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?
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.
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.