Noonan for president?

[Anonymous]

In the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html), Peggy Noonan rips Sarah Palin as "out of her depth in a shallow pool." In today's dangerous world, Republicans need serious people as leaders, she says:

The era we face, that is soon upon us, will require a great deal from our leaders. They had better be sturdy. They will have to be gifted. There will be many who cannot, and should not, make the cut. Now is the time to look for those who can. And so the Republican Party should get serious, as serious as the age, because that is what a grown-up, responsible party—a party that deserves to lead—would do.

It's not a time to be frivolous, or to feel the temptation of resentment, or the temptation of thinking next year will be more or less like last year, and the assumptions of our childhoods will more or less reign in our future. It won't be that way.

We are going to need the best.

She does not suggest who fits her description. Am I the only one who thinks she may be describing herself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
She does not suggest who fits her description. Am I the only one who thinks she may be describing herself?

I would imagine you are, yes. The woman is clearly bonkers.

[Anonymous]

While Peggy is one of the smarter GOP pundits (and that's not saying a lot). No, she should not be president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While Peggy is one of the smarter GOP pundits (and that's not saying a lot). No, she should not be president.

OP here. I certainly did not mean to suggest that I (a liberal) would support her, but that I was wondering whether there was a between-the-lines "how about me?" in there. I should try harder to be explicit in email; it's so easy to be misunderstood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While Peggy is one of the smarter GOP pundits (and that's not saying a lot). No, she should not be president.

OP here. I certainly did not mean to suggest that I (a liberal) would support her, but that I was wondering whether there was a between-the-lines "how about me?" in there. I should try harder to be explicit in email; it's so easy to be misunderstood.

No, Peggy has never been a fan of Palin. As I conservative, I have to agree with her and I cannot for the life of me understand the attraction of Palin. I'm hoping for a third party candidate for 2012. Does a fiscally conservative, environmentally friendly, socially moderate candidate exist?

[Anonymous]

Oh god enough of the third party candidates..in the end, they help elect democrats and we need less democrats esp. since we are literally about to run out of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh god enough of the third party candidates..in the end, they help elect democrats and we need less democrats esp. since we are literally about to run out of money.

Oh, yeah. A Republican administration will definitely balance the budget. Ha! Get real: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=sgh9cn&s=4

[Anonymous]

Okay, so nobody else thinks Noonan was talking about Noonan. So who do you think fills the need she sees for a serious Republican?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh god enough of the third party candidates..in the end, they help elect democrats and we need less democrats esp. since we are literally about to run out of money.

Well, if Palin is on the ticket, you might as well hand the election to the Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh god enough of the third party candidates..in the end, they help elect democrats and we need less democrats esp. since we are literally about to run out of money.

Oh, yeah. A Republican administration will definitely balance the budget. Ha! Get real: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=sgh9cn&s=4

Typical liberal response. Is this supposed to be an argument? Yes, George Bush ran the deficit way up. Does that mean that Obama should spend the most money in history of our country in one-eight of the time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh god enough of the third party candidates..in the end, they help elect democrats and we need less democrats esp. since we are literally about to run out of money.

Oh, yeah. A Republican administration will definitely balance the budget. Ha! Get real: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=sgh9cn&s=4

Typical liberal response. Is this supposed to be an argument? Yes, George Bush ran the deficit way up. Does that mean that Obama should spend the most money in history of our country in one-eight of the time?

I think there is deviation into thoughtless partisanship on both sides in the above. I don't condone unlimited printing of money, but it is available to the government as a tool, so we will not "run out of money". I presume the word "literally" was used (possibly intentionally) to mean "figuratively".

The liberal response in the comparison of Bush vs Obama in budget busting might be that the present actions are a necessary reaction to an unprecedented situation, whereas the Bush tax cuts were a policy of deference to the wealthy, which was followed regardless of situation, in times of surplus or deficit. Whether Obama's response is correct cannot be judged until we see its long-term results; and even then we won't have any information about how other responses would have worked, so we will always have the joy of debating it if we wish.

[Anonymous]

Intelligent conservative women (all 4 of them!! -- joking) do not like Palin. See also Katherine Parker. And I don't blame them. Noonan was a good speechwriter, and I always read her, despite the fact that I'm a flaming liberal, because she always has something interesting to say. However, I thought her comment on the revelations of torture ("Sometimes you have to just keep going . . ") were disturbing.