Posted on 01/21/2005 4:19:45 AM PST by Mikmur
One fears that he is trying to make up for the fact that the most fightening man in America is no longer running Justice.
Darned good advice for all!
fightening = frightening
however, thinking normally doesn't produce a result 180 degrees diff than the original impression. this doesn't make sense to me.
I think this speech reveals a speech writer who has studied well previous presidential speeches. There is nothing new in this speech. It is a restatement of the ideals we have always stood for.
Most people can identify up to 2500 people by name but only interact on a regular basis with 25 at most. The problem with being in NYC-DC axis all the time is that your companions eventually sway your reasoning and judgment. Further, always be suspicious of a believer criticizing someone else's faith or expression of it. Unless the testator has been barbaric in his or her expression good manners say "leave it alone."
No, I haven't called you a swine. I used a well known colloquialism to make a point. Shall I send pictures? If you think it was empty pablum, you clearly don't get it, won't get it, can't get it, and probably have little stomach for ideals.
She is right on the mark here. For those of us who are constitutional conservatives, this was an enormous miscalculation in my view.
You are intellectually lame. What on earth does an emphasis on domestic policy have to do with being a "constitutional conservative?" The President will outline "domestic policy" in the State of the Union address. What about this simple fact don't you understand???
I agree with ya, Mik. Plus, W covered the Mars angle some time ago. :P
She loves to go off on tangents. She should drop opinion and speech writing and go right into novels. She is a novelist. A storyteller. Her style might work there.
Peggy is not the first former speechwriter to misread this speech. Peter Robinson was taking his lumps from his good friend Hugh Hewitt yesterday for making the same mistake. President Bush was announcing a change in the foreign policy of the US, to the country, but most importantly, to the world. In a long overdue recovery from the Cold War, the US would change it's pragmatic foreign policy which allowed us to ally with dictators and tyrants, to ally with democratic movements and freedom within other nations.
It is ridiculous to think the President was talking about military action to force every nation to conform to our standards of freedom and democracy. He was quite clear that was not the case. I'm sure Natan Sharansky was quite happy with the President's speech. If you need help understanding, read Natan's book, "The Case for Democracy".
Very nice summary and very accurate, too, I think.
This was not a speech that was delivered in order to instantly rally a team for a game that's about to start in 3 minutes.
It was a speech that needs to have much more longevity. It needs to last over the long haul.
Perhaps he could give us some tax cuts or something.
Odd, I saw it as "freedom" agenda. Now GWB sees freedom as the "gift of God". I don't think anyone has to share that belief to believe in the power of freedom. And I don't see that belief as particularly threatening. But that is just me.
You are SO RIGHT. Thanks for reminding me. Also, she was the one writing whiny columns about buying gas masks and taping off a "safe room" after 9-11.
Agreed.
"I don't know what Peggy's problem is."
My guess is she has never experienced an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
He wasn't calling for perfection either. She must have misread that into his speech too.
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.