Replies

I would be willing to cut her more slack except for one thing.

Her use of the words "mission inebriation" was not an accident. I found it offensive, given that the President has had to put up with all sorts of insults from the left on his past, and hints that he still is a drinker. It is inexcusable that she used this term. I am sure there are many other terms that would work as well, and I am also sure she has a Roget's Thesaurus.

It is also pretty hard for me to forgive such a mean-spirited piece written on Inauguration Day. I am more than willing to read a column discussing whether or not the President's goals are doable, and whether this will require military action more than we might want to do. But this isn't what she did; instead, she dismissed it as being a search for utopia and unrealistic, and also threw in the criticism about using God too much.

It is a shallow, mean-spirited criticism more worthy of the leftist columnists. It will take me a long time to think well of her again.

I too feel that her choice of the term "inebriation" was not accidental and clearly over the top. Her fear that the speech was God-drenched is ridiculous and untrue. Her claim that the vision was utopian was absurd. An inaugural address is supposed to lay out a vision for the new president or the new term. Lincoln did this in his second inaugural and Reagan did it in his first.

All in all, PN's critique seems picayune and petty in comparison to the grand and bold themes that our President sought to outline for our nation and the world. Rather than detracting from our President's stature, PH diminished her own.

Out here in Jesus Land, we tell our kids that if you don't have something nice to say about someone, it's better not to say anything at all. These words are especially true for a person whose words are scarefully examined like Noonan's. Noonan let it rip in yesterday's without considering the consequences. Now she will have to pay the consequences for writing them.

See my post #59. I agree with most of what you said. I didn't take the "inebriation" as anything related to W's past. And still don't. I think she was saying that he and his admin are inebriated with their point of view -- I totally disagree with her comments, but I don't find them an attack on his past.