Kathleen Parker leaving CNN's "Parker-Spitzer"

[Sword_Of_Truth]

CNN is reporting that Kathleen parker is leaving the news/commentary program she co-hosts with former scandal-ridden New York Governor Elliot Spitzer.

Spitzer is reportedly looking for a replacement "co-host" between the ages of 19 and 25 who is willing to work for 3,000$ per night.

 

[Giz]

There has to be a good talking head named "Swallows" out there.

 

[Thunder]

wrong sub-forum

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Aaaww crap!!!!

I thought she was quite a hottie! Goddamnit!! Why did she have to leave?

 

[Policenaut]

Aaaww crap!!!!

I thought she was quite a hottie! Goddamnit!! Why did she have to leave?

Probably because she was worthless. Her views were mostly similar to Spitzer, she's supposed to be a conservative voice but probably the weakest one on tv, and they had no chemistry. Spitzer was the star from the beginning and I heard at least a month ago they wanted to dump Parker asap. The whole point of a show like that is to have two very strong voices that are polar opposites and who will take up and defend their pov. That's why Crossfire was, if not an informative show, at least entertaining. It's really not fun (and these shows are entertainment, not hard news...I think people forget this point) to watch a single host blather on without a strong voice to counter them. And when these shows have guests either they always agree with the host or are not good enough, smart enough, or forceful enough to counter them.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Aaaww crap!!!!

I thought she was quite a hottie! Goddamnit!! Why did she have to leave?

She's 60 years old. Spitzer wants to trade her in for three 20's.

 

[dudalb]

The idea behind the Spitzer/Parker show, a show with a conservative and a liberal who cand disagree without yelling at each other, is good, but the execution was lousy,mainly because both Spitzer and Parker are such blah personalties.

 

[Ausmerican]

Probably because she was worthless. Her views were mostly similar to Spitzer, she's supposed to be a conservative voice but probably the weakest one on tv, and they had no chemistry. Spitzer was the star from the beginning and I heard at least a month ago they wanted to dump Parker asap. The whole point of a show like that is to have two very strong voices that are polar opposites and who will take up and defend their pov. That's why Crossfire was, if not an informative show, at least entertaining. It's really not fun (and these shows are entertainment, not hard news...I think people forget this point) to watch a single host blather on without a strong voice to counter them. And when these shows have guests either they always agree with the host or are not good enough, smart enough, or forceful enough to counter them.

If you took this whole post and changed Spitzers name to Hannity and Parkers to Colmes it would be equally true. Colmes was such a "may as well not be there" personality that now he isn't.
Apparently CNN at least has a faster learning curve than Fox.

 

[Policenaut]

The idea behind the Spitzer/Parker show, a show with a conservative and a liberal who cand disagree without yelling at each other, is good, but the execution was lousy,mainly because both Spitzer and Parker are such blah personalties.

The idea is interesting but I don't really see any pair on tv today that could pull it off. Lots of people have strong povs but they don't play well with others. Also the strongest voices are usually the nuttiest. You have to weed out those first. Then you have to weed out the weaklings. You are left with very few people that can take a (logical) side, stick to it, argue with someone with an opposite opinion and not resort to shouting, hyperbole or insanity. Also something left out is likability. If you don't like the people then this taints the show imo. I didn't like either of the Crossfire hosts so while the show was sometimes entertaining I despised both of those guys. But this is just my opinion since I guess that worked in their favor and it used to be a popular show when it aired.

 

[Policenaut]

If you took this whole post and changed Spitzers name to Hannity and Parkers to Colmes it would be equally true. Colmes was such a "may as well not be there" personality that now he isn't.
Apparently CNN at least has a faster learning curve than Fox.

That's true but at least Colmes had a vastly different pov from Hannity on almost everything. When he could get a word in it was usually interesting but it seemed as the show went on he had less and less time to speak. Hannity just took over the show until Colmes was just gone and now Hannity has his own show with panel portion. This is probably what they're going to do with Spitzer. Also CNN has to have a faster learning curve since they are getting whipped in viewership by FNC and MSNBC in every time slot. Also Piers doesn't seem to be doing very well. That format should be a once a week thing on a weekend, not a daily show.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There has to be a good talking head named "Swallows" out there.

Thank you, it made me chuckle.

 

[Cleon]

Huh. Didn't know the show was still on the air.

 

[tyr_13]

Huh. Didn't know the show was still on the air.

Me either.

 

[EvilSmurf]

The idea is interesting but I don't really see any pair on tv today that could pull it off. Lots of people have strong povs but they don't play well with others. Also the strongest voices are usually the nuttiest. You have to weed out those first. Then you have to weed out the weaklings. You are left with very few people that can take a (logical) side, stick to it, argue with someone with an opposite opinion and not resort to shouting, hyperbole or insanity. Also something left out is likability. If you don't like the people then this taints the show imo. I didn't like either of the Crossfire hosts so while the show was sometimes entertaining I despised both of those guys. But this is just my opinion since I guess that worked in their favor and it used to be a popular show when it aired.

James Carville and Mary Matalin might be interesting to try out. They obviously have tremendous respect for one another, since they've been married 17 years, and their political differences are very well documented.