Being Boorish

Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan, columnist with the Wall Street Journal and political pundit on various media outlets, called President Obama "boorish" for appearing often on television to push health care reform.

Merriam-Webster OnLine

Main Entry: boor•ish
Pronunciation: \ˈbu̇r-ish\
Function: adjective
Date: 1562

resembling or befitting a boor (as in crude insensitivity)
— boor•ish•ly adverb
— boor•ish•ness noun

Synonyms: BOORISH, CHURLISH, LOUTISH, CLOWNISH mean an uncouth in manners or appearance. Boorish implies rudeness of manner due to insensitiveness to others' feelings and unwillingness to be agreeable (a drunk's boorish behavior). CHURLISH suggests surliness, unresponsiveness, and ungraciousness (churlish remakrs). LOUTISH implies bodily awkwardness together with stupidity (a loutish oaf). CLOWNISH suggests ill-bred awkwardness, ignorance or stupidity, ungainliness, and often a propensity for absurd antics (an adolescent's clownish conduct).Now, without having seen President Obama on any of the Sunday shows, as I didn't even turn on my television yesterday, listening to Peggy Noonan here she sounds pretty boorish to me.

The problem with many political pundits is that their exalted self-importance often comes crashing down on their own heads. Noonan falls into this category regularly with her forever feigned lilted pseduo-intellectual effacement which is so unattractive.

Listen to her tone and word choices; she always comes across to me as slightly bitchy, a bit snooty, and often subtly demeaning. Her seeemingly male counterparts, let's say a George Will or William F. Buckley, are rarely--if ever--amiss on meaning.

It is clear that Ms. Noonan, the great former speech writer, doesn't know the meaning of boorish. Surely, it couldn't possibly apply to the rather serious very thoughtful current president no matter how you feel about his policies.

Methinks Peggy Noonan is boorish.

Being Peggy Noonan VI

Peggy Noonan does not always cut it for me in her written or television opinions. I have written of Ms. Noonan on this blog before. Sometimes it appears as if she is in competition with some former self and that she is too fond of days gone by as the speechwriter for President Reagan. But at other times she has been relevant and timely. Today was such a time.

Noonan's article in the Wall Street Journal was potent and precise and did not wreak of partisan politics. Noonan addressed many Republicans who have called for President Obama to become involved in the Iranian national election and protests. I have written of this last week in a post, Being with the Iranian People.

When addressing President Obama's response to the protests in Iran, Noonan wrote:

To refuse to see all this as progress, or potential progress, is perverse to the point of wicked. To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous. The ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week. John McCain and others went quite crazy insisting President Obama declare whose side America was on, as if the world doesn't know whose side America is on. "In the cause of freedom, America cannot be neutral," said Rep. Mike Pence. Who says it's neutral?

This was Aggressive Political Solipsism at work: Always exploit events to show you love freedom more than the other guy, always make someone else's delicate drama your excuse for a thumping curtain speech.

Mr. Obama was restrained, balanced and helpful in the crucial first days, keeping the government out of it but having his State Department ask a primary conduit of information, Twitter, to delay planned maintenance and keep reports from the streets coming. Then he made a mistake, telling the New York Times in terms of our national security there is little difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and his foe, Mir Hossein Mousavi, which may or may not in the long run be true but was undercutting of the opposition.

These are wise words from Peggy Noonan that are good for the country.

Being a Pundit, Newscaster and Analyst VIII

Sam Donaldson seems like the only level-headed pundit in this group. Listening to George Will, Peggy Noonan and Cokie Roberts I was amazed at the outright sanctioning of irresponsibility and the lack of accountability. These well-spoken clean cut pundits are those that we have listened to and read for years, yet there is a disturbing eeriness to their words. But perhaps I'm taking this too far some might say. "Everything is fair in love and war"--hence, the declaration of the war on terror and the abdication of national and international treaties?



"The problem with transparency is that it's transparent for the terrorists as well," said Will. He continued that "intelligent people of good will" believe the President of the United States can do whatever he wants to "defend the country." What??? Donaldson rightly repeated the infamous Richard Nixon line, "When the President does it, it's not illegal." Brilliant response!

Noonan chimed in, "It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that. Sometimes you need to just keep walking." She also believes that some things should be "mysterious." Cokie Roberts added that it was bad that those at the CIA destroyed documents pertaining to torture but she was glad that they did.

Here is Jon Stewart's ever brilliant take on the discussion of torture and Peggy Noonan's comment in particular.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
We Don't Torture
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

What concerns me here is the desire not to hold others responsible and accountable. There is also a recklessness and injustice about the statements of Will, Roberts and Noonan that's rather alarming. It seems like a desire to intellectualize wrong doing and to simply make it go away without acknowledgement or retribution. With this kind of mentality, the ills of history will most likely be repeated.

Responsibility and accountability are essential to a healthy society.

Being Peggy Noonan V

An article by Peggy Noonan addresses our current financial crisis with aplomb and direction. It's incredibly relevant, wonderfully written, and hopeful. The article ends with this:

I end with a hunch that is not an unhappy one. Dynamism has been leached from our system for now, but not from the human brain or heart. Just as our political regeneration will happen locally, in counties and states that learn how to control themselves and demonstrate how to govern effectively in a time of limits, so will our economic regeneration. That will begin in someone's garage, somebody's kitchen, as it did in the case of Messrs. Jobs and Wozniak. The comeback will be from the ground up and will start with innovation. No one trusts big anymore. In the future everything will be local. That's where the magic will be. And no amount of pessimism will stop it once it starts.

This morning I was just thinking along these same lines. Tom Peters' post this afternoon affirmed what's needed in moving forward. Innovation begins with us at the local level, as does a host of other things including love, responsibility, accountability and trust.

Being Peggy Noonan IV

The arrogance of some reporters never cease to amaze me. The fact that they actually presume to know what the American people want is often mindbogglingly. CNN reported that Peggy Noonan suggested in an editorial today that the American people may be getting tired of seeing President Obama before the public.

Is President Obama not our leader in one of the most trying times in our economic future? It as if in such a time we do not need clear leadership and transparency. Peggy Noonan needs to be checked. Perhaps it is she that we would like to see and read less of. Maybe we would be better without her glib remarks in print and on television.

Being Personally Responsible

If anyone knows me or have read anything that I have ever written, I am all for personal responsibility. I remember getting into big trouble as a consultant with a large city government for insisting that communities be personally responsible for their own neighborhoods. Change begins with each of us on the smallest of levels. Trash in our neighborhoods is not a small thing. As does love, respect begins at home. But when I heard Joe Scarborough and Peggy Noonan this morning on "Morning Joe" talking about personal responsibility it had a particular divisive and partisan ring.

"Barack Obama is going to be talking about Republican themes of personal responsibility and cleaning up the vacant lot next door," said Joe. Are democrats not personally responsible? Who lives among vacant lots? Peggy Noonan chimed in some time later with the same pejorative buzz word, as if either of them actually knows what President-elect Obama will say, "Yes, he's going to talk about personal responsibility, like cleaning up those vacant lots in your own neighborhood."

By then I was livid. There is no doubt that this disparaging "vacant lot" had not only a derogative anti-Democratic tone, but was used pejoratively to indicate African Americans. Such words are incredibly disheartening especially considering the past eight years where vacant lots in and of themselves did not add to the financial crisis currently rocking America. What about President Reagan's notion of laissez-faire economics that many believe has brought us to our current financial crisis? What about those who bankrupted banks and mortgage companies escaping in golden parachutes that landed in pristine gated communities? The financial crisis had more to do with these and less to do with vacant lots. Who will be held personally responsible for these things?

Financial institutions received welfare the likes that vacant lots will never see in thousands of lifetimes. Vacant lots had nothing to do with water boarding. Many Americans are asking that the current Republican president take personal responsibility for torture. Many are insisting that the incoming president charge him with war crimes. (I am not.) Yes, we all need to take personal responsibility but divisive partisan buzz words and tones will not unify us and will not get to the heart of what's needed to turn this country around. We need bi-partisanship and personal responsibility from everyone with respect for differences. Derogative buzz words strike the absolute wrong chord in this difficult time America now faces.

Being Peggy Noonan III

"For a generation we've been tapping on plastic keyboards, entering data into databases, inventing financial instruments that are abstract, complex and unconnected to any see-able reality. Fortunes were made in the ether, almost no one knows how; there's a sense that this was perhaps part of the problem. Workers tapped on keyboards and produced work they cannot see, touch or necessarily admire. They'd like to make their country better, and stronger, in a way they can see."

--Peggy Noonan, Rectitude Chic, WSJ

But these instruments they can't see! These products may never be! Manufacturing is not chic. Is that why we couldn't give The Big Three a rescue package? Is that why the Treasury Department did not assist The Big Three when it could have done so without the showdown on Captial Hill? But what about poverty? Is poverty chic? How about a two-tier rapidly changing Chinese society? Manufacturing may not be chic, but it is without doubt elevating a people. Where is your shirt made?

Merry Christmas!

Being Peggy Noonan II

Finally, Peggy Noonan has come out and spoken what everybody in the world seems to actually already know: Sarah Palin is supremely unprepared to lead our great country and John McCain's selection of her shows poor judgment, the kind that disqualifies him for the highest office in the land.

Here is Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin in the Wall Street Journal.

Perhaps the brilliant speech writer for President Ronald Regan, with whom I do not always agree, can return to the honor given to her as a respected journalist. I, for one, am happy that she has gotten off the fence and wrote what the rest of America and the world already knows.

That first article of praise for Sarah Palin was quite disturbing and downright nauseating. (I wrote of my disappointment in another post, Being Peggy Noonan.) Thank you, Ms. Noonan.

This is a great article, not because it agrees with my position but because it speaks undeniable truth. Sarah Palin is completely unprepared to lead our great country and John McCain, through bad judgement, is also not prepared to hold the highest office in the US.

Being Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal wrote these words of Sarah Palin's "debate" performance:

"She killed. She had him at 'Nice to meet you. Hey, can I call you Joe?' She was the star. He was the second male lead, the good-natured best friend of the leading man. She was not petrified but peppy.

The whole debate was about Sarah Palin. She is not a person of thought but of action. Interviews are about thinking, about reflecting, marshaling data and integrating it into an answer. Debates are more active, more propelled—they are thrust and parry. They are for campaigners. She is a campaigner. Her syntax did not hold, but her magnetism did. At one point she literally winked at the nation.

As far as Mrs. Palin was concerned, Gwen Ifill was not there, and Joe Biden was not there. Sarah and the camera were there. This was classic "talk over the heads of the media straight to the people," and it is a long time since I've seen it done so well, though so transparently. There were moments when she seemed to be doing an infomercial pitch for charm in politics. But it was an effective infomercial."

Can someone please pass the pipe that Peggy Noonan is smoking? No, not really. But this foolishness has to stop! Is Palin in line for the presidency or the position of a salesperson selling lipstick for that proverbial pig? I had decided not to even respond to Sarah Palin's disastrous debate performance. That's right! DISASTROUS! Every time Palin will step out as president or vice president, she will be essentially both debating policy and being interviewed, nationally and internationally.

Palin's performance was disastrous considering the office she aspires and many others too. Imagine her going in for an interview or having a discussion with senior management and saying, "I will not answer the question in the way you want them. I will instead answer in the way I have rehearsed them?" Would you hire someone like that? Would you also hire someone who was not a thinker? Would you keep someone like that? What is Noonan implying here? Is good judgment not essential for the highest office in the land? In good judgment rational thought precedes action. Otherwise, actions are erratic, non-consequential and detrimental.

Palin is not impressive merely because she did better than expected from a purely syntactical standpoint. (Most feared she could not even put a coherent sentence together out of the sight of a teleprompter.) When I heard Ms. Noonan on Meet the Press today talking about the brilliance of Palin's performance during the debate, I wanted to barf! I became sick all over again. "At one point she literally winked at the nation." WHAT IS NOONAN TALKING ABOUT? If being coy, obstinate, misinformed, egotistical, cutesy and sly ("Hey, can I call you Joe?" set up to the "say it ain't so, Joe?") is brilliance, do pass that pipe I turned down before. In fact, we're all gonna need it. If this was a fix, we're all gonna need a whole lot of fixing. The real problem is by this VP selection it appears that it is believed that we are already fixed, completely out of it, whacked!

How does Peggy Noonan even write such words, let alone repeat them on live TV? The very words themselves seem so incredibly sexist. Imagine the same words written of a man. He would be the laughing stock of all of Washington and the world. Is there a double standard here? Are women such as Noonan perpetuating such standards? Why does Ms. Noonan find such words to be flattery? They are most embarrassing. Coming from a veteran female journalist these words are shameful stuff, especially considering that Sarah Palin could be the President of the United States come January should John McCain be elected and unable to fulfill his duty.

We do not care about Palin's personality, her likability, her teenage daughter's pregnancy (though, I dare to say that if Palin were a woman of color the spin might be different), her looks, her appeal by and large to Joe-six pack, etc. Has anybody thought of the ridiculousness of the Joe six-pack image being associated with the most unlikely Joe-six pack woman imaginable? (Palin is to the right of the religious right which forbids the consumption of alcohol.) The only connection here with Joe six-pack must be the feeling which has less to do with his cerebral head, but more with his sensational one. With all the winking, she was more akin to a "peppy" pinup.

What we care about is whether Palin is prepared to step into the shoes of the President of the United States should she be required to do so. What does she know about the economy, foreign policy, the diverse people and varied ideologies of our country (it's obvious she doesn't read periodicals), the Constitution, or the role of the vice-president? It was clear she did not know much beyond her Cliff Notes. (Remember cramming in college and how fast you forgot that stuff over the next few days?) In this regard, the debate, which wasn't a debate at all, but a press conference without the press, was a complete DISASATER on Palin's part.

Peggy Noonan knows this.