Does someone hold power of attorney for this woman? If not, she’s going to end up either cat lady or bag lady; it’s a coin flip. Because I can awesomely command time and space, let me manipulate the veil of reality to help me make my point.Read it all. Der Tomissar has replaced Peggy Noonan on my list of favorite writers.
I’m guessing that Peggy doesn’t remember the 1980 and 1984 Presidential campaigns because she was busy pondering the Big Questions, like “Why can’t I hold on to a man?” Let me recap them for her and our viewing audience.
There is a bear in the woods. Some people think the bear isn’t dangerous. I know that it wants to destroy the shining City on a Hill before Morning in America. Who do you want to handle the bear, Jimmy Carter?
Monday, December 01, 2008
Peggy Noonan Put In Her Place
She was once one of my favorite writers. Then she lost it entirely. Now Der Tomissar smacks her down:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I'm sorry, but I still like Peggy Noonan, and I don't think she's lost it at all.
You may think I'm a heretic for saying so, but I think it IS possible to be Catholic and pro-life and still have serious questions about whether Sarah Palin was really the best possible vice presidential choice McCain could have made, or whether a full-bore appeal to social conservatives above all others is really the most effective GOP strategy. (Unless that was infallibly defined as an article of faith by the pope when I wasn't looking.)
I do not question Palin's intelligence or her integrity. I do agree she got a bad rap from the media. I am sure she is a very good governor, and with time she may become a formidable national figure. But I do NOT think one is a traitor to conservatism or to the cause of life to suggest that Palin might have been in over her head this time around.
Nor do I think it is traitorous or subversive to suggest that Obama may have SOME attractive qualities or that he has done some things right (such as in how he refused to make an issue of Bristol Palin's pregnancy). Remember, a stopped clock is right twice a day!
And by the way, Peggy has NOT ignored his stance on abortion. Maybe she hasn't been constantly hammering on it like you have, but she has taken note of it, and said that it was wrong of him to suggest that life issues were "above" his "pay grade." Yes, she has said nice things about Obama but at no time has she ever said she would vote for him, or that she endorsed his views on abortion.
Please, everyone, the last thing the conservative movement needs to do is start drumming out or "putting in their place" everyone who dared say something nice about Obama or offer constructive criticism of the GOP's 2008 election strategy.
Not that there's anything wrong with "constantly hammering" on Obama's abortion stance. I don't expect EVERY columnist, even the conservative ones, to do it, however.
Bookworm, I don't that there's anything in dogma that refers directly to Peggy Noonan, so I don't think you need fear a charge of heresy.
OTOH, Noonan's stated reasons for dissing Palin went far beyond mere dissatisfaction with her resume. She took a very elitist attitude, and has continued to justify herself with arguments, such as the one DT fisks in the linked article, that are simply false to fact.
Maybe so, but DT also takes a rather elitist and sexist attitude toward her with remarks like "she's going to end up either cat lady or bag lady" and "She doesn't remember the 80 and 84 campaigns because she was busy pondering the Big Questions like "Why can't I hold on to a man?"
Is DT aware that she was one of President Reagan's speechwriters, and that she worked for CBS News prior to that? Of course she remembers those campaigns -- she was THERE! Has he read "What I Saw at the Revolution?" Has he read her reflections on September 11 and Pope John Paul II, whom she agrees should be called "The Great"?
Sorry to get so worked up about this -- maybe, being a middle-aged woman who loves cats, I took that "cat lady" remark a bit too personally. But I think DT isn't being entirely fair to her. Of course she's not perfect and I don't agree with absolutely everything she says, but she is still one of my favorite writers.
Maybe her perspective has changed a bit as she's gotten older. Mine has too. But last I looked, she still believed America was a great nation worth defending, she was still a PRACTICING Catholic, and she still believed abortion was wrong and that Obama's views on it were not good. I don't think she's ignoring the prescence of any "bear in the woods" either.
For what it's worth, she's really my second most favorite writer after George Weigel. (Whom I used to keep getting confused with George Will -- they are, after all, both conservatives and baseball fans with similar glasses and hairstyles.)
I'm with Der Tommissar on this one. His words perfectly captured my exact thoughts about dear Margaret.
Did any of you even bother to read the Noonan article that DT links to in his post? Noonan actually says a lot of GOOD things about Sarah Palin in that article. She makes it clear that she AGREES with the things Palin stands for.
The gist of her article is that McCain's choice of her as a running mate was a big gamble that would either be really good for the campaign or really bad for it. She may have privately, or not-so-privately, thought it would turn out to be a net negative; but so did a lot of other people, even conservatives.
I see NOTHING at all in the Noonan article cited that portrays contempt for conservatives or for Palin herself. She did not even come close to dissing conservatives the way Kathleen Parker did.
Why is it that when people write about political topics, they find it hard to hold on to their charity? Paul, don't defend yourself - I'm talking about Der Tomissar and Kathleen Parker.
OK, this is the last I'm going to say on this topic.
After rereading Noonan's WSJ columns published during the course of the campaign, it seems to me that she was quite willing to give Palin a fair hearing at first, and said many favorable things about her, but eventually concluded that Palin didn't succeed as a VP candidate. She felt Palin's approach was too scattershot, and not focused or serious enough. That is her opinion, which I don't fully agree with, but which I don't think is necessarily unreasonable or indefensible.
She also acknowledged that she was probably going to get a lot of flak from fellow conservatives for daring to question the direction of the McCain-Palin campaign. She was certainly right about that.
I don't think it is in any way fair to put her in the same category as Kathleen Parker or Christopher Buckley or others who, like Buckley, actually endorsed Obama for president. Not once has she said the GOP needs to ditch social conservatives, or that it should stop being pro-life or pro-family.
Ori, the answer to your question is that contempt drives out charity. Contempt is, in a real sense, the opposite of charity.
I struggle with this all the time, and often lose.
Bookworm, part of the issue I see with Noonan's piece is that she's changing the rules. "The Narrative" doesn't work for Republicans? It sure worked back in the 80's! Which, as you pointed out, Noonan really ought to know.
The thing with Palin is this: she was a huge success as a VP candidate. She was a rock star, she drew tens of thousands to her rallies, she re-energized a campaign which many had abandoned, and many more of us were waiting for the last straw to abandon.
To question Palin's qualifications while promoting Obama's is nothing more than partisanship, either for the Democrats, for liberalism, or, as I think in Noonan's case, for the beltway-New York insiders who held Palin's gubernatorial experience in disdain, while saluting Obama's community organizer experience.
And then to go on about what a great guy Obama was? The guy who said that the question of when a baby gets human rights was above his paygrade, so kill 'em anyway? What's gentlemanly, urbane, genteel, classy, or respectable about that?
Noonan deserves far worse from conservatives than she's likely to get.
You're free to disagree, but that's what I think.
I don't see anything wrong with "changing the rules" when you're in the middle of a completely different "game" that didn't even exist 20-plus years ago.
Reagan campaigned in the era when Big Three network TV defined presidential campaigns, and 24-hour news channels like CNN were still in their infancy. He was a master at handling that medium. But I wonder how would he have done today, with You Tube, Twitter, Fox, MSNBC, etc., not to mention gazillions of bloggers, calling attention to his every move, and exposing every inconsistency in his "narrative".
Ok, I have to say one more thing, on a different but related topic. (Non-Illinois residents feel free to tune out)
Of course social conservatives need to stand up for their principles. But I think this business of "purging" from the party or the movement anyone who shows the slightest deviation from the party line is already starting to do more harm than good.
Case in point: your favorite candidate for Illinois governor (and mine), Bill Brady, who is yet again being savaged by certain conservatives for not being conservative ENOUGH, despite the fact that he is pro-life, pro-family, a solid fiscal conservative and a good state legislator to boot.
Recently the Republicans in the Illinois Senate elected a new caucus leader. There were two main candidates: one (the eventual winner) who is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights, and the other who had made a TV ad endorsing Obama for president.
Brady -- who, unlike the current governor, knows that if he ever DOES become governor, he needs to cultivate, not alienate, legislators -- decided not to take either side, and abstained from voting for either one (as did one other state senator).
Now some conservatives, particularly the leader of one PAC group that bills itself as pro "family", are tearing him apart for being a coward, disloyal, sneaky, etc. and insisting they will not support his campaign. Do you think this is really going to help increase the chances of electing a good, reformist and actually PRO-LIFE governor in 2 years?
I don't see it that way. If Brady had abstained or voted "present" (like you know who) from an important vote on abortion, same sex marriage, taxation, schools, impeaching the governor, or some issue of great importance to ALL state residents, I could say yes, he failed to show leadership.
But this was merely an internal legislative vote that directly affects ONLY members of a tiny (less than 2 dozen people) General Assembly caucus on the wrong side of a veto-proof majority. In this case, I don't think he was "failing to show leadership" as much as he was picking his battles wisely and "keeping his powder dry" for when he really needs it.
This is what happens when we start "smacking down" people who embrace our principles because they don't agree with or play along with our political strategy.
Bookworm, I'm aware of that situation with Brady, I find it troubling. I would have preferred that he had voted for the more pro-life candidate for minority leader.
I think there is a level of frustration with Brady, because some aren't sure that he's really as pro-life as he says he is. I think that this is aggravated if he is perceived to care more about how pro-choicers feel than how pro-lifers feel.
But I very much appreciate your take on the matter.
Peggy wasn't that important to Reagan. If you read his diaries he doesn't mention her once.
Thanks. So what if he "cares how pro-choicers feel" as long as he maintains a clear pro-life stand and doesn't compromise how he votes? He needs every vote he can get (within reason and the bounds of integrity) to win.
I wonder how the people who aren't sure he's pro-life "enough" feel about letting hard-core liberal Dems get elected over and over again and keep running the state (right into the ground) until they find someone who's "good enough" for their taste.
I suppose they are perfectly happy with an Obama presidency and all that it implies because McCain wasn't good enough for their taste either?
So what if he "cares how pro-choicers feel" as long as he maintains a clear pro-life stand and doesn't compromise how he votes?
Except that some people feel he compromised by not voting for a pro-life minority leader in the Senate.
But I didn't notice so many of the Republican "moderates" coming out for Alan Keyes four years ago, either. Party unity is a two-way street.
This is a topic for another day, but I think social conservatives/pro-lifers are going to have to stop pinning their hopes on proven political losers like Jim Oberweis and Alan Keyes if they expect to make any progress.
Now, when I call them "proven political losers," I don't mean that as a personal insult, or a slur on their principles, intelligence, or character, but as a simple reflection of the fact that they have never held public office and have demonstrated they have very little if any chance of ever winning an election.
Yes, Keyes has been an eloquent public speaker and Oberweis has been a successful businessman (not to mention making really good ice cream), but let's face it, neither one has what it takes to win elections. (A lot of very good, intelligent people don't)
Someone like Bill Brady or newly elected Congressman Aaron Schock, on the other hand, has proven they can win elections at some level. Yes, they have all made mistakes or miscalculations along the way, but at least they have shown they CAN win.
I get sick of seeing certain Illinois Republicans, who ARE rightfully disgusted by the contempt the state party organization shows toward pro-lifers and social conservatives, go off the deep end in the other direction by throwing their votes and money away on people whom they KNOW cannot win. (Please don't tell me "they'd win if enough pro-life people turned out and voted for them." That's not going to happen and you know it.) If no available candidate is good enough just don't vote at all.
I agree that GOP candidates do need pro-lifers and social conservatives to win. They cannot afford to cast such voters aside. However, they cannot win on their votes ALONE either. There is going to have to be some appeal to people outside the "base" IN ADDITION to the base.
This is a topic for another day, but I think social conservatives/pro-lifers are going to have to stop pinning their hopes on proven political losers like Jim Oberweis and Alan Keyes if they expect to make any progress.
I agree with you; I'm not the one who imported Keyes, and I've never liked Oberweiss.
But I'm nervous -- and I think I'm not the only one -- about who is the right pro-life candidate to support. Right now, it looks like Brady, but a lot of conservatives don't like him because of the 2006 election.
Post a Comment