Posted on 01/21/2005 4:19:45 AM PST by Mikmur
PEGGY NOONAN
Way Too Much God Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars. A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty.
The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."
And yet such promising moments were followed by this, the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Welcome to Free Republic!
I agree. I didn't understand why she even mentioned James Baker and Warren Buffet. It served no purpose as far as I could tell.
This was an inaugural speech, not the state of the union address. I thought the speech was exactly what should be said for the occasion.
Noonan is usually softer than she was in this Bush hit piece. She's always been borderline conservative to me. She flip flops back and forth in the same column so much that I think I need to take a dramamine before I read her. And those little side trips she takes insider her own mind or whatever --- UGH! But she's usually not mean. This one was MEAN! I might have to go from finding her boring to totally disliking her with passion.
She's only good when she talks about Reagan. Apparently it has more to do with his offering her work than with his ideology. This piece reveals a real mega-ego.
"Something really happened to her..."
Really. That's not the Peggy Noonan I know.
In a word, no. America was founded to provide freedom and liberty, both religious and economic to people who live here. Big difference--and the Wilsonian view (a liberal view, by the way, so quit using the pejorative on Noonan) has been, and will be under this president, discredited.
Must be her time of month....
Deserves repeating!
Inaugural speeches are sweeping, providing the President's broad vision of the future. President Bush did that, and he didn't do it in a fashion that exceeded many prior inaugural speeches.
She's either nuts or bitter about something. Maybe she submitted a speech that was rejected.
Agreed. Sheeesh.
Pubmom: thanks for the ping.
As I've read and listened to the reaction to this speech, I've noticed the pundits fall into two categories. Those who like it heard it like I did, an address to the PEOPLE living in oppression. Those who don't like it are interpreting it as a threat to the oppressors. Peggy falls into the latter category, which surprised me. Maybe she wants a gig at CNN or something. But she didn't hear the same speech I did.
I heard a president speaking directly to people living in darkness...Rise up. The entire speech was designed around the analogy of fire. One spontaneous spark can spread quickly and widely...as one man dreams of freedom, his dream spreads to those he shares it with, and to those they tell, and so on. We've seen that fire's power, both in the fall of the Berlin wall and just recently in Ukraine. Once that fire starts spreading, no oppressor, no army can suppress it.
The people in Kiev Square weren't organized by the "realists". No, some few brave individuals struck a spark. They went to the square in the dark of night and said "no more". In homes, shops and offices others felt that spark and soon a million people were camped there. They stayed through threats, snowstorms, Christmas. They only had one weapon: their very presence.
I believe THAT is what Bush addressed yesterday. The funny thing is, I think Bush is the realist here. Sparks can indeed set a fire that burns bright and fast and far and wide. Where it goes is unpredictable and sometimes dangerous. But one can't deny that it is most threatening to those who hide in their palaces and dare not come out for fear of their own citizens. They face a choice: relinquish power or burn in your palace.
Confusius said: "May you live in interesting times". Indeed.
I see, so no one is allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours?
Perhaps she is just not comfortable with God herself.
She's a devout & practicing Catholic.
She surely need not be embarrassed for the President, he can handle himself.
I'm sure she isn't and yes, he can.
I happen to greatly respect & admire Peggy Noonan. I don't agree with this column in it's entirety, but I'll not join you and the other piranhas in attacking a lady who has been nothing short of exemplary in her defense of Conservatism over the years.
I'm beginning to believe what a lot of folks have/are saying about this place in regard to any criticism of the Bush admin.
Believe me, if you folks wish to draw lines in the sand I'll proudly walk over and join the author of When Character Was King. (More than a few here could benefit from reading it)
I thought the innaugural was right on -- inspiring, actually -- in terms of the gravity of the statements; the only thing that bothered me was the inclusion of the Koran in the part where he rattled off the littany of "holy books." I made a mental note to get more info on the Koran and settle the question for myself.
If Ms. Noonan was stating that the speech could be interpreted (by those inclined to do so) as playing into a game of one-upmanship with the notable leftists who have recently "got religion," I can understand that concern.
(I thought Susan Graham's singing was lovely; but 'God of Our Fathers' should be a vigorous, stirring anthem. Instead, it was played as if it were a downbeat dirge. What a disappointment!)
Noonan is clearly consumed with envy for her fellow speechwriters. This isn't the first time she's tried to spoil a great occasion with her narcissistic public ruminations -- Reagan's funeral was another.
Grow up Peggy, and realize that there are other speechwriters out there who are just as good, or better than you.
well said. Peggy rocks. I'd like to know just what the heck she was getting at, but haven't read the whole spiel.
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.