Replies

I've been very stunned at the shift in Peggy Noonan's recent pieces .. more stunned that she was even capable of such a noticeable swing away from her predictable and typically grand "big picture" view of Pres. Bush's stated values, missions and administration pursuits and her graceful translations of what his words and actions indicate. It's very uncharacteristic, and, for that reason, I find it very odd and disconcerting, but VERY noteworthy.

It was so noticeable, that she publicly indicated how many negative responses she received from her column about Bush's Inauguration speech, and felt compelled to defend her position publicly. That's strange.

This is the loyal Republican, political essayist, cable TV contributor and author, who was so devoted to the re-election of George W. Bush that she took a (most likely, unpaid) sabbatical from all her official professional duties at Opinion Journal and the talkshows to campaign and help the effort.

She was completely immersed in the goings on with all the "old gang" during all the rememberances, memorials and panel discussions about Ronald Reagan's Presidency, after he died. There, she probably re-established contact with some old "party" affiliations and old guard Reagan operatives, associates and friends. She was glowing, tearful, and exuberant in her praise about Reagan, the man, and his gifts, insight and amazing achievements, and rightly so.

Whatever recent information or new input that was implanted in her psyche, or change in her relationship with the White House .. whatever the background reasons behind this new tone that have caused her to wander off the reservation ... I have to deduce that something very impactful has happened that has changed HER. It's troubling, and I just wish we knew what IT or WHO it was. Brent Scowcroft keeps popping into my mind.

I think Peggy's abrupt turnaround has caused a lot of people to wonder what or WHO it was who influenced her to turn against the President.

For myself, the horrific piece on the President's inspired Inaugural address has caused me to lose trust in anything she says, perhaps permanently.

It was not that she disagreed with the President, it was the nature of her attack.......that there was 'too much God' and that he suffered from 'mission inebriation.'

At first I thought I might give her a break for an aberration, due to her own ego, but the more I absorbed what she was really saying, the more I felt it was a fundamental betrayal of core principles that she supposedly shared with the President.

You can't just say, 'oops, I goofed' and make that level of betrayal go away.

A FReeper wrote recently, after Peggy fell off the wagon of reason, either that he conjectured or had heard (rumor) that Peggy was doing all the campaign work and hoping she would be hired as a speechwriter for W. She was not brought in to do this after W was elected; it was suggested that this could be the source of her discontent. I don't know the facts but I find this a credible theory. I mean, how can you explain her stabbing him in the back the way she's doing? She has no grounds for it because Bush hasn't changed.