Replies

Was working yesterday and could not hear the speech, so I just went to the whitehouse.gov website and watched and read the whole thing. And all the posts in this thread.

Noonan's comments about it being too religious are just dead wrong. Such phraseology was pretty typical for an inaugural speech.

I wish I could have heard the music, but, if she is griping about Inaugural ceremonial music it tells you how petty and irrational her complaints about the speech must be.

Basically it was a great speech that came out and said, "We are going to fight for freedom around the world, whether or not you like it." Exactly what I want to hear from W.

And, exactly the break-point where wimpy State-Department types and ex-CBS employees like Noonan would go wobbly. No surprises here. She's not a leader, just a writer from New York City, bringing that (screwed-up) perspective to the speech. Needless to say she is extremely condescending; so, given the address's optimistic tone, its references to God, and to freedom, it was a gourmet feast for her to look down her nose at.

Agree with a previous post that she thinks freedom is OK for herself and her Manhattan buds and TV types but not for all of us pitchfork-wielding Ma and Pa Kettles out here in flyover country. According to them, we should only be given whatever freedoms and blessings she and her friends see fit to give us. Only so much tax-free retirement savings, only so much freedom to run our Ma and Pa businesses, only so much freedom to own firearms, only so much freedom of speech and thought. She and they get uncomfortable even more so when we talk about freedom for the rest of the world. It's so ...unseemly... to them. Uncouth. Quite.

W:"Ultimate goal: freedom everywhere." No duh. I cannot fathom why she gets upset by this. See the above paragraph. It's just the Ultimate Goal, Noonan. I am glad she did not tone down Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" imperative. She was wisely shunted aside then, and should be now, for being too myopic and too timid.

I did not like the reference to the Koran, it was just PC nonsense that some State Department moron talked W into putting in, or so I hope. It would have been a much better speech if that had been left out.

Such PC tripe is just more "hearts and minds" garbage -- the essential lesson of Viet Nam, which no one in government seems to have learned yet, is that you can't ever win over their hearts and minds. Only Nixon had it right.

Very much liked the "Ownership Society" comment (as opposed to the Johnsonian "Great Society" which was formally laid to rest yesterday by the speech -- good riddance.)

Overall, I am flabbergasted by the double standard by which the Inaugural Speeches are judged. Clinton's were absolutely terrible, trite Hallmark Card excrement, filled to the brim with ridiculous claims and promises. Yet, everyone on TV said they thought they were great, conservative commentators as well as the libs. Indeed, if Clinton's inaugural speeches were judged by the same standard as W's speech yesterday, Clinton's speeches ought to have been universally and loudly condemned.

Such is life for conservatives.

Just my humble opinions.