Posted on 01/21/2005 4:19:45 AM PST by Mikmur
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
Lately she's been "cranky" as one poster wrote. Perhaps she was left out of something or was upset that she wasn't an official member of the campaign team. Whatever it is, it's coming thru in her writings of late.
FACTS ABOUT INAUGURAL SPEECHES: - Lincoln’s 2d inaugural address used word “God” 14 times. Ronald Reagan’s 2d inaugural address used word ''freedom'' 12 times. Clinton’s 2d inaugural used word “consensual” 16 times.
Bush's 2nd inaugural address used the word "freedom" 27 times, "Liberty", 15 times. "God", 3 times, "consensual", 0 times.
Yep, those Americans won't last.
You're killing me - stop, please!
You don't call supporting dictators for pragmatic Cold War reasons different than supporting those living under dictators for pragmatic post Cold War reasons?
Yep, like she's on a constant mellow yellow OD
It is odd having Peggy react as she has. Perhaps she's mad (jealous?) that President Bush is extending Reagan's line to the rest of the tyrants and dictators around the globe. Obviously, that doesn't make sense, nor do her comments.
I agree, and I did not find the speech inspiring.
If we care so much about freedom, how about taking clear steps to increase it in areas where the government can have an influence? For example, we could eliminate sugar tariffs and bring a little more economic freedom to the third world. Or we could eliminate export subsidies and bring more freedom to our commercial relations with the developed world. How about eliminating support for the World bank and IMF, whose authoritarian meddling has wrecked many countries?
A big emphasis on tax reform and retirement savings reform would have been a concrete vision of how America can take steps to increase freedom.
I think the world might easily conclude from the president's words that he believes that, primarily, America should be ready with our military when our definition of political freedom is impinged, because God wants it that way.
Touche'!!
"As for the ending; isn't it accepted that America was founded under God to spread freedom and liberty, both religious and economic?"
No, I doubt it is "accepted" by very many, beyond the religious faction, of Bush's party.
Many Republicans and conservatives are not among those, who insist everything political and American must be heavily infused with Christian religious references.
Meantime we're in bed with the Saudis and Pakistan for the foreseeable future.
This is the most frightening, out of touch with reality speech I've heard in over sixty years. If Bush had a brain, I'd call him mad.
Smile when you say that, pardner. ;o)
IIRC, Peggy has recently become somewhat religious herself. She's not areligious like me, let alone anti-religious. Her praise for the singing of GBA indicates this.
However, she does seem to understand, as President Reagan did, that some of the fragilest parts of the conservative coalition are people who believe in limited government and an assertive foreign policy....but are not devoutly religious and are indeed concerned about religion-based social/cultural laws.
The idea that there was envy here is silly. No speechwriter who wrote Ronald Reagan's D-Day speech needs ever be envious of anyone.
-Eric
"One of my favorite singers, a black Christian man, Wentley Phipps sang one of the songs. He is outstanding. He narrates beautifully. You should hear his narration about Amazing Grace. Outstanding. It's on one of the Gaither Homecoming videos. I always cry when I hear it."
Thank you for telling me his name, yes he was awesome.
Like 'em both, along with Mort Kondracke, and John what's-his-name at 5 on Fox, and. oh yeah, Lou Dobbs on CNN.
My print folks are Bob Novak, John Leo, Michelle Malkin, De Borchgrave, Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, and Dave Barry.
I was referring to post 911.
I'd refer you to David Koresh but it's a little late.
Here's a hint: Using American power to dictate the governmental structure of other sovereign nations is not a "conservative" idea...
France, Germany, and Russia were all in on the "take" with Saddam, and they are mad we called them on it, and stopped the gravy train. They will repent, we will forgive, and all will be well again.
Meantime we're in bed with the Saudis and Pakistan for the foreseeable future.
I was thinking of the Saudis as I listened to the speech. But you are right, they are not the only ones. I think he spent a long time on this topic to be sure everyone, and I mean everyone, got the message. Times are a changing. It may not happen overnight, as you may prefer, but it will be changing. I look forward to the unfolding of this new policy under the new Sec of State.
It would be foolish to think we will bully around those we are marginally allies with. There is no need for military force in most cases. If you want to understand how President Bush might go about implementing this new foreign policy, read "The Case for Democracy".
This is the most frightening, out of touch with reality speech I've heard in over sixty years.
LOL! I guess you missed the Reagan presidency.
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.