Posted on 07/13/2007 9:51:52 AM PDT by PolishProud
What's with Laura Ingraham? This morning Peggy Noonan wrote an op ed which included the following criticism of President Bush:
"Every major domestic initiative of his second term has been ill thought through and ended in failure. His Iraq leadership has failed. His standing is lower than any previous president's since polling began.",
Laura loved Noonan's op ed. Go gal, kick him when he's down.
Ingraham is taking herself too seriously. Yesterday she was aghast over security chief Chertoff's "gut feeling." I don't know why. I would appreciate any source regarding security even Chertoff's gut. She also found Chertoff less than handsome. What a cheap shot.
Ingraham lost me when she went over to the dark side on the Foley scandal. She thought Hastert should have resigned for not protecting male pages from gay congressmen.
Bill Kristol,yesterday on her show, suggested that now is the time that talk show hosts should support the president. His comment went right over her head.
I would have appreciated it if Chertoff had kept his mouth shut. It served no purpose to say that. What? You mean we're a target for radical Islamists? No f'in way man! Oh, you mean you heard a specific threat? Nice job showing your hand to the terrorists Cherkoff.
If talk radio had been around in the 1980s, conservative hosts would have criticized Reagan for plenty of things. Why? They would have to fill up air time with controversy.
While it is informative and probably important, it is, in the end, entertainment -- designed ultimately to keep an audience for a sufficient amount of time to justify charging businesses confiscatory rates for advertising.
I understand the view piont you express. However, that doesn’t explain away the President attacking his own supporters far more VICIOUSLY then he is those that claim he lied about Iraq in the first place.
Sorry, thats just stupid in the extreme.
How do you really feel?
Noonan made a very public the fact that she was resigning her job at the WSJ to volunteer her services as a speech writer to the Bush re-election effort. She went to DC and evidently was turned down, because she was soon back in NY.
You can look it up, she wrote in the WSJ all about it.
I listen to the radio mostly in my car. If I’m not driving, it’s really rare that I’m also listening to radio.
It is most likely that I’ll turn on the radio during Rush’s 12-3 est slot. I’d say about half (50%) the time IF I’m in the car in those time slots.
Hannity probably has about a 35% shot.
Laura has a 20% chance.
The savage ranter: 5%
music: 5%
other: <1%
I’ve skimmed through Peggy Noonan’s articles from that period (August 2004 through Jan. 2005). Of course she mentions that she is taking a leave of absence from the WSJ. She does not mention getting turned down for any job with the Bush Administration. Please let me know if I have missed something.
I suppose what irritates me about the line of reasoning is the assumption that someone must have a personal vendetta in order to disagree with Our Guy, and she is allowing that vendetta to interfere with her writing in a unprofessional manner.
It is entirely possible (maybe even likely) that Ms. Noonan is a person of integrity and is simply expressing her true views. Perhaps we should deal with the charges on the merits.
I always thought he looked like a drunken child molester but that’s just my private observation.
It is too early to make this pronouncement.
The success or failure of the President's Iraq leadership will be determined years from now.
No, she doesn’t admit that she got turned down. It’s just an obvious assumption and the fact that she did an about face on Bush as soon as the election was over, just reinforces the assumed connection.
The snotty tone of her criticisms were also indicative of a personal antagonism. The remarks were small at first, but then after one speech that all the Republicans loved, Noonan started picking the speech apart, saying that there was way too much God in the speech. Since when was there ever too much God in a speech for Ms. Noonan? It was as if she was telling the left how to criticize Bush. It seemed almost disingenuous. It has been all down hill since then.
But that has little to do with the fact that I hate Peggy Noonan’s writing style. She bores me to death with her supercilious pretensions and overly wordy descriptions. I don’t want to hear about the elite dinner parties that she attends, the erudite guests and the beautiful floral arrangements. Ms. Noonan’s flowery style would be better suited to the garden club news letter, than the WSJ.
Any connection between Noonan’s criticism of Bush and her personal situation are assumptions only. We ought not to presume to make denigrating comments about a person’s character unless we know for sure. and with Noonan we don’t.
I am a Republican and was bothered by Bush’s Inaugural Address in 2005. In fact I was working for a Republican Congressman at the time. My criticism of the speech had nothing to do with references to God. It had to do with assigning the United States a goal (the end of tyranny on earth) which is properly left to a spiritual process (the discipling of the nations) and not a political process (the democratization of the nations.) Democracy comes most easily from a strong Christian foundation. Democracy will not save the world.
I certainly hope democracy comes in Iraq, and I do think we should encourage it all over the world where we can, and where it is in our interest to do so. But I would not have set our grand strategy in foreign policy as the end of tyranny on earth. Democracy will not bring this about; democracy needs a foundation, and in the end it is God’s to bring.
I don’t listen to Laura much anymore either. She seems to always be so negative. Rush and Hannity are as principled as she is but they have a softer touch. They also chastise the President, but they do it in a way that is not mean-spirited and shrill.
I do respect her for the fact that she used to clerk for Clarence Thomas.
I'm grieved that our president could not have backed a decent bill which respected the ever-diminishing rule of law. I heard plenty of reasoned debate but none from the government. Where were the senate committee hearings?
You may have noticed that, with all the opportunities for speeches, interviews, press conferences, talk shows galore, no one ever gave a clear, rational, point-by-point explanation for why it had to be done the way they wanted to do it. Nobody. Not Snow, not Bush, not the 'rats, not Graham, none of them.
If there was no "reasoned debate" it is because the forces of the government chose to be secretive and silent.
she bores me, so i don’t listen.
This may come as a news flash but many conservatives feel the same as Noonan about this President. I talk to them all the time. The strongest emotion I find in relation to him is not hate but rather disappointment.
I think some tried to explain the bill, but no one could hear them. If the wall had been built first, the public would have had more trust in the administration. Without trust, no one was in a mood to listen.
No way this nation is far more conservative now. Just because a few are speaking up doesn’t mean more are conservative.
And many are more liberal and many are more openly liberal than used to be when RR was governor.
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.