Posted on 02/03/2005 10:35:59 PM PST by paulat
Normal Service Resumed The George Bush the nation re-elected is back.
Friday, February 4, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
George Bush finally began his second term on Wednesday night with an address that marked the return of the Bush of the stump, the Bush who was re-elected president three months ago and whom the nation knows well. His State of the Union address underscored that he meant what he said when he ran: Efforts to move against junk lawsuits, protect marriage and reform Social Security are all on the table. America continues as a friend of liberty throughout the world. The speech was marked by an air not of insistence but of persuasion. George Bush made it clear he does not intend to cooperate with the tradition whereby second terms are all anticlimax enlivened by scandal. He will not be at the mercy of history. He means to continue doing big things. This was the plainspoken Bush of old.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
"brought old fights,from other threads to this one,WHICH IS AGAINST FR'S POSTING POLICY!"
I have not done that. Now you're bearing false witness.
Noonan has portrayed herself as a supporter of the president. She has portrayed herself as a comrade-in-arms. She is not; she is a columnist.
She has to choose which role she wishes to assume. She is drawing criticism because a few months ago she made a big deal of being an ally; now she is showoing us she is not, and it is very jarring.
Again, your example is not relevant. McCain is KNOWN for his propensity to attack the president, and Malkin is KNOWN for her attacks on the administration over immigration.
You have either NOT read this column in full,or you refuse to register what you've read.
Where are the "distortions"...point them all out!
Where are the "inaccuracies"...list them in full!
And what is the "pettiness" in my prose? I know what is PETTY in Peggy's!
Well, I am going back to bed. I will check this thread later in the day.
You're lying,yet again.
Peggy is OBSESSED.obsessed to distraction,as a matter of fact,with President Bush's Inaugural speech...she's caviled about it,yet again,in this column. She can't leave it alone!
You're here,so I guess one could say that the same PERSON has been on all five threads. I haven't been,but obviously YOU have and you've taken the time to count them and take names,as well. That would make YOU the obsessive one. :-)
I've been on McQueeg threads,plenty of them,long before you even got here,newbie,and since and trashed him aplenty;Malkin too,when she's gone off the deep end.
You wouldn't recognize a cogent,legitimate critique of a column written by Peggy,if it lept off the screen and bit you on the nose.
You're lying through your teeth now.Nothing at all new about that! LOL
"now she is showing us she is not"
How? Even the most valid complaints of this article fall far from betrayal.
But fair enough. If I do I search past the last 5 articles, will I find the same crew with the same "complaints" ? 6 months back and 6 months forward from now. We'll see. I have no issue with critiques of her work, I've made them myself and find the last 2 articles esp inferior.
But the eagerness to tear her stuff apart on these forum bears some scrutiny
"Oh, I am so sorry, but you are not allowed to speculate on her motivation, according to Fenris. LOL!"
Miss Marple, I apologize profusely and profoundly. I forgot that we--no, only Fenris---can speculate only as to OUR motivations. Indeed, as to our deepest thoughts, in fact, our thoughts which are known only to him, oh my! LOL!
Where did I say that?"
Umm, where did you say that? Like in every post? You refuse to accept that some people genuinely disagree with Ms. Noonan's analysis and that some people are genuinely put-off by her clueless condescension.
You constantly state that you divine some hidden motive or thought behind otherwise straightforward words stating same.
You constantly state that people who genuinely disagree with Ms. Noonan's analysis are not disagreeing with her analysis and not talking about her columns.
What we supposedly are talking about, I leave to you; certainly, I don't know what you know you know about what's in my head. But you do seem to think there's more there "there" than a straightforward disagreement with Peggy's ideas.
"Please explain the Little Big Man comment."
It's good to see the lobster shift is working hard on FR tonight. With some trepidation I read the new Peggy column and like you folks was really struck by her calling the President Little Big Man. I'm quite sure it is not intended as an insult so I'm guessing it's got something to do with Bush so often being "misunderestimated".
But she still seems off her feed to me. And she's betraying a very disturbing disturbing lack of faith in ordinary people's desire to have control over their own lives. The socialistic "idiotic simplicity" of the current soc. sec. system is not what made America great; and I'm sure Americans will manage fine under a new system. The current one cannot stand, and Noonan is foolish to attempt to elide that truth. Is she agreeing with the Dems who suddenly see "no problem" with soc. sec.? It's a demographic time bomb, and a way must be made to tie it to the individual worker. Interestingly, on Brit Hume's show last night, they said that Bush has ALWAYS has this as a political goal, even back to his first losing race for Congress ages ago.
"Peggy is OBSESSED.obsessed to distraction,as a matter of fact,with President Bush's Inaugural speech...she's caviled about it,yet again,in this column."
Oh please. She referenced the Inaugural speech to contrast with her admiration of this one, ie. less messionic, etc.
Keep spewing away in bold. You remind me of a DU loon.
"Umm, where did you say that? Like in every post?"
Umm, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find an actual example?
You wrote:
"Yes. Obsessed. And not just with this column. The same people with the same exact complaints cut-n-pasted from the last 5 threads. You don't think thats out of proportion? I don't see this reaction when McCain or Malkin veer off the path. So its not unfair to ask if the complaints are motivated by something more than honest critique."
Well, hallelujah. You done come clean. You asked how we possibly could even think---even breathe the slightest whiff of you questioning our motives, then out it comes plain as day. As you said, dear, you are questioning our motives. So move along, nothing to see here.
"I've read all of those articles, none were "tearful".
Oh please, I like Peggy Noonan well enough, but every single one was a weeper.
I always say about Peggy, her prose is so purple that if the word "maudlin" did not exist, we'd have to invent it just for her.
"As you said, dear, you are questioning our motives"
Not fair is it?
I fail to see how your constant carping that some people who shared their thoughts here shared their thoughts on the SAME SUBJECT on some other thread.
And that proves exactly what?
When you say that the same people (with whom you have disagreed on other threads) are saying the same things they said on other threads and attacking them,on this one,that is bringing over a "fight" from another thread.
Have you,or have you not been on at least one other thread(specifically the one that Peggy wrote slamming the Inaugural speech),disagreeing with some people on this thread?
YES or NO?
Did you,or did you not attack,out of hand,people on this thread,more than once, saying that they are just cut and pasting the same things they said on other threads?
YES or NO?
And of course,the above is yet another LIE,because I for one,have NOT repeated a single thing I have ever said about Peggy,on any thread,in the past 7 years,except that she is a hack;which she is.
And so,it is you and you alone,who is bearing false witness here.Though why you imagine you see a mote in many other peoples' eyes,where there is none,but fail to see the beam in thine own,escapes me utterly.
You won't miss anything,after all, it's just the same old same old,from one lone party. LOL
"She says she took time off work (at "great financial loss")
Yes, thanks for remembering that strangest remark in the middle of that strange column.
Mama used to say you can't argue with a crazy man.
But here goes: please pay attention to the question you asked, then the answer I gave might make more sense for you. Usually works that way.
You asked how anyone could possibly think you were questioning their motives.
IOW, you denied doing what you were doing: questioning their motives.
Then, besides the multitudinous examples in your posts, you actually came out and declared that you were questioning their motives.
When this was pointed out to you, you refused to admit that you were doing what you denied doing and doing what you demanded proof that you were doing.
No one cares whether you think it's fair or not. You can question my motives all you want; just don't deny that you're doing it and bash others for questioning Ms. Noonan's motives.
Wanna see a lunatic,even those that DU would reject? GO LOOK INTO THE NEARFEST MIRROR!
Ahhhhhh...the damning with faint praise rouse. No wonder you admire Peggy's writing so...you are reading comprehension disabled.
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.