Skip to comments.
Noonan: Baseless Confidence. It may take a defeat in Nov for the GOP to unlearn the lessons of power
WSJ Opinion Journal ^
| May 11, 2006
| Peggy Noonan
Posted on 05/11/2006 12:31:45 AM PDT by FairOpinion
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 281-282 next last
To: Joe Brower
"Can you name one thing that Noonan states in her first paragraph that is not true?"
I assume you actually read the article and realize the paragraph that starts this thread is not her "first" paragraph in this piece. If you don't think our economy is strong, vote in Democrats. You complain about larger government and then demand more government input in events like Katrina and building the largest wall since the Great Wall of China. Maybe you should vote democrat. If you think the Democrats will be tougher in foreign policy than George Bush, vote them into office. If you think democrats will EVER give you a tax cut, vote them in. If you think budget deficits are permanent, curse Reagan. But personally, Peggy's bitch list doesn't sway me to sit on my hands.
Later, she says this, "Republicans on the ground back home got mad. Eventually they threw the old guys out and sent to Washington in 1980 a guy who meant it when he said he'd cut and contain." You do realize that Ronald Reagan did EXACTLY what she just finished bitching about in spades. Yet, he is lifted up by her as the ultimate goal. I believe he is. But then, I'm not condemning current Republicans for doing exactly what he did.
141
posted on
05/11/2006 8:32:09 AM PDT
by
Rokke
To: Uncle Vlad
"But I absolutely refuse to vote for a party that refuses to do anything about illegal immigration."
Did you vote for Reagan?
"Will the Democrats do any better? Of course not."
So then you aren't going to vote?
142
posted on
05/11/2006 8:33:57 AM PDT
by
Rokke
To: Blackirish
"Nice personal attack on gracious woman without addressing the substance of her article"
I did address it. I said it was boring and predictable. It does not have substance. It is one long bitch that proposes no solutions other than not voting.
143
posted on
05/11/2006 8:35:38 AM PDT
by
Rokke
To: swain_forkbeard
"You seem to have a lot to say about Peggy Noonan, but not about the substance of her argument."
See my last post. There is no substance to a bitchlist.
144
posted on
05/11/2006 8:36:37 AM PDT
by
Rokke
To: Rokke
Blah blah blah. The first paragraph is the first paragraph displayed above, and stands on its own. That's not hard to understand.
You prattle on and on without ever coming close to answering the question. Which tells everyone here all they need to know.
145
posted on
05/11/2006 8:36:50 AM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
To: bad company
Maybe I'm just simpleminded, but instead of giving up the gains we have made and turning things over to the dems, wouldn't it be a better plan to begin addressing these problem rubbies in the primaries and replace them with more conservative candidates?
Let's take a look at the most high profile instance where this happened in recent memory: the re-election campaign of Arlen Specter:
Republican senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania coasted to reelection on Tuesday, winning 53 percent of the vote against his Democratic opponent. He quickly put his political future at risk, however, when he warned President Bush in an interview not to nominate any Supreme Court Justices who might consider overturning Roe v. Wade. Specter is next in line to head the Senate Judiciary Committee, so his views on judicial nominations carry enormous weight. Even before this latest comment, conservatives were demanding that Specter one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate not be elevated to this position of great influence. Early this year, many of them backed congressman Pat Toomeys underdog bid against Specter in the GOP primary a valiant effort that very nearly succeeded, until Bush intervened in the final days and dragged the imperiled incumbent across the finish line for a narrow victory...
You can read the rest of the article here at
National Review Online.
Suffice it to say that when the conservative establishment actually does get the pitchforks out in the primaries and goes to war, the RNC and RINOs pull out all the stops to see that the Republican party does not move in a more conservative direction.
By all accounts, conservatives would have been better off with Toomey in the Senate than with Specter. Yet what happened? The Republican power structure - all the way up to the President - acted in such a way as to ensure a more
liberal outcome just so it did not upset the apple cart of party power structure.
Something to consider.
146
posted on
05/11/2006 8:37:00 AM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
To: Rokke
I voted proudly for Reagan twice. The GOP has six months to turn it around. If they don't I will seriously consider staying home. I just can't say everything is OK. To use another hard word, it's time for an intervention in regards to the GOP.
To: Joe Brower
"You prattle on and on without ever coming close to answering the question."
I did answer the question. Noonan whines about the current state of affairs and then puts on a pedestal a man who did the very things she is whining about. I supported Reagan when he did them. And I support current Republicans who do them. I CAN see the forest for the trees. I understand the final objective. And I'm not going to quit because I'm not getting my way.
148
posted on
05/11/2006 8:45:12 AM PDT
by
Rokke
To: Uncle Vlad
"I voted proudly for Reagan twice."
Reagan granted illegals amnesty. He did not secure our borders. He opened them. Why did you vote for him "proudly", but now you condemn the current GOP who have done more than Reagan did in controlling the border?
149
posted on
05/11/2006 8:47:15 AM PDT
by
Rokke
To: Rokke
Who's quitting? You're talking to the wrong guy. That, or making a pathetic attempt to insult me because I'm not agreeing with you. Terrible, isn't it?
I do as I will. You may think you see "the forest for the trees", but are obviously quite blind to some failings within the GOP that are as big and glaring as the sun in the sky.
One's eyes have to be open to see them, however. "None are so blind..." and all that.
150
posted on
05/11/2006 8:53:00 AM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
To: Rokke
Go ahead and surrender. An example of surrender:
The U.S Senate is currently controlled by Republicans with their 5 seat advantage over the dems. When it comes to getting good Conservative judges confirmed, that 5 seat Republican majority has been SURRENDERED to the so called "gang of 14" idiots.
To: nathanbedford
Bravo.
But some here find it easier to rhetorically club the messenger than it is to help deliver the message before it's too late. If the Republicans lose congress, it will be because the Republican congressmen shoved the voters away and dismissed their needs.
All they need do to maintain long term control is to do the job they promised they would do in 1994 and 1980: be fiscally responsible. Be ethical. Make government less intrusive. Secure us against foreign threats. This simple formula will win every time, but only if actually done, not demagogued.
152
posted on
05/11/2006 8:58:16 AM PDT
by
LexBaird
(Tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
To: Rokke
He made a mistake. That was in 1986. The current GOP should know better. The electorate is screaming for the Federal government to control the border, and all we get is stony silence.
To: Joe Brower
"One's eyes have to be open to see them, however."
I see them. I also see failings in myself, in my kids, my wife, my dogs.... But I don't ditch them either. We all work with each other to improve each other. Not a hard concept, but it takes a lot of work. And it's worth it.
154
posted on
05/11/2006 9:02:55 AM PDT
by
Rokke
To: dingoMcgill
"that 5 seat Republican majority has been SURRENDERED to the so called "gang of 14" idiots."
Who have been as irrelevant as their stupid name. We obviously need more conservative republicans to get the changes we want accomplished. Not voting is not going to do that.
155
posted on
05/11/2006 9:05:13 AM PDT
by
Rokke
To: Uncle Vlad
"The electorate is screaming for the Federal government to control the border, and all we get is stony silence."
Really? They aren't responding at all? And when is their deadline? Is it already too late?
156
posted on
05/11/2006 9:06:45 AM PDT
by
Rokke
To: Lurker
Peggy is correct and her assessment is sobering.
The Republicans were much more effective at controlling the growth of big government as the minority party.
To: Rokke
Again, Rokke, you are reading things into my posts that simply aren't there. You really need to work on that.
Who's "ditching" anything? Not me.
158
posted on
05/11/2006 9:13:58 AM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
To: Rokke
Memo to Peggy. I don't see any Ronald Reagan out there.
159
posted on
05/11/2006 9:14:02 AM PDT
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: Rokke
The deadline is the first Tuesday in November. It's not like the GOP hasn't been warned.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 281-282 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson