Posted on 01/20/2005 9:33:31 PM PST by RWR8189
Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
It was an interesting Inauguration Day. Washington had warmed up, the swift storm of the previous day had passed, the sky was overcast but the air wasn't painful in a wind-chill way, and the capital was full of men in cowboy hats and women in long furs. In fact, the night of the inaugural balls became known this year as The Night of the Long Furs.
Laura Bush's beauty has grown more obvious; she was chic in shades of white, and smiled warmly. The Bush daughters looked exactly as they are, beautiful and young. A well-behaved city was on its best behavior, everyone from cops to doormen to journalists eager to help visitors in any way.
For me there was some unexpected merriness. In my hotel the night before the inauguration, all the guests were evacuated at 1:45 in the morning. There were fire alarms and flashing lights on each floor, and a public address system instructed us to take the stairs, not the elevators. Hundreds of people wound up outside in the slush, eventually gathering inside the lobby, waiting to find out what next.
The staff--kindly, clucking--tried to figure out if the fire existed and, if so, where it was. Hundreds of inaugural revelers wound up observing each other. Over there on the couch was Warren Buffet in bright blue pajamas and a white hotel robe. James Baker was in trench coat and throat scarf. I remembered my keys and eyeglasses but walked out without my shoes. After a while the "all clear" came,
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
WAY TOO MUCH PEGGY
WTF, I thought she was pro-conservative in most instances.
Noonan was speechwriter and special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. Later, she was chief speechwriter for Vice President George Bush. Not to mention she is highly respected in the conservative community, as well as in the journalistic field. If that's not a leader... what is?
No, it was a subtle and deliberately vicious innuendo and allusion to Bush's openly acknowleged "former problem".
That's very presumptious. You know this because_____. Her outspoken support of President Bush on numerous occassions, her expressed embracing of the man she "likes" is well documented.
However, this whining pose of victimization is becoming tiresome.
Are you referring to Noonan?
Gotta give the Euros their due with respect to coffee, the Italians anyway. As for Peggy Noonan, this piece is really out of character.
I would have loved to hear Denyce Graves belt that one out!
OK, you seem like a fair-minded libertarion (which....pardon me if it offends you.....is not a quality the majority who share your political views around here have), and that was a reasoned reply.
---I think that most who take that bent politically are pretty fair minded, actually. We are routinely savaged here for pointing out policies inconsistent with their brand of conservatism. Reasoned replies are generally not forthcoming when we are personally attacked from the getgo.
The only part with which I must take exception, is the part where you said I was "leaping" to be insulted. I knew you were not insulting me, I just recoiled at your use of the words 'blind followers' as a libertarian talking point, not unlike those the DNC sends out, and that was what I was responding to.
---It's no libertarian talking point. It's a logical one. Any debater should be able to understand that disagreeing with an idea is NOT attacking the person who holds the idea. And I think you're missing the point if you receive it as such. I don't have problems with Bush supporters. I am one. What I do have problems with is those who will defend ANY Bush speech or policy no matter what, from any criticism, no matter the person making the criticism. Nobody's perfect, even conservative heroes.
I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember when Rush first came on the air nationally. Thousands of us around the country had the same beliefs as he was stating on air. We had those beliefs long before, but we were (and still are) being called 'blind followers' by the left. Most of us don't agree with Rush all the time, but we are accused (by the left) of marching in blind lockstep with him.
---I am absolutely old enough. And I've heard and disagreed with the accusations about Rush's listeners, too. When I first started listening to Rush, I didn't think those accusations were fair. I still don't. I thought his show was an excellent attack on the left, from caller abortions to his taking on bureaucrats on both sides of the aisle. But his show has evolved to allow for much more of Rush talking and much less of the discussion he had with people who disagree with him. I like the man, but I don't find him all that personally persuasive any more, because his show has degenerated into far too many long speeches, congratulatory calls and doctrinal discussions that I think only party members appreciate. I can't listen to it any more because I think he's grown self-important in his success. As to the accusations that there are folks marching in blind lockstep with him, I think that is because there are plenty of folks who defend him unreasonably just as the folks I've called out here defend Bush, and the shift of his show from middle-of-the-road appeal to right-wing-appeal makes it sound even worse. He is a human being, but the same folks who would have hung a Barbara Streisand for doing drugs pardon his malfeasance. He is a human being, but I will likely get insulted for daring impugn his show, that fault in him, or talking negatively about a group of his listeners, even though I agree that he's done great things for the GOP and he will likely appeal to a great segment of conservatives, helping keep folks in the flock as long as he's on the air.
The President is just a few years older than I, and from the time I was in my twenties (while he was drinking too much, partying, and not very interested in politics), I could describe myself as a 'compassionate conservative'......interested in social justice and racial equality, concerned for the poor, but not at the expense of the taxpayer, or with government money. Fiscally conservative, morally conservative, wanting less government rather than more, pro-military and pro-America. At the time, I didn't even know his name. Now this man comes along, and espouses all the things I have ALWAYS believed in, and is running for President. He becomes President, and proceeds to DO the things I think are important. He believes what I have believed for 30 years, and yet on this forum, I am routinely accused of being his 'blind follower' when it is patently untrue. I assume that is also the case for most of the others here who defend him with fervor. Be careful about slinging empty insults at them because others of your political persuasion do so with impunity. You might just be wrong about us all.
---I do not lump all Bush supporters together. I happen to be one. You accuse me of slinging empty insults, but responding in kind to those who insult anyone who disagrees with or criticizes Bush (or Rush) is not slinging empty insults at all. When you call someone a "RINO" or "Jezebel" or "bitter" or any of the above insults, simply for disagreement on issues where there is room for reasonable disagreement in the conservative ranks, you can't expect that they will be reasoned in their response to you. I have never randomly insulted Bush or Rush--any critique I've made of those two has been based on what I perceive from observation. On the other hand, Bush and Rush supporters have randomly insulted me and others who have ANYTHING negative to say about these two men. I refuse to be cowed by it, and I won't stand there and take it where I don't deserve to be insulted.
I will, however, clarify comments where they are misunderstood if I believe that's so because of my poor explanation of my ideas. And I do try not to get caught up in flame wars where I can. But I'm not going to duck them when they're brought to me.
And I happen to think there is plenty of room for disagreement over whether this was a good speech and Bush is a good speaker. But personally attacking people who don't think the way you do about it is not going to convert anyone to your cause, and if you flamebait, you ought to get flamed.
That wasn't an Ellen Goodman column ?
I saw that also .. and was yelling "You Moron" at the TV
(IMO) According to Chrissy thinking .. FDR should not have gone into WWII and would have allowed Hitler to concord Europe
Later on Debra Orin (sp?) was on and she was really good and explained to Chrissy that he's expecting a perfect war with perfect people and perfect countries and how he thinks everything should go 100% as planned
She went on to basically tellhim that he was being unrealistic
She handled him really well
Yesterday a lib relative was complaining to me about Bush's speech and who's going to pay for this
I sent a long reply .. and in it I asked him what he thought of this line
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty"
It's a line from JFK's ingra. speech
I haven't rec'd a response back yet from this relative
I'm going to stick up for Peggy Noonan here. I'm not going to argue in favor of her article; there are parts of it I agree with and parts I don't. Comments like, "This rotten article is so completely wrong..." are not what I'm defending her against. What I want to disagree with is all the baseless Noonan-bashing.
Really. What seems to me the most common argument launched against "Way Too Much God" is: Peggy Noonan is absolutely green with envy! Or some corollary of that. The basic logic is that Noonan wanted to write the president's Inaugural address, didn't get to, and so is slamming it. I say: Not only is there no solid evidence for this, it's not even a solid theory.
Other people have accused Noonan of hypocrisy--presumably, because they see some discrepancy between her initial comments and her later analysis. That may be. It may not be. I recall her saying, right after the Inauguration, that the president's speech was "startling" and "sweeping". These are not necessarily compliments. But let's say they are. Let's say Peggy Noonan did an about-face on this. So what? Do you know that it was hypocrisy, and not only that her thoughts changed with more thinking? And if you don't know, why are you saying it? Do you have some proof that makes your accusation reasonable?
Other things Peggy Noonan has been called/accused of are:
--criticizing this speech for revenge (I assert, on precisely zero evidence...)
--disliking the "Tear down this wall!" speech (I want quotations!)
--a name-dropper (baseless insult)
--a phony (Phony? What's she pretending to be that she isn't?)
--a sell-out (on a different thread). ("I don't care how pro-life you are! I don't care if you support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! If you don't like President Bush's second Inaugural Address...")
--a thin-lipped b__ (Now that's just vicious)
--classless (For what? Disagreeing with the speech? Writing that she did?)
--a drama queen (?)
Most people agree that a wonderful about this country is that legal principle, a person "is innocent until proven guilty." If you were to apply that to these insults, you'd have to presume Peggy Noonan innocent of them all. It bothers me that so many express their disagreement with Noonan's article by personally attacking her--and without a shred of evidence. I'm not going to argue the truth or falsity of all these accusations; you need proof to do that. I just say that people who insist on hurling the insults and accusations I've mentioned should put up or shut up. If a person puts up and proves one of the charges I listed I will happily (and, if that person thinks it's necessary) apologetically concede the point.
All my point is: It's not right to accuse people without proof, or throw ill-founded insults. Peggy Noonan's article, not her motivations and all other deep, dark things of her soul, is what this thread should be about. Bashing it and bashing her are very different things.
You've ignored numerous posts on this thread that buttress the opinion the poster is expressing.
You don't have to agree, but this constant act that it is beyond reason for them to think this way is getting ridiculous.
It is not illogical or unreasonable for people to take the stance that it is Noonan who is "out there" on this subject.
Thanks for the Deborah Orin report! I am pleased to hear she said that to him (not that I expect it penetrated).
I heard via freepmail that she was on but chose to see the Trading Spaces through to the end (one bedroom turned out fab, one did not--IMO, of course, LOL).
I saw your post yesterday and meant to tell you "good job" on the JFK quote. If you ever hear from them I'd be interested if they dis old JFK like Chrissy did.
I'll bet his wife gave him an earful when he got home last night.
So what?
I didn't engage in that type of critique of Noonan but frankly have no problem with those who did since Noonan had even less basis for her absurd and inane characterization of the music selection at the inauguration as "defensive" (or at least as much basis as those who outlined why they deduce she is acting out of jealousy).
Since she decided to make such pronouncements she is receiving in kind, IMO, and I do not think those who have taken it upon themselves to chastise others for posting their thoughts and even feelings have a leg to stand on and have been downright annoying in their scolding and protective of Pegs tone.
IMO .. I don't think Chrissy wanted to dis JFK but knew he couldn't agree without looking like a hypocrited to the audience
JFK and RFK are the golden boys to the Dem party .. problem is .. I don't think they (libs) have actually paid attention to what they said
With the fires of Hell licking at your boots you can never have enough of JESUS... I know him as GOD, JEHOVAH GOD Almighty Y-ALL!
Well, then... quit pinging me.
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.