Could a political observer purporting to have the pulse of Republican thought be more out of touch with those that actually animate the Party? Consider Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal this week. There we see Noonan get around to what amounts to a girl crush on Condolliza Rice, extolling her as Romney ‘s pick for Vice -President. We will comment on that potential (we pray unlikely) disaster for the Party later in this commentary.
True, Noonan has for some time abandoned the crush she held for Obama (revealing a predisposition to be blinded by smooth talk superficialities and empty rhetoric as opposed to experience or policy).
Certainly we were not the only ones who were perturbed back in the day with Noonan. And reading responses to her columns one sees frequent reference to observations about her Obama flirtations. Luckily, columnists get to “reset” their opinions as needed.
Excerpts from Noonan’s column:
“Anyway, the next president will have to do that sort of thing, and it will take deep political gifts. We have not seen that genius in Mr. Obama.”
Huh? We have not seen the genius ever, but we still wonder if this is the same Peggy Noonan that used to extoll Obama’s soaring rhetoric and messianic gifts.
“He seems to view politics as his weary duty, something he had to do on his way to greatness . . . As for Mr. Obama, the more facts you know, the more you don’t understand him, the more you can’t quite grok him.”
SERIOUSLY?! the more facts “we” know, you know, those insubstantial things like actual policies . . . the more we DO know about him and his designs!
“Neither has a flair for politics, and neither seems to love it. Both come from minority parts of the American experience, and both often seem to be translating as they speak, from their own natural inner language to their vision of how “normal Americans” think.”
Surely Noonan is out in la-la land again if she cannot “appreciate” candidates and their abilities within their Party to achieve the nomination. Suggesting they do not have a flair for politics is incongruous, especially as regards Obama. Campaigning (vilifying Republicans) is what he likes more than the policy details of “governing.”
“What does all this suggest? That voters this year will tend to be practical in their choice and modest in their expectations. Which isn’t all bad. But joy would be more fun. We must end with some burly, optimistic thoughts or we’ll hurl ourselves over a transom and go “Thawp!” 1. There’s still time—more than 100 days—for each candidate to go deeper, get franker, and light some kind of flame.”
Is she totally obvious to the Obama campaign CONCENTRATION on lighting a flame in its political base?!
“2. The acceptance speeches are huge opportunities to do that. 3. The debates, if they do not sink into formalized torpor or anchor-led superficialities, could be not only decisive but revealing of greater depths. ”
Spoken like someone auditioning again for a speech writing job, the non-self effacing pitch for the crucial nature of her professions services . . . the scribes behind the throne. Given the campaigning and the commutative impression engendered prior to the formality of the convention “The Speech” may be just that, a formality. In other words “The Speech” is not in isolation especially in light of modern political campaigns.
And now the effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
“4. Mr. Romney’s vice presidential choice will matter. (speaking to a gathering of business people from across the country) But the news: When conversation turned to the vice presidential nominee, I said we all know the names of those being considered, spoke of a few, and then said Condoleezza Rice might be a brilliant choice. . . . Here spontaneous applause burst forth . . . ”
“Consider: A public figure of obvious and nameable accomplishment whose attainments can’t be taken away from her. Washington experience—she wouldn’t be learning on the job. Never run for office but no political novice. An academic, but not ethereal or abstract. A woman in a year when Republicans aren’t supposed to choose a woman because of what is now called the 2008 experience—so the choice would have a certain boldness. A black woman in a campaign that always threatens to take on a painful racial overlay. A foreign-policy professional acquainted with everyone who’s reigned or been rising the past 20 years.”
“I should add here the look on the faces of the people who were applauding. They looked surprised by their own passion. Actually they looked relieved, like a campaign was going on and big things might happen and maybe it could get kind of . . . exciting.”
One does wonder if Peggy is on CR’s payroll to say that with a straight face and think to be taken seriously given Republican Party dynamics. “Bold” here is likely to produce upchucking from the base. The party base is not enamored with Condoleezza Rice because too many already know about her and do not want to resurrect the specter of the Bush big government brand Mark Levin has also made the point). Romney does not need to burnish a reputation of big government or Washington insiders, which Rice reeks of.
Nor do we believe the Republican conservative base in flyover country is overly impressed by the political opinion of the sort that was enamored with the crease in Obama”s slacks . . . big government capitalists who had their ass bitten by his alligator shoes . . . apparently a group that still can’t quite figure it out.
I bet the “from across the country” business people she was talking to were of a particular ilk, probably a particular or associated industry that likes managed societies and doing business with government (gooberment). Hell they may have hailed all the way from Pennsylvania.
Peggy should have seen the look on the faces around our discussion table regarding the prospect of picking Condi Rice. Put us down as “verdant”ly opposed.
