Gone Wobbly: Peggy Noonan is still looking for her lost mojo.

The American Spectator ^ | January 28, 2005 | Patrick O’Hannigan

[quidnunc]

Because her idiosyncratic take on George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address did not go unnoticed, Peggy Noonan decided she had some splainin' to do. Okay by me. But then she went and threw a press conference. For herself. Asking and answering her own questions. If that isn't a symptom of Olympian presumption, I'm not sure what is.

Fans of her writing may remember that Noonan is the columnist who three months ago told fellow conservatives not to rock the boat over Arlen Specter's elevation to chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee (even though she's Catholic and Specter has been hostile to pro-life nominees for positions on the federal bench). Back then, she described "Ssssshhhhhhhh" as both a "wonderful sound" and "good advice for our country" — something to keep in mind while we breathe deeply and "build a great silence" on issues that matter.

I hate to start thinking of her as Peggy "turn down the volume" Noonan, but her newfound enthusiasm for quietude at any cost would explain her adverse reaction to GWB's second inaugural. She wants oboes and clarinets. The guy in Air Force One whom she voted for prefers trumpets and cymbals.

"Life is layered, complex, not always most needful of political action. For many people in the world the most important extrafamilial relationship is not with the state but with the God," Noonan writes.

That's blessedly true, as far as it goes, but borderline lunatic when used to criticize a head of state who can only meet the demands of his office by engaging in political action. While the presidential writ doesn't extend to priesthood (thank God!), and the troubles of this world will pass away, it's hard to fault GWB's ode to freedom as "perplexing and disturbing," the way Noonan does.

In a crowning irony, Noonan gives thanks for the fact that timid staffers in the Reagan White House could not prevent Mr. Reagan from saying "tear down this wall," and calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Four administrations and one Laura Ingraham-style "but monkey" later, however, Noonan laments the lack of defensive thinking that in her youth she would have eviscerated.

-snip-

[Miss Marple]

The point is that she cannot call herself a supporter of the President. She is quite free to say what she wishes, in print or on air.

And I think it is not exactly helpful to give the other side ammunition. Peggy Noonan saying this is far different from someone on the left; we now get to hear leftists say "even Peggy Noonan disagrees."

Well, I don't agree with Peggy, and I don't appreciate either her opinion or her timing.

Once again I will point out, she chose to say that some people couldn't self-govern on the very week of the Iraqi elections. Pfui.

[sinkspur]

She can write whatever she wants, but should not be surprised when she's blasted by those who believe she's off in the weeds. This latest column is an effort to explain herself, and it only makes things worse.

She doesn't take criticsm well, and some of her defenders here don't either.

Buckley's another one who has been a big disappointment, not only on the inaugural speech but on his overall attitude toward the Iraq war.

Put former speechwriter David Frum in that category as well; he's "troubled" by Bush's direction.

Nobody gets headlines for agreeing with a conservative president, that's for sure.

[BibChr]

She pines for dead wood (and I crack myself up).

LOL, me too!

Dan

[livius]

Yes, right on both those points. Although I have been sensing a weakening of Peggy's morale for some time now; she seems very fond of that sort of elegaic tone that liberals effect in their writing, and her thoughts seemed to be moving in that direction, too.

As for her timing on this article, it couldn't have been worse.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

President Bush's interview with Brian Lamb is posted on cspan's website. He is explaining what his intentions were behind his Inaugural. A blend of realism and idealism.

[lolhelp]

I heard it years ago at a meeting I went to in Texas, and have always seen signs of it in her writing and behavior. I love her and her writing. My son is 45 and after years of living with a bipolar person you pick up on the signs of the illness. Thank the Lord there is medicine to help them, most of the people I know with it are very smart and compashionate, but really have problems at times, especially when they don't get the proper rest and nutrition and/or problems with their medication.

[Penner]

Because her idiosyncratic take on George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address did not go unnoticed,...

No, it's called taking the low road to get attention.

File her under "Republican loose cannon".

[avenir]

"I heard it years ago at a meeting I went to in Texas, and have always seen signs of it in her writing and behavior."

Okay, that settles it. Per lolhelp's expert diagnosis (and with a little help from some folks at a meetin') we now realize Peggy's bipolar and her upsetting comments about the President's speech may be safely disregarded.

[Fenris6]

"Isn't a bit too much to expect from a columnist to restrict herself to private comments ?"

When you're finished being logical :) check the taglines of your detractors - there's a pattern that might give you some interesting insights.

[Fenris6]

"she chose to say that some people couldn't self-govern on the very week of the Iraqi elections."

Do you think her comment will suppress/encourage turnout? I wonder if the Iraqi's even follow this kinda stuff - and if so, wouldn't their angst be more focused on Ted Kennedy's comments that Noonans?

I'm still trying to see where Noonan's comments hurt Bush or the Iraqi's.

[Fenris6]

"She doesn't take criticsm well, and some of her defenders here don't either"

Do you have any examples to back this up with? It reminds me of the MSM meme that "In other news, the Swift Boat Vets have been discredited, back to you Brian ..."

[Dysfunctional]

I believe she is being honest about her feelings; she just doesn't understand where those feelings come from.

She has hero worship, pure and simple.

Bush was reaching for a vision equal to Reagan's. Anybody that does that will be diminished by the Noonan's of the world. They will not do it on purpose; they will not even be aware that they have this undercurrent motivation.

Her column was saying to Bush (in so many words), "How dare you have these lofty goals (like the Reagan I worship)."

Reagan's vision was correct; he achieved most of his goals.

Bush deserves his vision and his chance to achieve it. He doesn't need conservative, literary visionaries scorching his dream.

[Fenris6]

Bush was reaching for a vision equal to Reagan's. Anybody that does that will be diminished by the Noonan's of the world. They will not do it on purpose; they will not even be aware that they have this undercurrent motivation. ...Bush deserves his vision and his chance to achieve it. He doesn't need conservative, literary visionaries scorching his dream.

Interesting take. You may be on to something.

But at the end of the day, on paper, is there any damage to Bush that we can attribute to Noonan? Are the Europeans rallying around her? Is the MSM using her to smack Bush over the head? Is OBL distributing copies to his followers the way he's passing around Kennedy's last speech? Where's the beef?

[Miss Marple]

Her comments hurt President Bush because she has given ammunition to the left.

As far as the Iraqis, I have no idea whether they will read her words or not. But you see, Ms. Noonan doesn't know, either; she went ahead with saying it, anyway.

[Rockingham]

All of the US weapon sales that you refer to were to allies during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was the central concern of American and European national security policy. There were also considerations particular to those countries.

Saudi Arabia is vile, but was a key ally against the Soviets and the world -- and more so Europe than the US -- required and still requires its oil. Saudi Arabia also has a well-founded fear of aggressive neighbors, especially Iran and, until recently, Iraq as well.

Similar calculations apply to: Pakistan, which was aligned with the US against the Soviet Union and which also fears India and Iran; Egypt, which ousted Soviet advisers and switched sides, in part because the US promised arms sales to replace Soviet equipment; and China, which at the time of the Black Hawk sale in the 1980's, was an aligned against the Soviet Union.

Yet all this is beside my original point that Europeans -- and especially the French, Germans, and Russians -- frequently violate long-established treaties and laws against the sale of conventional weapons and nuclear, biological, and chemical materials. Usually, bribes of one sort or another are paid, both privately or as part of state-approved trade and commercial deals.

Iraq is the best documented example. Most of Saddam's illicit weapons and technology purchases were from European sources and included sales even after the US made clear its intentions to take military action. Those last minute covert sales included factory fresh French anti-aircraft missiles and Russian jammers against American targeting systems.

In the circumstances, American strategists have correctly concluded that with cash in hand and patience, rogue states and terrorists will be able to get their hands on deadly weapons and technologies. Since those weapons and technologies are becoming more potent by the month, the best and only viable long term national security strategy is to eliminate rogue states and terrorism by expanding democracy and the rule of law.

Surely that makes sense, mais oui?

[Fenris6]

"Her comments hurt President Bush because she has given ammunition to the left."

Does the Left know that? So far, the only attention I see being paid to Noonan's article are from columnists and commentators from the right (although I admit I don't watch CNN).

[independentmind]

Noonan's criticism is from the right of Bush. No Leftist would touch it.

[Miss Marple]

Her first column was used by the TV pundits extensively, as in "Even Peggy Noonan thinks..."

[lolhelp]

It was a Republican Luncheon and I will not say who was there. There is nothing funny about it. It can usually be controlled, but sometimes can destroy a person. I just hope if that is the case she has someone close enought to her to help.

[Fenris6]

"It was a Republican Luncheon and I will not say who was there."

I think his point is that the bi-polar nugget is heresay and easily discounted. I've heard many things about many people at many lunches. Most have as much credibility as Kitty Kelly.