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 have always respected Peggy, and agree with much of what she writes and says (though she's a tad touchy feely for me), but this one is a "poser."
Why would she use, as you so aptly call it "inflammatory" words like she did? Why would she accuse the President of talking about God too much, when Presidents since George Washington have been talking about him in speeches to an even greater degree.
I still find it very strange, and wonder what she was thinking when she penned this.
"I do not think that Noonan is a particularly persuasive voice in the party or in the conservative movement."
I disagree. I would never have volunteered to join the FL ground game (+300,000 vote margin) if it hadn't been for Noonan's influence. The length of this thread is testimony in itself that her influence remains strong with many :)
That being said, I see where you're coming from - I don't agree with all of your post, but thanks for least voicing your criticism without taking cheap shots at her character.
Again, you have a great line:
"...it is not my goal on this forum to defend myself incessantly against spurious attack by those engaged in pre-supposition."
But that attack position is precisely your own role here. You spuriously attacked me from the start for daring to speak ill of those who attack the person of any deviator from the Bush line, presupposing I spoke about all Bush fans when I was only speaking about folks who attack the person instead of the argument. You continue to claim that I maligned all Bush fans and that anyone who attacked me was just in so doing, that my insults in return were somehow wrong. Pretend to be the reasonable party all you want. I don't mind if you want to delude yourself. But I'm not gonna let that fertilizer you're spreading stick to my shoes.
As to your special request to paw through your prior posts for insults to me or Noonan, I did. And I don't find being called bitter or juvenile or constantly being accused of "feeling sorry for myself" somehow complimentary. I don't see how characterizing my posts as "rants" or "venting" is anything less than insultingly dismissive. And I don't think that your comments that Noonan "raved about the speech immediately after it was given," and that she's "disingenuos" [sic] are intended to be flattering, when no one here has YET produced a single comment from her 'raving' about the speech, but there is so much said about her flip-flopping. The woman is not John Kerry, she's Reagan's former speechwriter, who said "Reagan brought a constellation of virtues to the office of the presidency—guts, compassion, humor, a lack of pretension, a willingness to face the world and tell the truth, a willingness to make decisions and stand by them—and his leadership changed the world, and for the better. As president, he was a giant." I'm perfectly willing to question her intent if there's some reason to, but none has been provided, and again, you miss the point I argued all along: a change in the motives or person of the arguer does NOT change the validity of her argument! Attacking the person doesn't attack the argument one whit!
No, despite your 'I-didn't-do-it-myself" claims, I can't see it as all coincidental you defend those who do, because you simply don't understand that in defending the person, we're defending her and our right to civil discourse, not necessarily defending her arguments. I happen to agree with her on some of those arguments, but that's beside the point. And you're just playing the 'reasonable' card now because you think no one will catch the fact that you're the advocate for the 'bot insult chorus.
Sorry OhioWfan, you're on my ignore list.
Fine job placing yourself in the role of defender against personal attacks--as if your role here in the first place wasn't to back up all those comments about Noonan's person and motives.
See you in the trenches. ;o)
As you wish. For me, this is over.
It's growing obvious you're intentionally missing the point to score a few. It's not groupthink to agree with the President. It's groupthink to find it acceptable to abuse the person of someone simply because they disagree with some point the President makes or don't like his style. Your attempts to turn those 'thin-lipped, jealous bitch' comments into some sort of reasonable, responsible advocacy for the President are sad, because that's what you came here to defend, and you know it.
As usual, you bring a breath of humor to what has become a laboriously serious thread.
Thanks. I'm still laughing.
Am I also on your "ignore" list, or were you simply informing me that ohioWfan is on your list?
I don't want to waste time posting to you if I am on the "ignore" list.
I also assume that if I am on your "ignore" list you won't post to me either.
Please clarify. These rules can be quite confusing without proper explanation. Thank you.
Ignore away.
Same here.
And altho' some may think this "heretical", I just didn't take President Bush's address as *dead seriously* as others seem to have taken it. I view the whole event as being something Presidents have to do as a matter of tradition, standing before the American people and attempting to encourage them with eloquent words and ambitious ideas that may not actually come to fruition.
I think he's a good guy, and he'd probably be fun to hang out playin' horseshoes and watching football with. I think that's why guys like him almost unanimously. But guys don't have to worship one another to like each other. And he's no more a god than any other man.
I just happen to prefer Presidents, when they make their calls to lofty ambition, making calls to lofty ambition the country will want to handle. This speech goes a little farther than I think the average American wants. But Bush will lead us to help other countries that way, honestly, if he wants. I just worry where future presidents could lead us following that doctrine.
I would like this discussion to end, but I will not let you get by with deliberately lying about what I've said or done here.
I don't think the length of this thread is indicative of the depth of her influence as much as the unexpected severity of her critique. No one would expect for a reliable ally of the President to turn on him in such a manner.
Your entire post was very well stated. I believe the reaction to Peggy Noonan's column and comments about President Bush's Inaugural speech are no different than the way Conservatives react to John McCain, who has done much the same thing. We don't want vocalized 'support' via subtle backstabbing, particularly in the MSM where it can be twisted and deviously used to undermine the administration.
The Republican Party is fragile enough as it is (with plenty of RINOs and spineless reps); it now appears we are on the threshhold of a splintering off such as was experienced during GHW Bush's presidency with the Ross Perot supporters, only this time it's the 'Too Much God' adherents. I can only assume we will once again be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. This is especially troublesome, considering the nomination of SCOTUS justices is on the horizon and we all know there are 'God issues' to be addressed there. Will Peggy be complaining about that as well?
Right, you'd like this discussion to end...with more of your "I'm-the-victim-here" tactics. I'll repeat what I said some moments ago:
I don't think that your comments that Noonan "raved about the speech immediately after it was given," and that she's "disingenuos" [sic] are intended to be flattering, when no one here has YET produced a single comment from her 'raving' about the speech, but there is so much said about her flip-flopping.
If you want me now to point out how you defended anyone who said anything nasty about Noonan, jeez, what were your posts about, the right to bear arms? You came down like a lead balloon on me and others who posted about those critics. If you want to count the angels dancing on the head of pin, and say you weren't defending those folks, go ahead, but I'm not buying your excusology 101 tactics. Especially since NOW you're all about how you didn't insult Noonan or back up others who did, when two seconds ago, you were all about how you didn't insult me, and you were caught obviously obfuscating there, too.
Justice Scalia recently spoke of the need for Christians to be "fools" for Christ and not to be ashamed of their faith or their expressions of faith. Would Noonan suggest that Justice Scalia is over the top, grating, or guilty of "too much God?"
Just wanted everyone else to know that, and now they do.
I disagreed with Peggy, and I questioned her motives because of her 180, and I defended the President and his speech of great vision, but that is a far cry from what you have accused me of.
All the stuff about defending others' insults of her, you just made up. But thanks for making that clear to everyone who's read this thread.
There have been people backing me up with prayer, without my asking but because they sensed the need, as I engaged in these 'discussions' on this thread and I'd like to thank them publicly for their support in asking the Lord to help me remain calm and speak only the truth, and not let my human nature take over.
Free Republic is a wonderful place where kindred minds and spirits receive support and help, and the prayers of fellow believers in time of need (such as the 13 months our son was deployed in Iraq). This has been one of those times for me, and I thank those lurkers, who shall remain nameless, who have lifted me up in prayer today. God bless you!
And you too, Libertarian. And I mean that sincerely.
They were discussing in the book of Acts how the early Christians were identified immediately with Christ, and that should be our goal today.
One of the men in the study, who is British, brought up President Bush and said, "He is a man for whom that is true." His testimony is so strong, that when people around the world, or across this land look at him, they see "CHRISTian."
Many clearly don't like that about him, but few will argue with its validity.
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.