Peggy Noonan: Clintons, Bush tearing their parties apart

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Another great article. Some highlights for discussion:

Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment.
Click to expand...
But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans.
Click to expand...
- - - - - - - - -
As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. The primary race itself is winnowing down and clarifying: It is John McCain versus Mitt Romney, period. At the same time the conservative journalistic world is convulsed by recrimination and attack. They're throwing each other out of the party. Republicans have become very good at that. David Brooks damns Rush Limbaugh who knocks Bill Kristol who anathematizes whoever is to be anathematized this week.
Click to expand...
George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Click to expand...

That last quote is a real haymaker. And anyone who uses the word "anathematized" gets a triple word score in my game of scrabble.

Clinton, Bill *is* an embarrassment to our entire nation. I don't believe the country will want to put Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton in the history books.

Bush certainly has left the GOP in disarray. Too much to say on this to even get started.
 
Last edited:
Z

ZeroJunk

New member
The established Republican Party is who put W in the white house over McCain to start with. They deserve what they get.
 
W

Wildalaska

Moderator
It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans.
Click to expand...

With all due respect to the author, Mr Obama is an articulate machine politico with no legislative accomplishments who happens to be where he is solely because of the media and the colour of his skin.

Proud I'm sure, accomplished, nein.

WildhaveyouhuggedyourWinchester92todayAlaska TM
 
J

JaserST4

New member
I don't necessarily agree with putting the whole blame on Bush for the party division. He isn't writing all the checks (or IOUs). He has acted more like a big government Democrat all too often but he didn't act alone. Plenty of Senators are right in line with him. He isn't the only Republican president to grow the government either, many big federal departments were put in place by Republicans.
As far as waging war, Peggy seems to forget that a majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for it, she's falling for the Democrat playbook.

I think the problem is that Republicans keep wanting another Reagan and he either isn't out there or he doesn't want the job. I don't totally blame the politicians either, we often vote for what benefits us and they know it. Reagan came along at the right time, when people were fed up with big government. The left has so successfully engrained into American minds that it's the government's responsibility to provide for our well being, jobs and economy that I don't think Reagan could get elected right now.
 
S

Sarge

New member
With all due respect to the author, Mr Obama is an articulate machine politico with no legislative accomplishments who happens to be where he is solely because of the media and the colour of his skin.

Proud I'm sure, accomplished, nein.

WildhaveyouhuggedyourWinchester92todayAlaska TM
Click to expand...

Bullseye....and even when Obama 'shows up for work' he frequently votes 'present' as opposed to committing himself on an issue.

Obama is a liberal with a capital L. McCain is a liberal, with a capital R. Both are simply playing the pretentious game that has become presidential politics.

Personally, I am not supporting any candidate at this point. My plan is to ignore the process until the parties make their selection, then decide if either offers anyone I can vote for with a clear conscience.
 
J

JaserST4

New member
McCain is a liberal, with a capital R.
Click to expand...
I hear this often but I don't think it's accurate. He has some leading conservatives backing him and, although a few years old, his ACU lifetime rating is 83. Compare that to Obama(8) or Hillary(9) and I know who I would vote for.
 
Z

ZeroJunk

New member
The biggest complaint against McCain is his campaign finance reform which supposedly stifled the NRA.

If you look at the top twenty 527 groups that are working around McCain Feingold, they are 3 to1 liberal leaning. I have no reason to think the ratio wouldn't be the same without the reform.

I'm curious what everybody thinks the net loss is by the NRA when it's antagonist were restrained to a much greater extent.
 
H

hammer4nc

Moderator
Obama just got Caroline Kennedy's endorsement ("a president like my father"- ouch hillary!). Add that to Kerry, Daschle, and likely a few other big names in the wake of tonights's SC primary, appears to support the assertion that Demo power centers are lining up against team Clinton.

Anyone catch msnbc's commentary on Bill Clinton's post-election speech tonight? Double-ouch!

Very entertaining.
 
T

tube_ee

New member
It's not just Noonan...

I remember a Fox News panel dicussion, in which Fred Barnes sadi that Bush 2.0's legacy would be

"The man who destroyed the Conservative movement for a generation."

This coming from the editor of The Weekly Standard, and one of the most prominent conservatives around.

OUCH.

Now, I'm not a conservative. I'm an economically center-left, socially libertarian Democrat. But, viewed as dispassionately as I can, I think Noonan and Barnes are correct. George W. Bush, as the public face to the Conservative movement, has damaged that movement significantly.

As a partisan, I'm OK with that, because it helps my side. As an American, I think it's tragic. I'm much more an American than I am a partisan.

--Shannon
 
J

JaserST4

New member
George W. Bush, as the public face to the Conservative movement, has damaged that movement significantly.
Click to expand...
How is that possible? Most conservatives hold Reagan up as the closest personification. Bush gets criticized by conservatives when he veers away from it, especially in spending. I can see why the left would think so, to them politics is a religion. Look at the growing spread of CCWs , how did Bush push that back? It's hardly a liberal movement. Talking heads get paid to stir the pot, I wouldn't take everything as gospel.
 
M

mountainclmbr

New member
About McCain, how about the GANG OF 14. To destroy any more conservative judges even though there is no provision for a super-majority for judicial nominations in the constitution. If you want someone to destroy the constitution, vote McCain!
 
U

Unregistered

Moderator
Look at the growing spread of CCWs , how did Bush push that back? It's hardly a liberal movement.
Click to expand...

CCW licenses are a state, not federal, issue. Bush had no power to affect this one way or another as President.
 
J

JaserST4

New member
CCW licenses are a state, not federal, issue. Bush had no power to affect this one way or another as President.
Click to expand...
That was the point. So how did he destroy the conservative movement for a generation?
 
U

Unregistered

Moderator
So how did he destroy the conservative movement for a generation?
Click to expand...

No Child Left Behind
Campaign Finance Reform
Increased welfare via Medicare reform/prescription drug program
Increased size of Federal government
Creation of new federal bureaucracies
Increased intrusiveness of federal government in state and private affairs.
 
L

LightningJoe

New member
Remember 2000? The economy was still good, Gore was Clinton's VP. Bush barely (thanks to 537 angry Cubanos in Florida) won. W was the best we could do at the time. Unless you think President Gore would have been better. For the Republican Party, maybe he would have. But with Gore and the Clinton gang running the GWOT, we'd be apologizing for Crusades and trying to understand Islamic Rage Boy.
 
J

JaserST4

New member
No Child Left Behind
Campaign Finance Reform
Increased welfare via Medicare reform/prescription drug program
Increased size of Federal government
Creation of new federal bureaucracies
Increased intrusiveness of federal government in state and private affairs.
Click to expand...
That means we need more conservativism, not less. Isn't that how Reagan got in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top