Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Peggy Noonan --Peggy f'ing Noonan-- latest conservative to abandon Bush

  1. #1

    Peggy Noonan --Peggy f'ing Noonan-- latest conservative to abandon Bush

    When a Republican president loses the backing of former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, it's over.

    A pretty good take on yesterday's bizarre and deluded news conference...

    [QUOTE]PEGGY NOONAN

    American Grit
    We can't fire the president right now, so we're waiting it out.

    Friday, July 13, 2007 12:01 a.m.

    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.
    [B]I'm not referring to what used to be called Bush Derangement Syndrome. That phrase suggested that to passionately dislike the president was to be somewhat unhinged. No one thinks that anymore.[/B] I received an email before the news conference from as rock-ribbed a Republican as you can find, a Georgia woman (middle-aged, entrepreneurial) who'd previously supported him. She said she'd had it. "I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth." I was startled by her vehemence only because she is, as I said, rock-ribbed. Her email reminded me of another, one a friend received some months ago: "I took the W off my car today," it said on the subject line. It sounded like a country western song, like a great lament.

    As I watched the news conference, it occurred to me that one of the things that might leave people feeling somewhat disoriented is the president's seemingly effortless high spirits. He's in a good mood. There was the usual teasing, the partly aggressive, partly joshing humor, the certitude. He doesn't seem to be suffering, which is jarring. [B]Presidents in great enterprises that are going badly suffer: Lincoln, LBJ with his head in his hands. Why doesn't Mr. 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. He's in a good mood. Discuss.

    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.[/B]

    His stock answer is that of course he feels the sadness of the families who've lost someone in Iraq. And of course he must. Beyond that his good humor seems to me disorienting, and strange.

    In arguing for the right path as he sees it, the president more and more claims for himself virtues that the other side, by inference, lacks. He is "idealistic"; those who oppose him are, apparently, lacking in ideals. He makes his decisions "based on principle," unlike his critics, who are ever watchful of the polls. He is steadfast, brave, he believes "freedom isn't just for Americans" but has "universal . . . applications," unlike those selfish, isolationist types who oppose him.

    This is ungracious as a rhetorical approach, but not unprecedented. There's something in the White House water system. Presidents all wind up being gallant in their own eyes. Thursday I was reminded of President Nixon, who often noted he was resisting those who were always advising him to "take the easy way." Bill Safire used to joke that when he was a Nixon speechwriter, part of his job was to walk by the Oval Office and yell in, "Mr. President, take the easy way!"

    I suspect people pick up with Mr. Bush the sense that part of his drama, part of the story of his presidency, is that he gets to be the romantic about history, and the American people get to be the realists. Of the two, the latter is not the more enjoyable role.

    Americans have always been somewhat romantic about the meaning of our country, and the beacon it can be for the world, and what the Founders did. But they like the president to be the cool-eyed realist, the tough customer who understands harsh realities.

    With Mr. Bush it is the people who are forced to be cool-eyed and realistic. He's the one who goes off on the toots. This is extremely irritating, and also unnatural. Actually it's weird.

    Americans hire presidents and fire them. They're not as sweet about it as they used to be. This is not because they have grown cynical, but because they are disappointed, by both teams and both sides. Some part of them thinks no matter who is president he will not protect them from forces at work in the world. Some part of them fears that when history looks back on this moment, on the past few presidents and the next few, it will say: Those men were not big enough for the era.
    But this is a democracy. You vote, you do the best you can with the choices presented, and you show the appropriate opposition to the guy who seems most likely to bring trouble. (I think that is one reason for the polarity and division of politics now. No one knows in his gut that the guy he supports will do any good. But at least you can oppose with enthusiasm and passion the guy you feel in your gut will cause more trouble than is needed! This is what happens when the pickings are slim: The greatest passion gets funneled into opposition.)

    We hire them and fire them. President Bush was hired to know more than the people, to be told all the deep inside intelligence, all the facts Americans are not told, and do the right and smart thing in response.

    That's the deal. It's the real "grand bargain." If you are a midlevel Verizon executive who lives in New Jersey, this is what you do: You hire a president and tell him to take care of everything you can't take care of--the security of the nation, its well-being, its long-term interests. And you in turn do your part. You meet your part of the bargain. You work, pay your taxes, which are your financial contribution to making it all work, you become involved in local things--the boy's ball team, the library, the homeless shelter. You handle what you can handle within your ken, and give the big things to the president.

    And if he can't do it, or if he can't do it as well as you pay the mortgage and help the kid next door, you get mad. And you fire him.

    Americans can't fire the president right now, so they're waiting it out. They can tell a pollster how they feel, and they do, and they can tell friends, and they do that too. They also watch the news conference, and grit their teeth a bit.

    Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.


    Copyright 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110010326[/url]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE]Americans can't fire the president right now, so they're waiting it out[/QUOTE]

    I made a similar statement the other day. The clock can't close out this admin fast enough. The rats are deserting the sinking (sunk) ship.

    [QUOTE]I'm not referring to what used to be called Bush Derangement Syndrome. That phrase suggested that to passionately dislike the president was to be somewhat unhinged. No one thinks that anymore[/QUOTE]

    Only extremist still think this exists. If it ever did. Just another FIX'd News Channel Joking Point. The extremists remind me of the EL Cid story. You know the placed a dead El Cid on a horse and trotted him out there....

    Funny how the extremists forgot that they were shut out 35-0 in the last election. Sadly they think it was a fluke. This time it could be worse and some democrats will fall with them.

    Great drop here Nuu

  3. #3
    this is a good read

  4. #4
    Yes this is a good read. It seems like most Bush loyalists are seeing the light - that is with the exception of those on this board. I wonder if there is any way that Bush can f/ck up where his supporters here would abandon him or are they totally in denial and march to his drum no matter where it leads our country.

    Why are his supporters so silent on this thread?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Yes this is a good read. It seems like most Bush loyalists are seeing the light - that is with the exception of those on this board. I wonder if there is any way that Bush can f/ck up where his supporters here would abandon him or are they [B]totally in denial [/B] and march to his drum no matter where it leads our country.

    Why are his supporters so silent on this thread?[/QUOTE]

    QJF the 51st State is becoming a popular destination these days. Maybe due to summer vacations :yes:

    I have told people that the republicans are so extreme Mr. Reagan would be a 'liberal' these days :yes:

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]When a Republican president loses the backing of former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, it's over.

    A pretty good take on yesterday's bizarre and deluded news conference...



    [url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110010326[/url][/QUOTE]

    I didn;t read thaarticle as I am busy, but I think the biggest reason conservatives are abandoning Bush is that he has shown himself NOT to be conservative. He even almost screwed up getting the "right" justices on the SC!

    Unlike Dawggg and some others, I can see justification for going into Iraq; however, Bush should have sensed the need to be proactive rather than reactive. I also think we should stay and finish the job right ............ and I can;t help but believe another could give significantly better direction.

    Reagan was a great President who ran as an outsider who would change things in Washington. He did. Bush ran on the same idea. He did not. No wonder Peggy Noonan has lost confidence.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=JCnflies]I didn;t read thaarticle as I am busy, but I think the biggest reason conservatives are abandoning Bush is that he has shown himself NOT to be conservative. He even almost screwed up getting the "right" justices on the SC!

    Unlike Dawggg and some others, I can see justification for going into Iraq;

    [COLOR=Blue][B]Which truth was that again? WMD's?, Saddam?, Bringing democracy?, Terrorists? Keeping our troops in 140 degree heat while the Iraqis take off?
    Mission Accomplished?

    Please advise[/B][/COLOR]

    however, Bush should have sensed the need to be proactive rather than reactive. I also think we should stay and finish the job right

    [COLOR=Blue][B]Just what is 'the job'? When they stand up, we'll stand down? Where fighting them over there so we won't have to here (or Afghan/Pak)?[/B][/COLOR]


    ............ and I can;t help but believe another could give significantly better direction.

    Reagan was a great President who ran as an outsider who would change things in Washington. He did. Bush ran on the same idea. He did not. No wonder Peggy Noonan has lost confidence.[/QUOTE]

    [COLOR=Blue][B]Lost confidence is just putting it mildly[/B][/COLOR]

  8. #8
    I didn;t read the article as I am busy, but I think the biggest reason conservatives are abandoning Bush is that he has shown himself NOT to be conservative. He even almost screwed up getting the "right" justices on the SC!

    Unlike Dawggg and some others, I can see justification for going into Iraq;

    Which truth was that again? WMD's?, Saddam?, Bringing democracy?, Terrorists? Keeping our troops in 140 degree heat while the Iraqis take off?
    Mission Accomplished?

    Please advise

    [COLOR=Blue][I]Hi Dawggg, I don't htink I ever mentioned truths, I mentioned reasons (you love to shape things for your arguments:) That said, it is undeniuably and absolutely TRUE that Iraq had chemical weapons; however, I believe (inlarge part because my friends who have returned have told me) that the chemica; weapons were either transported to Syria or buried never tyo be found. I'll give SH kudos for figuring out a way to make the USA look bad. You can say their were none, but every fact says they were there and only that we can't find them or they are no longer there.

    IMHO, I don;t think SH had reached the heights of a Hitler or Stalin to deserve for the sake of humanity to be dethroned by force because of us. I think the Iraqi people had good reason - justnot us at a half a world away.

    I am sure that SH covertly aided the terrorists. I have no idea if it was to the degree that we needed a preemptive strike. I doubt it but neither of us knows for sure. Personally, I would probably side with you and say that he had not.

    If you ask me in my heart of hearts why we are in Iraq, I thinkthe WMD and torture chambers and SH being an evil tyrant whose time had come were the wrapping on the package. i have felt all along that our presence has more to do with protecting Israel and ourselves from the nutjob in Iran. That said, the administration wil lnever come out and say that they invaded and destroyed Iraq in order to keep tabs on Iran and set up a preemptive strikme against them. I can see outrage at us doing this, but I can also see why would.[/I][/COLOR]however, Bush should have sensed the need to be proactive rather than reactive. I also think we should stay and finish the job right

    Just what is 'the job'? When they stand up, we'll stand down? Where fighting them over there so we won't have to here (or Afghan/Pak)?

    [COLOR=Blue][I]Outstanding essential question! - one I don;t think our leaders gave enough thought to (at least publicly.)

    (1) Prop up a stable Iraqi gov't - also stable vs Iran.
    (2) We have eradicated the potential for Iraq to be significant supporters of terrorism.
    But Ithink the gov't would not want to withdraw unless they left a base for operations against Iran,[/I][/COLOR]

    ............ and I can;t help but believe another could give significantly better direction.

    Reagan was a great President who ran as an outsider who would change things in Washington. He did. Bush ran on the same idea. He did not. No wonder Peggy Noonan has lost confidence.

  9. #9
    Great response JC. I agree with a lot that you state here. It is incredible that there are still those that cannot see that the war was wrong and support this mistake prone president.

    I will check the WMD's story again. The Marines that I know who are/were there say that there was some uraniun but not enough to do any significant damage. In other words, it was not a real threat to the USA as Colin Powell sold to world at the UN.

    As for the base, we have built a significant sized embassy over there. We will have a Marine Barracks of some sort as the US Marines guard all of the US Embassy's.

  10. #10
    flushingjet
    Guest
    wow..that wsj is really on top of things and always on the right side
    of history

    first with illegal amnesty and now peggy noonan souring on w
    what a shocker-reagans crew werent exactly in love with anything bush
    related

    ps maybe she can ghostwrite some speeches for cindy she-hag?
    Last edited by flushingjet; 07-14-2007 at 08:00 PM.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,043
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]...maybe she can ghostwrite some speeches for cindy she-hag?[/QUOTE]


    Man oh man. How could you be so mean to the lady that wrote Reagan's 40th Anniversary D-Day speech? The lady who took an unpaid leave from the liberal rag WSJ to campaign for El Presidente Bush in 2004?

    Do you also kick kittens?

  12. #12
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Man oh man. How could you be so mean to the lady that wrote Reagan's 40th Anniversary D-Day speech? The lady who took an unpaid leave from the liberal rag WSJ to campaign for El Presidente Bush in 2004?

    Do you also kick kittens?[/QUOTE]

    cmon --- kicking kittens is so last week

    i prefer they be deployed usefully to serve man

    electrodes on the head, injecting red dye #3, testing makeup,
    chinese foodstuffs/toothpaste and so on

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,043
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]cmon --- kicking kittens is so last week

    i prefer they be deployed usefully to serve man

    electrodes on the head, injecting red dye #3, testing makeup,
    chinese foodstuffs/toothpaste and so on[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://www.royalcanin.co.uk/images/walking%20kitten%20RC%20Germany.jpg[/IMG]

    Awwwwwww...the kitty? Nobody wants to hurt the kitty...

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=JCnflies] I also think we should stay and finish the job right ............ [/QUOTE]

    what exactly does that mean?

    Gen Petraus already said there was no military option that would lead to victory

    if the people of Iraq can't handle democracy there's no amount of troops we can send that will fix it.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=bitonti]what exactly does that mean?

    Gen Petraus already said there was no military option that would lead to victory

    if the people of Iraq can't handle democracy there's no amount of troops we can send that will fix it.[/QUOTE]

    Send CBTNY and the other warmongers......they wants war at any cost.....except if they have to p-a-y with their own life.....

    That'll fix it........

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us