Posted on 01/20/2005 9:33:31 PM PST by RWR8189
Heard Ms. Noonan's comments. My 1st thought was -- there must be more to this than meets the eye. I wonder if it is a 'Battle' between the SPEECHMAKERS????? I bet there's bad blood between Ms. Noonan and whoever(s) is responsible for the speech. Just my humble opinion about an uncharacteristic remark from Peggy.
In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.
That entire passage refers to this country and was not a call to globalism, particularly in the way you are using it. To assert otherwise defies logic and betrays a stubborn attitude not supported by plain fact.
As to the "unwanted have worth", everybody but you understands that was a reference to abortion
Face it. You just understand this one.
You have had this explained to you already. I will not do it again for you.
You are wrong.
LOL! That's pretty funny. I don't totally understand why that works, since I am a woman, but it's pretty cute that it does!
BTW, how are your friends recovering from their serious accident months ago? (I think that was you.....)
RWR, I agree with your first comment. She changed her spots, she changed her tune, she wandered off the reservation. I wonder who got to her? Although I could tell that when Brit first asked her opinion and he called on her to be the FIRST one to speak, she was uncertain, hesitant, unwilling to commit very much to the superiority of the speech. If Brit had called on her second or third, having her follow very positive commentators, I think she would have even more crow to eat in order to make this reversal.
Noonan is not a leader, she is a spokesperson's assistant, or more precisely, a craftsman hired to buff and polish the words used by the spokesperson. She does not provide the ideas, the concepts or principles; she merely pretties-up the ideas of others. I can't think of a single public policy issue where Peggy Noonan is regarded as a leader.
mission inebriation---IMO, was just her "artsy" way of describing a moment, an ideal, a flow, a fevor.
No, it was a subtle and deliberately vicious innuendo and allusion to Bush's openly acknowleged "former problem". If she sincerely intended to refer to a "moment of giddiness or fervor" the proper phrasing would have been "mission euphoria". The word "euphoria" does not carry the negative connotations of "inebriation", and a good writer would certainly know this. It was an intentional slur.
There has been a disconcerting attack on people who disagree with the President here lately.
I disagree with the President on a host of issues, especially immigration, but including others too numerous to mention here. However, this whining pose of victimization is becoming tiresome. She didn't just disagree with him, she slammed (just another term for attacked) him. If she wants to dish it out, she'd better be prepared to take it.
Even if your position is accurate, then I ask you, how can we possibly give $1.1 trillion it taxpayer money to nontaxpayers in the form of wealth transfer in Fiscal Year 2005 and have Bush say "liberty for all does not mean independence from one another"?
No matter how you slice it, independence was just stabbed in the heart.
What's next? All $2 trillion plus going to social welfare and zero to Defense and to other departments?
No matter what Bush was thinking here, it was not good for those who love liberty, independence and for those who are taxpayers.
Noonan is not a leader, she is a spokesperson's assistant, or more precisely, a craftsman hired to buff and polish the words used by the spokesperson. She does not provide the ideas, the concepts or principles; she merely pretties-up the ideas of others. I can't think of a single public policy issue where Peggy Noonan is regarded as a leader.
mission inebriation---IMO, was just her "artsy" way of describing a moment, an ideal, a flow, a fevor.
No, it was a subtle and deliberately vicious innuendo and allusion to Bush's openly acknowleged "former problem". If she sincerely intended to refer to a "moment of giddiness or fervor" the proper phrasing would have been "mission euphoria". The word "euphoria" does not carry the negative connotations of "inebriation", and a good writer would certainly know this. It was an intentional slur.
There has been a disconcerting attack on people who disagree with the President here lately.
I disagree with the President on a host of issues, especially immigration, but including others too numerous to mention here. However, this whining pose of victimization is becoming tiresome. She didn't just disagree with him, she slammed (just another term for attacked) him, and she attacked him in the realm of policy. If she wants to dish it out, she'd better be prepared to take it.
I meant to say that you DON'T understand that line.
"I still haven't figured out why she wrote about the fire alarm and Baker in his trench coat or her remembering her eye glasses and not her shoes"
From what I've read of her, I'd guess it's just her inclination--and liking--to observe, absorb, and describe. She said her first book was an attempt to show what it was like to work in the Reagan White House, to be there without power but with eyes. She wrote in another book that she wanted "to be immersed in life and name what I see". The detail-rich but unconnected scene at the beginning of this article may be part of that.
Personally: I enjoy those parts of her writing, and I liked hearing about the "unexpected merriness".
Someone said it was name-dropping, to let it be known she stayed at a hotel with these people, but I doubt it. Of course I don't know, and because no one else does either, I wish people wouldn't blast her for having bad motivations in writing those two paragraphs.
O'Reilly is covering Noonan's comments now. She wouldn't go on PO'Reilly's show to discuss her column.
NOW David Frum is on O'Reilly talking about the Koran reference. Blech.
Frum is objecting to the speech, as well.
This is the same David Frum who married a woman with a mouth like an open microphone.
Noonan's comments are petty, and, frankly, obnoxious.
Who knows? Maybe she is just a "gun for hire."
She worked for Reagan, but remember, she worked for Dan Rather at one time also, and wrote fondly about it.
I'll take a look and then I'm going to watch HGTV or TLC to get away from these types.
I will take this chance to say I watched a few minutes of Hardball (that is what drove me to the decorating channels).
Matthews was describing President Bush and the speech in terms like messianic, Joan of Arc "hearing voices, going to war all over the world because he thinks God has told him to.
His guests were two men: Some author who prattled and John Meecham from Newsweek who demonstrated why I have formed a high opinion of him.
Meecham disagreed with Matthews' warmonger characterization and said he'd describe the speech's theme as "liberty".
Chris went into one of his stream of consciousness rants ending with "what other president has ever said this?" and Meecham pointed to Kennedy (and cited the salient quote) and Chris got VERY snippy with Meecham and blustered a bit finally coming up with "Just because Kennedy said it doesn't make it so" (ignoring that the point wasn't the merits of the sentiment but that another citation had been offered to counter his earlier contention that President Bush had gone where no President had gone before).
So just look at what lengths some will go to in their antipathy to President Bush. Chris Matthews dissing JFK! (the original)
At any rate, at the first commercial I had heard enough and watched Trading Spaces. LOL
(Oh, after typing that I finally looked at Fox and missed the Frum segment. Probably just as well.)
On the plus side, Benjamin Netanyahu was just on and he loved the speech. Given the choice, I believe I will stick with Netenyahu, someone who has actual experience, rather than the opinions of two speechwriters.
I am pleased to hear about Netanyahu's opinion!
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.