Normal Service Resumed (Let's Tell Peggy What We Think)

The Wall St. Journal ^ | 2/4/05 | Peggy Noonan

[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.

[independentmind]

A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity.” —Robert Frost

[Howlin]

like something I might have read here YESTERDAY!!!

How often have we seen THAT happen?

[Howlin]

an aging ingenue

Oh, my, you really can turn a phrase.

[Fenris6]

"I am well-known on this forum for speaking out about vulgarity. I have even been attacked occasionally because of it."

Anti-Vulgarity noted. But I have yet to see you call out anyone on the "other" side for personal attacks. Just me. Hmmmm?

"Now, back to the matter at hand. Do you admire Peggy as a writer, or as a conservative ally?"

Both. Although her Inaugural was wrong & well-written, and this one was right & medicore.

"If you admire her as a writer, that is your taste. If you think she is an ally, then we are going to have a little discussion about the meaning of that word."

Lets talk. Consider her leave from the WSJ, in her own words, so there would be "no conflict of interest". She drops the WSJ cap and dons the Bush volunteer cap. Keeps her mouth shut and works for Bush. Elections over? She puts her WSJ cap back on. I have no prob with that.

Lets consider that she can support conservative causes and the Republican Party as a whole and NOT like the way Bush (or his comm team) presents the administration's position. Will you grant thats okay?

[Miss Marple]

I probably should have attacked those on the other thread, but I was too darn mad at Peggy to think about anything else.

The problem is that Peggy confuses the issue. She made a point of telling everyone she was going to work for the Bush campaign. So, one thinks of her as an ally. Then she returns and apparently is assuming her critical cap, without announcing beforehand that she is no longer in the ally role.

To top it all off, those who disagree with her column are told to cut her some slack because she is a "good conservative" (ally) and then are told about how she wrote all these wonderful speeches for Reagan (for two whole years).

As I said, I do not think she is dependable, since she is wearing the pundit hat, rather than the loyalist hat.

And I still maintain she has very poor timing, which seems rather odd.

[Fenris6]

Sidebar: While we're thinking about the meaning of the word "ally" - how about a list of people who quit their full-time job last June to become a full-time volunteer for the Bush team? I'll start it off:

1) Peggy Noonan

Feel free to add names as they come to you...

[Fenris6]

"As I said, I do not think she is dependable, since she is wearing the pundit hat, rather than the loyalist hat."

I can agree that while she is working for the WSJ, her job allows/requires her to criticize the President.

"And I still maintain she has very poor timing, which seems rather odd."

And I can agree that the Inagural was very bad timing.

[Fenris6]

Edit: And I can agree that the Inagural article was very bad timing.

[Miss Marple]

Probably quite a few volunteers did just that, also at personal sacrifice. They, however, don't have columns in the Wall Street Journal n which they could announce it.

[Fenris6]

"They, however, don't have columns in the Wall Street Journal in which they could announce it."

See? "There you go again." :) Noonan had a responsibility to inform her readers that she was leaving the WSJ and why - to avoid any conflict of interest. But you seem to twist that into self-promotion or selfishness.

Also - there are quite a few Bush supporters other than Noonan at the WSJ. Any of them take leave w/o pay? How about our pals at the Wash Times?

[Miss Marple]

The common way to announce a leave of absence is in a small not at the bottom of the column, either by the columnist or by the editors.

I don't consider anyone on the WSJ my "pal."

You are refusing to understand the problem, because you have a single-minded loyalty to Ms. Noonan. I am certain she will appreciate it.

I have no wish to continue this discussion. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

[Fenris6]

"The common way to announce a leave of absence is in a small not at the bottom of the column, either by the columnist or by the editors."

Maybe she chose to go with an article to inspire her readers to get off the computer and put some signs up?

"I don't consider anyone on the WSJ my "pal."

Wash Times. And the point was that she was not the only pro-Bush journalist in the MSM, just the only "ally" who took leave to help us win.

"You are refusing to understand the problem, because you have a single-minded loyalty to Ms. Noonan."

Yet, I've criticized Noonan's last two articles, albiet without attacking her character or integrity. Single-minded?

"I have no wish to continue this discussion. You have your opinion, and I have mine."

No problem. We are both entitled to our opinion. Thanks for letting me share mine without driving me off FR.

[Fenris6]

Peggy is a one-note samba — any speech which is not 'gentle', that is, squishy and full of syrupy verbage, is sub-par in here book.

Here's the actual quote in fair context:

America will work with "our friends" in the Mideast to "encourage a higher standard of freedom." The government of Saudi Arabia should become more democratic; the "great and proud nation of Egypt" is capable of showing the way to greater democracy in the region. We "expect" the Syrian government to stop supporting terrorists. We are "working with our European allies" to convince Iran not to develop nukes. We "stand with" the people of Iran. This was gentle but pointed, more specific and less messianic, than the recent inaugural--and therefore less open to misinterpretation. It was more finely calibrated, which is to say it was calibrated."

Bush was talking not to us, but directly to the peoples of the Middle East. Remember that OBL intends to use America as a foil to unite all Arabs under a Caliphate. Perhaps our writers thought a messianic tone wasn't the wisest way to approach the hearts and minds of people who have been conditioned to expect an American Crusade. Hence, the calibration. An agressive foreign policy statement to the Arab world coupled with God-speak would have been reckless.

[Look Ma, no flames!]

[Fenris6]

"What a great comment...what is "messianic" about all those beautiful purple fingers??"

see 213

[MeekOneGOP]

The end of the speech offered an unforgettable moment. When the mother of Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood, who gave his life in Iraq, was honored in the balcony, and then leaned down to embrace the woman in front of her, an Iraqi who had lost her father to Saddam, and who had just voted--when that mother embraced that woman it said more than words could about what we are doing and why. Sacrifice brings progress; courage brings deliverance; love born in Pflugerville can liberate in Fallujah. It pierced the heart.

As for the Democratic response, Harry Reid looks and talks like a small-town undertaker whom you want to trust but wonder about, especially when he says the deceased would love the brass handles. Although Nancy Pelosi continues to look startled, even alarmed, her comments are predictable and pedestrian. Both seemed eager not to agree with Ted Kennedy's recent "Iraq is Vietnam" statements, which more and more seem not just stupid but scandalously so. Absent endorsing radical defeatism, however, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi had little to say. They made Important Sounds. Neither seemed sincere or serious. The president seemed both.

[pepperdog]

Late to this discussion, as usual. But FWIW I think Miss Peggy was a little tipsy the night of the inauguration when she made her "God drenched" remarks and other weird statements. So what could she do the next day? "Gee, I was snookered and a little miffed that I didn't get the speech writing assignment." Now she is past that little slip and back on track.

[Willie Green]

The beauty of the Social Security system is its almost idiotic simplicity: They take your money from your paycheck and then 40 years later when you're old they start giving some back each month.

Peggy Noonan is a liar.
Socialist income redistribution schemes NEVER give you your money back.
They take money away from you and give it to somebody else.
Specifically, Social Security confiscates a portion of the salaries and wages of younger workers, and gives it to elderly retirees as a "safety net." Younger workers do this with the understanding that, when they become elderly retirees, the new generations of younger workers will care for them in the same fashion.

Ideologically, conservatives are opposed to this type of income redistribution.
But that debate was lost over 70 years ago, and we are now morally obliged to abide by the promises that were made to our elderly citizens.

However, the REAL scandal with Social Security is the notion that a multi-TRILLION dollar "Trust Fund" is necessary to make Social Security work. Congress actually uses this as a slush fund, misappropriating the monies for other governmental purposes. In truth, to be economicly "efficient", Social Security taxes should be redistributed as rapidly as possible, maintaining an absolute minimimum balance in the "pipeline".

Like it or not, that IS how Social Security actually works.

And like all government policies and programs, it is always open to debate and revision.

But as a conservative, I am embarrassed by pseudo-conservatives like Peggy Noonan and George W. Bush who lie to the American People as to how Social Security works. They are just as guilty of freightening and misleading our elderly citizens as the poverty pimps in the "other" party.

[Fenris6]

Peggy Noonan is a liar. Socialist income redistribution schemes NEVER give you your money back. They take money away from you and give it to somebody else.

Noonan knows that. The POV she presents is "others". Once again, the quote in fair context:

"Others might reasonably wonder if life isn't complicated enough. The beauty of the Social Security system is its almost idiotic simplicity: They take your money from your paycheck and then 40 years later when you're old they start giving some back each month. Personal accounts are less simple."

Maybe I should write up a Cliff Notes version once a week.

[wouldntbprudent]

"And there's Peggy's simpering purple prose,again;not to mention a middle aged woman writing like a 12 year old. His "graying hair was softly combed back........"? "He is a man who can literally stop traffic."?"

Ha, ha, nopardons, I really did think of you when I read that "simpering purple prose," but I left it for you to point it out as I knew, hilariously, and rightly, you would.

For me, I have to say Peggy's Rush comment reminded me of what I have heard about the simpering purple prose in Halequin Romance titles (which I know about only by reading various news articles for those "worst sentence" of the year awards, etc.)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(Then I felt my soft hand, my writing hand, at that, reach up and comb back his softly graying hair . . . okay, STOP THE TAPE. lol lol lol)