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

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

[Miss Marple]

I have a serious question for you. IF we all ascribe to Reagan's 11th Commandment, why doesn't Peggy? If she wishes to advance the conservative cause, why does she pick the most sensitive times to slip the stilleto into the President?

It is truly odd behavior. If you wish, I will go back and point out her articles that do this. The ones that come to mind off the top of my head is her column criticizing him after the Russert interview, the one on how maybe the country would vote for Kerry because of "a wish for normalcy," and the VERY strange column after the Reagan funeral, insulting all the other Reagan speech writers.

It is hard for me to count on someone as an ally who is not dependable. She may be interesting, she may be a good writer (the jury is out on that IMHO), but as an ally she is not dependable.

In this manner she is much like Bill Kristol. Although Kristol happened to like this speech, I can remember several times when Kristol stuck the knife in the President. I don't like Kristol for the exact same reason: he is not a dependable ally.

[Rockingham]

Good quote. Bernard Lewis, who was not a grad student of Leo Strauss or otherwise a neocon, is a key influence on the Bush administration's understanding of and approach to Islam. His erudition and sympathy for that faith give him great credibility.

A key point that Peggy Noonan and most commentators are oblivious to is that security through the advance of democracy and rule of law has been a key goal of American foreign policy since World War II, even if often subordinated to other purposes and interests. Our current predicament -- and the compelling motive for the Bush doctrine -- is that extraordinarily destructive technologies are becoming cheaply and easily available as a result of inexorable scientific and technical advances. Bioweapons are a particular worry due to the rapid development of genetics and microbiology.

The UN, control and inspection regimes, embargoes, sanctions, and other traditional international measures are already ineffective and routinely violated. The French, Germans, Russians and half of our supposed friends will sell most anything for cash and snicker in their sleeves if the US is the most likely target. As to bioweapons, within the decade, a few million dollars, some generic equipment and materials, and a handful of scientists and technicians will be enough to devise deadly new pathogens to order. A rogue regime or a terrorist group in a safe haven or operating covertly will be able to brew up and weaponize forms of disease for which we have no defense.

We could, of course, sit back and hope that international controls would work, or that we would get sufficient intelligence to act in a timely fashion and that the threat could be dealt with by military action. The best outcome that way is another Iraq War or two or three. Most of the other outcomes involve hundreds of thousands or millions of sick and dead Americans from a disease no one has even seen before or from chemical, nuclear, or radiological weapons -- or perhaps something like crop blights that wipe out half our food supply.

Hoping for good luck and a happy outcome against mortal perils is a delusion, not a strategy. The Bush doctrine aims at eliminating the rogue regimes, thuggoracies, and failed states where terrorism arises and finds havens and support. In their place, we will plant and foster law-abiding democracies. Instead of just swatting mosquitoes and hoping to avoid malaria and yellow fever, we will drain the swamp.

[sinkspur]

Credibility before men is way overrated.

It puts food on Peggy's table. Credibility before men is a requirement for anyone who wants to speak about God.

[sinkspur]

Should the WH announce in a few weeks she's the President's new head speechwriter, those who tossed her today would be the first to say the never wavered in their admiration for her.

The WH has already announced the new head speechwriter.

It's William McGurn, formerly of National Review.

Some of us think that might be what's got Peggy's knickers in a knot.

[Atlantic Friend]

I know that.

What I mean is, should the WH announce in a few weeks that she'd replace Mc Gurn, I'm sure suddenly those who presently call her a bitch, a lesbian, a has-been who has outliver her usefulness or a mental would immediately profess undying love and admiration.

[dennisw]

She's a lightweight. Very lightweight except for some speech writing she did for Ronald Reagan two decades ago. She's foxy looking and gets cut slack other female writers don't

[Miss Marple]

The White House would never use her as a speechwriter. Why?

1. Her style doesn't mesh with the President's.

2. She talks out of school.

3. She isn't loyal.

[dennisw]

Peggy Noonan is an author and writer on contemporary politics. She served as a speechwriter and special assistant to President Ronald Reagan from 1984 to 1986. And in 1988, she was chief speechwriter for former President George Bush during his successful presidential campaign.

[sinkspur]

The chances of the White House asking her to do ANYTHING in the next four years has been greatly minimized since last Thursday.

Bush likes team players, and Peggy Noonan is no longer a team player.

[Carolinamom]

All her credentials listed above are in the past tense. Good as they are, posters here are concerned about her writing now.

[Fenris6]

I have a serious question for you. IF we all ascribe to Reagan's 11th Commandment, why doesn't Peggy? If she wishes to advance the conservative cause, why does she pick the most sensitive times to slip the stilleto into the President?

I'm sorry, but I just don't read it that way. I've been following Noonan since she started, and most of her work in this vein is meant as constructive criticism, not a stab in the back. I've seen her sentiments echoed across the net by moderate Republicans, perhaps she's representative of those who have conservative values but don't automatically trend toward the Republican party. Although I must admit I am somewhat surprised that she didn't dial this last piece back a bit, as Bush is much more like Reagan than his father ever was - I expected some sort of affinity from her b/c of that. [shrug]

On the other hand, I long ago recognized that she is much more moderate than me, flavors her work with more Catholicism than I care for, and tends to communicate for a New England audience (her environment is NYC afterall). Thus, I've grown accustomed to tolerating some of her "dissident" opinion without feeling "betrayed". Also, her venue is as a speechwriter and columnist, not a TV personality, and I am certain there are mitigating factors in play in her work environment that we are unware of.

It is hard for me to count on someone as an ally who is not dependable. She may be interesting, she may be a good writer (the jury is out on that IMHO), but as an ally she is not dependable.

Again, I seek her opinion out because I know she won't re-iterate the RNC talking points. Consider that we now have THREE columnists outed for being on the Bush payroll. That hurts the conservative message more than her ill-timed criticism.

Its fair to complain that she is not a dependable ally, but there are other ways to measure her contribution. She is, like me, a former Democrat. Millions of us came over during the Reagan Revolution. Peggy Noonan influenced millions more, before there was FOX News or a Blogosphere. Of those millions, I have direct knowledge of a few [cough] who were instrumental in the Florida GOTV effort this election - who ensured a 350,000 vote margin that freed up money & resources for Ohio.

Thats why I remain loyal to Noonan, even when she's wrong. Without her (and Goldwater's) influence, I would probably have ended up marching in the streets with the DU loons, shouting "no blood for oil!" ;)

[Fenris6]

"Bush likes team players, and Peggy Noonan is no longer a team player"

I'm happy with that. Its not like we're getting constructive criticism from the Dems these days. If we don't have someone to challenge our positions we will grow arrogant, weak, and feebleminded.

BTW, does anyone have a lead that Noonan wants to write for Bush (diff style than Reagan) or are we just speculating again?

[Miss Marple]

Constructive criticism in the political world is done in private communications, not in a column in the Wall Street Journal.

I suppose you would take it as "constructive" criticism if someone took issue with something you did by writing a letter to the local paper, rather than giving you a call on the phone. Ms. Noonan did the exact same thing with her column.

I can appreciate your loyalty to Ms. Noonan. I am loyal to the President. I believe he knows a bit more about world politics that she does, and after all, he is the one who got elected.

[livius]

Constructive criticism in the political world is done in private communications, not in a column in the Wall Street Journal.

That sums it up. I hope Peggy Noonan is not turning into a McCain style RINO who misses no opportunity to go loudly public with any disagreement.

[sinkspur]

If we don't have someone to challenge our positions we will grow arrogant, weak, and feebleminded.

She challenged the very heart of the Bush policy: that we will support and encourage every single "freedom-movement" around the world.

That's very odd, IMO, especially since there have been reports from the tsunami areas indicating that the people are getting the idea that "America will be there for us." They know we'll stand with them if they challenge the tyrannies in their lands.

Noonan basically threw cold water on the very ideal that this country stands for, that Reagan stood for, that "shining city on a hill".

Didn't she pen that very line?

Former admirers of hers are left shaking their heads, wondering if she hasn't been attending too many New York cocktail parties.

[Miss Marple]

Well, we can depend on McCain to go off the reservation. What disturbs me about Peggy is being lulled into a false sense of her support, only to have the rug pulled out at the most important times.

Consider: of all weeks to say that some people cannot govern themselves, she picks the week of the Iraqi national elections.

[Fenris6]

"Constructive criticism in the political world is done in private communications, not in a column in the Wall Street Journal."

I disagree. I've been reading the WSJ almost as long as I have Noonan. Conservative columnists routinely disagree with Conservative Presidents on those pages. As they should.

You appear to have a premise that Noonan's criticism hurt the President's message. If so, I respectfully ask that you provide a bit more detail.

"I can appreciate your loyalty to Ms. Noonan. I am loyal to the President. I believe he knows a bit more about world politics that she does..."

But of course. And I remain loyal to both.

[Marysecretary]

Hmmm. Think it's menopause? We do crazy things during that event!

[Fenris6]

"She challenged the very heart of the Bush policy: that we will support and encourage every single 'freedom-movement' around the world."

Noonan: Am I saying we shouldn't support freedom then? Hardly. But we should remember as we do it that history, while full of opportunity, is also a long tale of woe. And human vanity--not only that of others, but our own--only complicates our endeavors. Thomas Jefferson was a genius, a great man who loved liberty. But that love led him to headlong support of a French Revolution that proved more demonic than liberating. He was right to encourage the fire of liberty but wrong to lend his great name to Robespierre, Marat and the rest. So much of life is case-by-case, so many of our decisions must be discrete and particular and not "thematic."

Sounds more to me like she is reminding us of the need for moderation.

Regardless, I'm not going to get into a point-by-point rebuttal of her position - since I don't support it. But isn't it amazing how much more interesting this conversation has gotten since we dropped the personal attacks on her?

[Fenris6]

She may be interesting, she may be a good writer (the jury is out on that IMHO)

Just touching back on this comment. I found it interesting, since I would give my left arm to be able to write like her. :)