Posted on 05/18/2006 5:29:51 PM PDT by RWR8189
What the president's immigration speech and "The DaVinci Code" have in common.
What was missing in the president's approach the other night was the expression, or suggestion, of context. The context was a crisis that had gone unanswered as it has built, the perceived detachment of the political elite from people on the ground, and a new distance between the president and his traditional supporters. The president would have done well to signal that he knew he was coming late to the party, as it were; that he'd come to rethink his previous stand, or lack of a stand, and had begun to consider whether there was not some justice in the views, and alarm, of others.
Without an established context the speech seemed free-floating: a statement issued into the ether, unanchored to any particular principle and eager to use, as opposed to appreciate, whatever human sentiment flows around the issue of immigration. It was a speech driven by an air of crisis, but not a public crisis, only a personal and political one.
To acknowledge what he apparently thinks are the biases of the base, he used loaded words like "sneak"--illegal immigrants "sneak across the border"--as if to establish his populist bona fides. This was, not to put too fancy a rhetorical term on it, creepy, and managed to be offensive to everyone.
What was needed was a definitive statement: As of this moment we will control our borders, I'm sending in the men, I'm giving this the attention I've given to the Mideast.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This is why the President wanted comprehensive reform. Shouting "enforce the law" is really asking for the government to continue in its present ineffective course.
Count me out!
I remember a column by Safire after one of the elections. He said social conservatives had done their part, but it was time for them to 'go to the back of the bus and let the economic conservatives drive'.
You have reproduced his arguement. But here is a shocking fact - those of us who are primarily social conservatives don't feel obligated to get to the back of the bus and let the economic adults do the driving.
I shelled out $20,000 in federal income tax alone last year. I voted unsuccessfully against yet another increase in Pima County taxes a few days ago. If I could waive a magic wand and roll back taxes and services, I would.
But illegals sometimes use the wash a couple hundred yards from my house. Illegals fill up our emergency rooms. An illegal killed a friend's daughter in a hit and run - then said, "What's the big deal?" when caught. I drive by a dozen spanish billboards on the way to work. I'm increasingly a foreigner in my home town.
You may find it hard to understand why I'm "Harping on the immigration thing when there's bigger fish to fry -- fish like reforming entitlement programs" - but maybe if you were having a hard time recognizing your home town, you would understand.
Social conservatives are not opposed to economic conservatives. I wish the reverse were true - and I've had it up to the eyeballs with economic conservatives who want me to bust my butt during the election, and then 'go to the back of the bus'!
And do what? It doesn't seem to matter which party is in office. We seem to lose by leaps and bounds! ALL Your votes are Ours!
Miss Marple, I suspect your analysis may be on target. I too have seen a change in Peggy's writing since her return. Perhaps it is due to being excluded? Who among us can say with certainty? The President is a pretty meat & potatoes kind of guy ("Bush. Texas. Burger."), and Peggy does tend to keep a certain aristocratic air about her. There may simply not have been a good mesh.
That said, I will not throw stones like some others earlier in the thread. I know that if I am personally excluded from a group, or am intentionally overlooked in certain matters, I can have a bit of public bitterness myself. It is simply my human nature; perhaps it is hers as well.
In regards to the President's address the other night, I found it rather disappointing. However, I suspect that the address came up short due to the issue being a rather minor one -- minor when compared to the Iranian crisis. I had the feeling that immigration is being left on the side table for the next administration.
I really think that Iran is the major and absolute focus of the White House right now. It must be dealt with, and must be dealt with successfully. I am sure that all of the relevant facts are not part of the public debate; the President and his advisors most likely know a great deal more than that of which the public is aware.
The situation may be as dire as the gloomiest suggest. Perhaps Iran has the bomb already? What if they are trying to buy rockets from their good buddy, North Korea? What if they want to not just hit Israel, but hit the USA?
Perhaps this is why, with all else swirling around, what should pop up this AM but "Let's make peace with North Korea." It seemed quite out of place.
Bottom Line: If the Iranian situation is not dealt with successfully, the consequences will make the illegal immigration crisis into the most minor of footnotes.
The President must focus on Iran. And may the Lord look after us all (including Ms. Peggy).
Regards,
I think you're mixing language up with food!!
No, the man that taught me that was of Mexican decent by way of Texas, married to a Spanish lady from Spain, I might add that he had a little decoration called a silver star.
I have never lived in spain, and only 45 years of my life in Texas. But, Then Tex-Mex has always somehow been sufficient here. You might try it sometime, it seems to get said what needs saying . Also, Odds are, the upstairs maid is not from Spain, even if her surname is Hispanic.
You're right. Tex-mex is the food, Spanglish is the language.
yeah, right. Whatever... more liberal than Clinton, I don't think so.
He actually wrote that....driving thru El Paso with his family on vacation
I nominate Noonan's comments last February, when she gushed about the Clintons' performances at the Coretta Scott King funeral: "God I love them." And who can forget her suggestion that Bush try to dump Cheney as VP, her appallingly crass response to Cheney's hunting accident.
She is still a fine writer, though most of her talent now seems devoted to creating quotable jabs at Bush. "...the administration's problem is not that the base lately doesn't like it, but that the White House has decided it actually doesn't like the base." (I think she might be right, but I wish she hadn't said it.)
Is Noonan bitter because she was dumped/ignored by the Bushes? Maybe, but I think that one source of her lack of respect for Bush is that as someone who has spent her life striving for eloquence in the service of political theater, she cannot abide that Bush is a mediocre orator even when reading prepared speeches. His fine 9/11 speech was the exception, not the rule.
Imagine what it must have been like for her to write the Challenger speech for Reagan. The nation was in shock, Noonan dug deep and produced a superb speech -- on paper. Then she heard Reagan's sublime delivery elevate her words, expressing everything she had intended and much more. Heady stuff for a young speechwriter. Reagan set her personal baseline for presidential eloquence.
W doesn't come close. He intentionally pronounces "nuclear" as "nucular," when he deviates from his prepared remarks his grammar is poor, and probably worst of all from Noonan's point of view is that he doesn't care a whit. Bush's many accomplishments have been achieved despite his lack of the verbal talent she has in abundance. He is not her kind of president.
yep...that's it
Sean too
Peggy didn't go to work for Bush's re-election effort. She went to work for Republican campaigns at the state level.
I agree with some here who point out Peggy's low points of dissing the President's 2nd Inauguration speech, and the tasteless attack on her ex-colleague after Reagan's funeral. But that's water under the bridge.
Beneath the murky writing of this collumn she shares the same fears I have for what is happening in the Bush White House - that they feel they are our betters, and now that they have their second term, they are done with respecting the base. Actually, I first got a drift of that attitude when the education plan was thrown under the bus in the first month of the first term....
The problem from Noonan's standpoint is that Dubya's rhetoric isn't girly enough to suit her; she said as much during a TV appearence which I believe was on FOX News.
Apparently Bush's bluntness annoys the hell out of her.
She discontinued her column for a time to work for Bush's campaign, but they wouldn't allow her entry into the inner circle, which evidently put her nose out of joint.
IOW, she's an elitist who judges people on externals.
Poetic justice would be for her to fall in love with someone who, suddenly, decided to break up with her.
Astounded, she would ask "Whatever for? We have such stimulating conversation."
And he would say "Yes, Peggy. We do have wonderful conversation, but your butt's just too big, honey.
"See ya."
This I have to bookmark for later, it has the makings of a good "firefight".
Except that a president cannot just govern for the "BASE". Bush is president of all the people. He also has policies that he favors, and his views on immigration shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. He's never been a seal-up-the-border governor or president.
"The base", IMO, bitches constantly because it thinks its far-right approaches should just be shoved down everybody else's throats.
I've been debating whether I want to be associated with "the base", given their unruly and downright vicious attitudes of late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.