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.
--Oh, PLEASE. You're talking to a self-labelled libertarian on FR. I don't know from constant need to defend against attack? You may find excuse or even good cause for their behavior, but you can't deny the presence of a group here that finds any criticism of Bush offensive and hounds those who remotely agree to it. I object to that and think these folks are deserving of replies in kind.
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.
---The behavior you find excuse for in the folks who attack FOR Bush above is the same behavior you do not excuse in those that disagree with any facet of Bush's presidency. Is it not possible that both have excuse or reason for their actions? That they have good cause does not excuse their behavior.
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.
---And I don't post that at all. If you'd read the post instead of leaping to be insulted, or defending those people who are deserving of insult, you'd note that I don't attack those who dislike Noonan's opinion, but those who are eager to insult Noonan, or insult anyone who DOES agree with Noonan. Those folks are simply blind, people who can't understand that criticism of the President isn't the same thing as hatred of him. THESE are the people I'm criticizing and find deserving of insult, NOT those who disagree with Noonan. I find fault with people who believe that the way to express their disagreement with those who criticize Bush is to insult them and demean them personally.
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.
---I agree that this is a serious question about how she reached her conclusion. That isn't an insult at all, but a legitimate question as to why her shift in opinion took place that may have some bearing on the validity of her opinion. BUT, to illustrate the problem of that kind of persuasion in an example, I can argue that pigs can't fly. You can state that some moments ago I said pigs CAN fly. It doesn't change the reality of my conclusion. It does create some doubt as to how I formed my opinion, and as a result, may cast some doubt on my conclusion for having been my work product. But it doesn't make the conclusion necessarily wrong.
The only part with which I must take exception, is the part where you said I was "leaping" to be insulted. I knew you were not insulting me, I just recoiled at your use of the words 'blind followers' as a libertarian talking point, not unlike those the DNC sends out, and that was what I was responding to.
I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember when Rush first came on the air nationally. Thousands of us around the country had the same beliefs as he was stating on air. We had those beliefs long before, but we were (and still are) being called 'blind followers' by the left. Most of us don't agree with Rush all the time, but we are accused (by the left) of marching in blind lockstep with him.
The President is just a few years older than I, and from the time I was in my twenties (while he was drinking too much, partying, and not very interested in politics), I could describe myself as a 'compassionate conservative'......interested in social justice and racial equality, concerned for the poor, but not at the expense of the taxpayer, or with government money. Fiscally conservative, morally conservative, wanting less government rather than more, pro-military and pro-America. At the time, I didn't even know his name.
Now this man comes along, and espouses all the things I have ALWAYS believed in, and is running for President. He becomes President, and proceeds to DO the things I think are important.
He believes what I have believed for 30 years, and yet on this forum, I am routinely accused of being his 'blind follower' when it is patently untrue.
I assume that is also the case for most of the others here who defend him with fervor. Be careful about slinging empty insults at them because others of your political persuasion do so with impunity.
You might just be wrong about us all.