Posted on 01/27/2005 2:08:34 AM PST by bellevuesbest
I have been called old, jaded, a sourpuss. Far worse, I have been called French. A response is in order.
You know the dispute. Last week I slammed the president's inaugural address. I was not alone, but I came down hard, early and in one of the most highly read editorial pages in America. Bill Buckley and David Frum also had critical reactions. Bill Safire on the other hand called it one of the best second inaugurals ever, and commentators from right and left (Bill Kristol, E.J. Dionne) found much to praise and ponder. (To my mind the best response to the inaugural was the grave, passionate essay of Mark Helprin.) So herewith some questions and answers:
A week later, do I stand by my views?
Yes. If I wrote it today I wouldn't be softer, but harder.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Exactly what I was thinking. She can dish it out, but doesn't think she should even have to take it. Perhaps she's a bit green with envy at not being in the inner sanctum on this one.
For now I'll add you two to the list of people who didn't understand the speech. The important change is at home, here in our minds. If we simply choose to not intervene (how stable and safe is Saudi Arabia today?) in a number of situations where we would have before, it could change the world.
This is a bit like Bush senior's "read my lips" speech because a lot can get in the way of doing the right thing in practice. But it still is an important announcement of change. Study Sidney Jones on Indonesia, especially her comments about internal unrest in Banda Aceh. They believe Americans want to help them. It's bizarre, but that's the story all over the world. Anyone who wants freedom is either hopeful that America will help -- or bitterly dissappointed that we didn't do what we suggested we might.
Thanks I needed some more time to giggle!
No problem, it seems to be your strongest suit. ;o)
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world." Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing.
Isn't this just what Reagan proposed to do? Didn't Reagan tackle the gigantic jobs of freeing the hostages and then crumbling communism? Seemingly apocalyptic tasks, yet Reagan moved ahead confidently and tackled domestic issues as well. He didn't end tyranny in the whole world in 8 years, but he sure made a giant change in the lives of millions. And the President named the 'ultimate' goal. Does she not get the idea that it is an ultimate, eventual goal for our country, and one held by our country, not just him, for a very long time. No one is so naive to think that he, while acting as our president, can wipe out all tyranny in the whole world in 4 years or less. Yet she implies he is that naive.
Laura Bush's beauty has grown more obvious; she was chic in shades of white, and smiled warmly. The Bush daughters looked exactly as they are, beautiful and young. A well-behaved city was on its best behavior, everyone from cops to doormen to journalists eager to help visitors in any way.
I agree with her. The Bush ladies are beautiful, gracious, and elegant. They bring an air of sophistication to the White House that is clearly contagious. One that was missing for 8 or so years prior to their arrival. Quite different from the previous administration
And I really enjoyed the musical selections and performers. It was classy and if it seemed odd, it was only because the references to God and other beautiful, classical music have been so absent and even derided in recent years, again, especially during the last administration.
My strongest suit? NAW- I don't think you would recognize my strong suit....
Nope, she engaged in hyperbolic overreach, exactly the kind of thing that she accused Bush of, and with her honor challenged she isn't going to back down.
Note how annoyed she is at the insults that were leveled at her. It is rather revealing.
This isn't one bad day. This column reinforces her first bad day. So now it's a slump, one which I truly hope does not become permanent.
Isn't it curious that after blaming her editor for the "Too Much God" title to her last column, she comes back with this "Sourpuss? Moi?" title. While the first could be excused, this one cannot. She is obviously flipping off her readers and critics. I don't live on the Upper West Side. I'm just a small town guy. But I detect a bit of an attitude from ol' Peggy. Stick a fork in her . . . She's done.
Excellent review of "she said he said/he really said"..
Thank you!
I have to agree. She really is letting us know what's what, and us 'little' people should just be quiet and listen. Hmmm. A departure from her past thinking. She was wonderful as a speechwriter for Reagan, and I guess some of us just assumed she still espoused those beliefs. Maybe she never really did. I'm not sure many on the Upper West Side will be able to tolerate her new uppity-ness either. I agree, a wee bit o' attitude from her. When I saw 'Moi?' and 'Peggy', I couldn't help but think to myself (with a giggle, hee hee) that she reminded me just a little of Miss Piggy. (Maybe that's not fair to Miss Piggy...)
I agree with Peggy Noonan that the president's talk about freedom was, in some ways, unrealistic. The president seems to have an idea that if the dictators are knocked down and people are allowed to vote, what is right will prevail. I thought this idea was central to his Inaugural Address. But I believe it is wrong, and it is dangerous to base a policy on a bad idea.
The problem with the right-will-prevail-with-free-elections assumption is: People are bad. All people are bad. The very best--the saints of the human race--have a little sin in them. And it just goes down from there. The badness in the human race is undeniable.
Furthermore, people can be fooled into electing a bad leader. Didn't 1992 and 1996 prove that to all conservatives? More seriously, Hitler was democratically elected. That should never be forgotten. A majority of a nation can come to such a point that it will, of its own will, put a person like Hitler in office.
A democracy is only as good as its people. And if the people are bad enough, it will stop being a democracy altogether. Germany democratically elected Hitler--and soon was a democracy no longer. And look at Europe today. The liberty is fading there as socialist governments grow. And the socialists in those governments are elected. (Incidentally--or maybe not--the slide of these three things--Christianity, morality, and liberty--coincided.) You may destroy dictatorships and give people free elections--and then those people may elect dictators.
Piggy Noonan?
thanks for the best, most RATIONAL analysis of the discrepancies between Ms. Noonan's analysis of the speech and its actual content ... and kindly treatment of her as a long time, valued conservative who at the moment seems a bit off kilter.
Peggy seems to have lost her way.
#256
"It is not a stupid point, she makes the point herself that she worked for the campaign (at financial loss- sour grapes)"
More stupdity. She worked as a *volunteer* for the Bush campaign, to help out any way she could. She left her job at WSJ so there would be no conflict of interest. Pretty pathetic how you would twist that into something sour.
Jealousy indeed.
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.