard. That is not the correct answer. There was more to his response, in fact, but the impression was already set.

What Obama added was that "we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional."

Not so hard to say after all?

Let me see if I understand this. Obama doesn't declare the United States to be exceptional--except that he does. Namely, the part of this much-discussed 2009 press conference where he explains that America really is exceptional--an answer of a sort to those deluded Brits and Greeks. Is the problem that he doesn't declare American greatness loudly enough?

For the record, the State of the Union address included some boilerplate political rhetoric:

We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.

That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.

So what's the problem, then? Obama would seem to make all the usual noises about American greatness. But some folks--Parker included--don't seem to believe it. Given that this is the same Kathleen Parker who once wrote about how Obama lacked a certain American "fullbloodedness," it seems pretty clear that she's still got some hang-ups about him.

In a column (12/19/10) devoted to attacking others for "the intentional manipulations of language to obscure truth," Washington Post columnist and CNN host Kathleen Parker spends most of her time targeting Democrats over the tax cut debate:

Democrats are equally guilty of obfuscation through language distortion. How many times throughout the tax bill debate have you heard some variation of the following? Giving tax breaks to the rich will add to the deficit.

Pardon? How does money in someone's own pocket add to another's debt? This sort of logic is possible, of course, only under confiscatory rules of wealth redistribution.

In case that wasn't clear enough, Parker comes up with an analogy where "Joe" (the federal government) is in debt and pressuring "Mary" (a wealthy person) to loan him some money. Mary knows he's just going to waste it. Of course, you can turn this analogy around pretty easily--as when Joe loaned several Wall Street giants money because, we were told, they would crumble without Joe's "loan." Or you could point out that Joe gave Mary a huge break on the money she owed for the past decade, and now Joe needs Mary to start paying what she used to pay.

Parker's argument doesn't make any sense, but her point is clear enough: Taxation is just "wealth redistribution" and Democratic rhetoric "stokes class warfare and demonizes the doers who create jobs for others." The irony is that she is declaring that anyone who points out an obvious fact--that tax cuts diminish government revenue, which makes the deficit and debt larger than they would otherwise be--is engaged in some kind of dishonest trickery.

Internal problems at CNN have jumped from the gossip pages to the New York Times. Brian Stelter reports today (12/8/10) on behind-the-scenes clashes at the new program Parker Spitzer, which is co-hosted by liberal-leaning former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and conservative columnist Kathleen Parker. Stelter writes:

The ratings for CNN's latest experiment are stagnant. The show has been troubled by backstage tensions that have spilled out in gossip columns and have given rise to speculation--and some wishful thinking among his supporters--that CNN could make Mr. Spitzer the sole host.

CNN executives and the co-hosts flatly ruled out that outcome in interviews last week. Disappointment with the ratings was evident, even as they emphasized that the show was just starting to get its footing.

The reports adds that the show

pairs Mr. Spitzer, a liberal with a prosecutor’s bent, and Ms. Parker, who calls herself a rational conservative. "We wanted very much to bring a nonpartisan alternative to television viewers," Ms. Parker said, a wink at the red- and blue-hued shows on Fox News and MSNBC.

Much of the gossip concerns Spitzer's apparent domination of the show. This is not terribly surprising; up to this point he'd been making pretty regular appearances on various MSNBC programs, and came across as forceful and reasonably telegenic.

The problem here seems to me to be with CNN's self-concept as a the news channel that doesn't take sides--what supposedly makes it different from its more successful competitors at Fox and MSNBC. If someone wanted to give Eliot Spitzer a show, they could have done that. But to the "take-no-sides" management at CNN, this would have been seen as being overly partisan. Instead, they thought it wise to pair Spitzer with a conservative, so as not to be guilty of the offense of giving a liberal a show. The fact that this hasn't drawn a lot of viewers doesn't seem like a tremendous surprise.

I clicked on the Washington Post website on Sunday and saw this:

We Overreact to Prejudice Instead of Airing It Out

By Kathleen Parker

Only someone who's pondered Barack Obama's "fullbloodedness" and Elena Kagan's distance from "mainstream" America (hint: She's Jewish, and from New York!) can do this. Parker also wrote a memorable column about Barack Obama being too "girly," then explained in a follow-up that, unlike African-Americans, she has the "luxury of seeing people without the lens of race."

Kathleen Parker is indeed an expert in "airing out" prejudice.

Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker (umm, PULITZER Prize-winning columnist) got a lot of feedback about her recent column ("Obama: Our First Female President," 6/30/10) suggesting that Barack Obama is kind of girly. She carefully pointed out that she was "not calling Obama a girlie president. But . . . he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises."

So he's girly-sounding, I guess. Parker elaborated by suggesting that Obama "displays many tropes of femaleness. I say this in the nicest possible way."

According to Parker's update column (7/4/10), many readers--including many black readers--did not think her assessment was particularly nice. Some pointed to the long history of emasculating black males; others commented on the problems Obama would face as a black politician if he were too appear too "angry."

Parker stands by her argument, though, and part of her response stressed one of the advantages of being white:

 But I also recognize that my life experience is different from that of most African-Americans. And that experience allows me both the luxury of seeing people without the lens of race, but also (sometimes) to fail to imagine how people of other backgrounds might interpret my words.

The failure to imagine how "people of other backgrounds" read your work is obvious enough. But the idea that being white means that you enjoy a unique ability to judge events "without the lens of race" is bizarre, unless you're trying to echo Stephen Colbert's long-running gag about white people who cannot possibly see race. As he explained once to Al Sharpton, Colbert was going to take Sharpton at his word when he said he was black, because Colbert was beyond race.   

Well, Parker is apparently doing precisely that: 

You'll have to take me at my word when I say that I don't view Obama exclusively as a black man--no matter what he said on his census form. Not only is he half-white, but also he has managed to transcend skin color, at least from where I sit.

Parker will soon co-host a show on CNN--not Comedy Central--by the way.

National Review senior editor Jay Nordlinger (Corner, 3/24/10), responding to CNN pairing disgraced Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer with a not-conservative-enough-for-National-Review Kathleen Parker, muses:

I'm reminded why conservatives had to build their own media outlets. It's sort of like Jews and country clubs. Jews built their own, not because they wanted to, necessarily, but because the other clubs wouldn't let them in. They weren't being "clannish." They wanted to play golf, on first-class courses....

Well, we conservatives built our own media outlets--because the other clubs wouldn't let us in. I guess it's working out OK.

Blogger Ryan McNeely (Yglesias, 3/24/10) takes issue with the comparison of put-upon conservative pundits with ethnic discrimination. But the idea that conservatives were ever excluded from corporate media in the first place is nothing but a delusion.

Presumably one of the outlets conservatives built that Nordlinger has in mind was his own National Review.  One of the writers founding editor William F. Buckley first recruited for his staff was Whittaker Chambers, the famous former Communist turned arch-conservative. Chambers' previous perch was at Time magazine,  where he was considered the magazine's most important writer. He had already made his conversion to the right when he went to Time ("Pinkos who did not bat an eye when the Soviet government exterminated 3,000,000 peasants by famine will go for a good cry over the hardships of the Okies," he wrote in a movie review of The Grapes of Wrath--2/12/40), but Henry Luce had no problem taking him on board. (Buckley himself, of course, had a prominent 33-year-career on that notorious suppressor of conservatives, PBS.)

In the bad old days, when no one would let conservatives work in the media, who was the country's most prominent columnist? Walter Winchell, defender of Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover. Similar politics didn't stop Paul Harvey from getting a daily slot for commentary on the ABC Radio Network.

The fact is that many of the people who owned newspapers, magazines and radio stations--as you might expect of millionaire businessmen--were quite conservative: people like Robert McCormick, Harry Chandler and Frank Gannett. These are the bosses who would have been barring conservatives from working in the media industry.  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

"Elena Kagan Is Miles Away From Mainstream America" is the headline on Kathleen Parker's Washington Post column this morning (5/12/10).  What exactly does that mean?

Well, on first blush, it seems to have to do with where she's from: "Coincidentally, she shares the same home town as the other two women on the court. Assuming Kagan is confirmed, all three women will hail from New York."  And why does this matter? "Spending one's formative years walking past the infamously crime-riddled Murder Hotel en route to school, as Kagan did--and, say, walking past the First Baptist Church to ballet class--are not the same cultural marinade."

To which, as a proud adopted New Yorker, I say: Huh? The "Murder Hotel" was a dilapidated residential hotel on the Upper West Side block that got its tabloid nickname from a murder that occurred there; it's not particularly infamous, but it was on the block that Kagan grew up on, and her dad helped shut it down.

But we also have ballet classes in New York City--actually, there are even famous ballet troupes based here--and, believe it or not, we also have Baptist churches here--249 of them, according to this church-locating service.  I don't know if Kagan ever took ballet class, but if she did, she could very easily have walked by the First Baptist Church on her way to them--it's at Broadway and West 79th Street, about four blocks from her house.

But this fantasy that New York City is some kind of alien world, where ballet and Baptists are unknown, is the crux of Parker's argument: "It seems remote to unlikely that a woman whose life has involved Baptist churches and ballet slippers would find herself on a track to today's Supreme Court, though that ought not to be the case."

Could it be that Parker's argument is not really about dance class, or even about New York City? That is suggested by her examples of justices whose backgrounds, unlike Kagan's, are a "help in claiming identity with ordinary people": She cites Clarence Thomas ("from a rural Georgia backwater") and Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito (each is a "the child of recently arrived immigrants"). Scalia, like Kagan, is a native of New York City, and yet, puzzlingly, he's a poster child for fitting in with regular Americans.  Could there be something else about Kagan that sets her apart from "mainstream" Americans?

Well, yes, there is something.  "More than half the country also happens to be Protestant, yet with Kagan, the court will feature three Jews, six Catholics and nary a Protestant. Fewer than one-fourth of Americans are Catholic, and 1.7 percent are Jewish." Though, again, the Catholics Scalia and Alito are held up as exemplars of ordinariness, so their religion isn't putting them outside that "mainstream"--you know, the one where people attend churches, Baptist or otherwise.

Conservatives have made a trope out of "San Francisco values"--a phrase that mainly serves to link Democrats to the most gay-identified city in hopes of attracting homophobic votes. When I hear conservative media figures going on about New York City, I hear the same thing--only with Jews instead of gays.