3 Responses to “Peggy speaks the truth (unknowingly)”

1. Eric Hazard
   September 4th, 2008 @

   So let me get this straight. Peggy Noonan makes a mistake. She does not deny the mistake. She public explains the mistake. And from my reading of her column, she doesn’t even necessarily try to retract the mistake.

   Then she writes something which gives me the upmost respect for her:

   “Early this morning I saw Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and as we chatted about the McCain campaign (she thoughtfully and supportively) I looked into her eyes and thought, Why not her? Had she been vetted for the vice presidency, and how did it come about that it was the less experienced Mrs. Palin who was chosen?”

   It would appear from my interpretation that Noonan has stood by her remarks and did not back away from her true opinion. She says here, publicily, Sarah Palin has less experience and that perhaps a better vice president choice could’ve been made.

   The real question to me is who is responsible for publishing the off-the-record remarks. Someone at MSNBC should be fired for this.

2. Josh Friedlander
   September 4th, 2008 @

   When you say she explains the mistake, I don’t agree. She’s backpedaling. Her explanation makes no sense.

   The transcript:
   Chuck Todd: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

   PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this — excuse me– political bullshit about narratives

   Rather than own up to having known, as we all did from moment one, that Palin was neither the most qualified woman (nor the most qualified, period), she invents a story about only just having that (obvious) thought pop into her head on the day she made the remarks! Because if she admitted that she’d had the thought earlier, when she undoubtedly did, she’d have to own up to not sharing a very important opinion with her readers.

   “The other, more seriously, is a real criticism that I had not previously made, but only because I hadn’t thought of it. And it is connected to a thought I had this morning, Wednesday morning, and wrote to a friend. Here it is. Early this morning I saw Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and as we chatted about the McCain campaign (she thoughtfully and supportively) I looked into her eyes and thought, Why not her? Had she been vetted for the vice presidency, and how did it come about that it was the less experienced Mrs. Palin who was chosen? I didn’t ask these questions or mention them, I just thought them. Later in the morning, still pondering this, I thought of something that had happened exactly 20 years before. It was just after the 1988 Republican convention ended. I was on the plane, as a speechwriter, that took Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush, and the new vice presidential nominee, Dan Quayle, from New Orleans, the site of the convention, to Indiana. Sitting next to Mr. Quayle was the other senator from that state, Richard Lugar. As we chatted, I thought, “Why him and not him?” Why Mr. Quayle as the choice, and not the more experienced Mr. Lugar? I came to think, in following years, that some of the reason came down to what is now called The Narrative. The story the campaign wishes to tell about itself, and communicate to others. I don’t like the idea of The Narrative. I think it is … a barnyard epithet. And, oddly enough, it is something that Republicans are not very good at, because it’s not where they live, it’s not what they’re about, it’s too fancy. To the extent the McCain campaign was thinking in these terms, I don’t like that either. I do like Mrs. Palin, because I like the things she espouses. And because, frankly, I met her once and liked her. I suspect, as I say further in here, that her candidacy will be either dramatically successful or a dramatically not; it won’t be something in between.”

   OK. I buy that she had all these thoughts, but I don’t buy for a second that she didn’t mention Palin’s lack of experience in an earlier column because “I hadn’t thought of it.”

   So, my only point is that she’s holding back her real thoughts from her readers. Why? I don’t know. To prop up the republican side? That’s petty and she’s a big critic of the current Republican machine. I think it would be a tough thing for her to say, so she didn’t say it. But lots of other people were saying it and she’s not going to convince me that Palin’s lack of experience never popped into her head.

   And, sure, the guy who leaked the video should be canned, but that’s not the point.

3. Joel L. Friedlander
   September 4th, 2008 @

   You can’t fire people for leaving a mike on just because an incautious guest continues talking after others leave the stage. I am surprised by the uproar over this. That Peggy Noonan actually has opinions that don’t jibe with what she puts into her column is not exceptional, nor is her expression of those views when she thinks no one is listening. She is after all a shill for the Republicans as other commentators are shills for the Democrats.

   No one in their right mind thinks that Sarah Palin is the best available female choice for vice president; all she can be accurately seen as is the best choice to placate the right wing of the party. Susan Collins or Olympia Snow of Maine, Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, or Elizabeth Dole are all more experienced choices for VP and would do the country credit. John McCain needed a poster child for the social conservatives so she was chosen.

   She is obviously a very bright woman and she will be undergoing intensive briefing on the positions that she must take to further the interests of the party and the country if she is elected. She must also debate Joe Biden, which will be a tough task. We’ll see if she is up to it.

   What annoys me is the fact that the Republicans have been distorting their failings under Bush instead of attacking them head on and admitting that they lost sight of their true goals.

Leave a Reply