Posted on 02/02/2006 6:11:22 AM PST by areafiftyone
People like you do not benefit the conservative cause, as you so smugly claim.
You benefit no cause because you're a pie in the sky (and it has to be pecan with whipped cream) loony libertarian.
Plus, you're a constant downer on every thread. Does that make you happy?
Yes, we know that. Since you are just beginning your political years, you will not know that Peggy Noonan has great credibility as a gifted writer who holds conservative values. For reasons, that we can only guess at, now her commentary has to include digs every time President Bush gives a major speech. She has become a celeb guest on cable TV because of her history, and her supposed outlook. So her snipes look like petty jealousy, because she is not part of Ws inner circle.
I agree. She has very few good things to say about him.
Noonan slammed the Congressional Democrats, but only after making some of her usual catty comments about President Bush.
Bingo!
You guys are probably right, it's amazing how peoples loyalties change when they are out of the lime light.
"President Bush 43 knows that no one in history is more hated by Democrats than He. And he knows that everytime a Democrat sees Bubba with his Dad, they go ballistic. The only word that comes to a Democrats mind when they see Bubba and Dubya is Traitor. The Clintons are traitors to the Democratic party. Imagine how much that helps Hillary's run for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
And conversely, no Democrat is hated more than Bubba, ergo conservatives are equally disgusted by giving the public legitimacy given him in any way.
You can spin this "relationship" all you want, but the fact of the matter is the Bushes giving the anti-America, ex-rapist, traitor, and sc*mbag Bubba a platform instead of rendering him irrelevant indicates either a "deal" made, OR still just a plain bizarre display of idiocy and elitism.
"From her Senate website: ----
CLINTON, Hillary Rodham, (1947-)"
I thought you were posting about Peggy Noonan, not Hillary Clinton, because some earlier posts commented that Noonan had not aged well since her Reagan-speechwriting years. The bio information I posted was for Noonan.
>>>
Oh........I think the line itself was seriously flawed.
And I think the man giving it meant it, but didn't have the strength to follow through.
His son does.
<<<
What part was flawed? The "no"?
George Bush Sr. was never a conservative. It was he who used "voodoo economics" against Reagan. He tolerated but had no great love for the social conservatives. He became president because he was a loyal Republican and Reagan's mistake in choosing him as VP.
His "no new taxes" pledge won in 1988. His breaking of that pledge gave is Bill Clinton.
If Peggy Noonan is to be castigated it should be for her "thousand points of light", "kindler gentler America" lines (I believe she wrote both of those lines for the elder Bush).
George W. Bush may intend to cut taxes (and keep those cuts) but his massive expenditures will mean a future president and congress will be under pressure to raise them again. If you mean to cut taxes, you must cut spending. We face not a budget crisis but a spending crisis (helped in no small part by G. W. Bush).
I must have missed that part of one of the Constitution Amendments...
Have it your way, and we'll be at war bleeding on foreign soil for non-Americans until the year 2525.
Okay, sorry for the confusion.
LOL!
...Actually I though here rear end is getting kind of voluminous... even though they try to cover it. Fair or not, that is something she has to "deal" with, not to mentioned that "her boy" has developed a taste for other... well, you know what I mean :)
Yep...
A Country Club Republican through and through whose vision was for a "New World Order."
He then ran a sham campaign which he ran to lose to the scandal ridden Bubba Clinton, ensuring Reagan's conservatism's momentum would be stopped dead in it's tracks, thus giving the libs their "turn" to accelerate multiculturalism, subvert the SC, social re engineering, purposeful security breaches, and internationalist One World-ism.
>>>
How exactly can one be classified a 'neocon' when one has been a conservative for nearly a half century?
How exactly do you define the prefix, 'neo?
<<<
Well the prefix "neo" and the suffix "con" are both incorrect. There is nothing new about them and they are not conservative. What we today refer to as "neocons", should really be considered part of the left (from whence they came). Neos are big government types, fully comfortable with the welfare state at home and the warfare state abroad.
The mistaken "con" suffix is related to the fact they came from the anti communist left. They make nice noises about tax-cuts and smaller government but that is not their driving belief. The driving belief is in the restorative powers of government especially abroad and especially through the use of the military.
To be fair, unlike others on the left they want expansive government to make America stronger whereas as leftist internationalism aims to make America weaker.
What else is new? That's what GWB's been doing for going on 6 years now.
Perhaps he/she doesn't actually KNOW what the prefix 'neo' means and uses it exactly as you said.....
Or perhaps he/she thinks it is a character in the Matrix? ;)
Exactly! Looking at the words and the construction, and missing the vision.
It was never so obvious than her bizarre critique of his Second Inaugural Address. She missed the WHOLE point of what was said, and wrote it down for all to see.
Kind of embarrassing, IMO.
Bush41 read it, but if Peggy wrote it, the stupidity of the line is hers.
Bush41 is a man of honor. He meant it when he said it, but wasn't strong enough to fight back when he was pressured to raise taxes.
It has nothing to do with whether or not he was conservative enough for you. It was still a flawed line, and not one that Peggy should be proud of.
The fellow was including in his definition a whole lot of long time conservatives. Get it? Neo? Long-time?
It's an incorrect, trite, and meaningless insult of people that you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to debate.
But thanks for the essay explaining what I didn't need to be told.
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.