PDA

View Full Version : Peggy Noonan on the Democrats


Rick Nebiolo
03-03-2003, 01:07 PM
If reading this doesn't make you a Peggy Noonan fan....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003143

~ Rick

andyfox
03-03-2003, 01:15 PM
Well, maybe you better finish your sentence, because it made me even less of a fan than before, which I didn't think was possible. What a complete crock. No doubt about it, the Republicans have the patent on sincerity and doing things for the good of the country. Give me a break.

Anyway, I'm still a big Rick Nebiolo fan, and that's much more important.

Regards,
Andy

HDPM
03-03-2003, 01:41 PM
Ironically, I was reading the Noonan article while Rick N. was posting it. I thought it was exceptional and accurate. I admit that many of her criticisms apply to Republicans as well; Republicans should take heed and watch that they don't merely become a coalition of single-issue, special-interest reactionaries. I criticize Republicans for being inconsistent, but they have a much more cohesive idea than Democrats right now. And look, in many respects Noonan is very left-wing. She wrote glowiningly of the Kennedys and was for extreme gun control even while saying there is a right to own guns. She is middle of the road and is solidly Republican now. Democrats should take heed. Moderate, blue-collar union type Democrats are gone. Well, they're not gone, but a lot vote Republican. No matter what the AlGores of the world say, the fact people like conservative media outlets and vote Republican is not some kind of brainwashing, but has a lot to do with what the liberals stand for and do. To be a successful party, the Democrats are going to have to figure out a new way to go about things.

Rick Nebiolo
03-03-2003, 02:07 PM
HDPM,

For a year or so I've been surfing www.realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com) for links to the best of political pundits and columns. Do you have any favorite links to blog type sites that are also worth a look?

~ Rick

HDPM
03-03-2003, 02:18 PM
No, I just usually link to columnists through Drudge. He lists a lot of columnists and newspapers, so that's what I normally check out. I have been reading Noonan more consistently than Buckley or Will. I even read Ivins and Breslin some. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

Rick Nebiolo
03-03-2003, 02:19 PM
Andy,

How about: "...then you are a committed liberal and will probably be one for life".

Weird tidbits:

Strange but true (more or less): In college and until I reached my mid twenties, I was to the left of John Cole politically. I used to be smarter than him too.

BTW, another favorite pundit is Michael Kelly. He is almost as good as George Will IMO. On this topic, I would love to here your recommendations for a reading list of pundits on the left least likely to make my retch. Avoid shrill voices if possible ;-).

Lastly, why would anybody be a Rick Nebiolo fan? I'm not even a Rick Nebiolo fan /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Regards,

Rick

andyfox
03-03-2003, 02:52 PM
How about: "...then you are a committed liberal and will probably be one for life".

-Yeah, I expected that, as I got older, I would become more conservative. Hasn't happened much, except on some social issues.

Weird tidbits:

Strange but true (more or less): In college and until I reached my mid twenties, I was to the left of John Cole politically. I used to be smarter than him too.

-I went the other way: I was pretty conservative through college (I got out in 1973) and went the other way in my mid-twenties. I was never smarter than John.

BTW, another favorite pundit is Michael Kelly. He is almost as good as George Will IMO. On this topic, I would love to here your recommendations for a reading list of pundits on the left least likely to make my retch. Avoid shrill voices if possible ;-).

-No one in particular. I read eclectically: Atlantic Monthly, which I know you read, is great; The New Yorker; The Nation for left views. I like Robert Scheer's stuff in the Times, but that may qualify for your retch list.

Lastly, why would anybody be a Rick Nebiolo fan? I'm not even a Rick Nebiolo fan.

-You're missing something really good.

Regards,
Andy

andyfox
03-03-2003, 03:33 PM
"I thought it was exceptional and accurate"

A part of "Pol Pots" animated by the spirit of Mao, Fidel and Ho?

Exceptional? Yes. Accurate? Hardly.

Disgustingly McCarthy-like: Exceptionally.

HDPM
03-03-2003, 04:19 PM
Well, there's always a danger comparing people to the worst dictators. But I re-read the article for context and don't get bent out of shape about it. There is a significant faction on the left who will forgive the transgressions of collectivist monsters, because they are themselves collectivists. This is prevalent in academia. And the radicalism in the 60's included aid and comfort to these folks. Kids in Berkeley helped Ho, radicals celebrated Che and Fidel and Ho, etc.... These people did not go away. And like Noonan I'm not talking simply of people who protested the war or whatever, but people who really hated America and apologized for (and in some cases helped) left-wing totalitarians.

andyfox
03-03-2003, 04:47 PM
These people had nothing to do with the Democratic Party. The party nominated Hubert Humphrey in 1968, not Eugene McCarthy. And it would not have nominated Robert Kennedy, no matter what you hear. In those days, the primaries were not delegate-electing primaries. Humphrey didn't even run in the California primary (Kennedy beat McCarthy) because he had the nomination sewn up.

The did nominate McGovern in 1972, but he was not a "collectivist," he simply saw the folly and the evil of the war.

The right has always accused progressives of being "collectivists." It is the right who questions the patriotism of people who are too far to the left for them, not the left that questions the patriotism of those who are too far right for them. It's one thing for an anonymous marcher to hold up a sign calling Bush the equivalent of Hitler. It's another for a nationally known writer like Noonan to call Democrats communists because she doesn't like what they say.

There were indeed people, in the 1960s, who felt there was a genuine opportunity for, if not revolution, a radical leftward restructuring of American politics. Those people did indeed go away, or moved into the mainstream. Tom Hayden ended up as a California assemblyman, for heaven's sake, and writing about being Irish.

There were people on the left who apologized for Stalin in the 1930s; there were people on the right who did the same for Hitler. There were no people in the White House on the left who said the Contras were the moral equivalent of the founding fathers. This was more than "aid and comfort." It was thugs murdering peasants, taught how to do so by our government, and being praised for it by our president.

I reread the article myself, and it is sheer fantasy. For example, Noonan asserts that the Democratic party only wants to thwart the "trek" of the current Republican president. Republicans, in Noonan's world, would never do this.

Did she happen to miss the presidency of Bill Clinton? The Republicans'special prosecutor felt Clinton should be impeached for having oral sex.

Now you know, HDPM, in what little regard I hold Mr. Clinton. But to say Republicans are guided by a higher morality and would never stoop to merely wanting to thwart the trek of a president from the opposing party merely becasue he was from the opposing party is hogwash, pure and simple.

I saw Bob Dole bemoaning the lack of civility in politics the other night. Crude propagandistic namecalling, like Ms. Noonan's piece, makes me agree with him.

hudini36
03-03-2003, 06:06 PM
It's sheer right wing, Bush loving, fascist garbage. You'll love it , I guess, as the Republicans move to ban internet gaming. You'll love it as the Republicans move to incarecerate without habeus corpus, or right to legal counsel. You'll love it until they come and take you away and put you in the labor camp. By then, it will be too late for poor imbeciles like you.

HDPM
03-03-2003, 06:12 PM
"But to say
Republicans are guided by a higher morality and would never stoop to merely
wanting to thwart the trek of a president from the opposing party merely
becasue he was from the opposing party is hogwash, pure and simple. "


Of course Republicans would thwart a president from another party just because he was from another party. I do think, however, that Republicans are better at bi-partisanship than Democrats, and not only because Republicans are worse at partisanship. But Noonan is correct that Republicans are less hypocritical than Democrats in holding their own people to standards. More Republicans lose their jobs for their transgressions than Democrats. Of course, Republicans are usually bigger hypocrits in terms of preaching about their personal morality than Democrats. This is why I have heard prostitutes do better at Republican conventions - at the Democratic conventions they do it with each other for free more, and with less guilt and shame, thereby taking business away from the hookers. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

HDPM
03-03-2003, 06:13 PM
Well, you convinced me with this great post.

John Cole
03-03-2003, 06:39 PM
Rick,

Peggy really is a great writer; in fact, she's so good that you could almost read this and think it makes sense. First, what "parties" is she thinking of? Socialist? Green Party? Cool Moose?

Next, she gives a few great examples of how the Republicans turned on their own. Lott! Nixon! C'mon, Peggy, say it like it is. They simply covered themselves, fearing any support would result in catastrophic loss of both face and elections.

And, all of this in only the first few paragraphs.

Rick, I tried, but I had trouble finishing although I did give her entire article a quick read. I promise to reread her "speech" (that's what it is) and if she makes a good point, I'll concede she has.

Nevertheless, I will concede she's writes fine speeches, and some of her Reagan speeches, especially the space shuttle speech, were works of art.

John

Zeno
03-04-2003, 12:30 AM
Before I become a Peggy No-man fan, I need to know one thing. Is she good at oral sex? /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

After reading her tirade, I rejoice that I am now on the right and moral side of politics by registering as a Republican almost one year ago. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

-Zeno

John Cole
03-04-2003, 11:51 AM
Rick,

I read the rest of Noonan's speech, and, of course, I can't find much to praise, except perhaps for her admiration of Adlai Stevenson, who once said, "In America anybody can grow up to be president. That's just the chance you'll have to take." (Isn't that enough to merit admiration?)

Note her highly unethical wording when she calls the Democrats the pro-abortion party. Wouldn't you object if I called the Republicans the anti-women party. Furthermore, she attempts to polarize an issue that many Americans really aren't that extreme about to begin with. Remember, polls show that 70% of Americans favor a woman's right to choose, but also oppose abortion as a means of birth control. Noonan, though, can't seem to accept this, and her stance should provoke readers to question her inflammatory rhetoric.

She also asserts that Democrats are snobs--and, losing all credulity, uses busing in Boston to make her case. In another end run, she accuses the Dems of robbing poor people through unjust taxes. (Conveniently, she can't quite remember if she gave the poor woman who had lost her money a handout. Yet, her memory seems not to have failed her when recalling other significant moments from her past.)

Andy has already provided trenchant commentary on Noonan's association of the Democrats with Mao, et al., amd I think you must even find her position at least vague here, if not completely duplicitious.

I think, though, what bothers me most about Noonan's writing--and much conservative rhetoric as well--is the buried claim that the past was--and always will be--better than the present. If we could only recapture what has gone by, we'd once again take possession of the Garden of Eden. At best, this prelapsarian fantasy pictures a world that never truly existed to begin with, and, at worst, it keeps us from imagining a present and future filled with possibility.

Noonan wishes to reclaim a vision of the past that never was, and, yet, she can't remember if she gave the woman on the subway a few bucks. I'd remember, and I know you would, too.

John

brad
03-04-2003, 12:01 PM
'Note her highly unethical wording when she calls the Democrats the pro-abortion party. Wouldn't you object if I called the Republicans the anti-women party.'

i dont really see the point there. on the issue of abortion, the democrats are all for it. i dont see a corresponding issue of 'women'.

John Cole
03-04-2003, 12:29 PM
brad,

Okay then, Republicans are the "backroom abortion" party or the "birth-a-rapist's-child" party (and, I'll conveniently forget the statistics about how many women become pregnant as the result of rape).

If you can't see how pro-choice and women's rights are related, I don't know what to say.

John

brad
03-04-2003, 12:44 PM
well d think abortion should be legal and (some) r think it shouldnt be.

seems like everything else is just semantics.

i mean , would it be better if she said that ' the d are in favor of keeping abortion legal'?

i mean it means the same thing?

if you think abortion is ok then why are you trying to call it something else (and attacking people who call abortion abortion and people who favor keeping abortion legal as people who favor keeping abortion legal?)

adios
03-04-2003, 01:09 PM
If the religous right all of a sudden stated they were pro choice, the Republicans running for election would all of a sudden become pro choice. Likewise if for some reason feminists decided abortion should be illegal the Democrats running for election would be anti-abortion. Each party has their core constituencies which they pander to. Supporters of neither party can claim they take the moral high road IMO.

John Cole
03-04-2003, 01:18 PM
brad,

I'm really only attacking--and that word is too strong--Noonan's attaching the label of "pro-abortion" to the Democratic party. And, no, it's not just a matter of semantics because what we choose to call things has a very real bearing on how we look at the world. Don't get me wrong; I am not in *favor* of abortion, but that's hardly relevant. Noonan's playing the semantics game, and if I said all Republicans were in favor of women having rapists' babies, I would be playing the same game. At least I know that's not ethical. Your approach--abortion should or shouldn't be legal--reduces a complex argument to a simple either/or choice, and, I think, fails to address all the ramifications of real arguments that swirl around this question.

John

Rick Nebiolo
03-04-2003, 01:18 PM
John,

You wrote: " Rick, I read the rest of Noonan's speech,"

If it sounds like a speech it should, since she wrote it in the form of a letter to her friend.

"and, of course, I can't find much to praise, except perhaps for her admiration of Adlai Stevenson, who once said, "In America anybody can grow up to be president. That's just the chance you'll have to take." (Isn't that enough to merit admiration?)

Stevenson was good with words. BTW, in the fifties' the Democrats were a different party. I would have voted with them back then.

"Note her highly unethical wording when she calls the Democrats the pro-abortion party."

She actually wrote: " but a party of often warring pressure groups. The pro-abortion lobby, the affirmative-action lobby, other lobbies.

I agree that pro-life lobby would have been better, but it isn't highly unethical. That issue uses polarizing rhetoric on both sides.

"Wouldn't you object if I called the Republicans the anti-women party.'

Yes. It would be a cheap shot and an unfair analogy. So called "woman's issues" aren't as ideological or polarized as the abortion (ok, right to chose) issue. There are many woman's issues (or issues that have greater importance to women in general), and in many cases the conservative or Republican positions on issues are favored by women.

"Furthermore, she attempts to polarize an issue that many Americans really aren't that extreme about to begin with. Remember, polls show that 70% of Americans favor a woman's right to choose, but also oppose abortion as a means of birth control. Noonan, though, can't seem to accept this, and her stance should provoke readers to question her inflammatory rhetoric."

Read the following passage again.

" The Democratic Party has grown not less radical on abortion, but more. Your party won't even agree to ban third-term abortions--which is the abortion of a baby who looks and seems fully human and capable of life because he is. The Democrats oppose parental consent even in the cases of 14-year-olds who are themselves children. It opposes directing doctors to inform frightened young women before an abortion is performed that there are other options, other possible paths.

This is so radical. So out of touch with the feeling and thought of the vast middle of the country. So at odds with our self-image as a nation. We think we try to protect the vulnerable. We think we're kind.

Read stripped of your filter, Noonan's comments are reasonable IMO. The Democrats are the party out of touch here.

"She also asserts that Democrats are snobs--and, losing all credulity, uses busing in Boston to make her case."

She primarily makes her case using gun control and other issues. She makes a good case IMO.

"In another end run, she accuses the Dems of robbing poor people through unjust taxes."

I reread the essay. I can't find anything remotely resembling what you alluded to above. Perhaps a quote from the text would help me.

(Conveniently, she can't quite remember if she gave the poor woman who had lost her money a handout. Yet, her memory seems not to have failed her when recalling other significant moments from her past.)

At first, her not remembering giving the women money struck me as odd too. But I just rethought this. My guess she probably gave the woman money and probably remembers it. But she might have wanted to sound self-effacing, and decided to write that "I helped her report it and I think I gave her money."


"Andy has already provided trenchant commentary on Noonan's association of the Democrats with Mao, et al., and I think you must even find her position at least vague here, if not completely duplicitious."

Maybe.

"I think, though, what bothers me most about Noonan's writing--and much conservative rhetoric as well--is the buried claim that the past was--and always will be--better than the present."

Well, I can't argue with buried claims. I'd just like to see you address the specific passages above.

<snip more "buried claim of the past" stuff>

"yet, she can't remember if she gave the woman on the subway a few bucks. I'd remember, and I know you would, too."

I may or may not remember (I'm very worried about losing memory these days), but I might very well write it the same way as Noonan did unless giving the money was central to the story. I'm self-effacing /forums/images/icons/grin.gif as you well know.

BTW, we should get Andy and Nancy online on this forum to join the argument. Getting together once every few years in their kitchen just isn't enough. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Regards,

Rick "the imbecile"

brad
03-04-2003, 01:22 PM
'Your approach--abortion should or shouldn't be legal--reduces a complex argument to a simple either/or choice, and, I think, fails to address all '

i dont know maybe im pretty dumb but after weighing all factors youre either in favor of abortion being legal or youre not. and if you are i dont think its a big deal although now i think i know what you mean youre saying a lot of people might think the d are *promoting* abortion. but i think most people who hear pro-abortion just think the group is in favor of keeping abortion legal.

John Cole
03-04-2003, 01:50 PM
Rick,

Probably I made a little too much out of her concluding remarks about the R's leaving more money in people's pockets and reducing the size of government. (Of course, I do need to keep reminding myself how much extra money I have now every time I marvel at the shrinking federal government now that we have Bush in office. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif ). Perhaps the mantra is now so familiar I unfairly judged Noonan as guilty by association--sorry for the McCarthyism.

I do agree that D's hurt themselves with unqualified support of all abortions, but responsible people at abortion clinics do provide counseling to all who wish to have abortions. (And, I think this will most likely get me into trouble, but I'm not sure notifying parents is a good idea.) No, I don't think Democrats are out of touch with the majority of Americans on this issue at all.

She says that the Dems are are party of warring pressure groups and then raises the "pro-abortion" group. I don't think I'm reading her intent wrongly, but she could pull a Quadnines and back out of this one. I will concede your point, though.

Rick, reread the passage on busing in Boston. Noonan knows full well the problem was not the distance that students were forced to travel, and to even utter this suggests her understanding of race relations in the US died with her early idealism.

Finally, you don't really beleive she's self-effacing, do you? I know you are, and you wouldn't have included any mention of this.

One final point: she demonstrates that Bush reaches out to the great middle class and its values, yet she fails to look at how the great middle class looks at the abortion issue at the same time.

John

John Cole
03-04-2003, 01:52 PM
brad,

You're absolutely right. The longer people hear "pro-abortion" the more they see the issue framed in exactly that terminology.

John

andyfox
03-04-2003, 02:24 PM
I read Noonan's diatribe one more time.

Noonan calls the Democrats are snobbish, irresponsible, unserious, thoughtless, childish, classless, infant killers, radical, confused, bitter, destructive, communist, radical, corrupt, unprincipled, and incoherent.

Talk about classless and childish.

Rick Nebiolo
03-04-2003, 02:59 PM
Andy,

I'm slurping my last sip before zooming out the door to work but tell me for example where she calls the Democrats "infant killers" or "communist".

Regards,

Rick

snakehead
03-04-2003, 07:41 PM
I especially liked the part about dems being responsible for the old woman being robbed. makes sense to me.

why do republicans continue to harp on clinton? have any of them noticed that he's not in office any more? and why did they hate him so much when he was in office, even prior to monica? would you feel better if we just said that he was a good president but not a good man?

of course democrats aren't as well organized as republicans. we're too busy going to artsy movies and getting in touch with our true feelings. what else would you expect from the people who are responsible for the moral decay of american society?

sheesh indeed.

andyfox
03-05-2003, 12:41 AM
Infant killers:

"no political party primarily funded, supported and led by fierce pro-abortionists, by people whose great interest in life is seeing to it that the right to kill infants is retained, can long endure."

"Your party won't even agree to ban third-term abortions--which is the abortion of a baby who looks and seems fully human and capable of life because he is."

Communists:

"The mistake the Democrats made was to allow their antiwar movement to become infused with bitterness and hostility, with a spirit of destructiveness. By the end the animating spirit of the movement looked something like this: We do not love this place; we prefer leaders unsullied by the grubby demands of electoral politics; we are drawn to the ideological purity of Ho, Fidel, Mao. And by the way we're taking over: Oppose our vision and we'll take care of you by revolutionary means."

"how can you find time to do that when you're busy reforming society top to bottom like little Pol Pots?"

brad
03-05-2003, 01:14 AM
well on abortion i think shes factually correct, hey lets live with it its ugly.

on communists i think it applies very narrowly ( j. fonda, berkeley, etc.)

andyfox
03-05-2003, 01:39 AM
It's factually true that the Democratic Party is led by people whose great interest in life is to see to it that the right to kill infants is preserved?

What do Jane Fonda and the 1960s Berkeley radicals have to do with the Democratic party in 2003? What politician running for national or even statewide office would want to have the public support of Jane Fonda?

Also, on what basis do you consider Fonda a Communist? Seems to me she's been a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist. Trying to stop the war was an act of patriotism. The traitors were the criminals who prosecuted the war.

brad
03-05-2003, 01:46 AM
actually my point is there are (small) elements in d party for whom its true thats all.

as far as fonda she supported n.v. and acted against us soldiers and pows if mental illness among v. vets was as prevelent as is said shed be dead dead dead.

i agree if us people rational kissenger up on war crimes no doubt.

andyfox
03-05-2003, 01:55 AM
Well, there may be some members of the Democratic party who are Communist, I doubt there are any whose main purpose in life is to allow the killing of infants. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are (small) elements of both, it would be wrong to define the party by these fringe elements. I could just as easily call the Republican party the party of racists and warmongers.

I have no doubt Ms. Fonda is despised by a greater number of Americans than most other famous movie stars for her activities during the war. I reiterate that those who did what they could to stop the United States from murdering peasants performed a great service to their country.

Jimbo
03-05-2003, 02:14 AM
I reiterate that those who did what they could to stop the United States from murdering peasants performed a great service to their country. What a putrid sickening statement!

brad
03-05-2003, 02:17 AM
well you say communists and think one thing,

but

something like 1/3 of boys in school are on mind altering drugs (ritalin, etc.), prozac has just been approved for kids (i think it has already been prescribed anyway but now floodgates are open)

kids banned from playing tag

kids expelled for going bang bang with their finger (6 , 7 year olds)

etc.

school lockdowns, training kids to be prisoners, etc.

so you can see society really has been changed.

i mean sure when you go to college or school or whatever nowadays no one is called 'nigger', but ill tell you from first hand experience i was called a 'rapist' just because im a guy (by the feminists, some of them teachers, at university).

just kinda think about it in a you know gist of what im saying way.

andyfox
03-05-2003, 02:21 AM
What do you find putrid and sickening? I find it sickening that the deliberate policy of my government was to murder peasants.

andyfox
03-05-2003, 02:25 AM
"just kinda think about it in a you know gist of what im saying way."

I don't know what you're saying, sorry, try me again.

HDPM
03-05-2003, 02:49 AM
Jane Fonda's actions were horrible. There is a difference between protesting the war and supporting the enemy. I suppose the line can get blurry sometimes, but Jane's conduct was so far over the line it is not unclear. Generally the difference is apparent. Students who marched with signs protesting the war were not traitors. We can disagree on the merit of their position etc... The students at Berkeley who sent aid to the Viet Cong were traitors. They did nothing to stop our government legitimately, rather they gave aid and comfort to an enemy. An enemy that was as accomplished at killing peasants as the US government, although they went about it differently. Grayer areas are American students illegally dodging the draft who protest the war on foreign soil. If they carry the flag of the enemy while doing so, I think it is treason and probably should result in losing citizenship. I don't know if Clinton actually carried a foreign flag while doing so, though. I have heard he did. the only legitimate excuse for such conduct is if the person engaging in it works for US intelligence agencies. At least one Oxford student suspected Clinton of doing that.

brad
03-05-2003, 03:12 AM
well do u agree with those things like 1/3 of all boys being doped up on ritalin so theyll act like little girls?

its part of the liberal agenda.

andyfox
03-05-2003, 03:43 AM
No, I don't.

First of all, where's the evidence for 1/3 of all boys being on ritalin? I know you've mentioned this before, is this a fact? And where is the evidence that it's done to make them act like little girls? And if so, how is part of the liberal agenda?

brad
03-05-2003, 04:01 AM
'And more and more typical school kids are getting hooked on it. In fact, close to four million American children are taking it under doctors' orders every day'

http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-99/04-19-99/b04op053.htm

-----------------------------

a)i dont know i know a lot of kids are though. just the first link that popped up on the web.

b) what else do u call getting boys to shut up and behave themselves and not ask questions (cause boys hog class time and dont let girls get in on discussions ... etc.)

c) feminists are liberals. seriously everything that is not rrr in schools is a liberal agenda to hard right, heh.

andyfox
03-05-2003, 04:01 AM
Assuming we agreed that Fonda stepped over the line, I would still be much more upset over what my government did, as a matter of national policy, than what one movie star did, or a few (hundred?) Berkeleyites, or Bill Clinton at Oxford. The United States was a much more efficient death machine than the political assassination methods of its enemy: we dropped three times the tonnage of bombs dropped in all of World War II on an area smaller than California, most of it on South Vietnam, the "country" we were supposed to be defending.

Again, how about if I concede the point that Jane Fonda and Bill Clintons are pieces of sh*t? In my book, this means nothing compared to my government acting in evil ways, and lying to us about it in Orwellian fashion. And that, in a nutshell, is my problem with Ms. Noonan. She sees Jane Fonda, and the students at Berkeley, and Bill Clinton, and paints half of the electorate with the same brush. She praises the Democratic party of the 1950s and early 1960s; c'mon, we know she would have opposed the people and policies she faintly praises with 20-20 hindsight.

andyfox
03-05-2003, 04:04 AM
Well, about the only thing I agree with is that getting boys to behave themselves is indeed getting them to act more like girls.

And now, to quote my friend Rick Nebiolo, I'm tired--goodnight.

brad
03-05-2003, 04:05 AM
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ritalin+feminist&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=356d96e6.7819404%40news.tor.sfl.net&rnum= 2

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ritalin+feminist&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=vKXz3.304%24Vc1.54969%40news1.epix.net&rnum =1


ok last link says like 1/6 of boys (in virginia) but its four years old and maybe its like 1/3 of boys 5-12 or something. also it says girls on it but hey what can i say

adios
03-05-2003, 07:19 AM
"I could just as easily call the Republican party the party of racists and warmongers.

I have no doubt Ms. Fonda is despised by a greater number of Americans than most other famous movie stars for her activities during the war. I reiterate that those who did what they could to stop the United States from murdering peasants performed a great service to their country. "

Methinks that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed by a Congress with a large Democratic majority. The resolution was sponsored by a Democratic president and the war was waged by a Democratic president. Also a Republican was the president when the USA involvment in Viet Nam was ended upon his initiative something the Democrats seemed to have to clue on how to accomplish.

adios
03-05-2003, 07:35 AM
Actually I've had quite a bit of experience in dealing with ADHD, public schools (well Albuquerque Public Schools), and to a lesser degree Ritalin. If you have a child that truely does have ADHD, you would probably be better off home schooling that child in subjects that they were having problems in than prescribing Ritalin and going through the special education process mandated by law (not Ritalin). Just my opinion through experience. I actually did this BTW. I have problems administering such a drug to a child and my experiences have shown me that at least part of the problem rests with the public school system itself.

Chris Alger
03-05-2003, 08:08 AM
Why is it interesting that Peggy Noonan wrote her thousandth puff piece on Bush and the Republicans? Has she ever written anything else but these strings of adjectives and adulations for her partisan heroes?

Can you imagine Murray Kempton or Walter Lippman putting their names to something like this? Of course, they were actually paid to think. Other scribes (Like Lippman) moonlit as speechwrites, but Noonan has never been anything but a sloganeer and coiner of catchy phrases. More interesting than anything she says is the Wall Street Journal's choice to feature her so regularly on one of the most widely-read op ed pages. Since our world is increasingly dominated by the seemingly inexplicable, it's important to let the PR folks provide context consisting of silly fluffed-up impressions of polticians as superheroes.

What can you say about multilayered nonsense like this?

"A recent illustration: President Bush broke through to the great middle of America and persuaded them we must move in Iraq. He didn't "break through" anything because nothing stood between the people and the official messages that dominate the airwaves. Bush and his phalanx of subordinates and supportive commentators have been on TV hourly for months saying the same thing again and again. How could it have been possible for them to fail? As a result, the vast majority of the public believe that Iraq is a nuclear power even though it unquestionably isn't, and that it was tied to bin Laden on 9/11, despite the lack of any evidence and an expert consensus that says it's bullshit He was able to do this not because the presidency is the Big Microphone (how could media concentration and technology have made TR's bully pulpit less powerful?) --President Clinton used to complain that Rush Limbaugh had the big microphone (no, Clinton complained that talk radio was dominated by right-wingers, which it unarguably is) --but because he honestly believed, in his head and his heart, he was acting to make our country and other countries safer. So it's not the White House's famous "focus" on consistency of message and the deference from the media, it's that people have a magical ability to peer inside Bush's body and soul to determine the truth of what he says. It's like she's reaching for some higher plateau of fatuousness). Maybe history will show him right and maybe not, but people can tell his passion springs from conviction." Setting aside how this applies to Hitler, how can people possibly "tell" if Bush has any passion at all, much less passion that "springs from conviction?" Voice intonation? Many people are alarmed about the things he says because he lies and exaggerates and no one calls him on it in the headlines. It isn't that people can tell he has convictions, it's that his credibility is a matter of ubiquitous assumption throughout the mainstream media. Every President gets this treatment from the media when it comes to foreign policy -- no one objected to Clinton's pointless killing in Sudan because the media didn't tell them about it -- It's the truth about illicit sex that the media are expert at ferreting out because it doesn't affect the consensus of the dominant institutions. Once that consensus gels, any glib unlearned halfwit who owns more horses than books can sell it, as Reagan and Dubya have shown.

John Cole
03-05-2003, 09:24 AM
Chris,

Last night CNN ran Bush's early appraisal of Vladimir Putin in which he peered into Putin's eyes, saw his soul, and knew that it was good. As you suggest, I guess we're supposed to do the same with Bush.

Well, during a session when the press actually got to ask Bush questions, he clearly defined for the press that they would be "allowed" one two-part question. When one reporter attempted to probe a little deeper, Bush made one of those stern, pissed-off faces, and told the reporter that he had gone too far, and he also reminded him that he had done such things in the past. (I guess this is what happens when reporters don't ask the right stuff in the proper format.) I looked into Bush's eyes but missed the soul.

andyfox
03-05-2003, 01:38 PM
The escalation of American involvement in Vietnam did indeed take place under the auspices of LBJ; the Tonkin resolution was shephereded through the senate by Senator Fulbright; and the troop build-up and methods of fighting the war were a Democratic administration production.

The war then dragged on for many more years under a Republican president who claimed he had a "secret plan" to end the war. This secret plan was to act as a mad man and threaten nuclear bombing. The pathological lying by Johnson and McNamara was continued in spades by Nixon and Kissinger. They then ended the U.S. involvement on essentially the same terms they could have gotten four years earlier. They fully intended to reinvade Vietnam when the North Vietnamese violated the agreement, as they knew they would.

Plenty of blame to go around on all sides, to be sure.

brad
03-05-2003, 02:37 PM
california (and presumabley other states but i CA for sure) has recently declared home schooling illegal unless parent has a teaching certificate or whatever (ie, qualified to teach in public schools).

so you would be a criminal in california today.

adios
03-05-2003, 11:09 PM
"The war then dragged on for many more years under a Republican president who claimed he had a "secret plan" to end the war."

Doubtful someone could get elected today on that kind of a "platform." In retrospect, in true Orwellian fashion his plan to end the war was an escalation of the carpet bombing of North Vietnam and widening the fronts to incursions into Cambodia and Laos (if memory serves). The 1968 Presidential campaign didn't offer the voters much to choose from. HHH represented the status quo which was horrible; RMN had a plan to end the war but wouldn't tell the electorate which furthered his reputation as "tricky Dick" and third party candidate George Wallace, with Curtis "bombs away" LeMay as his running mate, spouting "We need to quit pussy footin around over there" as if B-52 carpet bombing, napalm, agent orange, etc. was "pussy footin around." Wallace had some other distasteful ideas as well (huge understatement). In the end I guess the voters thought "tricky Dick" was the best alternative or the least reviled one.

andyfox
03-05-2003, 11:58 PM
With the election getting close, the Nixon team sabotaged the Paris peace talks. They privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers than an incoming Nixon regime would give them a better deal than they would get from the Democrats. The South Vietnamese withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election. Here is what Clark Clifford said about this:

"The activities of the Nixon team went far beyond the bounds of justifiable political combat. It constituted direct interference in the activities of the executive branch and the responsibilities of the Chief Executive, the only people with authority to negotiate on behalf of the nation. The activities of the Nixon campaign constituted a grosss, even potentially illegal, interference in the security affairs of the nation by private individuals."

Having got away with what I see as this act of treason, the Nixon team may well have felt that this undermining of the Democrat's Vietnam strategy had produced the margin of victory for them in a close election. They got away with it because the matter was never investigated with any degree of rigor by the press or anyone else. As the same men faced the election of 1972, there was nothing in their previous exprience with an operation of doubtful legality to scare them off. Ergo Watergate.

adios
03-06-2003, 12:26 AM
After reading your post I was thinking that it's a good thing that USA citizens are much more skeptical of what their government tells them now. The fact that someone could actually win a presdential election with a secret plan that he wasn't willing to go on the record about indicates to me that the electorate is much different now. I can't imagine how much Nixon would have been skewered today by proposing something so outlandish today. My cynicism for "inside the beltway" politics is unfortunate and something that I probably need to think about some more. Anyway I'm fairly certain that an objective evaluation of Republican and Democratic congressional voting would show that there isn't as much difference between the two parties as some might believe. The way I see things is that the congressional Republicans acted poorly (non statesman like) during the Clinton administration (flame away) and that it had a tremendous polarizing effect. Couple that with the presidential election of 2000 and the two parties seem to be almost at war with each other. I don't think the congressional Democrats have acted very well during this administration (non statesman like). Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me that much more bi-partesinship is needed, especially in these times. Perhaps Ms. Noonan should take note of the need for bi-partisenship as well.

andyfox
03-06-2003, 01:10 AM
Surprise, surprise, I agree with 100% of what you say. I would add that the behavior of the Congressional Democrats during the impeachment was as shameful as that of the Republicans.