Peggy Noonan and The WSJ Editorial - It's Time to Revolt!

Red State ^ | June 1, 2007

[Clintonfatigued]

However, now I do not feel alone. Peggy Noonan has a new column up in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal. She has clearly said what has been getting me down. I think I knew what was up, but couldn't put a finger on it. I knew it centered around the immigration debate, and the way our congressional leaders are behaving. That sentiment especially includes Mr. Bush too, but when I read this column, I felt like Charlie Brown yelling at Lucy at her Psychology booth when he yells, "That's it!" when trying to identify why he can't get into the Christmas spirit.

Try this clip on for size :

The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said,

[jrooney]

Well, I do not take kindly to be calling a liar. Why don’t you quit be a damn whiner!

[takenoprisoner]

“Unfortunately my FRiends, we are now a minority on FR. As far as I am concerned, in this time of war I am going to defend the President against his so many haters on this forum until Jim Robinson decides that I am no longer welcomed on his website.”

That’s really sweet. Now, I will ask yet again, do we have a rule of law or not? The answer is really simple. You have two choices. Yea or nay?

[jrooney]

No shiite. I was commneting on the fact he had his chance from 94 to 98 and DID nothing while in office. From 2002 to 2006 the republican controlled Congress under Frist could have done something too.

[Antoninus]

Unfortunately my FRiends, we are now a minority on FR. As far as I am concerned, in this time of war I am going to defend the President against his so many haters on this forum until Jim Robinson decides that I am no longer welcomed on his website.

You need to pick your battles better, friend. This one is a lost cause. Bush is harming the GOP, the country, and the war effort with this idiotic political push for amnesty for illegals. You should focus the blame where it belongs--on the tone-deaf president--rather than on those who criticize the stupidity.

President Bush is wrong. He needs to know he's wrong. If he can't be rehabilitated on this issue, he needs to be lame-ducked until his term is over. And in the meantime, we need to make sure that we ALL unite behind a Republican candidate who is not only strong on the War against Radical Islam, but also stout on the border.

To my mind, that man is....






Freepmail me to join/leave the **high volume** Duncan Hunter Pinglist

Freepmail seanmerc to join the Veterans for Hunter Pinglist

Contribute to Duncan Hunter's Presidential Campaign -- http://www.gohunter08.com

[jveritas]

On the illegal immigration issue you have a lot of laws that cannot be realistically applied, it is as simple as that.

[jrooney]

No shiite. I was commneting on the fact he had his chance from 94 to 98 and DID nothing while in office. From 2002 to 2006 the republican controlled Congress under Frist could have done something too. Oh yeah, Newt’s contract with America, while he was chasing any skirt he could and impeaching Clinton for lying, while Newt was carrying on an affair. I am quite knowledgable about Newt and when he left office. Maybe I was not clear in my post.

[PeterFinn]

Unfortunately my FRiends, we are now a minority on FR. As far as I am concerned, in this time of war I am going to defend the President against his so many haters on this forum until Jim Robinson decides that I am no longer welcomed on his website.

If you're a neo-con or a RINO I can understand this, but if you're a conservative then Bush insulted you, too. He had no problem asking for our votes but now he has a problem with our principles. Sorry, there are some things you just don't compromise on if you want to be called a conservative. Georgie has decided to join ranks with the liberals - remember him saying after the November election that he was happy that he now had "a Congress I can work with."?

He's made his choice that he'd rather side with Ted Kennedy than me and that means he no longer wants my support. His choice, not mine. Again, this has all been spelled out for you and you're ignoring it. It's time for you to wake up now.

[jveritas]

Bush is absolutely right on this one. He is very smart and very realistic and know exactly that deportation of illegal immigrants and fining or jailing employers who hire them is not the way to solve this problem and will never be because for a simple reason, it will never happen and no President or government will apply it, including President Duncan Hunter. At the end reality trumps all the rhetoric.

[jrooney]

Peggy has no credibility. She jumped the shark a long time ago and is trying to ride the LONG AGO history of her being a speech writer for Reagan. Noonan applied for a speech writer job with GW and was declined and ever since then, for several years now, she has complained about everything GW has done, including referencing God too much. Referencing God too much? What in the hell type of conservative is Noonan if she does not like God referenced? A hypocrite IMO.

[Hostage]

FDT has talked about China and he has talked about Mexico.

He hasn’t yet mentioned NAU or ‘free’ trade because those things are academic.

Instead he talks about China’s military buildup and our funding of it, and he has addressed leaders and ‘friends’ in Mexico about their misguided notions of America as the catchbag for their impoverished indigents.

FDT is a federalist. He has always voted federalist. Once people understand the tenets of federalism they will immediately understand FDT.

FDT’s folksy charm and simplified speech masks a great intellect. When people read his legal briefs and analysis, they realize he is on par with Lincoln.

His intellect can wrap itself around any complex issue and break it down to simple components that everyday Americans can relate to. That’s his greatness.

The NAU and Free Trade are subjects of the literary class. FDT can certainly hold a conversation with any class of academic but then he can turn around and put that discussion in a framework that ordinary folks can understand clearly.

As I mentioned in the example previously, FDT addressed Free Trade with China not as an academic economic issue but directly to ordinary Americans as a simple ‘we buy their goods, they accumulate dollars, they fund a military buildup with those dollars’, ergo ‘Americans are paying for China’s military buildup via our Free Trade policies’. It’s simple, and that is what he has to say about Free Trade.

In all issues that the literazzi like to circulate for days and weeks on end, FDT always approaches those issues from an American Federalist viewpoint and delivers a perspective in terms of a folksy populist perspective that seems to genuinely have the American people as the group he supports and defends.

Lastly his record in the Senate of often being the single lone dissenting vote on a piece of legislation indicates he has core convictions that will not be watered down.

However, he has always said it is the American people that guide his perspective insofar that it stays within the realm of federalism. In other words if a super large majority of the American people wanted something that went against federalism, say for example universal healthcare run at the federal level, then we can expect FDT to announce that he could not support what the American people wanted because he took an oath to defend the US Constitution, and that the issue is unconstitutional and he would be right. Whereas when an issue such as war is in discussion, we expect that FDT would realize the Constitutional provisions and imnmediately seek to find out what Americans are willing to commit to. He would not keep the discussion holed up in White House briefings, he would actively seek input from Americans.

Whereas GWB appears to assume that the American people are behind their elected representatives, thus GWB thinks it necessary to go only to the representatives for consensus, FDT on the other hand would be expected to seek to get support from Americans first and direct before announcing his decisions. He has always said it is necessary to have the support of the People, not necessarily the aristocracy that occupies Congress.

[dixiechick2000]

BTTT!

[jrooney]

We can not afford to lose many votes, I agree. I also agree illegal immigration is a major problem that needs to be solved now but those that want to put this all on GW and blame him, are pathetic, IMO.

[takenoprisoner]

“On the illegal immigration issue you have a lot of laws that cannot be realistically applied, it is as simple as that.”

I see. Immigration laws cannot be applied like other laws. So why should we bother enforcing any of our laws? And why should citizens realistically bother to obey them in the first place?

[Antoninus]

At the end reality trumps all the rhetoric.

The reality is going to be a Republican bloodbath of epic proportions in 2008. And that's not rhetoric.

How that advances the war effort, which is of paramount importance to you and many others, is beyond me.

[Doohickey]

Where in the hell was Newt when he had control of a conservative House? It was not a priority for him!!!! Why is Newt getting a pass? Congress in 2002 to 2006 could have sent an immigration bill to GW to sign that included border enforcement first with a fence, punishing employers severely and than somehow dealing with the illegals here. They did not.

Newt Gingrich hasn't been in office since 1999, genius. Think Clinton would've signed immigration reform?

[PeterFinn]

You are a schelmiel. I’d call you an ass but I think the mods might not like that.

[Antoninus]

We can not afford to lose many votes, I agree. I also agree illegal immigration is a major problem that needs to be solved now but those that want to put this all on GW and blame him, are pathetic, IMO.

If the president weren't for this and pushing it hard, it wouldn't be happening. It's as simple as that.

[hosepipe]

I knew it was a bad sign when SLATE MAG of all people/orgs floated that George Bush Jr. might run for President in 2000.. They were FIRST...

Back then I said "Son of read my lips no new taxes as candidate for President?" never happen.. Republicans will not stand for it..

Pity..................... they did.. Even NOW Bushbots are eye rolling tongue hanging out dumb..

[PeterFinn]

You are a schlemiel. I’d call you an ass but I think the mods might not like that.

[jveritas]

Many tax laws are not obeyed by small and large businesses and you know it. Myself an tens of millions of people pay our taxes in full but small and large business use every trick and loop hole to pay less taxes. The same apply for illegal immigration. The small businesses are not going to obey the laws of hiring illegal immigrants because the government is not going to persecute them on this issue because doing so will wreck the economy.