Article

2005-01-27 Home Front: Politix

Peggy Noonan: Further thoughts on the passions of the inaugural

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-27 12:12:57 AM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Excerpts from Peggy Responds:

A week later, do I stand by your views?

Yes because someone hurt my feelings on the night of the inagural ball. Downright snubbed me they did. Said Bush's speech was the best speech ever written. Excues me? Hello! I wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan, and my long flowery speeches are waaay better than that straight-to the-point, Gettysburg type crap.

But isn't hard criticism of such an important speech at such a serious moment disloyal? You're a Bush supporter!

I am. I even took off from the Journal to work for his re-election. I did exciting and I hope helpful work at considerable financial loss. And what praise did I get? None! I got nothing but financial loss and had to listen to crap about how that was the best speech ever written!

Why don't you see the speech as so many others do, as a thematic and romantic statement of what we all hope for, world freedom? Don't we all want that?

Yes. But words have meaning. To declare that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, that we are embarking on the greatest crusade in the history of freedom, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation--seemed to me, you know, just a bunch of blah, blah, blah, and is , rhetorical and emotional overreach of the most embarrassing sort. You see, I am a speech righter before an American. It matters more to me how it is being presented, rather than what is being presented

I mean, look, they forgot context!! *Scoff* All speeches take place within a historical context, a time and place. A good speech acknowledges context often without even mentioning it. The American masses are just too stupid to put it in context themselves. A good speech writer, like me, does that for them.

What's wrong with a little overweening ambition? Shouldn't man's reach exceed his grasp?

True. But despite the fact that it was clarified that Bush's speech does not indicate a change in policy, I'm going to rant on and on as if it did. Because, I'm washed up in the Republican Party circles now, and I'm tired of not getting all of the press kudos for my brilliant speeches that far less talented people like Michael Moore and Maureen Dowd get. And the Democrats have better parties then the Republicans do. All the cool people hang out with the Dems. I'm going to prove to Howard Dean - or whoever gets the spot, that I can write for them. Look, Howie, Look!!! I can write meaningless, petulant, childish crap myself.

Exhibit A
Refrain from breast beating, and don't clobber the world over the head with your moral fabulousness.
Exhibit B
It is Bush, the dumb, unnuanced, chimp, cowboy trying to be fancy. It is a tough man who speaks the language of business, sports and politics trying to be high-toned and elegant.

Do you have anything else to say, Peggy?

Yes, I have over 2,000 words of flowery, meandering words, painting pretty pictures that you can read if you have nothing better to do. I really don't say anything other than my own opinion. If you want to cut to the crap, I just basically say that Bush's speech wasn't as good as anything I could have written and that he's a dumb cowboy.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-27 8:41:32 AM|| 2005-01-27 8:41:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Shorter version: Peggy is in serious defense mode. Peggy drops down several notches in my esteem meter.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-27 9:30:26 AM|| 2005-01-27 9:30:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Here is an unhappy fact: Certain authoritarians and tyrants whose leadership is illegitimate and unjust have functioned in history as--ugly imagery coming--garbage-can lids on their societies. They keep freedom from entering, it is true. But when they are removed, the garbage--the freelance terrorists, the grievance merchants, the ethnic nationalists--pops out all over. Yes, freedom is good and to be strived for. But cleaning up the garbage is not pretty. And it sometimes leaves the neighborhood in an even bigger mess than it had been

What weve learned is that the garbage comes out anyway. The garbage lids arent really very effective. The lids have been stripped off in Latin America, east asia, and eastern europe, and the garbage has proven less than anticipated. Weve kept the lids on in the mideast, and thats where the shit comes from. Bush to his credit understands that.

And the choice between "we're going to push for democracy everywhere NOW" and "its just a romantic and thematic speech" is a false one. There are clearly a range of policy implementation steps that can and must be taken to implement this, which go beyond mere words in a speech, yet are less than global crusade.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-01-27 10:11:40 AM|| 2005-01-27 10:11:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 time for Peggy to do a LONG sabbatical and get some hubris-reduction

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-27 10:20:55 AM|| 2005-01-27 10:20:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Brother 'Hawk, you took the words right out of my keyboard!

Peggy, please, in the name of all that is holy, stop hanging out with Brent Scowcroft and go spend time with normal people. The "realists" are tyrrany's enablers.

Posted by Mike 2005-01-27 10:23:08 AM|| 2005-01-27 10:23:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 really think I'm right on this one. Everything I need to know I learned in kindy-garten.

Right after the speech - Peggy had glowing words on Fox. Then, after a poor night sleep (fire alarm) she panned it - and panned it big. Using all the left's buzz words...cowboy, lack of nuance etc.

She's a good speech writer, but this is a great speech. One for the ages and she knows it. Plus, it was written in a style 100% opposite her own - blunt and to the point.

I think someone hurt her feelings that night and after suffering a financial loss, poor night sleep and a blow to her ego - she, in a moment of human weakness said words that just can not be taken back. First she very publically loved it then she very publically hated it. Loving it again wasn't an option without losing her position of authority and credibility forever. No, then she'd be a stooge, a pansy, a flake. It was a no win. So now she's digging in.

Personally, I think it's tragic. She knows it's a great speech. She said so immediately following. But she'll spend her life trying to justify herself here - never being able to admit it was a small moment of human failing, jealousy and spite.

In her efforts to maintain her head high in this life, she will be mocked by the future, something she must be acutely aware of. The Getttysburg address was widely panned in its time too.

That she, a great writer of her time, will go down in history as a small minded critic of one of the greatest speeches of our time, is truly a tragedy indeed.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-27 10:59:52 AM|| 2005-01-27 10:59:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Her response to your-all response to her response to Bush's speech should be even more amusing, or so one can hope. And a fun time is had by all...;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-27 11:29:40 AM|| 2005-01-27 11:29:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 2b, I read the whole article, I thought she was saying it was not blunt enough?

I don't have a problem w/what she said. One person's opinion, such is life. So she thinks Bush sounded out of character, so what. I think she supports Bush, I know I do, and I don't like everything he does all the time.

"The "realists" are tyrrany's enablers."

-um, no. I consider myself a realist, & have yet to enabled any despot to take rule anywhere. Those who passively stand by and watch bad things happen are tyrrany's enablers.

I think more to the point is that the U.S. military can realistically & pretty conventionally kick the shit out of any two dictatorial countries in the world at the same time, and definitely any one dictatorship. We can take them all on one at a time, but not all at the same time realistically speaking. I think the worry is that by promoting a possible policy shift (which was denied by the admin anyhow) could possibly lead to too many fires we'll have to piss on and not enough bladder to do it with. Even so, I think LH is quite correct that there is a whole spectrum of means to encourage democratic reform all over the world w/out getting militarily involved. Bush prolly did not have the time w/an inaugural type of speech to put it in that context (as Noonan hoped) but I hope that's what it boils down to. Though I'm not sure we havn't already been promoting this since the cold war.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-27 12:09:05 PM|| 2005-01-27 12:09:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 We don't have to overthrow them all, just enough.

It sounds like that's her message, the lefty what are we going to do, overthrow them all?

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-27 1:03:35 PM|| 2005-01-27 1:03:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 too many fires we'll have to piss on and not enough bladder to do it with

You gyreenes are so . . . lyrical.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-27 1:07:05 PM|| 2005-01-27 1:07:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 You can let Peggy know whether you consider this Deep Prose, Reagan Realpolitik, Brain Fart #2, or her Hot Flash Follies here on her website.

Posted by .com 2005-01-27 1:14:43 PM|| 2005-01-27 1:14:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Though I'm not sure we havn't already been promoting this since the cold war.

To the extent Clinton did it, it was not particularly strategic, and it was too quiet, and it was way inadequate. Which, I suppose, goes some way to excuse the GOP assault on Clintonist demo promotion, and their preference for "humility". But its only become clear that this is essential since 9/11, and its been quite disputed since then. And since the speech, I might add.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-01-27 1:23:45 PM|| 2005-01-27 1:23:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I agree with Jarhead. Well said.

I think it is sad that some of you view Noonan's criticisms about the President's speech equates "disloyalty." Noonan did not haphazardly criticize the speech without supporting the problems she had with it. She writes an opinion column - get it? - opinion column= her opinions.

When we smugly dump on left wing journalists as biased hacks towing the DNC party line, how much better are we for pressuring conservative journalists to be in lockstep with the Admin, oohing and aahing about every utterance the President makes?

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-27 2:26:05 PM|| 2005-01-27 2:26:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 oh please. Your "loyalty" issue is a blatant strawman. Calling Bush a simpleton "trying to act fancy" is not serious dialoge (though it would pass for it on the left) - it's just petty and childish as are all her other cowboy references. It adds nothing of substance to the discussion.

Her complaints are as shrill and meanigless as if she had denigrated a speech about civil rights because the man giving it didn't have perfect diction, didn't say his "s's" right, and the public just wasn't ready for such frank talk. Besides, wink, wink, there's reason to fear that he won't stop with just equality for just schools and the busses - what he really wants is an excuse to go after your women.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-27 5:34:42 PM|| 2005-01-27 5:34:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 you can tell her what you think at peggy@peggynoonan.com

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-27 5:44:56 PM|| 2005-01-27 5:44:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Your analogy lost me, 2b, particularly the bold
what he really wants is an excuse to go after your women. Huh?

As I recall in the initial opinion piece Noonan did not say the cowboy things that you say offended you and she mentioned them now only to defend herself because others did focus on the superficial things she did not.

Whatever.

Noonan's opinion piece will be viewed as a disloyal by some conservatives( yes, 2b, that's the slam that Noonan has taken by and large). Other conservatives will see Noonan's piece as reasoned observations. I thought GWB's speech was over the top and you likely thought it was perfect. So we it follows that we would evaluate Noonan's piece depending on whether or not she reinforces our reaction to GWB's speech. No mystery there.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-27 6:03:47 PM|| 2005-01-27 6:03:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 no - if I/we didn't like her 2nd take we're accused of seeing her as disloyal to W - your words. How about seeing her as deeply wrong? How about questioning her personal, not party, motives since her two takes on the speech, a day apart, were so different?
If someone else see it as reasoned observations, fine. Don't paint dissent from her 2nd take as kneejerk W loyalty, and the argument's over

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-27 6:10:24 PM|| 2005-01-27 6:10:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Frank - agreed.

Bush the uppity ~~n&^^$r~~ cowboy

Had Peggy given it a day or two and written a thoughtful piece - she would have had my respect and attention.

Bush's speech was simple and, for anyone not already primed to be paranoid, Bush was speaking to a simple truth - democracies don't attack each other and thus we should do all we can to encourage democracy around the world.

It's a big F'ing duh. Yet Peggy rushes out, fans the flames of paranoia, "I fear he's ~~going after your women~~ to invade the world!

Posted by 2b 2005-01-27 6:35:45 PM|| 2005-01-27 6:35:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I think it is sad that some of you view Noonan's criticisms about the President's speech equates "disloyalty."
The quote is for you, Frank, read my words carefully. Do I make any reference to Noonan's first opinion piece or to her 2nd opinion piece? No, I don't.

I am speaking generally that the reaction to Noonan's opinions about GWB's speech has been to slam her for disloyalty by conservatives who are pissed that she held the opinions she did. I do not name you or anyone else specifically in my quote. It is a just a passing observation I made with reference to this huge fury that Noonan has directed at her from some conservatives.

Noonan is in the employ of the WSJ not the GOP. She is paid to write thoughtful reasoned opinion pieces, and that's what she did. To disagree with Noonan's opinions is one thing but to ascribe unsourced, unproven, "hidden" motives to Noonan claiming her opinions about GWB's speech represented ( the following is an example of the personal attacks against Noonan) "a small moment of human failing, jealousy and spite" is silly.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-27 6:50:10 PM|| 2005-01-27 6:50:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Yawn. I'm not interested in defending Noonan's petulant rant. She's entitled to her opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. And my opinion is that, rather than sounding like a professional historian critiquing a historic speech, she sounded like a catty, chat-room troll. In the future, I intended to afford her all of the attention I think she merits - none.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-27 9:42:45 PM|| 2005-01-27 9:42:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 thanks Mrs. D, I'm just glad you didn't say "poetic", which would hint on a sensitivity I'm not alowed to have. ;)

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-27 10:23:04 PM|| 2005-01-27 10:23:04 PM|| Front Page Top

14:45 True German Ally
14:45 True German Ally
00:56 Unagum Ulomoper7151
00:56 Unagum Ulomoper7151
00:54 Gravise Spolutle2771
00:54 Gravise Spolutle2771
00:02 Denver Reader 303
23:58 Barbara Skolaut
23:52 AJackson
23:52 Seafarious
23:47 wadikitty
23:44 2xstandard
23:43 phil_b
23:39 RWV
23:25 RWV
23:22 Mike Sylwester
23:04 crazyhorse
22:58 Mike Kozlowski
22:58 Dishman
22:55 Alaska Paul
22:54 Dishman
22:53 Frank G
22:47 Jonathan
22:38 Jarhead