Posted on 02/03/2005 10:35:59 PM PST by paulat
Now you're changing your story. See post 98. Those articles were seperated by several months.
"Very little to do with her articles?"
Oh, puh-leeze. I'm sorry, but exactly what is it that people are talking about? Peggy's opinions, as expressed in her articles. People aren't critiquing her fashion sense, for Pete's sake.
You say you're a fan. Fine. I take that means you are going to support and defend her no matter what. Okay by me. But please don't opine that people who are discussing her columns are not discussing her columns.
"The criticism directed on this thread has everything to do with her articles. Insisting that there is an ad hominem attack going on here is the only way you pretend to offer a defense."
Oh I'm not defending this article either - I thought it was lame and not up to her usual. What I'm attacking is the same handful of people who seem to have it in for Noonan and hide behind disingenuous complaints as cover. Its the same dozen or so people, seen in the last 4 Noonan-bashing threads posted withing a week of each other.
Whats the real reason you guys don't like her? Because your displeasure is WAY out of PROPORTION with anything she's written.
Okay, here's some new material: I'm still waiting for the breathless thread on whether or not Peggy is dating Rush, seeing as he tip-toed around her "too much God" column and remarked that he respected Peggy "ever since his first date with her."
Is he dating Peggy? Should he date Peggy? Is Peggy preggers with Rush's baby? /ha ha off
"But please don't opine that people who are discussing her columns are not discussing her columns."
5 threads in 10 days, same cynics, same cut-n-paste complaints. Do a search if you don't believe me.
She is a columnist, and many people see her as a political ally. Like Kristol, she cannot be depended on to back the President.
That is her choice, and it isn't really a criticism. Both she and Kristol need to have some critical words for the administration or they become mouthpieces for it and nothing more.
However, I fault both for asking us to accept them as allies, but sticking the knife in when least expected. One can be a columnist OR a comrade-in-arms, but one can't have it both ways.
I suppose you mean "separated." Spell-check is your friend.
What I demonstrated was that this thread is not one of spite over the Inaugural speech. There has been a pattern, which I documented.
She lamented, in the Inaugural speech, the very actions we are taking against those who would make her buy a gas mask.
Her column about having to leave us bereft for nine weeks was nothing but ego.
Do you not think the character Hoffman plays, Jack Crabbe, would have been honored by designation as either "liar of insane proportion" or "the most neglected hero in history"? Is this ambiguity not at the dramatic heart of the story?
It's about the either/or being a win/win, it's not about Jack Crabbe.
What is your problem with the same people being on each thread? The theme of all three of these threads was Noonan's critique of the Inaugural speech. Noonan has now written THREE columns referencing her dislike of the speech. I disagree with her, and I am entitled to my opinion. No one is making personal attacks on her on this thread.
IMHO...a brilliant, succinct summation of this whole thread. She is condescending and clueless at the same time.
Oh, I am so sorry, but you are not allowed to speculate on her motivation, according to Fenris. LOL!
5 threads, 2 articles disliking speech. And OF COURSE you are entitled to your opinion. But don't you find the harping to be out of proportion (5 threads) to her content? She's gotten more attention here than Kennedy's traitorous remarks... why?
Ah - the "she must jealous" cut-n-paste.
I guess you guys are saving the Bipolar Heresay for last? :)
Because many people have mistakenly seen Noonan as an ally, her attack draws more attention. It's as simple as that.
EDINVA this bears repeating:
"Perhaps as a Peggy Noonan fan and defender you can explain the one thing that has befuddled me since 1/20/05. I watched Fox's coverage of the swearing-in ceremony on Capitol Hill, followed immediately by the usual punditry that included Ms. Noonan. She raved about the speech. That was 12:30pm. I then left, went off to some inaugural events in DC, and returned around 12:30am. only to find that Ms. Noonan had written an article highly critical of the speech she had praised a mere 12 hours before. What happened during those intervening 12 hours that her opinion changed? I am waiting for someone, anyone, to explain that."
I had *exactly* the same experience and the same questions. Wassup with the 180, Ms. Noonan?
post 113
"What happened during those intervening 12 hours that her opinion changed? I am waiting for someone, anyone, to explain that."
No idea. I can only offer two theories:
1) Several pundits have remarked on how different a speech *sounds* versus the way it looks when you get a copy and carefully parse it. Perhaps she didn't find flaw with it until a careful sitdown reading.
2) Being around all the other talking heads & columnists, she may have garnered themes that most were concentrating on and decided to leave the chearleading parts to them (less competition) and write an opposing albiet conservative view.
I have not said ONE WORD about her motivation. And let the record show that YOU have drageed bipolarity into this thread.
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.