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 ...
The economy is strong because of his beliefs, and we are winning the war on terror because of his beliefs.
Why belabor the obvious? He explained things very clearly to those who have the capacity to understand.
I have hardly read a word of hers after that critique of the Second Inaugural. I was at the Capitol for that speech and it was spectacular. I was there for the First one, too - a day I will NEVER forget!
Don't tell me. Tell Peggy. I'm just saying her description fits what he's been doing all along. Nothing special about last night in that regard. Sort of like the debates. "The world is better off without Saddam." Could have invented some good drinking games around that one.
Peggy still believes in a nobler future America united by a shared conservative vision. Through her speeches, she once strove to grow the conservative movement by appealing to the humanity of fence-sitting Democrats. It must be discouraging and frustrating for her to see the rise of the Kos / DU lunatic faction as the new Democrat base. There is not enough humanity there to bother with.
Peggy shouldn't be giving such memorable sound bites to the enemy -- we could have done without the "at not to" comment -- but part of her value is that she is honest both in her praise and her criticism. I respect her and will continue to read her.
>>>
The fellow was including in his definition a whole lot of long time conservatives. Get it? Neo? Long-time?
<<<
What fellow? Was including what conservatives? In what definition? Do you mean where RightWingRadio says, "Neocons abound here." in post #30? By here I assume he means FR. Are you saying that there are not a lot of neocons (pro welfare/warfare state) on FreeRepublic?
I realize the rather pedantic point that neo means new. That is why I pointed out (in post #215) that neocons are neither new nor conservative. Neo means new I get it! No really, I do. Honestly!
>>>
It's an incorrect, trite, and meaningless insult of people that you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to debate.
<<<
Why is it an insult? A poor name perhaps (50 years on), but one that has stuck. Maybe we could call them paleoneocons to distinguish them from the "paleocons", but remind us that they too have been around along time.
Regarding "intellectual wherewithal", I have just enough to understand that the whole world does not have to agree with me, and I do not have to get bent out of shape when my ideas or "heroes" are criticized.
Let's get down to the bottom line of your post.....
Regarding "intellectual wherewithal", I have just enough to understand that the whole world does not have to agree with me, and I do not have to get bent out of shape when my ideas or "heroes" are criticized
You see, this is a serious problem with you self-righteous types who think that anyone who supports President Bush isn't REALLY a conservative.
We are permitted to think Peggy Noonan is completely wrong in her assessment without being called names by guys like RightWingRadio. It happens all the time, and it is shallow and silly.
That's why I asked him if he even understood what 'neo' meant. There are lots of us getting labeled with that idiotic name who don't come even close to it.
It's intellectual laziness, and I see a whole lot of it coming from freepers who mistakenly think they're better than the rest of us...........and from your last line, that apparently includes you.
You think you're intellectually superior? Would do a better job leading the U.S. as it fights terror? Would do a better job bringing this economy back to the robust, healthy condition its in now?
You really think you can look down on the President because you think he doesn't speak with enough complexity?
You need to do a little reading about how firmly he grasps any complex concept thrown at him, assesses it, and comes up with a solution (multiple sources document that quality).
Honestly Huck, when you look down on a man because of the way he talks, you really look like an elitist left winger, you know? (I know you're not, but you're doing a good imitation right now).
Regarding RWR, I just wanted to confirm what you meant. When you said the he was "including in his definition a whole lot of long time conservatives", I was not sure if (perhaps on another thread) he had given an actual definition or named names.
I see no insult in any of the conservative prefixes. They are all just shorthand for a loose description of principals. Though I do think neocon is thrown about a bit too freely.
I think the "heroes" line in my post may not have been the best phrasing. You may have taken it to mean "bushbot" or something similar, which is not how it was intended. I have seen the same reaction to criticism-from-a-friend when the subject is other than President Bush. A popular conservative pundit criticizes the conservative "hero" and all of a sudden the pundit is the enemy. It was that reaction (not confined to Bush supporters) I was reacting against.
>>>
You see, this is a serious problem with you self-righteous types who think that anyone who supports President Bush isn't REALLY a conservative.
<<<
Of course that can go the other way with "self-righteous types" who think that anyone who criticizes President Bush is a moonbat, fringer or my favorite (given that this is a conservative board) ultra conservative. Yes "ultra conservative" was thrown out as a criticism on FreeRepublic.
I don't think I am "better than the rest of you". One of the interesting, if frustrating, things about FreeRepublic is that although populated by conservatives I still find people to disagree with. However we are all, the "bushbots", "fringers" and "paleos" on the same team (we may be playing diferent games though :>).
PS I think I have posted more today (on this an other threads) than I have in the last year, so this will be my last word on this thread.
... was that a sigh of relied I heard?
...Hillary Clinton couldn't sell a glass of water in the Sahara...
I didn't say any of those things. You're boxing with shadows. I said that Peggy's description of his speechifying on Iraq is correct and apropos of his entire time in office. Contrast it with Tony Blair, for example. I didn't even say I thought one or the other was better.
Yes. ;)
If I am indeed 'boxing with shadows,' could you explain the meaning of this obvious insult?
Are you saying that if George W. Bush is not eloquent as is Tony Blair, that he is less of a leader?
I'm really asking, Huck, because it seems that you insult the President with one-liners all the time, and it gives an air of superiority on your part.
I don't happen to think that eloquence is a requirement of either character or leadership, and if the President is not capable of flowery speech nor rhapsodic rhetoric, it is absolutely irrelevant to anything at all, and needs not be mentioned.
It is WHAT he says that counts, and that, sir, is profound and visionary. And he expresses that vision in clear, concise, and easily understood speeches. I, for one, see that as a good thing.
He asserted more than he persuaded, and he chose to redeclare his beliefs rather than argue for them in any depth.Sounds like a very good description of his performance in the debates. My drinking game gag simply reiterates the point.
And inaccurate as well........but I suppose we'll never agree, because I respect the man, his character and his leadership, and you don't.
Thought so! At least you did not make fun of my typo (what is a sigh of relied anyway?).
LOL! Shows you how much I was paying attention. I didn't even NOTICE the typo. :)
Well I voted for the dude. That's enough, in my view. If I thought he was a persuasive debater, I'd say so.
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.