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 ...
No comment on my posting of Reagan's second inaugural address, I see.
Gee, iconoclast, I think that's what you've just done here..........a whole bunch of times.
And about that 'cardinal sin' discussion and your question about it. The exhausted one flung out the term in her attempt to put down a whole bunch of people who disagreed with Noonan.
My guess is that the 'cardinal sin' she's referring to is criticizing the President. Hard to tell for sure.
But when I questioned her use of the term, she sent me to a link explaining what the cardinal sins are. I thought that was a both funny and a touch bizarre. (If I didn't already know what cardinal sin meant, I wouldn't have trouble with her blatant misuse of the term to belittle others).
That's about it.
If not, you are the quintessential pot/kettle perpetrator!
The kind of person that is naturally suspicious of utopian attempts to establish heaven on earth--those who have formerly been called conservatives.
Noonan established her conservative credentials a long time ago. It's too bad that more posters on FR haven't addressed her argument substantively, but rather have indulged in spiteful personal attacks.
Perky Peg raises a question: Is it possible to mention God too much?
Peg tells us her answer: yes, it is possible to mention God too much. We must then pose Perky Peg another question..."how much is too much? in a 15 minute speech is it 10 times, 20 times, 30 times," how many times, Peg?
Or is it not the quantity of times God is mentioned, but rather the quality of His mention? Is it wrong to describe God as the King of the Universe, as Bush did? Is it wrong to give God credit for His eternal goodness, as Bush did? Should we limit the quality of credit we God to a yardstick of what our physical senses can actually measure, and therefore shut up about eternity and universal stuff?
So Peg, is what bothers you the number of times Bush gives God credit, or is what bothers you the degree of which Bush give God credit??
perky Peg needs to explain herself
LOL. You're barking up the wrong tree, believe me. Noonan's perspective is a very Catholic one, but I'm guessing that wouldn't be an endorsement to you.
And I think she meant to say that Noonan had violated the "Eleventh Commandment", often quoted by Reagan, actually postulated by California Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican".
You actually dispute my insinuation that the bulk of this thread (typically) is made up of time wasting flames of Noonan rather than critiques of her comments?
Prozac time?
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html
George Washington
First Inaugural Address
In the City of New York
Noonan would really have thought "too much God" from George.
Let me make it simple..... and cut out the stupid 'prozac time' comments, OK, so that you can be taken seriously.
In a series of posts you ragged on people on this thread (I am not 'disputing' what you said.....just pointing that out).
Then you spoke in lofty terms about 'little' people talking about other people. I merely pointed out that that is exactly what you, yourself had been doing (and clearly still are).
Just pointing out the facts that you apparently can't see.........that's all.
Posted both excerpts from Reagan and Washington..No comments back..sigh
Isn't that what was being asked for?Ideas?
Hardly worth commenting on.
Reagan's was prayerful, measured masterpiece.
Bush's was out of touch with reality. Related only in a vague and haughty way to the problems staring him in the face (in much the way as his irresponsible and irrelevant "axis of evil" term was).
I have no idea.......... ;o)
I'm not sure here, but I think this comment qualifies you as a "small" person.......by your own definition, that is.
Unless there is some lofty "idea" hidden in there that escapes my notice.
Upon this occasion, she may have been writing after a night of revelry and too much Inaugural Punch.
Pray for W and Our Troops
No need. I don't do knee jerk but obviously you do.
I've advised several people that THEY need to re-read the thread so take your own advice.
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.