Posted on 02/02/2006 6:11:22 AM PST by areafiftyone
The president's State of the Union Address will be little noted and not long remembered. There was a sense that he was talking at, not to, the country. He asserted more than he persuaded, and he chose to redeclare his beliefs rather than argue for them in any depth. If you believe, as he does, that the No. 1 priority for the American government at this point in history is to lead an international movement for political democracy, and if you believe, as he truly seems to, that political democracy is in and of itself a certain bringer of world-wide peace, than this speech was for you. If not, not. It went through a reported 30 drafts, was touched by many hands, and seemed it. Not precisely a pudding without a theme, but a thin porridge.
It was the first State of the Union Mr. Bush has given in which Congress seemed utterly pre-9/11 in terms of battle lines drawn. Exactly half the chamber repeatedly leapt to its feet to applaud this banality or that. The other half remained resolutely glued to its widely cushioned seats. It seemed a metaphor for the Democratic Party: We don't know where to stand or what to stand for, and in fact we're not good at standing for anything anyway, but at least we know we can't stand Republicans.
There was only one unforgettable moment, and that was in a cutaway shot, of Hillary Clinton, who simply must do something about her face. When the president joked that two people his father loves are turning 60 this year, himself and Bill Clinton--why does he think constant references to that relationship work for him?--it was Mrs. Clinton's job to look mildly amused, or pleasant, or relatively friendly, or nonhostile.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I think Peggy Noonan yearns for the days when she wrote the SOTU speeches. She is bitter that she is no longer on the "inside".
Maybe Peg will forget the speech, but millions of us won't. Her Dem critique is correct, but how cheap to take shots at the President in the manner she does. Persuades not at all, and makes her look "petty", for sure.
I should introduce your sister to my sister! They would get a long just fine. She is a wonderful person, but she is very, very liberal. Oy!
I am glad to be in Virginia after growing up in Massachusetts - where no tax is too large nor any outrage too small.
Cheers!
The main point of the article is going to get the approval of conservatives because of its accurate assessment of the hapless, moral-less, gutless left, but she starts it out by alienating the President's supporters, who saw this as a strong, much needed speech.
Even the CBS snap poll had the speech at 77% approval. If you play the odds, it must have had well over 90% approval among Republicans.
And she starts out the editorial with a needless, bitter, and very WRONG assessment of the speech, making the majority of her intended audience angry.
Dumb.
They read up to the part where she criticized Bush, then they closed their browsers and pouted.
You are correct. I had no wish to go to the link after reading the snippet posted here, especially the first sentence.
She's a silly frivolous flake. A mega flake. There is no there, there
I do like some of Peggy Noonan's writings, but I do not like to watch her on television. She's far too dramatic and is continuously fooling with her hair. You would think she would use some hairspray to keep it from falling in her face. She gives the impression that she thinks she is intellectually superior to most everyone.
That's just nasty. It's wrong ... so very wrong, in so many ways. It would be more at home on some National Geographic program about odd life-forms dwelling in the vicinity of submarine volcanic vents.
When the excerpt is so vile, why would anyone be tempted to go to the link? Why would I expect things to be any better at the source site? Perhaps they were, but I saw no good reason to read further.
They were just offended by a weak and inaccurate critique of the speech, and didn't care to read further.
In reading further, the beginning of the article made even less sense.
It was stupid of her to vent her petty jealousy in an otherwise worthwhile editorial.
While I disagree with Peggy about the speech, she's still a hot babe and a great writer.
Her observations about Mrs. Bill Clinton were accurate, but the target is just too easy.
Fred Barnes states very accurately that this President has given some of the most substantive, eloquent speeches ever given. Peggy is stupid to let her jealousy show through so transparently.
I asked myself why she would alienate both Dems and Republicans in her article. It is dumb, as you say. Either she is like the left, and some of the right...unhinged and can't act rationally, or she is looking for an image that puts her at odds with the political parties, possibly hoping to write speeches for some maverick candidate down the line. What do you think? I used to think she was brilliant.
You're right! It looks like some of those underwater life forms that make you turn your eyes away when you see a photo of them!
"She graduated from college in 1969. I think she was born in 1947."
The nndb database (accuracy unknown to me) lists her birthdate as September 7, 1950, and year of HS graduation as 1968. It appears, though, she was on the six-year plan in college, graduating from Farleigh-Dickinson in 1974.
As for whether she has aged well, she seems to have a look appropriate to her age (55 - same as I am) but maybe that's why I have a much younger wife!
Oh please. Spare me the melodrama.
"She is a wonderful person, but she is very, very liberal. Oy!"
Sorry. Got you beat. My sister is a liberal, a lesbian, and just changed her last name to that of her partner's after a "pinky-swear wedding oath," LOL! She also works for Action Wisconsin which promotes 'Everything Gay, All Day.'
I win! Well, actually, I lose. *Rolleyes*
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.