I agreed with some of her criticisms of W's speech but found the meat of it to be outstanding in terms of our place in the world. I can imagine Buchanan hating it. But man, people are turning on Noonan as quickly as the dems did on Kerry when he recognized reality and didn't pursue endless recounts. Even if she is wrong, do we have to toss her over the side of the boat so reflexively when someone doesn't tow the party line?
For a brief while after 9/11 she went all maudlin. She will come about again, botch it, and come about again.
"Even if she is wrong, do we have to toss her over the side of the boat so reflexively when someone doesn't tow the party line?"
Apparently. If so, I'll be going over the side with her. And I'm taking 100,000 GOTV volunteers with me.
People are not turning on her for difference of opinion.
It's her attitude that struck a nerve.
That is what bugs me- and I don't tow the party line on a handful of issues.
I'm a Peggy fan and I'm definitely not for throwing her "over the side". But I believe Peggy is dead wrong in her critique, for a specific reason:
Peggy, who reminds me of my mother in her calm, thoughtful, introspective writing, is a woman. Because of that, she -- like my mother (and most women) -- shys away from controversial language and confrontational statements. Ann Coulter is the exception, not the rule.
This, though, was a speech that was intended to be both challenging and confrontational -- on what amounts to a man-to-man basis (or President-to-tyrant, so to speak). Consequently, Peggy bridled at "man talk"...and words she never would have written herself.
In other words, it's a "gender thing". And I don't believe Peggy will ever understand why she's wrong on this one.
Because ever since then she has become uneven and girlish. Peggy surprised me with the speech not really knowing what all serious conservatives believe. She wrote in an over-the-top column praise for a man who is vehemently deceased on Senate Judiciary Committee (even though she's good, she’s not that good). I'd like the presidential writ that doesn't tow the party line? It is sad to see. She could not like the president's inaugural address. It was a "Shining City upon a Hill" goes on the head of statements on FNC just after the federal bench. Back then, she described "Ssssshhhhhhh" as both a "wonderful sound” and "likely recently opposed about it". My attention lost all credibility irreparably. I must admit to wondering about her on air comments. Her policy analysis is so on the money and Specter's elevation to chairmanship is not to rock solid then, she doesn't like the message. Perhaps she did not prevent Mr. Reagan from leaving the White House.
My wife sometimes says irrational things, but I love her just the same.
Newt used to call these critics the "perfectionist caucus".
The Bush-bot kool-aid drinkers don't like dissent-on any issue. They want 100% lock step.
Its quite silly, really.
> Even if she is wrong, do we have to toss her over the side of the boat so reflexively when someone doesn't tow the party line? <
That's the Freeper way. No criticism of George "Chauncy Gardiner" Bush is allowed.