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 ...
I'll "ping" you when I have something to say to you as I did.
sheesh
Exactly...that's what made it so precious. He would rather bash Bush than really support the supposed icon of his party or stick to a rational discussion at all (revealing for the umpteenth time the lack of principles dems hold).
Too funny (though tiresome, hence my going off to watch design shows).
He sure got snippy with John Meecham, who I hope doesn't succumb to pressure to be liked, he shows promise of having a working brain.
Just clarify which accusations you were levelling at me (if any), and post only those and leave the rest out.
I never have time to try to digest an encyclopedia on FR, and that was way too much touchy feely stuff for me to figure out what you were really trying to say......intellectually, that is.
If you're not interested in condensing that into a more understandable form, I'll leave your rant for others to decipher.....
Thanks. (Oh......and it would help if you either left my comments out, or italicized them).
Chill out and take a breath, Peggy.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
The segment with Debra Orin and Chrissy is coming up next
That's exactly what the issue is.
I'm taken aback at her nonsense here.
My thoughts exactly. It's a shame her green is showing.
Cheap shot Peggy, that's her new nickname.
And it's a good one!
em - 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?
As I stated clearly above, a leader is one who provides the ideas, concepts and principles for public policy. A leader has the authority and sets the the agenda. Speechwriters do not, no matter how well-known or well-respected they may be. As I said, I honestly can't think of a single public policy issue where people will automatically, by general acclaim, turn to Peggy Noonan for a definitive assessment or decision. Thus, she is not, by definition, a leader.
This is in no way a denigration of her or her skills. It does not mean that her insight and creativity will not be sought or welcomed in the process of explaining the issue to the people. She may even garner plaudits and acclaim for her exceptionally effective efforts for the cause. This does not make her a leader, however. She is, at most, an honored and highly-decorated foot-soldier who has done an extraordinary job in carrying-out her orders.
thsr - No, it was a subtle and deliberately vicious innuendo and allusion to Bush's openly acknowleged "former problem".
em - That's very presumptious. You know this because_____.
No, this is simply my opinion, based on the preponderance of evidence in observing her current and past behavior. You are free to disagree. I'm perfectly content to leave it to the readers of this thread to make up their own minds.
thsr - However, this whining pose of victimization is becoming tiresome.
em - Are you referring to Noonan?
No, I'm referring to those public figures such as Noonan and all those on this forum who attempt to shut down or forestall critical analysis and debate by using one of Saul Alinski's classic leftist destabilization techniques: Accuse others of what you yourself are doing or planning to do.
In this case, THEY attack Bush's speech and when anyone responds to that attack in any substantive manner, cry foul and protest that it's unfair because "anyone who dares to criticise Bush is being attacked". They wish to claim immunity yet remain free to take their shots whenever they please. I refuse to play by those rules.
Axe and youda receebin':
"And I think you're missing the point if you receive it as such."
"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."
Nothing else. I apologize for the lack of clarity. I didn't feel like taking the time to do italics here, because my internet connection was goin' wonky and I didn't want to lose the whole post.
Considering there are nearly 900 posts on this thread, plus a lot of talk all over the media sources, I'd say it is fair to deductively state she is leading. If she hasn't given fuel for thought, given the spark for debate, then what are any of us doing on this thread?
based on the preponderance of evidence in observing her current and past behavior
I understand your saying this article is current preponderance of evidence, but I am bewildered at what the past behavior is that has fueled the remarks made on this thread toward her. (Other than people not liking her opinion.) A larger point is being missed, IMO. From the onset it has been pointed out that differences of opinion exist. To respectfully disagree is one thing, but it is another thing to lambaste somebody who has a track record for expressing an opinion simply because it is outside of the "mainstream" group think.
attempt to shut down or forestall critical analysis and debate by using one of Saul Alinski's classic leftist destabilization techniques
projection
Sorry, that should have been 600 posts.
"And too much God? He didn't say anything that hasn't been said many times before by other Presidents."
Of all the people on the planet, Peggy is surely aware of that fact.
Color me still puzzled by the tone and some of the statements in her opinion.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012105/content/brilliant_think_piece_1.guest.html
"The complaints from the left include that Bush did not mention any specifics about his plans to promote freedom in the world, and that we had some complaints -- even one from the right -- that he mentioned God too much in the speech. "There was just too much God," and, you know, I think about other aspects. This is a philosophically ambitious speech. I find it fascinating. I really do here, folks, and in the plain old common-sense realm. I find it fascinating that standing for and desiring and promoting freedom can become so controversial. It literally stuns me. If you go back -- you know, one of the first things I would ask the left, who are raucously criticizing this speech, could we go back into histoire and could we ask ourselves, what was the purpose in the founding of the United Nations? "
The arsonist who pours the gasoline in the cellar and flips the match to ignite the fire is not leading the firefighting efforts
I understand your saying this article is current preponderance of evidence, but I am bewildered at what the past behavior is that has fueled the remarks made on this thread toward her.
That is not what I said at all. I said that my opinion as I expressed it is based on the preponderance of evidence in her current and her past behavior. Her article on the speech is only one piece of information. Her shamefully arrogant treatment of her fellow former Reagan-era speechwriters in the aftermath of Reagan's death last year is another, and one which speaks volumes about her character.
To respectfully disagree is one thing, but it is another thing to lambaste somebody who has a track record for expressing an opinion simply because it is outside of the "mainstream" group think.
Actually it is Noonan who is desperately trying to herd Bush and the rest of us back into the "mainstream" group-think corral. It is Bush who has put forth a maverick vision which frightens the old "mainstream". Furthermore, no one is lambasting Noonan "simply because" she is expressing her opinion. She has every right to express her opinion, and those who disagree with her have every right to question her logic, her motivations and her methods. She has chosen to be a player in the public arena; she, and her defenders, had better be prepared to deal with the consequences.
thsr - ...attempt to shut down or forestall critical analysis and debate by using one of Saul Alinski's classic leftist destabilization techniques...
em - projection
yawn... I'm not the one insisting that we aren't supposed to question opinions, arguments or motivations. I'm not the one demanding that debate be shut down or asserting that questioning and challenging publicly aired ideas is "unfair". My description of the Alinski tactic is dead-on.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres52.html
Franklin D. Roosevelt
SNIP
And so today, in this year of war, 1945, we have learned lessons—at a fearful cost—and we shall profit by them. 10
We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger. 11
We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community. 12
We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that "The only way to have a friend is to be one." 13
We can gain no lasting peace if we approach it with suspicion and mistrust or with fear. We can gain it only if we proceed with the understanding, the confidence, and the courage which flow from conviction. 14
The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world. 15
So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly—to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men—to the achievement of His will to peace on earth. "
God drenched?
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html
George Washington
First Inaugural Address
In the City of New York
Snip
" Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence."
Snip
God drenched?Too much God?
"What an idiotic term in this case. It's called "disagreement" and we've a right to voice it, just as she has her right to speak."
LOL. When you're done knee-jerking insults, try reading over the thread again.
Idiotic indeed.
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.