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.
So what?
I didn't engage in that type of critique of Noonan but frankly have no problem with those who did since Noonan had even less basis for her absurd and inane characterization of the music selection at the inauguration as "defensive" (or at least as much basis as those who outlined why they deduce she is acting out of jealousy).
Since she decided to make such pronouncements she is receiving in kind, IMO, and I do not think those who have taken it upon themselves to chastise others for posting their thoughts and even feelings have a leg to stand on and have been downright annoying in their scolding and protective of Pegs tone.
"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."
Exactly.
Noonan is, like me, a former Democrat. She is more moderate than me, so I expect her views will often challenge those of the Republican leadership.
Thats a GOOD thing, cause we aren't getting much honest debate from the Dems - we need *some* kind of opposition.
I cannot believe the comments I've seen here, not attacking her work, but lewd juvenille character attacks on a woman who is as much of this party as Ronald Reagan ever was. It makes me embarassed to be a part of FR. You need to wake up and start acting like a frickin MAJORITY party - that means listening closely to your friends, telling them they're wrong if you think so, but not debasing them like the DUmmies do. Otherwise, people like me (who were on the team delivering a 300,000 vote margin in FL) will walk and you can get used to hearing President Clinton for another eight years.
Retards.