Peggy Noonan: Way Too Much God

Wall Street Journal ^ | January 21, 2005 | Peggy Noonan

[silent_jonny]

Poor Peggy, this petty pouting is so pitifully puerile.

Hey, you're spittin' all over me! :)

[cyncooper]

LOL

I was commenting (as anyone else can clearly see) on your monkey post and the insult meant.

Your comment about a Bush fixation is odd. On what do you base it?

Can't you post your precious opinion without insulting others? Evidently not.

[ohioWfan]

This post of yours begs the question, "What is WRONG with you?"

How does the admiration of others for this fine President make one so very bitter?

[LibertarianInExile]

Hey, I'm not saying that all who disagree with Peggy are sheep and blind followers. I'm saying that those who can't take ANYTHING negative about Bush, that feel resorting to ad hominem about a conservative like Noonan makes her wrong about this speech, are establishing a cult of personality, not espousing a candidate. Nobody deserves that kind of loyalty...no one human, anyway.

[LibertarianInExile]

It's not admiration of others for Bush that bothers me. It's slavish devotion to the point of insulting those who would dare criticize him.

[silent_jonny]

I bet she even gets quoted in the New York Times.

That was probably her goal--sadly.

[Barlowmaker]

Do you think her highly publicized "voluntary consultation" to the BC04 organization was calculated to land her a spot as Grande Dame emeritus on the new Bush speechwriting team? Is the snub being paid back today?

The significant livelihoods of folks like Noonan and Frum as speakers and authors are full dependent on the perception of their inside access and the currency of their profile. This could very well be sour grapes. The golden goose was butchered.

[cyncooper]

Why don't we try a little context instead of taking a slice out of it and then pretending to a meaning not there?

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

[paulat]

Or is the problem that you think the *ordinary* people of America, and the world, already have all the freedom you *special* people think we can handle? You don't want all those screamingly-average Wal-mart shoppers to get away from their "natural rulers," do you?

Get over it, sweetie. You're not that hot.

LOLOLOL!!!! And remember her tearful column telling us we were going to be deprived of her presence for NINE WEEKS...GASP!!! so she could work on the Presidential campaign.

HOW DID WE EVER SURVIVE???!!!

[cyncooper]

I don't think criticizing Noonan for motivations she may have is constructive.

I completely agree. Just Like I think Noonan was off track to characterize the choice of music as "defensive". That seems mighty presumptuous and based on less substance than the charges being made about her being jealous (which I have stated I don't agree with).

[exhaustedmomma]

The picture said it all. Blind allegiance is scary. I, too, have been criticized for disagreeing with the President. What is amazing is that the point that Noonan worked on his recent campaign and has been/is a central conservative mouthpiece is moot. She, too, has committed the cardinal sin.

I'd wager money even Laura has disagreements with W!

[LibertarianInExile]

You imagine that you "criticize Noonan's criticism." What countless posts here have done, instead, is criticize her work and her personality in an effort to demean her and so demean her comments. That is an ad hominem attack. Insults are due to those whose only form of argument is the ad hominem.

As to my comment about your Bush fixation being "odd"--how would I possibly explain to you that your comments point toward a dislike for criticism of those who want unanimity on Bush's speech, in a way you would understand? You won't see my point because you've been too busy flinging insults from your very first post.

[Softballmom]

Yes, I thought "stunned" meant loving it. From some of the comments here, I'm not the only one who thought that. Was she not specific on purpose? Left the door open to go either way? What is that?

[cyncooper]

your comments point toward a dislike for criticism of those who want unanimity on Bush's speech

My comments?

Certainly not.

LOL

[ohioWfan]

That is a very exaggerated statement.

What you label 'slavish devotion' may well be reaction to the constant need to defend against those on this forum who attack everything the President does, regardless of any merit in the criticism.

I, for one, disagree with things the President has done and some of his policies, but have been accused of being a kool-aid drinking, blind follower by many (who don't have a clue as to what they're talking about) who use that as a first defense against one with whom they disagree.

Perhaps if you'd avoid the name calling, people would accept your opinion, and discuss it rationally. It is a valid opinion to agree with Peggy Noonan here. It is not a valid opinion that those who don't are all blind slaves.

Actually, the problem with Peggy is that she raved about the speech immediately after it was given, and then began to rag on it a few hours later, and in this column.

One or the other opinion is disingenuos, and I, for one, think it's this one. IMO, she's trying to appease someone by her complete reversal of viewpoint, as written in this column.

[sarasota]

I got to the word "nuance" and nearly gagged. She now longs for nuance. Egads.

[ohioWfan]

The problem is her complete 180 from what she said immediately after the speech to this column.

It is not 'disagreement' with the President, nor committing some imaginary 'cardinal sin.'

It is that we think her first opinion of the speech was right, and that this revised (for whatever reason) one is wrong.

[caddie]

Was working yesterday and could not hear the speech, so I just went to the whitehouse.gov website and watched and read the whole thing. And all the posts in this thread.

Noonan's comments about it being too religious are just dead wrong. Such phraseology was pretty typical for an inaugural speech.

I wish I could have heard the music, but, if she is griping about Inaugural ceremonial music it tells you how petty and irrational her complaints about the speech must be.

Basically it was a great speech that came out and said, "We are going to fight for freedom around the world, whether or not you like it." Exactly what I want to hear from W.

And, exactly the break-point where wimpy State-Department types and ex-CBS employees like Noonan would go wobbly. No surprises here. She's not a leader, just a writer from New York City, bringing that (screwed-up) perspective to the speech. Needless to say she is extremely condescending; so, given the address's optimistic tone, its references to God, and to freedom, it was a gourmet feast for her to look down her nose at.

Agree with a previous post that she thinks freedom is OK for herself and her Manhattan buds and TV types but not for all of us pitchfork-wielding Ma and Pa Kettles out here in flyover country. According to them, we should only be given whatever freedoms and blessings she and her friends see fit to give us. Only so much tax-free retirement savings, only so much freedom to run our Ma and Pa businesses, only so much freedom to own firearms, only so much freedom of speech and thought. She and they get uncomfortable even more so when we talk about freedom for the rest of the world. It's so ...unseemly... to them. Uncouth. Quite.

W:"Ultimate goal: freedom everywhere." No duh. I cannot fathom why she gets upset by this. See the above paragraph. It's just the Ultimate Goal, Noonan. I am glad she did not tone down Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" imperative. She was wisely shunted aside then, and should be now, for being too myopic and too timid.

I did not like the reference to the Koran, it was just PC nonsense that some State Department moron talked W into putting in, or so I hope. It would have been a much better speech if that had been left out.

Such PC tripe is just more "hearts and minds" garbage -- the essential lesson of Viet Nam, which no one in government seems to have learned yet, is that you can't ever win over their hearts and minds. Only Nixon had it right.

Very much liked the "Ownership Society" comment (as opposed to the Johnsonian "Great Society" which was formally laid to rest yesterday by the speech -- good riddance.)

Overall, I am flabbergasted by the double standard by which the Inaugural Speeches are judged. Clinton's were absolutely terrible, trite Hallmark Card excrement, filled to the brim with ridiculous claims and promises. Yet, everyone on TV said they thought they were great, conservative commentators as well as the libs. Indeed, if Clinton's inaugural speeches were judged by the same standard as W's speech yesterday, Clinton's speeches ought to have been universally and loudly condemned.

Such is life for conservatives.

Just my humble opinions.

[cyncooper]

After all the left-wing talk about President Bush's past drinking, "mission inebriation" was a very odd choice of terms.

I agree. My jaw actually dropped open when I read that.

[nmh]

I think Peggy is peeved that she didn't write the speech. Plus she's of the "luke warm" variety threatened by a righteous agenda.