Posted on 07/12/2007 9:05:30 PM PDT by gpapa
We can't fire the president right now, so we're waiting it out.
It's been a slow week in a hot era. I found myself Thursday watching President Bush's news conference and thinking about what it is about him, real or perceived, that makes people who used to smile at the mention of his name now grit their teeth. I mean what it is apart from the huge and obvious issues on which they might disagree with him.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Peggy Peggy Peggy . . . Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Frustrated, talking out loud to herself, babbling? Hello!
Good grief, Peggy. Get a grip. You sound like a woman scorned.
And at that very press conference, the first in the new press room, we find that the correspondent from the most-watched cable news network, Fox, is put in the second row behind Helen Thomas. Meanwhile, CNN, the Bush-bashery second-rate cable news network, has their correspondent on the front row.
This is typical of Bush. Screw your friends and keep up the tradition of pandering to institutional leftism (see the INCREASED funding for public broadcasting, NEH, failure to go after NYT for leaking secrets, etc).
Peggy’s despair is rightly placed.
I've thought that from the beginning of this administration - she was a 'star' when Reagan was Pres. and she was good. I wonder that she didn't think she would be the obvious lead 'star' for Bush - (maybe even a bit of a crush?) but didn't make the cut....she's certainly been whining ever since...too bad.
Why would anybody want to be on the front row?
Then something happened, and she became a real loon in her writings. I couldn't read her any more.
I think she may be getting her footing back as of late, like in the last two months.
BDS: It's just not for moon bats any more.
(And it really is Bush's fault, particularly with that shamnesty insanity)
I heard on C-SPAN that the seating is controlled by White House Correspondents Association:
The WHCA represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the administration on coverage-related issues.
A nine-member board of directors, elected by correspondents, addresses access to the chief executive; coverage arrangements; work space arrangements; logistics and costs for press travel to accompany a president on the road.
The WHCA also holds an annual dinner. The next dinner will be held April 26, 2008.
Is it defiance? Denial? Is it that he's right and you're wrong, which is your problem? Is he faking a certain steely good cheer to show his foes from Washington to Baghdad that the American president is neither beaten nor bowed? Fair enough: Presidents can't sit around and moan. But it doesn't look like an act. People would feel better to know his lack of success sometimes gets to him. It gets to them.
So this is what we've come to. War in the age of Oprah. Our leaders must pour out their angst, or we don't like them.
That assumes, of course, that Peggy Noonan is right, which I'm not sure that she is. She could simply be assuming that her reason for not liking the president is shared by others. I have sympathy with Peggy's desire to know what President Bush thinks and feels. I do not, however, think he has any obligation to let the world know his deepest feelings. In fact, I'm more inclined to think that he has an obligation not to let us know, if they are bad.
This country does not need a mopey president. We don't want him doing therapy or confession in front of us. We need him to lead us. The more difficult things are, the stronger his leadership must be - and it's hard to be strong about a problem while you're sharing your personal pain over it.
George Bush is the commander-in-chief of the military. Our troops are having their successes hidden and their difficulties endlessly played up in the media, they have heard leaders in Congress proclaim their failure and try to undercut their mission, they have seen public approval for the war plummet. They shouldn't have to see their commander-in-chief be sad about how their mission is going.
So, Mr. President, if you have angst, bring it to God, share it with people who care and will keep it in confidence. Save it for history. Share it with us in a memoir. But right now, we need you to lead. And if you have to put up an act - thanks.
And, in reference to the "doesn't seem to be an act" comment - knowing it's an act defeats the whole purpose of it being an act. So don't jump to conclusions.
Peggy, Peggy, Peggy... I've loved your words that you wrote for President Reagen, but you've changed somehow to become a shrilled shrew... I've my own beef with W, but he's still my President until 2009. However, I can and hereby do fire you right now.
We will always have your "Boys of Point Du Hoc" speech, but the hot air you now offer is just about an important as the odor from an open sewer...
And stinks just as bad!
Bye, Peggy. Was nice knowing you when the Gipper was here, but nowadays, you are just someone I once thought a lot of before she sold her soul to the devil.
DC Chapter short list ping
I’m surprised most of the posters in this thread are reacting against Noonan’s piece. I thought it was a good column that catches the mood of the country very well. I see a few “W” bumper stickers around and am glad I didn’t plaster one on my car. I think that Bush is in the running for the worst President of the last 50 years along with LBJ, Nixon, and Carter. Noonan is also dead-on with the President needing to be a cold-eyed realist for us, since he has a lot of intelligence information that we don’t. I don’t blame Bush for his handling of Iraq so much as his mishandling of the politics of it thus far, along with signing into law huge domestic give-away programs, huge increases in Federal power, and pushing for the amnesty debacle. His handling of the border in a time of war has been a travesty.
AMEN!
Has anyone notice how Ingraham is really antiwar, although pro-troops. She lost me when she went over to the dark side and hammered Hastel during the Foley scandal
While I still read all Noonan’s WSJ columns, too many of her pieces have the theme developed here, that Bush is a bad political entertainer. Clinton is more entertaining that Bush, so she “loves” Clinton — what sort of standard is that? I think Peggy could use a trip to Iraq to have a few chats with real people doing important, dangerous work in the real world, far from her comfy New York cocoon.
-—I’m surprised most of the posters in this thread are reacting against Noonan’s piece.-—
People have some hard, hard heads and short, short memories. This President had hardly finished trashing the Party and his conservative supporters with the amnesty outrage, than he was back hosting a Latin American ho-down, all smiles, lavish compliments and back-slapping for a bunch of left wing South American journalists.
<< Talk about a woman scorned: Laura Ingraham has lost it.She thinks Noonans oped is great. Ingraham has turned Bush basher That away gal, kick him when he’s down. >>
Ingraham: never married
Noonan: divorced
Do you think there is a correlation?
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.