Peggy Noonan: Be Reasonable

[DesertFox]

...

My central problem [with Hillary] is that the next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial--crucial--that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.

More (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/)

[DesertFox]

America don't need no lying, corrupt, shouting, foul-mouthed nag as president.

[UnkHiram]

DF

What do you really think of her? Come on, speak up. You have got to learn to speak your mind and stop being so vague.

[Maggie_T]

Here are two reasonables: Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. They have been United States senators for a combined 62 years. They've read a raw threat file or two. They have experience, sophistication, the long view. They know how it works. No one will have to explain it to them.



Joe Biden and Chris Dodd reasonable?! Well, for once Peggy Noonan IS NOT being reasonable. How does 62 USELESS years in the Senate make one a reasonable choice for president? I mean, if it's just a matter of how long one's been warming a seat in the senate, wouldn't Robert Byrd be a more reasonable choice?

As for Biden and Dodd not needing explanations, yeah, just you wait till we get attacked again (and we will). It will take holy patience and determination to "explain" it to either of these two jokers that "it's not our fault," and that, no, "talking to the terrorists and stroking their hands," and generally caving in to the bastards will NOT make us safer in the future.



John McCain? Yes. Remember when he was the wild man in 2000? For Republicans on the ground he was a little outré, if Republicans on the ground said "outré," as opposed to the more direct "nut job." George W. Bush, then, was the moderate, more even-toned candidate. Times change. Mr. McCain is an experienced, personally heroic, seasoned, blunt-eyed, irascible American character. He makes me proud. He makes everyone proud.


Oh, no, he doesn't! Speak for yourself, sister. McCain does not make me proud. He makes me scared. His desperate need to be liked by liberals has already translated into the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold 1st Amendment Gag. I quake at the thought of what other mischief he could do to our Cosntitution in his pathological need for liberal approval.




Barack Obama? Yes, I think so. He has earned the attention of the country with a classy campaign, with a disciplined and dignified staff, and with passionate supporters such as JFK hand Ted Sorensen, who has told me he sees in Obama's mind and temperament the kind of gifts Kennedy displayed during the Cuban missile crisis. Mr. Obama is thoughtful, and it would be a pleasure to have a president who is highly literate and a writer of books.
Is he experienced enough? No. He's not old enough either. Men in their 40s love drama too much. Young politicians on fire over this issue or that tend to see politics as a stage on which they can act out their greatness. And we don't need more theatrics, more comedies or tragedies. But Mr. Obama doesn't seem on fire. He seems like a calm liberal with a certain moderating ambivalence. The great plus of his candidacy: More than anyone else he turns the page. If he rises he is something new in history, good or bad, and a new era begins.


Ah, yes. I see our Peggy joins the ranks of those who fell - line, hook, and sinker -for Obama's Lovey-Dovey Hallmark brand of campaigning. Yes, very reasonable. :rolleyes:

I suppose we should be grateful she seems to get it right where Hillary and Edwards are concerned. Then again, only angry dykes, castrated lefties, and self-perceived "disenfranchized" moonbats support those two basket cases, so I'm not sure that's a really reassuring point.

Peggy's sole concern seems to be how gracefully the loser will react to his/her not getting the WH. HUH?

See, guys? This is what I meant in another thread, where I mention that it's not only the candidates' "conservativism" we should be concerned with, but also that of (allegedly) "conservative" voters.

I know we say this every 4 years, but this is a most important election. Conservative candidates are less than stellar. So much so that many conservatives are considering staying at home in 2008, something we are not known to do often.

On the demunist side, we are threatened with the most radical bunch of lefties I can remember. All of them vying for MoveOn's and Daily Kos' approval. And please, don't tell me it's not so.

This is NOT the moment to waste time on irrelevant dissertations about the degree of graciousness in different candidates. And it is certainly not the time for the High Priests and Priestesses of Civil Discourse to indulge in unrequited graciousness towards demunists.

This is the time to make voters very well aware of what they are getting into if they become complacent. This is the time to tell them exactly what is behind the Hallmark-style of campaigning; what the consequence of giving in to the giddiness of having "the fist woman president" would be; what amount of credibility to give a millionaire shyster who bleats about the plight of the poor.

THAT is what conservative pundits should be doing, instead of making asses of themselves by using Ms. Mannerish "diplomacy."

This is NOT the time to be "reasonable." This is the time to be aware.

I'll take Ann Coulter over the High Priests and Priestesses of Civil Discourse anytime. Yes, she is blunt, acerbic, even unpleasant. But at least, she tells it like it is.

"Be reasonable," indeed. Let's begin by defining "reasonable," shall we. :flame:

[DesertFox]

What the Magster said. Peggy really let me down with this one.

[Maggie_T]

You know, Fox, I sometimes wonder if these people know something we don't. I still wince at the memory of Charles Krauthammer once saying that Hillary would not make such a bad president, after all. I'm sure he made some sort of justification for that, but I was too busy shooting through the roof, and going on one of my mega rants (the kind that makes Jim deplore that moment of rash excitement, in which he said "I do" without the benefit of legal counsel).

This was Charles Krauthammer, for crying out loud. IMHO, one of the most brilliant political analysts out there. I sincerely hope it was just a freak moment (we all have them) and that he had an isolated case of mental aberration.

And then, there was that other "conservative" pundit on townhall, I can't remember his name right now, who also said something to the effect of The Bitch being "a good choice; people just do not realize it," or braying to that effect. His next column was all about the loads of furious e-mails he got from his readers. But he did not go back on his words.

What going on here? Are these people convinced that it's going to be a demunist in the WH, and they are already "making nice" to whoever that would be, for safe measure?

The possibility of that positively chills the blood in my veins, I don't mind telling you. :flame: