em - Noonan was speechwriter and special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. Later, she was chief speechwriter for Vice President George Bush. Not to mention she is highly respected in the conservative community, as well as in the journalistic field. If that's not a leader... what is?
As I stated clearly above, a leader is one who provides the ideas, concepts and principles for public policy. A leader has the authority and sets the the agenda. Speechwriters do not, no matter how well-known or well-respected they may be. As I said, I honestly can't think of a single public policy issue where people will automatically, by general acclaim, turn to Peggy Noonan for a definitive assessment or decision. Thus, she is not, by definition, a leader.
This is in no way a denigration of her or her skills. It does not mean that her insight and creativity will not be sought or welcomed in the process of explaining the issue to the people. She may even garner plaudits and acclaim for her exceptionally effective efforts for the cause. This does not make her a leader, however. She is, at most, an honored and highly-decorated foot-soldier who has done an extraordinary job in carrying-out her orders.
thsr - No, it was a subtle and deliberately vicious innuendo and allusion to Bush's openly acknowleged "former problem".
em - That's very presumptious. You know this because_____.
No, this is simply my opinion, based on the preponderance of evidence in observing her current and past behavior. You are free to disagree. I'm perfectly content to leave it to the readers of this thread to make up their own minds.
thsr - However, this whining pose of victimization is becoming tiresome.
em - Are you referring to Noonan?
No, I'm referring to those public figures such as Noonan and all those on this forum who attempt to shut down or forestall critical analysis and debate by using one of Saul Alinski's classic leftist destabilization techniques: Accuse others of what you yourself are doing or planning to do.
In this case, THEY attack Bush's speech and when anyone responds to that attack in any substantive manner, cry foul and protest that it's unfair because "anyone who dares to criticise Bush is being attacked". They wish to claim immunity yet remain free to take their shots whenever they please. I refuse to play by those rules.
Considering there are nearly 900 posts on this thread, plus a lot of talk all over the media sources, I'd say it is fair to deductively state she is leading. If she hasn't given fuel for thought, given the spark for debate, then what are any of us doing on this thread?
based on the preponderance of evidence in observing her current and past behavior
I understand your saying this article is current preponderance of evidence, but I am bewildered at what the past behavior is that has fueled the remarks made on this thread toward her. (Other than people not liking her opinion.) A larger point is being missed, IMO. From the onset it has been pointed out that differences of opinion exist. To respectfully disagree is one thing, but it is another thing to lambaste somebody who has a track record for expressing an opinion simply because it is outside of the "mainstream" group think.
attempt to shut down or forestall critical analysis and debate by using one of Saul Alinski's classic leftist destabilization techniques
projection
Exactly.