Poor, poor Peggy Noonan can’t seem to find a conservative who pleases her. Perhaps it’s because she isn’t conservative. The pained expression on her face, seemingly learned from studying film of Ben Affleck like a quarterback studies his opponents, allows liberal media outlets to try and pass her off as something she is not.

Peggy Noonan once wrote speeches for President Ronald Reagan. She’s been trotted out as a “conservative” ever since, despite the fact that she couldn’t pull the lever for John McCain. I touched on it not too long ago here and here, and now so does John Zeigler:

RINOs can instantly feel the warm embrace of mainstream credibility by simply criticizing other Republicans in a way that the media can use to achieve their agenda. Meanwhile, when an occasional Democrat goes in the other direction (Joe Lieberman) they suddenly get shunned and discredited. …

There is no better/worse example of this than the actions of former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan. Noonan has suddenly become a big name in the media again because she is taking every chance she can to rip the Romney campaign and help the press with building their narrative that his campaign is in collapse. …

One, Noonan hasn’t done a thing for the conservative cause since she wrote a few good speeches for Reagan over 25 years ago. Secondly, and even more amazingly, she clearly endorsed Obama in 2008 in both print and on TV. Somehow, not only did that not take away her ability to once again play the “I am a sensible Republican telling the truth about my guy” card, but it doesn’t even ever get mentioned that she has ZERO credibility on this issue!

Boom. Ziegler drops an intellectual nuke on Noonan’s squishy “conservative” head. She was an Obama girl in 2008. End of story. No conservative in their right mind would vote for Mr. Obama. Peggy Noonan is at best the RINO Superwoman — accomplished, intelligent and quick — to Bizarro Meghan Mccain. Both are used by liberal media to destroy conservatives, only Noonan isn’t the embarrassing train wreck that McCain is (a woman who barely stays afloat in the intellectual kiddie pool going up against MSNBC’s Al Sharpton).

Perhaps the best take down of Noonan of late comes, oddly enough, from Fox’s Chris Wallace, who called Noonan “New York City’s idea” of a conservative. A stinging critique if I ever heard one. And he’s right. Noonan is part of an incestuous bunch of intellectual hobnobbers, but because of her conservative past, her penance is that she must sit in her social circle or on a cable television panel and demurely respond to savage attacks on the conservative worldview. She accepts ridiculous premises and argues on liberal terms. She rhetorically licks her liberal media masters’ toes, who collect docile kittens with names like Joe Scarborough and David Frum.

What Noonan and McCain and the rest don’t understand is that at the cocktail parties and social events they attend, they are seen as curious little animals, to laugh at and poke fun of. Noonan sees herself slinging highbrow rejoinders, whereas her liberal “friends” see her as a monkey slinging poo. They’re not chuckling with you, Peggy — they’re chuckling at you.

The sad thing is, some of these faux conservatives get it, and they don’t care.  Being the star exhibit in someone’s zoo, in their mind, still makes them a star. Sad.

15 comments

  1. A couple of things I noticed over the past couple of days about his campaign:

    – We saw his tax returns (well, summaries). He under-claimed charity donations by half in 2011 to maintain a 13% tax rate. Who pays more taxes than they should? Someone who said they never paid less than 13% and cannot.
    – Tax summaries shows his family trust invested in Chinese companies (or what did he call them again in his ad…. oh that’s right, “cheaters”) but then quickly divested when he decided to use that as an issue.
    – His damning comments at a fundraiser came to light. Kudos to Fox for their attempts at spinning it as a positive.
    – Tanned his face prior to speaking on Univision. He’s now the “Juan Percent?”
    – Politicized a diplomat’s death on September 11th.

    Which may or may not have lead to Romney/Ryan’s poll numbers going down. Especially in key states.

    You don’t need cede thought to the media’s talking head head to notice that Romney is cratering his own campaign. He’s acting like a buffoon. It’s the same reason he didn’t get the party’s or the VP nomination last election. It’s a sad state of affairs that the only rising stars in the GOP are too young to make a run, so Romney ends up looking the most presidential out of a circus of idiots (Newt, Bachman, Santorum, et al) at the debates. Then he manages to screw up a campaign against what should have been a slam dunk.

    1. Ha. I love that you’re picking apart the investments of a guy who gives millions of dollars to charity, and in general is squeaky clean. Any parent would be thrilled if their daughter brought home a young Mitt Romney-ish guy.

      We’ve already covered the Amb. Stevens thing to death. Do we really have to revisit that?

      I’m on record, in this very blog, as saying I wanted Paul Ryan or Rubio to be the guys this election cycle. Sadly, they’re not. But the idea that Romney is “acting like a buffoon” isn’t reality. It’s your reality. He’s fine. He’s doing just what he did during the primary — chugging along. I’m not sure if “chugging along” is going to beat Obama, but he’s not blowing it.

      The dude is sitting on a ton of cash. Obama has been spending his campaign cash … kind of like he spends other people’s money on a federal level. If Romney stays close and carpet bombs the right markets down the stretch, he has a good shot.

    2. Whether or not I would be pleased if my hypothetical daughter brought home a hypothetical Romney-type is not the issue here. Picking apart his taxes also isn’t the issue–his integrity is. He airs ads talking about Obama supporting Chinese “cheaters” but he has no trouble sending jobs there or investing there.

      You can overlook his tax lawyers getting him to that magic 13% by going against his fiduciary best interests, okay. Had he claimed th full amount… 9% income tax rate. What % did you pay in 2011? Probably more than both 9% or 13%.

      He won’t list his charity giving. I would bet its because it’s entirely to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. How much of that went to a real honest-to-goodness charity and how much was spent on the “Mormons are just like you and me” ads they were airing in primetime a while back?

      Even repeated names in his own party said it was dumb to so what he did on the 11th. Also, “covered it to death” is a poor choice of words. Side note: did you see where the “evil Muslim horde” threw a pro-Stevens protest and threw out those responsible for the ambassador’s death? That was a bright spot for me and offered hope that peaceful co-existence might just be possible if moderate, cooler heads prevail over the fringe elements.

      Whether or not he is fine is up for dispute. But we’ll see. I have a feeling he’ll lose and Fox and friends will blame the media (even though conservative news and talk formats utterly dominate their respective ratings) instead of admitting Romney’s “47%” speech probably did him in.

    3. Whether or not I would be pleased if my hypothetical daughter brought home a hypothetical Romney-type is not the issue here. Picking apart his taxes also isn’t the issue–his integrity is. He airs ads talking about Obama supporting Chinese “cheaters” but he has no trouble sending jobs there or investing there.

      You can overlook his tax lawyers getting him to that magic 13% by going against his fiduciary best interests, okay. Had he claimed th full amount… 9% income tax rate. What % did you pay in 2011? Probably more than both 9% or 13%.

      He won’t list his charity giving. I would bet its because it’s entirely to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. How much of that went to a real honest-to-goodness charity and how much was spent on the “Mormons are just like you and me” ads they were airing in primetime a while back?

      Even repeated names in his own party said it was dumb to so what he did on the 11th. Also, “covered it to death” is a poor choice of words. Side note: did you see where the “evil Muslim horde” threw a pro-Stevens protest and threw out those responsible for the ambassador’s death? That was a bright spot for me and offered hope that peaceful co-existence might just be possible if moderate, cooler heads prevail over the fringe elements.

      Whether or not he is fine is up for dispute. But we’ll see. I have a feeling he’ll lose and Fox and friends will blame the media (even though conservative news and talk formats utterly dominate their respective ratings) instead of admitting Romney’s “47%” speech probably did him in.

    4. Giving to one’s church isn’t “real honest-to-goodness” charity? Ha! Oh man, I need to go get a drink of water. Whew. My stomach hurts from laughing. Keep telling independents that, my friend. Priceless.

      Cooler heads prevail? Yes, I hope so. Sadly, in that part of the world cooler heads have a habit of … falling off unexpectedly, kind of like “Petey” from Dumb and Dumber.

      Can we please acknowledge that both Romney and Obama, to a certain extent, play the dumb political game. That’s why they’re both politicians. Guys who I wish there were less of in Washington. Obama supporters, on the other hand, pledge allegiance to the guy on the #ForAll Twitter hashtag and buy bastardized American flags retrofitted to look like the United States of Obama.

      Romney “sends jobs overseas”? Really? I’d rather discuss free market economics, tax policies and the underlying reasons as to why businesses might choose to set up shop elsewhere.

    5. *Hint* Look at LDS’s charitable giving. If we’re going to talk “Christian” churches, I think Christ himself would take issue with the amount of money going into building guided monuments to his glory, rather than distributing it to the needy. I never read any verse about building gloriously expensive churches, but I do remember quite a few versus about blessed be the poor. But f&*# ’em, they’re part of the entitlement-loving 47% that’ll vote for Obama anyway. LOL

      See, we do agree on something. Let’s hope those moderates Muslims continue to reject the radical fundamentalists. You laughed about me comparing the two the other day, but fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous. Because some of that Old Testament stuff (which Islam borrowed heavily from) is scary.

      Hey, I’ll agree Obama sucks. But you’re not praising him so I can’t offer much specifics that you already haven’t. Since you’re one-sided in that respect, my criticism is as well.

      We could talk that, but with record (!) US corporate profits last year and record CEO compensation, I’m not that interested in discussing the excuses multi-national corporations offer why they can’t do business in America and hire Americans. There’s absolutely no argument you can offer that can reconcile those two facts. They care more about stock price than doing the right thing. FACT.

    6. If 10% is good enough for God, then I think the government can do with less. 😉

      Yes, blessed be the poor. However, any conversation about the poor should first have an agreed upon definition of the poor. I used to go to Saint Matthews on the weekends in DC, and the same losers were out there EVERY WEEKEND begging for money. People with decent clothes, fat guts, etc. Same four or five people, trying to guilt me into giving them stuff the second I walked out of Church. No thanks. Get a job. I think I’ll be donating to St. Jude’s instead.

      Besides, if memory serves me correctly, I think Jesus was about looking within yourself and offering up kindness — not about the federal government reaching into your pocket and taking what they want to give to the cause du jour.

  2. So, if we dispense with the ad hominem attacks and really look at Peggy’s statement that launched your blog’s fusillade: “This week I called [Romney’s campaign] incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant “rolling calamity.”

    Is it untrue?

    1. This one comment wasn’t the impetus for the blog post. I even linked to two previous posts I did on her. I’m just finally happy other conservatives are finally calling her out. It’s pissed me off for a long time. She’s had some weird invisible force field on her, even among conservatives, simply because she worked for the Gipper. It’s ridiculous. She supported Obama in 2008. She’s done. She’s toast to the conservative movement. You don’t vote for Barack Obama and get to pass yourself off as some elder statesmen for the conservative movement.

      Unlike others working in DC, I’m not afraid to call out these people because … I don’t care about all the networking events. I’m not going to kiss everyone’s butt in town to get ahead. And when I apply for jobs in the future there’s a good chance someone will find posts like this and close the door in my face. But I don’t care, because any honest, principled conservative knows I’m right and that I’m doing the movement a favor by calling her out.

    2. Calling her out and saying she “licks her master’s toes” are two different things. Your choice of words is sometimes downright nasty. Your better articles are the ones where you deconstruct the topic rather than resorting to insults.

      Where did the conservative’s take on pop culture go? Lately, it’s been unadulterated campaign gamesmanship and political non-sequiturs.

    3. Sometimes, MeAgain, you have to get “downright nasty.” I don’t believe I make a habit of it, and I think it says something about me that I’m willing to go after the left and the pseudo-right (e.g., John Boehner, Peggy Noonan). There are times for high-minded discussion, and there are times to go for the jugular. Life is a balancing act, is it not?

      I was just talking to my wife about the pop-culture thing, actually. It’s campaign season, and while I would much rather prefer to write about Marvel’s upcoming reboot of Spider-Man, Judge Dredd, etc. I think it would be an error in, umm, “judgment” to do so while the Mideast is melting down. I get home late at night and I say, “I can write about Gangnam Style or a dead ambassador and a former Navy SEAL recounting the capture of Osama bin Laden. Which will it be?” With the election so close, pop culture will usually take a back seat.

      You wanted pop culture? Hmm. I think Atmosphere is appropriate for this response.

    4. Wait, when has the Middle East ever *not* been melting down?

      And that video? I kept waiting for it to get better, and it never did. Kind of like the current administration…

    5. Peggy has always annoyed me since ever. The Dem meme of Reagan was that he was just a stupid actor who just read his lines from his handlers. Noonan snottily didn’t disabuse people of this falsehood & led people to believe that she was the ventriloquist & Reagan was her dummy. She’s just become more & more annoying & more & more the left’s useful idiot as time marches on. Grrrr. Why doesn’t she take her own advice she dished out to Romney after he supported the 1st Amendment & shut her own pie hole?

    6. As far as I know, Reagan was very comfortable writing his own material, and often went through his speeches line by line, changing things… Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t even think she had anything to do with his Berlin speech, either.

      I don’t care that she hits Romney because I expect that from her. But what really annoys me is when people try and pass her off as a “conservative.” Wrong answer.

      Anyway, thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: