After receiving some harsh criticism regarding her harsh criticism of the President’s Inaugural Address – Peggy Noonan responds without a shred of regret:
A Sourpuss? Moi?
Further thoughts on the passions of the inaugural.
A week later, do I stand by my views?
Yes. If I wrote it today I wouldn’t be softer, but harder.
Am I heartened by White House clarifications that the speech did not intend to announce the unveiling of a new policy?
Yes. My reaction is the exact opposite of Bill Bennett’s and E.J. Dionne’s, who were both disappointed. I am relieved.
Why don’t I 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, and seems to me, rhetorical and emotional overreach of the most embarrassing sort.
Click the link above to read her full response to the criticisms Noonan received after her slamming of the speech. As a Republican and a usual cheerleader for this President – you may not agree with what she has to say, however I have a great deal of respect for Peggy Noonan for sticking to her guns, saying what she really feels and straying ‘off course’ from the usual Republican rhetoric.
I read Peggy on a regular basis. I do not agree with her in this particular case, but I respect her opinion.
Sometimes it’s hard to stand up to your enemies, but its even harder to stand up to your friends.
She has convictions, and I can appreciate that.
2- That is a good point. I find it speaks to her character that she would address this topic again and face more scrutiny. I am glad she’s back at the WSJ.
Noonan’s points are well made. She is making the same kind of criticism that others have made: that Bush priveledges his teleological assumptions over reality, and his vision is a utopia that if pursued by force could become a nightmare. The speech was rhetorically loaded as well. I thought it was well delivered, though it was, for all intents and purposes, a sermon.
If you didn’t see people dancing in the aisles, wigs and hats flying off, it wasn’t a sermon.
5
don’t forget swinging from the chandeliers.
6. Okay, my monitor needed cleaning anyway.
Better that Noonan criticise the speech than laud over it without disclosing to readers that they were consultants in its creation, as Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol have done.
8 – but you thought it was a good speech?
Better Islam than dead is joining Better Red than Dead on history’s trash heap. Nations can no longer throw bombs at us from behind the safety of a border. Freedom is the natural state of man, whether God given or just because no one has, by right,the authority to enslave another. Peggy still prefers the world where her talents sold high.
10
i’m sure you weren’t condemning Islam generally, but rather those fringe elements that are violent. that would be tantamount to condemning Christianity for the crusades and David Koresh.
i think Peggy Noonan is really, really cute.
Shiloh, clean your screen…
that’s the 2nd reference to ‘cleaning screens’ today. what does it mean?
g’day JG
For me, you made me laugh with drink in mouth and spray the screen.
You were talking about your lust for Peggy…
Clean your screen…
Joke, Good day back at cha.
9,
I thought it was a good speech in the sense of doing what it was supposed to and its delivery. But it was pompous, unrealistic, manipulative, and over-metaphorical.
And others could have found it motivating and inspirational. I’d say most visionary speeches fall somewhere on either side, depending on who’s listening.
If you’re not getting a reaction, you’re doing something wrong.
Ultimately Islam must purge the jihadists from their midst or suffer the awkwardness of external chastisement. Their choice.