Peggy Noonan thinks the "liberal media" gave Bush a pass

[DaveSZ]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004954

[aquart]

1. Why would I care about anything Peggy Noonan says?

A sample paragraph might make me click on the link, but not blind.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vi5]

3. God, I fucking loathe that woman....

Seriously, I think probably even worse than Coulter. Noonan is just so smug, arrogant, self righteous, and condescending. I can just picture and hear her saying every word in that piece in her fucking smug little tone. Prefacing it like she does when Tweety Matthews gets her into a corner. "Christopher, Christopher, Christopher...."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DaveSZ]

6. I hate her too

I tend to agree with her though that the media could have destroyed Dubya like they did to Dean, but they didn't.

The only people we have on our side now are the late night comedians. :(

[TahitiNut]

18. Amen. Unctuous, smarmy, sycophantic, mendacious, oleaginous,

cloying, wheedling, nauseating, sanctimonious, pharisaical, perverted, servile reichswhore. :puke:

[Skittles]

4. Ms. Noonan is a certified Bush Whore

she has no credibility whatsoever.

[The Zanti Regent]

10. No, she's Reagan's concubine

Remember how obsessed she was with Poopy Pants' feet???????

[Zinfandel]

5. yeah like Helen Thomas...tossed to the back of the room, Because Thomas

who asking real questions that Bush's handlers didn't like and weren't scripted?
Noonan is a conservative cum dump for any right-wing liar!!!

[DaveSZ]

7. LOL

The entire WSJ editorial page is really a neocon cum dump.

:P

[eaprez]

8. This commentary doesn't say....

...what you think it says.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. In other news, my dog farted. n/t

[grasswire]

11. here's a few grafs

I noticed once again at the news conference that Mr. Bush has turned garrulous. He has taken to speaking at great length in venues of his choosing, and more and more he chooses. A week ago I took part in a seminar on book writing at a gathering of Republicans in Georgia. The president spoke to the gathering later that night, at an informal dinner for a few hundred, and I stayed on to watch. Everyone knew his remarks would be brief, but they were not. After an hour the governor of Florida, sitting behind him on the small stage, shifted like someone who knew big brother was going on too long, and finally threw a dinner roll at his back to make the point. I made the last part up, but Jeb Bush looked like someone trying to throw his voice: Wrap it up, buddy. Eventually the president did, with what seemed reluctance, after an hour and 20 minutes of a tour of his horizons, a personal and at times startlingly blunt appraisal of other leaders and the realities they face.

When I mentioned to a friend that I'd never heard of Mr. Bush speaking so long, the friend, who sees him often, said the president had recently spoken for more than an hour at a lunch, to the startlement of listeners who wound up furtively checking their watches. Another Washington denizen shared a similar story. This is unlike our president. I don't know what it means. I suspect it means his staff, having seen his effectiveness in small groups with this style, is telling him to do it for large groups, as he did at the news conference. This should be re-examined.

The president at the news conference did not seem unprepared or uninformed. He looked to me like someone who had been coached within an inch of his life and who insisted on yet more coaching late in the day, and who began the news conference with the kind of tiredness that first expresses itself not physically but intellectually. A subject is introduced and the smooth ivory dominoes do not begin to click into place one after another, as they do when one is fresh, or lucky. (I hereby retract that unfortunate image.) Instead one furrows his brow and shakes his head. Over-stimulated and wanting to yawn is a bad place to be.

(snip)
More and more it seems to me Mr. Bush is not only Bill Clinton's successor but his exact opposite: Mr. Clinton perfectly poised and hollow inside, a man whose lack of compass left him unable to lead within the Oval Office but who gave a compelling public presentation of the presidency, and Mr. Bush a strong president with an obvious soul, decisive at the desk, but with no dazzling edifice. It's actually amazing that two such different men came so close together. Lucky for us, considering the history, that Mr. Bush was the one who came now.

[mitchum]

12. I can't wait until that loon throws herself on Reagan's funeral pyre

[RedSock]

13. bush would kill

bush would kill for some of the drugs noonan is on ...

[CatWoman]

14. I had to respond to that article

my response:

Peggy Noonan takes her mouth off of Bush's penis long enough to sprout her inane drivel once again.

Hey Peg -- If Bush is/was as good as you say he is, why do you idiots constantly try to prop him up and try to convince the rest of us who knows that he's a worthless idiot daddy's boy who has NO BUSINESS in that office?

You can never, ever defend Bush -- all you can do is attack Bill Clinton.

Fuck you you whoring hag.

you can read all responses to her whore fest here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/responses.html?article_id=110004954

[Cat Atomic]

15. I don't get her point.

Is she saying that the mainstream press is liberal, and using their recent press conference performance as proof?

If she is, then how does that square with their treatment of Bush over the last for the last 4 years? From the 2000 election campaign through the WMD fraud, they propped him up tirelessly. They never asked a single relevant question. They were eerily similar to Noonan herself, in fact.

The fact that Bush's recent press conference stands out as unique in this respect only helps to weaken her premise.

I don't think Noonan is very sharp, to be honest. Or maybe she's just so ideological that she's acting more from faith than logic.

Either way, that article is nonsense.

[SemperEadem]

16. It's time to put the fallicy of the 'liberal media' to rest

The entertainment arm of the media (the movie studios)is liberal, but not the press/information dissemination arm of the media.. they are quite conservative, almost uber-conservative and exclusionary.

[gpandas]

17. i agree, and anyone who doesn't only needs to check out ..

"take back the media"

[erpowers]

19. If You Don't Agee Read Slander

I say this because in my opinion Ann Coulter's book proves there is no liberal media. First, throughout the book she lies. Second, most of the examples she used actually came from the opinion page. You may know that Republicans claim not to hate opinions; they just do not like opinions being stated in the news section of the paper.

Considering that Coulter had to lie and get her information from the opinion page there cannot be a liberal media bias. So if you think the media has a liberal bias just read Slander and then research the book. You will realize that the claim of a liberal media in just another Republican lie.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. A rebuttal, designed to give to conservatives

Noonan:
Imagine it is April, 1943 and FDR is meeting with the press. Mr. President, why did you fail us on Dec. 7? You call it a day of infamy, but didn't it reveal your leadership style to be infamous? Why did you let the U.S. fleet sit sleepy and exposed at Pearl Harbor? Do you think your physical infirmity, sir, has an impact on your ability to think about strategic concerns, and will you instruct your doctors to make public your medical records?

Or, imagine it is May, 1940, in Britain:
Following the debacle of the British expedition to Norway in April of 1940, Chamberlain found himself under siege in the House of Commons. On May 7 Leo Amery delivered a devastating indictment in the Norway Debate of Chamberlain's conduct of the war. In concluding his speech he quoted the words of Oliver Cromwell to the Long Parliament; "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go".

On May 10, the day of the invasion of The Netherlands, Belgium and France, finding it impossible to retain the support of the House of Commons, he resigned as Prime Minister to allow Winston Churchill to form a new national government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Note that Chamberlain was not forced to resign because of appeasement, but because he prosecuted the war badly.

If people always blindly supported a war leader who was screwing things up, where would we all be now? Dump the Shrub, before it's too late.