Parker, an admitted Obama fan, broke the Reagan rule and she knew it.  It's one thing to say Palin needs to learn how to deal with the hostile national media, it's quite another to demand the GOP throw her under the bus after one interview in a close election race.  Parker, like a lot of Northeastern RINO snobs, doesn't get Palin's appeal to the grassroots conservative.  She'd rather live under the Obama regime because at least he's a slick and smooth Ivy Leaguer than someone she thinks is beneath her. 

Sorry, I don't dole sympathy on Benedict Arnolds.  Go see if Katie Couric wants to be your friend now.

She writes a hateful column against our Vice Presidential candidate, a good woman and mother and Conservative, gets invited by the likes of Chrissie Matthews (and Keith Olbermann, soon??) to slam Sarah Palin, and to my knowledge would not have the courage to write a similiar vitriolic column against the Messiah, lest her name not be on talk show panels and DC cocktail party invites in the future.  F-U, Kathleen Parker.

If thats Parkers opinion so be it. If George Will thinks the same so be it. There are just as many liberals who think that Obama made the wrong pick and slews of dems who think the party nominated the wrong person. So who cares. There is no surprise the media is singling out the Palin doubters.  That there are conservatives who have doubts about Palin is fine. It would be nice to say it will all be sorted out on election day but the deck is stacked, not only has Obama more money to work with, his 527 groups have more money  but the unfair part is he has the free endorsement and air time of the MSM .. a tough road for McCain to hoe.

"Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced."

...as she tries to silence Palin... Libpoprcisy at its finest.

I know first had from a former Democrat that new Dem candidates and newly elected Dems are told what opinions to express.  This particular guy told me he wanted to express his position on an issue and was told to say something else instead. 

When he objected, he was told "you can have any opinion you want, but you will say what you are told to say and vote how you are told to vote."  The Dems are the Stalinists.

So what? People don't like what she said, that's what happens when you write a political column. If she wanted people to like her she should open a candy store. Threatening mail is a different story, but I'm guessing she's gotten that before from the left.

BTW: The Dixie Chicks are quickly becoming a footnote in political history since "W" has only a few months left in office. That little Bush rant cost them a lot of money and didn't gain them any fans. Something Kathleen Parker ought to consider. Or, she should follow the old maxim "If you can't say something nice about someone don't say anything at all."

In all fairness, Parker is saying that those who call her a RINO or send her hate mail because she rejects Palin's candidacy are engaging in a tactic that reeks of Stalinism.  This is by no means the same thing as saying "Conservatives are Stalinists", especially since it's pretty hard to believe that anyone who's read Parker's columns could mistake her for anything but a conservative.  By implying that she was maligning all conservatives or all Republicans, as the headline of this story and half of the comment do, only solidifies her point.  Am I any less of a liberal for being not-all-that-excited about Obama or for thinking Michael Moore's films are stupid?

Indeed, if thinking Palin is a bad candidate makes one a traitor to the Republican party, then there is something wrong here.  Republican Party history did not begin on August 30, to paraphrase a popular conservative meme.  And I have no doubt that Parker would like to see a Republican in the White House.  Nonetheless, she is perfectly justified in pointing out that a) it might be less likely with Palin on the ticket and b) if she and McCain did win, it would not be the best thing for the US.  "Country First," right?

And let's be frank here.  Can anyone actually muster the gall to claim that McCain picked Palin because she brings any sort of political acumen to the table?  If he made his choice based strictly on who would be best for the country - not just best for his campaign, and even that benefit seems to be fizzling - Palin would have been pretty far down the list. 

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A. it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street bankers in Gucci loafers?