Replies

I, for one, do not deny that Noonan has every right to write her column. Unlike you, however, I do not think that Noonan is a particularly persuasive voice in the party or in the conservative movement. Her audience and appeal are quite limited.

I do think that you are seeing such a reaction on this and other threads is because her comments were so imprudent and uncharacteristically harsh. In addition, her comments have been and will be used by liberals to slam the President. Hence, some of us are having a darned hard time trying to explain why she wrote such a bitter critique. I, for one, cannot imagine that it's because she just "got it wrong." I think that folks are looking for an explanation.

Quite frankly, her prose, with its routine references to her dinner parties and the like, can be a bit self-indulgent and tiresome -- particularly when the actual column filed is supposed to be on a substantive event or issue. Most of us could care less about whether she had a run-in with Baroness Thatcher at Reagan's funeral. And based on some of her columns describing her relationships with other speech writers twenty years ago, I could see how observers could come to some of the conclusions metioned on this thread.

I know you might not like this (after all, your home page does contain two pictures of PN), but none of this necessarily betrays ignorance, spite or jealousy. If anything, I think some of us, my self included, have just become tired of her and fail to see her relevance as a pundit. Because she lacks any influence in the party or the movement, her only continued relevance is that she now wears the label of a conservative commentator who is in sharp disagreement with the President, ensuring her a welcome place in the studios of the MSM.

"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.

Because she lacks any influence in the party or the movement, her only continued relevance is that she now wears the label of a conservative commentator who is in sharp disagreement with the President, ensuring her a welcome place in the studios of the MSM.

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?