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
Sorry, that should have been 600 posts.
The arsonist who pours the gasoline in the cellar and flips the match to ignite the fire is not leading the firefighting efforts
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.
That is not what I said at all. I said that my opinion as I expressed it is based on the preponderance of evidence in her current and her past behavior. Her article on the speech is only one piece of information. Her shamefully arrogant treatment of her fellow former Reagan-era speechwriters in the aftermath of Reagan's death last year is another, and one which speaks volumes about her character.
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.
Actually it is Noonan who is desperately trying to herd Bush and the rest of us back into the "mainstream" group-think corral. It is Bush who has put forth a maverick vision which frightens the old "mainstream". Furthermore, no one is lambasting Noonan "simply because" she is expressing her opinion. She has every right to express her opinion, and those who disagree with her have every right to question her logic, her motivations and her methods. She has chosen to be a player in the public arena; she, and her defenders, had better be prepared to deal with the consequences.
thsr - ...attempt to shut down or forestall critical analysis and debate by using one of Saul Alinski's classic leftist destabilization techniques...
em - projection
yawn... I'm not the one insisting that we aren't supposed to question opinions, arguments or motivations. I'm not the one demanding that debate be shut down or asserting that questioning and challenging publicly aired ideas is "unfair". My description of the Alinski tactic is dead-on.