Peggy Noonan os Sara Paulin's acceptance speech.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122059352189503479.html

The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2008 4:48 p.m. EDT.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote: link to Wall Street Journal's editorial section.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pardon me while I throw up.

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Peggy Noonan os Sara Paulin's acceptance speech.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122059352189503479.html

The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2008 4:48 p.m. EDT.

Joe Gwinn


And then what she really thought was:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Noonan is just a good two-faced Republicon hack.

"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Peggy Noonan os Sara Paulin's acceptance speech.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122059352189503479.html

The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2008 4:48 p.m. EDT.

Joe Gwinn


And then what she really thought was:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Noonan is just a good two-faced Republicon hack.

She had to write a really good column for Palin after that on-mike
commentary got out.

"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Peggy Noonan os Sara Paulin's acceptance speech.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122059352189503479.html

The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2008 4:48 p.m. EDT.

Joe Gwinn


And then what she really thought was:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Noonan is just a good two-faced Republicon hack.

Not quite. Noonan is a washed-up conservative political advisor who's made a
nest for herself, as a political windbag for Rupert Murdoch's new toy
newspaper.

--
Ed Huntress

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Peggy Noonan os Sara Paulin's acceptance speech.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122059352189503479.html

The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2008 4:48 p.m. EDT.

Joe Gwinn


And then what she really thought was:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Noonan is just a good two-faced Republicon hack.

She had to write a really good column for Palin after that on-mike
commentary got out.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's reparations.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 08:30:42 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Peggy Noonan os Sara Paulin's acceptance speech.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122059352189503479.html

The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2008 4:48 p.m. EDT.

Joe Gwinn


And then what she really thought was:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

I'll bet the network heads said more than "OOPS!" on that one.
Did an Obammer slip into the sound booth for a minute?


Noonan is just a good two-faced Republicon hack.

She had to write a really good column for Palin after that on-mike
commentary got out.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's reparations.

Baberham Lincoln? LOL! I hadn't heard that one yet. So, was this
whitewash a Noonan idea or her boss'?

She ended it with a depressing tone. I disagree with her McCain/Palin
= war vs. Obama bin Biden = peace, though. (My ad-lib)

--
Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.
---- --Unknown

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Not quite. Noonan is a washed-up conservative political advisor who's made a
nest for herself, as a political windbag for Rupert Murdoch's new toy
newspaper.

Was that youtube earlier in thread worth watching?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Not quite. Noonan is a washed-up conservative political advisor who's made
a
nest for herself, as a political windbag for Rupert Murdoch's new toy
newspaper.

Was that youtube earlier in thread worth watching?

The one in which Noonan and Mike Murphy didn't know they were being
recorded? It's not a very big deal, actually. Murphy said that choosing
Palin was a cynical move for McCain, and Noonan said something
uncomplementary, although I forget exactly what it was.

The most interesting thing about it is that it's another example of how
different their attitudes about individual politicians are on the record,
versus off. It's short and you may find it entertaining.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've thought that Peggy Noonan is an
overrated windbag for 25 years or so. She's an interesting writer, but her
opinions sound thin and sophomoric to me.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Was that youtube earlier in thread worth watching?

The one in which Noonan and Mike Murphy didn't know they were being
recorded? It's not a very big deal, actually. Murphy said that choosing
Palin was a cynical move for McCain, and Noonan said something
uncomplementary, although I forget exactly what it was.

I can't remember either. I watched the video, didn't really do much for me.

The most interesting thing about it is that it's another example of how
different their attitudes about individual politicians are on the record,
versus off. It's short and you may find it entertaining.

I always do. I value consitancy. Even that of those I do not agree with. After a while,
we tend to put people in columns in order to save wasting time on figuring out each time
where they stand in relation to our values. I value a consitant pol that stays where I
placed him. The inconsistant one is the worse of the bunch. Like a dog that may or may
not bite you and might lull you into dropping your watch until you get bit.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've thought that Peggy Noonan is an
overrated windbag for 25 years or so. She's an interesting writer, but her
opinions sound thin and sophomoric to me.

The longer I have listened or read her the less I have enjoyed it. After all these are
speech writers. They only get their words read if the politician agrees with the
positions expressed.

IIRC, Peggy was in the R. Reagan administration, I wonder how many times Ronnie sent her
work back for rewrite or just did it himself.

It is sad, Lincoln wrote his own speeches and some were masterpieces, I wonder when the
speech writer come into common usage. I would prefer to hear a pol speak his or hers own
words on their own. I can ignore any roughness, I'm more interested on plain truth and
honest intention.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:59:54 -0400, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Peggy Noonan os Sara Paulin's acceptance speech.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122059352189503479.html

The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2008 4:48 p.m. EDT.

Joe Gwinn


And then what she really thought was:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Noonan is just a good two-faced Republicon hack.


Spoken like a true Useful Idiot.

"Wes" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Was that youtube earlier in thread worth watching?

The one in which Noonan and Mike Murphy didn't know they were being
recorded? It's not a very big deal, actually. Murphy said that choosing
Palin was a cynical move for McCain, and Noonan said something
uncomplementary, although I forget exactly what it was.

I can't remember either. I watched the video, didn't really do much for
me.

I remember now. Noonan was asked if Palin was the most qualified woman, to
which she answered "No." Then she said that the Republicans weren't going
for the most qualified, but were looking for a "narrative," and that every
time they do that they blow it.


The most interesting thing about it is that it's another example of how
different their attitudes about individual politicians are on the record,
versus off. It's short and you may find it entertaining.

I always do. I value consitancy. Even that of those I do not agree with.
After a while,
we tend to put people in columns in order to save wasting time on figuring
out each time
where they stand in relation to our values. I value a consitant pol that
stays where I
placed him. The inconsistant one is the worse of the bunch. Like a dog
that may or may
not bite you and might lull you into dropping your watch until you get
bit.

Well, that's not a simple issue, IMO. At one level, I expect them to have a
solid set of principles, but I also expect them to be confident and smart
enough to change their minds when circumstances change, or when their
thinking evolves with experience. Not being capable of re-thinking a problem
is what got Bush into a deep hole.

The trick is to sort out the ones whose thinking has grown in depth and
understanding from those who just flip-flop for the sake of expediency.
That's where I'm trying to judge Palin right now. Flipping on earmarks, the
Bridge to Nowhere, taxes (she ran up taxes in a major way, both as mayor and
as governor, plus there's the flip-flop on windfall profits) and so on looks
like expediency to me. I'd really like to hear her answer those issues, and
to have to confront them under serious questioning. Maybe she has good
reasons, but we haven't heard them. And I care less about what her positions
are, or were, than about whether she's a Karl Rove-styled phony.


In the interest of full disclosure, I've thought that Peggy Noonan is an
overrated windbag for 25 years or so. She's an interesting writer, but her
opinions sound thin and sophomoric to me.

The longer I have listened or read her the less I have enjoyed it. After
all these are
speech writers. They only get their words read if the politician agrees
with the
positions expressed.

IIRC, Peggy was in the R. Reagan administration, I wonder how many times
Ronnie sent her
work back for rewrite or just did it himself.

It is sad, Lincoln wrote his own speeches and some were masterpieces, I
wonder when the
speech writer come into common usage. I would prefer to hear a pol speak
his or hers own
words on their own. I can ignore any roughness, I'm more interested on
plain truth and
honest intention.

Good luck. I think those days are gone. A good tagline or one good speech
can get a politician elected today. They're going to hire the best writers
they can get.

They learned this from advertising.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Good luck. I think those days are gone. A good tagline or one good speech
can get a politician elected today. They're going to hire the best writers
they can get.

They learned this from advertising.



Can't help this Ed, who, with a mind, ever trusts advertising. VBG

Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:59:54 -0400, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Peggy Noonan os Sara Paulin's acceptance speech.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122059352189503479.html

The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2008 4:48 p.m. EDT.

Joe Gwinn

And then what she really thought was:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Noonan is just a good two-faced Republicon hack.


Spoken like a true Useful Idiot.



So... I await your educated and insightful analysis of the juxtaposition
of Noonan's editorial and her uncensored and candid assessment of the
qualifications of Palin.

Go ahead, I don't think I'll hold my breath though, since your initial
post makes it clear you won't look at either...

Standard Gummer spew, all fluff, no substance.