My guess is John Podhoretz.
Posted on 06/13/2004 9:04:38 PM PDT by Pokey78
What was the meaning of the past remarkable nine days? You cannot stop the American people from feeling what they feel and showing it. From the crowds at Simi Valley to the hordes at the Capitol to the men and women who stopped and got out of their cars on Highway 101 to salute as Reagan came home--that was America talking to America about who America is.
It was a magnificent teaching moment for the whole country but most of all for the young, who barely remembered Ronald Reagan or didn't remember him at all. This week they heard who he was. The old ones spoke, on all the networks and in all the newspapers, and by the end of the week it was clear that Ronald Reagan had suddenly entered the Lincoln pantheon. By Friday it was no longer a question, as it had been for years, whether he was one of our top 10 presidents. It was a question only whether he was in the very top five or six--up there with Lincoln and Washington. An agreement had been reached: the 20th century came down to FDR and RWR.
What is important now is that we continue to speak of the meaning of his leadership. Not bang away about what a great guy he was--there are a lot of great guys--but what huge things he did, not because he had an "ideology" but because he had a philosophy, a specific one that had specific meaning. He was the great 20th-century conservative of America. He applied his philosophy to the realities of the world he lived in. In doing so he changed those realities, and for the better. This is what we must pass on.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Burn!
The "haircut boy" wrote a book, it seems. Hmmmm.
Oh please. She's using her column to describe her perception of her little part of the Reagan White House, including the office politics and personalities involved. She settled an old score or two, but not in a very meanspirited way. She did what people do. She's human.
She might have been better off leaving the score settling for another column, because this column was absolutely for the ages prior that point, but, for reasons best known to her, she decided to include it. She has an absolute first amendment right to include whatever she wants in her work. If her bosses don't like it they can yank it, but, as we can see, this stuff must've passed muster because it's in.
This one is easy. The "Hack"= Patrick J. Buchannan.
My guess is John Podhoretz.
No she doesn't. as you note, her bosses can pull whatever they want - - she's their employee and doesn't have any "right" to have ANYTHING published, let alone a small, mean-spirited snipe at some old personal foe, which ends up marring what was supposed to be a homage to Reagan.
I don't think so inappropriate as educational. She is letting us know who these "blankety-blanks" are. She wants the public to know since she has left some clues.
Who recently released books?
Who is known as 'haircut boy' other than Kerry?
"Easy" - and flamingly wrong. The "Hack" never wrote a book, according to the column. Buchanan's written several. The "Hack" was a speechwriter working under Elliott. Buchanan was DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS - whoever he answered to, it sure wasn't Elliot.
Some people call Colonel David Hackworth "Hack".
He is the one who got the Abu Ghiraib prison photos on CBS, always says he's looking out for his soldiers.
And they can publish anything they want, including a personal snipe by one of their writers.
It may not be obvious to you, but the WSJ wants to slam this guy just as hard as Peggy does. Otherwise, they would not have published it.
Notice the breaks in the article. She was telling several, SEPERATE stories. She was simply appalled that "The Hack, and or "Haircut Boy" would conveniently and selfishly glom onto the occasion to feign their "love" for the man when they were obviously self-serving ladder-climbers. She was revulsed that someone she despised(probably mutual) would actually snuggle up to her.(Ala Hillary seeking out Juanita at Dem. Party function.) Peggy's skin was crawling. This was a warning. I got goosebumps when she recalled squeezing her son's arm, "Take notes, this is history." We have very like minds. Luara Ingraham is my secret crush, but Peggy Noonan is on my very short list of "most want to have dinner with." She exudes class.
Buchanan did not work for Ben Elliot, Elliot worked for Buchanan. "The Hack" was lower ranking than Elliot, clearly, otherwise Elliot could not have protected him.
Dana Rohrabacher did work for Elliot, however, and was on the same level as Noonan.
Enquiring minds want to know...
"He must be a real piece of work for Noonan to put this in writing as she did."
Exactly. I've never seen Peggy go negative on someone. Even her critiques of Dems are laced with gentle nudges. For her to take the effort to call these two peeps out (gracefuly ommiting names) indicates that their crimes against Reagan were an abomination.
Good for her.
Notice how only presidents like Bush and Reagan use sppechwriters. sarcasm/
"would let her use their forum and her status as a Journal columnist, to pursue personal vendettas, at least in such an obvious way."
Sigh. She's not pursuing a personal vendetta. Merely sharing an inside view of what she experienced at the ceremonies....and in the Spirit of Reagan, telling it like it is. Get over it.
Pretending the WOT does not include nation states like Iraq that support terror networks is not intellectually honest.
I don't believe that, because Pat was already a large figure among conservatives due to Nixon, the Watergate hearings and Crossfire. He didn't need his years in the Reagan White House to gain recognition.
FDR is so flawed in my view. He is not without some merit but I have a hard time overlooking what we know and understand now about how he really paved the way for Leviathan.
Most post modernists put Lincoln at the top. I appreciate Lincoln's generous terms he would have offered to my region but myself I place him somewhat below Washington, Madison, Jefferson and then maybe Abe. In the next tier is most definitely Ronaldus Magnus and others.
It's another thing to list Presidents we like versus those who were effective. With Reagan it's a twofer.
What I most liked about him when he ruled(lol) in my mid 20s was that he usually said exactly what he meant and not what he thought was politically expedient. So rare...so refreshing.
Pat was a speech writer and a lousy one at that.
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.