Posted on 01/20/2005 9:33:31 PM PST by RWR8189
The last time she did something like this was when the President went on "meet the depressed one" to explain his National Guard days.
Now, a very strange about-face within 12 hours on a very important speech.
Furthermore, her complaint is really not about the speech writing style, but the substance of the speech.
I find her off base totally in her criticism, and it is not out of bounds to question her motivation, particularly when she has behaved so oddly.
...uhhh...NO. I am criticising Noonan because she is as vain and self-absorbed as Maureen Dowd, and she writes sappy prose. I criticize the President all the time. Your sweeping generalizations are silly.
I remember people telling me that she only wanted to help President Bush. My answer then was this: Why didn't she just pick up the phone and call him?
Thanks for the pic... very nice, reminds me of one a friend of mine has of RR holding up a champagne flute and looking Presidential in a tuxedo.
One pretty endearing thing I saw yesterday while dozing off looking at CSPAN's parade coverage with one eye...
They had the Culver Black Horse Troop from northern Indiana (around Lake Wawasee), who have been traditional participants in Inaugural parades. [Clinton did not let them participate BTW.] They looked like a million bucks.
Anyway, after the tons and tons of horsemeat had walked by the Presidential reviewing stand, looking very snazzy, there followed these two poor guys with shovels and trash cans on big wheels whose job it was to pick up horseapples. They were wearing very smudged safety-yellow overalls but looked upbeat, all things considered.
When they passed the reviewing stand, they made a point of getting W and Mrs. Bush's attention and gave them a big wave and a smile, and W and his wife were gracious and smiled broadly, waving, and acknowledging their modest contribution to the festivities.
It was pretty cool, something you can only see on CSPAN. And only from a person like W and his wife, who are, deep down, pretty humble individuals, methinks.
Then you aren't criticizing her comments but her person and her characteristics. This is not appropriate in discussion--it's ad hominem--unless you're a liberal. Post 251 is an appropriate critique of Ms. Noonan's article. It's addressing her words, not her person.
Peggy Noonan has lost my respect. I find her article very
disturbing. Maybe she and Joe Scarborough have been
spending too much time with MSNBC nuts.
She reveals HERSELF in her writings.
Okay, perhaps the part of 251 regarding her being 'disturbed' for not writing it herself is inappropriate...but the rest seems okay.
Me too....did some liberal cast a "spell" on this former Reagan speechwriter? I thought President Bush's speech was beautiful...what the heck is wrong with Peggy? Not enough attention?
When they passed the reviewing stand, they made a point of getting W and Mrs. Bush's attention and gave them a big wave and a smile, and W and his wife were gracious and smiled broadly, waving, and acknowledging their modest contribution to the festivities.
I think they sympathized, because it's what THEY had to do coming in after Clinton.
Every lefty on TV this AM is citing Noonan's pitiful offering in the WSJ. She is being used as the #1 exhibit that "even conservatives" think the President is too religious. This is how they all were using Bill Thomas as their example of Republicans not supporting the President's SS reform plan. When will so-called "conservatives" learn to keep their mouths shut?
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
She may be an evil, wicked, nasty bitch. I even agree that she may be bitter about not writing this speech for Bush herself. However, her conclusions here are not invalidated by those possibilities.
LOL, right.
I love your post. So well said.
...jeez...all I said was that she is vain and self-centered....
Hitler was a painter. So was Churchill. I am not going to judge their respective works on "artistic merit" alone.
Same here.
Bah! I am disgusted, the more I think about it.
That's a point in Noonan's favor. Don't you think its more appropriate and mature to criticize the substance rather than just the style? Lots of well grounded people have problems with the speech as well. In a lot of ways, it was too worldly and very unattainable. When JKF wanted to go to the moon, it may have been considered a long shot, but it was a task that we were in control of. It was a finite, well defined goal that did not involved other nations.
It is beyond our control to spread liberty around the world. It sounds great and we all wish it were possible, but deep down, we all know that they are just a bunch of words that will never happen. We can't spread liberty - it is up to the people of the world to want it and demand it for themselves.
Personally, I would have rather heard an uplifting speech about America in the short term. Not sure if Reagan did it in his inauguration speech, but one of the things that made him great is that he was an optimist in a sea of pessimists. He was an optimist in a realistic and attainable way, however.
I find her off base totally in her criticism, and it is not out of bounds to question her motivation, particularly when she has behaved so oddly.
Why must everyone assume that she is jealous? Maybe her take is wrong but that is no reason to start attacking her personally and making wild, baseless accusations. Truthfully, that kind of behavior just reinforces the stereotype that people of have of conservatives, especially theocons.
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.