Posted on 07/25/2009 8:18:08 AM PDT by STARWISE
Dame Peggy is now hoping that “Common Sense May Sink Obamacare.” This is why she gets the big bucks:
| This is big, what’s happening. President Obama | appears to have misstepped on a major initiative | defining issue. He has misjudged the nation’s mood…
Oh, has he now? Maybe a few other people did too? Like–perhaps yourself–you ego-bloated twit?
I have news for you, Peggy…[Pardon me, I don't usually do this, but I feel a sudden need to switch to all caps and channel Mark Levin....THERE]
…HEY PEGGY, COMMON SENSE WOULD HAVE SUNK THIS FRAUDULENT JACKASS BACK WHEN HE FIRST DECLARED HIS CANDIDACY! COMMON SENSE WOULD HAVE BLOWN HIM OUT OF THE DEMOCRAT PRIMARY! COMMON SENSE WOULD HAVE PREVENTED ELITIST JACKASSES LIKE YOU AND BUCKLEY AND BROOKS FROM DECIDING THAT IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO DEFEAT SARAH PALIN AS THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAN DEFEATING A TROJAN HORSE ALINSKYITE CHARLATAN FROM TAKING THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY IN THE MIDST OF DEMOCRAT CONGRESSIONAL HEGEMONY!
GO BACK TO YOUR STUPID WOWOWOW.COM WEBSITE WITH THE REST OF YOUR FLIGHTY FRIENDS AND THEIR FULSOME FULMINATIONS, YOU BUNCH OF MOD SQUAD WANNABES. AND GET OFF OF MY WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED PAGE!
The problem with Peggy is that she has no common sense…she, like Obama, inhabits the world of great thoughts, whence great things. According to her, and Obamakins across the land.
Now, to move on. If you want to read eloquent common sense written by a truly thoughtful and articulate man UNLIKE PEGGY NOONAN THE TWIT, try reading this excellent explanation of what is right with our health care system, and why the government-controlled collectivist approach will only destroy it.
I last wrote about its author, Clifford Asness, in May, comparing him to Patrick Henry for his very bold public counterattack on Obama’s anti-capitalism demagoguery last Spring, wherein he explained to the president and his supporters how the free enterprise system works in this country.
In this earlier piece, he described the president’s maligning of financial entrepreneurs as “backward and libelous;” I imagine, had his health care piece not been published prior to the president’s disastrous press conference Wednesday night, Asness might have applied the same descriptives to Obama’s maligning of tonsil-snatching pediatricians and Cambridge police sergeants.
Mr. Asness has a web site now, more a repository for his well-thought out pieces than a run-of-the-mill blog, and it’s well worth bookmarking for reference purposes in the political arguments to come.
And if you happen to come across Peggy, whirling around the streets of Manhattan tossing her hat in the air like Mary Richards, ask her if Mr. Asness’s resumé meets with her approval, or is he just another inelegant dunderhead commoner like Sarah Palin was?
~~PING!
Although I’ve tried really hard to give Peggy the benefit of the doubt, this piece is spot on.
i gave up on noonan way back when she started in on bush. when she gulped the obama koolaid it was just more of the same. pretty useless as a commenatator now. she seems to have come totlly unplugged from reality of her earlier days. i’d rather read dowd. at least its interesting. in a bad kind of way
Well, that just about sums up the inner Peggy Noonan. But, really. Out in public! Whatever would the girls think, down at the club?
I completely gave up on her when she started bashing Palin. “Me too! Me too! I think Bush is a dimwit. I think Palin is a dimwit. Please invite me to the Beltway party. I’m not like them, really.”
This article was a fun read. It sounds like the author despises that dumb snooty bitch, Peggy, as much as I do!
I think the plan is being slowed and may well be stopped not by ideology, or even by philosophy in a strict sense, but by simple American common sense. I suspect voters, the past few weeks, have been giving themselves an internal Q-and-A that goes something like this:
Will whatever health care bill is produced by Congress increase the deficit? “Of course.” Will it mean tax increases? “Of course.” Will it mean new fees or fines? “Probably.” Can I afford it right now? “No, I’m already getting clobbered.” Will it make the marketplace freer and better? “Probably not.” Is our health care system in crisis? “Yeah, it has been for years.” Is it the most pressing crisis right now? “No, the economy is.” Will a health-care bill improve the economy? “I doubt it.”
The White House misread the national mood.
I fail to see what is so wrong or unreasonable in any of that myself.
remember Peggy Noonan was invited on Oprah right after the election to sing the praises of Obama, what a joke she is...
She lost me when she used the occasion of Reagan’s funeral to settle old scores with her fellow Reagan speechwriters.
The reason being, as the Amused Cynic references so well,
is that Noonan is recovering from the scathing rebukes to her pathetically pompous and below-the-belt Palin article (of which most here are very aware), which folks won’t forget. This seems now her attempt at Republican redemption, panning Obamacare.
Article and over 1200 comments about her Palin screed:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments
~~PING!
You forgot to list Charles Krauthammer as one of the Noonan crowd.
It’s called, “The Big Picture”.
She may have pegged (no pun intended) this, but with what she has said about Palin, Bush and Obama, most conservatives look at her and make a “Loser” symbol on our foreheads.
Little too little, little too late.
Everyone needs to read this article; print a copy, and hand deliver it to thier congressman and senator. If they won’t take it,,,BEAT THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT!!!
The quote at the top of the web linked page by Churchill is soooo right. I know I have “ ...stumbled over the truth” many times and have ignored it to my own peril.
Excellent post.
You missed the whole point of the piece by this “blogger”.
I don’t believe the credibility or gravitas of
Noonan comes anywhere close to Krauthammer.
This is about the worst article on this subject I have ever read. As he his own pompous self says: "I don't claim any great originality here." Like the comment on the poor student, "This paper is both original and brilliant. Unfortunately where it is original it is not brilliant and where it is brilliant it is not original - F."
It is way too long and just looking at a few points he makes some major blunders, such as this one." Myth #7 Health Care is A Right....Nope, it's not. But we are at the nuclear bomb of the discussion. [He did get this one point right] The one guaranteed to get me yelled at or perhaps picketed by a mob waving signs printed up with George Soros's money. Those advocating socialized medicine love to scream "health care is a right." [put words in the mouths of others and then beat them over the head] They are loud, they are scary, but they are wrong about rights (as the 1980 kid in me resists the temptation to type "TO PARTY" - you had to be there).
This is more philosophy than economics, and I'm not a philosopher. [Then shuddup because you wandered way past a major blunder] But, luckily it doesn't take a superb philosopher to understand that health care simply is not a "right" in the sense we normally use that word. Listing rights generally involves enumerating things you may do without interference (the right to free speech) or may not be done to you without your permission (illegal search and seizure, loud boy-band music in public spaces). They are protections, not gifts of material goods. Material goods and services must be taken from others, or provided by their labor, so if you believe you have an absolute right [shifts from conditional right to absolute right] to them, and others don't choose to provide it to you, you then have a "right" to steal from them [putting words in the mouths of others]. But what about their far more fundamental right not to be robbed?"
There is nothing philosophically, semantically or economically right with this statement actually.
First, he does not understand what we mean by rights. Our rights always exist in a context. Our freedom to act is always circumscribed by its impact on others.
Second, a lot of the frustration with health care is not from folks who are expecting something for free, but from those who paid for it, and then get coverages cut or restricted when a problem arises.
Third, the health care business is not going unpaid. I will agree that some GPs in private practice are getting screwed by the system, but our fascist approach of public private insurance coupled with legal excesses that we just cannot force ourselves to get under control is as much a cause of these ills as is anything else.
What about those of us who would argue that health care is a right in the sense that anyone who wants care ought to be able to walk into the free market, and get what he is willing to pay for at a reasonable price. No such market in health care exists because the public/private fascist statist approach to health care has locked up resources, and driven up the costs to those who would take a free market appraoch.
Or this claim: "Myth #1 Health Care Costs are Soaring....No, they are not. The amount we spend on health care has indeed risen, in absolute terms, after inflation, and as a percentage of our incomes and GDP. That does not mean costs are soaring.You cannot judge the "cost" of something by simply what you spend"
This is complete and utter nonsense. 1 in 6 GDP dollars goes to health care. We cannot spend any more than that without giving up something like national defense or roads or schools or something. So yes, health care costs have soared to great heights and remain at those soaring heights.
I don't know what else this guy might have to say that is reasonable, but what parts I have read convince me of nothing except that this guy is a bloviating windbag who does not examine issues critically.
I will buy a case of champagne and throw a great big party the day Obama care is dead. But idiots like this are going to bring us 0bama care more assuredly than anything that 0bama could do.
I got it. The point is that this guy doesn't like Peggy Noonan. My point is that since I cannot understand the guys reasons I think he is a bloviating idiot. Maybe there was some other point. He can explain it to me.
I suspect he'd be satisfied with having made it well enough to the rest of us.
Well then attack her when she says unreasonable things and not when what she says sounds reasonable.
As for her comments on Palin - well I had not seen them before, but two comments out of her statement are:
1. They [the Republicans] mean to rebuild a great party. They need to do it on solid ground.
2. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.
3. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough.
Let us compare her with Regan. Regan started off as a Democrat, so he understood the position. He read, he thought, he wrote, he argued, and he reached strongly and deeply held conclusions, reached after long arguments.
"We win, they lose" is either very shallow or very deep. It was deeper than anyone else knew because Regan had thought his way into the position. Palin is not the rock upon which we will rebuild a conservative party.
Obviously you didn't learn anything. "...pick yourself up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened"
PS. I am not particularly a Noonan fan, actually. But the time manner and place of your attacks on her are turning me into one. Your positions have been weighed, measured, and are wanting.
First, most of the meaningful rights I have are meaningful exactly because they leave me secure in my person AND PROPERTY. Second, health is no more a material good than is freedom of speech.
Thank you for our Saturday reading and writing comprehension lesson.
Yes, this one, along with the Sarah Palin Jealous column.
He’s got until next week to tackle spelling.
I don't like 0-care one bit, but I prefer staunch men of stalwart character on my side of the argument and not shallow simpletons. This is serious business and there are serious arguments. As Peggy said about Palin - there are serious arguments by serious people on the other side of this. Name-calling and posturing is not a response. People are worried about this for a reason.
;)
Peggy has given conservatives the middle finger over and over just like the rest of the Rockefeller Republicans have done. I’ll throw my hat in with the “commoners” any day. The elites can shove it.
David Brooks: ‘I Feel Politically Closer to Barack Obama Than to House Minority Leader John Boehner’
July 25, 2009 - 08:04 ET
Almost every week at the New York Times, house “conservative” David Brooks and liberal columnist Gail Collins have a public conversation. This week Brooks made a startling admission in The Conversation which really wasn't so surprising when one actually reads his columns. Here is the money quote:
At the moment, I feel politically closer to Barack Obama than to House Minority Leader John Boehner (and that’s even while being greatly exercised about the current health care bills).
Do I like asking my self questions then answering them? I think so. Should I string together many questions and answer them? I think not. It sounds too stilted.
The problem with thinking Krauthammer has credibility or gravitas is that one might accidentally take him seriously when he comes up with nonsensical, elitist comments about Palin.
God that Plato guy was just so out there. Far far out there. Ask questions and then answer them. D'oh!
Only saying that Krauthammer and Noonan both trash Sarah Palin.
I already stated I don't like 0-care and am happy to see it die. As Peggy said, it is dying because some common sense started coursing through the veins of the American public.
Let us review the bidding here. This thread is not about 0-care but about Peggy Noonan's detractors taking potshots at her for her statements about why 0-care is dying, even though they don't actually seem to disagree with what she is saying.
My war is on the lack of any intellectual depth or reasoning on the part of Republicans. The position taken on this thread seems to be that doing nothing is better than doing something. That 0-care is worse than nothing seems to be the point Peggy is making. That anything the government might do is better than nothing is neither a given, nor a consequence of anything anyone here has said, but it seems to be the so-called conservative position. The real conservative position, however, would be to get government out entirely, and let free market forces fix it. I am not convinced that so long as we have large "private" insurance pools we actually have a free market.
So, the problem that republicans are not addressing is that a majority of Americans think that almost anything must be better than the current mess. It does not make one a socialist to say so.
With apologies to Michael Corleone.
Sorry, but I won't bite. I am not a Palin "detractor." She is a person of her convictions, strong minded, etc. But I am not willing to put her statue up next to the founding fathers. Sorry. Don't put her on a pedestal and then the remainder of us will not have to knock her off.
Krauthammer on Palin: She’s young, she’ll be back
posted at 8:08 pm on July 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
###
I agree, as does Geraghty, as does Omri Ceren. Like I said in the video thread earlier, she’s in Nixon position here. She’s finished in the near term, i.e. 2012, but the public’s memory is short.
If she hits the trail for some GOP movers and shakers and reemerges in three years or so with an ability to talk shop on domestic and foreign policy, Republicans won’t care that she flaked out on the governorship.
The One only had two years of big-league political experience under his belt when he ran for president, after all; it didn’t hurt him because he convinced voters he knew what he was talking about notwithstanding his greenness.
That’s the place she needs to get to, assuming she still has national ambitions.
Of course, if Juan is right and this was all motivated by some looming mega-scandal, disregard everything I just said.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/03/krauthammer-on-palin-shes-young-shell-be-back/
Thank you for validating my point.
I hope that Palin hits the campaign trail with candidates for the mid-terms. She could be very effective.
Love it, and ditto ... ;)
Thanks for posting the link. I’d heard about this and it is excellent!
I actually just read “Treasure Island” and his writing does remind me of Stevenson.
I’ll be passing this one on, thanks again!
You can put Charles K right up there with Noonan, sorry.
So Krauthammer says she is finished for 2012—but she could reemerge in 3 years?
I think he’s trying to have it both ways in case his criticism of her is proven wrong by voters.
I guess those of us who are fairly well
informed about the Palin situation could
speculate as well that the timeframe for
a run in 2012 might be a stretch.
I’m not saying he’s a cheerleader for Palin,
and if he’s been squirrely about her, I may
have missed some of his opinion pieces
about her.
But my take is that, for whatever strange
completely unconnected reason, Krauthammer’s
been inserted into the discussion about
the Noonan article as if to equivocate
him to Noonan due to Palin.
I say NO WAY .. no how does she possess
anywhere near the standing, respect or
depth of political thought and reasoning
that he does.
Even if he’s ultimately not for Palin for
whatever reasons, Peggy Noonan will never
hold a candle to him in any way. The whole
issue is a flawed premise.
I’m only saying when it comes to commenting on Palin, Krauthammer has been just as stupid as Noonan.
For me, that’s enough to negate anything and everything he’s ever produced—given Palin’s unique value regarding her potential to help fix the unprecedented disaster we’re in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.