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 ...
"like something I might have read here YESTERDAY!!!"
Thats why I think this one is a sleeper. Most of it I've already seen on Powerline, etc
"While in the previous paragraph, she bemoans the possibilities that come with personal freedom of choice."
She wasn't bemoaning anything. She was speculating on how President Bush's more complicated Social Security would sit with people--whether they would enjoy more decisions, options, etc. or not.
"She wasn't bemoaning anything."
You're wasting your breath. If Noonan had written the SOTU these same people would be parsing *that* and divining flaws. Its the same crew from the last 4 bash-Noonan threads.
This is her attempt at political commentary. While she made a cute reference to Rand's sister, her point got lost. Is she supporting private accounts or dismissing them? Seems to be "calibrating" her answer.
What's with the Little Big Man tag?
I don't like the Senate, either.
That being said, I actually agreed with Peggy, for the most part on both pieces. I thought the inaugural address had some "over the top" points. I'm not talking about the "God" thing; which was not at all her main point to begin with. I just thought it was badly written, and came across as rather bizarrely Utopian in nature.
Peggy is a great conservative; but is also very sharp at PR, and how speeches and words "go over." When selling an idea, you never want to make the audience uncomfortable...and the target audience is NOT political pundits.
The speech Tuesday night was a huge improvement. It fit the President and his style; and although I didn't agree with every single point, it definitely outlined his goals & accomplishments...and was quite uplifting.
Most everyone loved the speech. You will notice who is already complaining today (including some Republicans about S.S.)....THAT'S RIGHT! The "finger in the wind" Senate! LOL
I don't think that Little Big Man was a reference to the movie, as much as saying Bush is not great.
I doubt that any two people have ever agreed about everything 100% of the time,but Peggy's been more wrong than right about President Bush for quite a while now and here simpering prose has been unpalatable for far longer than that.
Take it up with the Admin Monitor...not me. If he pulls it, he pulls it. Get over it.
Tough.......FR isn't some soft porn site and those pictures shouldn't be posted here anyway!
SEE? I told ya so...much to the distress of the lone drooler.
The entire article seems rather pedestrian and tepid. PN offers no insight whatsoever. I find it hard to believe that she's pulling down a paycheck for writing this stuff.
The "reference" to Rand's sister made a point--namely, a lot of choices can overwhelm people, especially when they're used to no choice. They may not like it. Noonan is not, in that paragraph, aiming to "dismiss" or "support" private accounts. She's writing about how people will react to them.
I agree. I think she's implying that GW is an inconsequential person. Over the last weeks, I think we're beginning to see what she really thinks of him.
In PN's world, everything is so overwhelming for ordinary people. It's in complete conformity with her little garden column last summer.
However, since those who are nearing retirement (over 56) will not be affected, whether they enjoy making choices or not is irrelevant. A better musing would be whether younger voters want responsibility.
"I think she's implying that GW is an inconsequential person"
Hey PJ - don't bother dumpster diving at DU tonight, we've got our own foil here at FR :)
I haven't the slightest idea. At first I was wondering if the president is short, and so it's something about physical height=little, other-sort-of-stature=big. And then I remembered that he's almost six feet, and my only theory is ruined.
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.