« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why is Peggy Noonan being such a Jerk?

By: barleycorn (Diary)  |  September 22nd, 2012 at 12:08 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Why are high profile “conservatives” such as Noonan and Bill Krystal behaving like clueless punks? Its bad enough that the media is in the tank for Obama and reacting like lunatics every time Mitt Romney opens his mouth. Why are these “conservatives”  fueling the fire? Noonan apparently refereed to the Romney Campaign as a “rolling calamity”. Why? What has been so bad about the campaign?

Mitt Romney is not the most charming and outgoing candidate in the world,  but he’s not stiff or inarticulate to the point of being outside the norm.  Below I’ve listed the major party nominees for president over the last 52 years (beginning in 1960) and ranked them on intelligence, relevant experience, and attractiveness/ability as a candidate.  I have attempted to grade them fairly with no regard for ideology but admit that my bias may shine through in some cases.

All candidates are graded on a curve using just the pool of twenty actual major party nominees. Within score groups they are listed in chronological order.

As can be seen Romney easily falls with in the Average rankings. Sure the table represents my opinion, but I challenge anyone to show where I’ve been unduly partisan or blinded by ideology.

So to return to my central question: Why are a few high profile “conservatives” savaging Romney when he’s simply been found guilty of being a conservative by the media?

These rankings have NOTHING to do with how I think they did or would have done as president.

1 = Above Average , 0 = Average, -1 = Below Average

 Name General Intelligence Relevant Experience Ability as Campaigner Score
Clinton 1 0 1 2
Kennedy 0 0 1 1
Nixon 1 0 0 1
Reagan 0 0 1 1
Johnson 0 0 0 0
Humphrey 0 0 0 0
Ford 0 0 0 0
Mondale 0 0 0 0
Bush 1 0 0 0 0
Bush 2 0 0 0 0
Obama 0 -1 1 0
Romney 0 0 0 0
Goldwater 0 0 -1 -1
Carter 0 0 -1 -1
Dukakis 0 0 -1 -1
Dole 0 0 -1 -1
Gore 0 0 -1 -1
Kerry 0 0 -1 -1
McCain 0 0 -1 -1
McGovern -1 0 -1 -2

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Bill S

    The fact that you had to put “conservatives” in quotes should make the answer to your question self-explanatory.

  • jamesm

    Peggy Noonan and Bill Kristol are turncoats. Peggy Noonan voted for Obama. Remember both of them as we fight this politcal battle to get get rid of Obama. Do not forget.

    • barleycorn

      Is this a known fact? I mean did she actually announce that she voted for him? I was unaware of it if so. If she voted for Obama then I understand why she’s being a jerk.

      • jamesm

        Yes it is a known fact-she voted for Obama. Bill Kristol? He turned on Palin

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I’d say u seriously underrate Romney’s intelligence if you put him as somehow less intelligent as Bill Clinton. He didn’t make all that lucre in a highly competitive business by not being one of the smartest guys in the room. Peggy Noonan’s claim to greatness is she wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan. That’s like the batboy of the 27 Yankees claiming a piece of the credit for Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs. Sure, she delivered the necessary tool but the talent wasn’t hers.

    • barleycorn

      Having an upper level IQ alone , has little to do with making a fortune. Romney was an outstanding businessman but an average politician. If he were as intelligent as Clinton he would be better able to anticipate questions and how best to finesse them. Thankfully Romney is getting better at that and my fervent hope is that he peaks during the debates.

      I agree with you (and Bill S) about Noonan, but she is still (along with Krystal) a person with a right of center history. Given that Romney is the moderate that establishment Republicans wanted, and that the race is essentially deadlocked, , I fail to understand what either of them have to gain by trashing him.

      • jamesm

        If Clinton were intelligent as you may think then he would not have lied under oath. Conventional wisdom is misguided if people think that Romney is an average politician. He won the Republican nomination for president. He was Governor of Massachusetts a democratic leaning state. Definetly an above average politician. Here’s what Kristol and Noonan gain: acceptance by the liberal media. They want to be liked and right if Romney loses. They want to be able to say “I told you so” in that event. They believe people will want to read more of their columns. They have bought into the liberal spin that Romney is losing.

        • barleycorn

          There is little correlation between intelligence and honesty. This inability by partisans to admit ANY positive thing about an opponent is one reason politics is so unpredictable. Clinton won twice in part because his opponents refused to take him seriously as an adversary. George W. Bush won twice for similar reasons.

          If you will read my original post you will see that my rating of Romney as “Average” is not as compared to the entire pool of all politicians worldwide going back to Julius Caesar but only the 20 major party nominees since 1960.

          • jamesm

            Yeah but Clinton got caught. Not too smart eh?
            Nixon was more intellligent then Clinton with an IQ of 143. Your rating on Romney is missplaced.
            Your relativism toward Clinton is missplaced. Clinton won with less than 50%!! Great campainer couldn’t get half the vote. Not to say that he was not an above average politician. You may be getting the word politician mixed up with being a good speaker. Ronald Reagan should have been at the top of your list if you went by speaking skills. What are your sources for “General Intellingence”?

          • barleycorn

            From my diary:

            “Sure the table represents my opinion, but I challenge anyone to show where I’ve been unduly partisan or blinded by ideology.”

            You do understand that the point of this diary was to show that Romney is well qualified in every way when compared to the other 19 major party nominees over the past half century?

            Nothing in my diary was in any way meant to denigrate Mr. Romney.

          • jamesm

            I do now. Thanks

          • jamesm

            Clinton won because of the third party entry of Ross Perot

      • tnfriendofcoal101368

        First, the number of stupid people who built their own wealth to the level of Romney in private equity where you have to decide which companies are savable which are not and how to beat your competitors are thin to non-existent (either that or he is the luckiest SOB on the planet). Personally, I don’t understand the Clinton fanboying. Bill Clinton wanted universal health care (and single payer at that), rejected welfare to work and the next tax cut he supports will be the first. The “Clinton” boom was as a result of huge capital gains tax cuts he didn’t support, welfare reform he hated, financial industry deregulation he was against and expansion of free trade which to his credit he was for. He only dumped heath care and stole the conservative contract with America when Dick Morris convinced him; he’d lose in 1996 as liberal obstructionist. Bill Clinton’s “finesse” is the ability to lie without conscience both about himself and his achievements – it’s a lack of character not a sign of genius. In addition, I really find it tiring to continually having to defend the intelligence of Republicans against those smarter liberals.

        • barleycorn

          We are failing to communicate. I’m not making the case you apparently think I am.

          I think Mitt Romney is a great businessman and likely has a well above average intelligence when compared to the general population. If you put Mitt Romney up against Bill Clinton in most any contest outside of politics, I’d put my money on Mr. Romney. However Bill Clinton is very intelligent and no matter how low a regard I have for the man I can’t deny what to me is patently obvious. Richard Nixon was also very intelligent but seriously flawed.

          I think Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman but that is no endorsement of her politics or morals.

  • freemkts

    Say what you will about Peggy Noonan but she makes some good points. Romney has been on the defensive ever since the RNC. His refusal to campaign in battleground states is indefensible. Not much has changed for the better in the past month (bad jobs report, attacks in the Middle East), yet Obama’s job approval is up to 50%. How does that happen? Maybe because Obama is the only one in this race that’s actually running. Romney doesn’t counter any of Obama’s lies. He has no message of his own. The most the public has seen of our MIA nominee lately is some grainy video from 5 months ago where Romney attacks 47% of the country. But other than that everything is OK with Romney’s campaign.

    • jamesm

      Noonan’s points are trash taken in context with the body of work and her support of Obama. With friends like that who needs enemies? Romney is facing an incumbent president, corrupt media, turncoats like Kristol and Noonan, skewed polling, a large government dependent population and the sniping of conservatives.

    • barleycorn

      You betray your real motives with the line “where Romney attacks 47% of the country” because of course Romney did no such thing. Go away.

    • proudmarinemom

      “Refusal to campaign in battleground states” Seriously? I have seen him in Virginia four times.

      Get over yourself.

      • proudmarinemom

        kowalski: You, freemkts, are one of dumbest trolls we’ve seen here lately and, believe me, you have stiff competition.

        Go suck an egg.

      • freemkts

        Here’s Romney’s schedule from the last week. Fundraiser in Salt Lake City, fundraider in Dallas, fundraiser in Atlanta, and today fundraiser in San Diego. None of these are battleground states and just attending these events wastes a tremendous amount of time. Lindsay Graham and Scott Walker are begging Romney to get it together and start showing up in battleground states. This isn’t just my criticism. And nothing underscores the image that Romney is just an aristocrat than attending $10,000/plate fundraisers every day. Get out there with the people! You can’t just buy the election!

        • tnfriendofcoal101368

          Yep and Politico played that story you are parroting right there for liberal democrats to get the talking points. I have to say I have new admiration for Chuck Toad and Ezra KrazyKlein. That Univision interview and the Libya clown show are among the most inept episodes seen from a sitting President. Do Toad and Krazy run around calling out the President,nope. They are smart enough to know that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy so they just keep their mouths shut. Peggy and Billy need to learn from them. Well, unless as jamesm points out they are the enemy…

    • tnfriendofcoal101368

      Peggy Noonan has zero point; her solution is to bring an 85 year old man (smart and capable as he may be) who hasn’t worked in national politics in 2 decades and the last campaign he had anything to do with was a sitting incumbent who lost. Oh, and for Romney to go to Brooklyn to give speeches in a state where if he offered every voter at the poll a 1000 bucks to vote for him he’d still lose. Of course, there is that 60 year old woman in Ohio that is a figment of Peggy’s imagination that Romney “needs to talk too”. I am sure every liberal democrat would love for Romney to take Peggy’s advice.

    • Bill S

      Do YOU have a point, other than speaking for the DNC?

  • Ausonius

    Noonan is always wanting to be “above the fray” and shows absolute signs of D.C.-itis. She was suckered by MAObama in 2008 along with the 53% voting for him.

    Her article in the Wall Street Journal (September 22/23) depends much on polls. She obviously believes the polling shows problems for Romney. To be sure, people suspected a “Bradley Effect” in polling could have hidden a McLame victory in 2008, but that turned out to be untrue. SO… by believing the present polling showing BIG BRObama ahead, she concludes that Romney is losing now and will lose, unless emergency measures are taken.

    Meaning a James Baker campaign?!

    We all have ideas on how to improve Romney’s campaign, but this is the 21st Century. Probably 90-95% of those intending to vote cannot be turned, and even most of the supposed undecided – when they are asked – have actually decided, but just do not want to be bothered.

    The key would seem to be fanning enthusiasm for turnout. If the campaign needs anything, it would need grass-roots people at festivals, church fairs, and even door-to-door, as well as online pushing.

    One problem I have seen is those who do not believe a vote makes a difference: like my 50-something brother-in-law, who would be a Romney voter, since he does nothing but complain about things going downhill. But we cannot get him to register to vote: “too busy making a living.” Somebody on another topic a few days ago wrote about his parents, who had not voted since 1960, but who would vote for Romney.

    Such people may be part of America’s epitaph.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Since the left took over academia in the 1960s, there has been an increasing effort to marginalize conservatism in the elites. Those elites that are conservative suffer from being in what RE Tyrrell (of the American Spectator) called the “Kultursmog”. Noonan, Brooks, Kristol and every beltway pundit lives and swims in this kultursmog. They did not originate or predict the tea Party, they have not helped any of the come-from-behind grassroots efforts.

    FWIW, Romney is the MOST articulate of Republican candidates since Reagan. I know that is damning with faint praise, given Dole, McCain and two Bushes are the reference points, but it remains that he is swimming upstream against massive media bias the likes of which we’ve rarely seen.

    Let’s just reflect on how just a FEW tough questions of Obama stick out like a sore thumb. NOBODY in the media has EVER called Obama out on his many failed promises and massive failures of the last 4 years, and really challenged him. Of course, former Democrat staffers like George Stephanopolous wont really do that. Their bias is palpable, and it is part of the “Kultursmog” as well.

    Given that, media democrat talking points like “Romney is running a bad campaig” … oh really. No it’s not great, but you’ve got a guy who has spent billions in taxpayer money thrown around to pander for re-election, PLUS billions in the equivalent of free media (“Michelle O on the cover of people mag” etc.), PLUS media bias, PLUS a low-down-dirty nasty attack driven campaign that called Romney a felon, killer, tax cheat, uncaring, liar, etc. ALL THIS … and Romney had supposedly a dreadful convention, and two gaffes that were supposed campaign killers … and Gallup and Rasmussen both have it within the margin of error.

    Now I know people are thinking “Romney should be ahead because Obama is really really awful”. Yes, Obama is the worst President in our lifetimes, no doubt, his record is dreadful. BUT, think: How many times has the media actually tied the economy to Obama and put it on him that it is his policies that are to blame? Outside of Hannity?
    Zero times. We would need about $2 billion worth of ads just to drive home the point about how Obama’s policies are really to blame for the lousy economy.

    And on this point, I do happen to think Romney could be better. They have gone for finesse in attacking Obama when I beleive they need sharp, focussed and sledgehammer blows – because you need that to cut tthrough the media fog and garbage they spew to cover for the Democrats. Ads that list out the 20 Obamacare tax hikes and declare point blank:
    “ObamaCare tax hikes are hurting the economy, crippling business and killing jobs. WE NEED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE TO GET THE ECONOMY MOVING AGAIN.”

    The media has been enablers in Obama’s campaign of misdirection and also enablers of Obama’s excuses. No Republican could have gotten away with “Dont blame me for the unemployment rate or lack of growth in 2012, its what the Republicans did 10 years ago that is to blame” It’s time we on the Republican side got focussed on that big fat elepha… re, donkey, in the middle of the room.
    And got unified on messaging that will win and NOT carping that will lose.

    • barleycorn

      “there has been an increasing effort to marginalize conservatism in the elites.”

      Exactly correct. Conservatism will die of that marginalization unless our nominees (every year, every race) vigorously defend conservative principles.

  • retrocon87

    I like the rankings but I’d have to say I think you may have set the bar a little high for “relevant experience”… people who had spent extended periods of time as governors, plus Bush 1 who was UN ambassador, envoy to China, CIA director, and VP for 8 years all get a 0 for “relevant experience to be president?” The -1 for Obama seems about right, but other than, good lord…

    • barleycorn

      I agree that there were some who had greater amounts of relevant experience than others. I used broad categories in part to minimize the effect of my own ideological bias.

      Except for Obama who had served less than half of a Senate term when he started running for president, everybody on the list had either been elected to high office (governor, Congress, Vice-President) multiple times, or had been elected governor of a state and had experience running a business and/or military service.

      Carter for instance only served a single term as Governor but he ran the family peanut business, and served in the military. For all that experience he still sucked as president but that’s fodder for a different list.

  • http://www.justintribble.com Justin Tribble

    Romney’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

    Why? Because we have a liberal media in all out war against our candidate, and conservatives are flinching. Conservatives are feeling insecure. Conservatives are buying in — if only subconsciously — to the narrative that Romney is failing, that he’s not doing enough. They are being suckered in to this nonsense.

    Yes, Romney’s had a few missteps, but every campaign does. The real moment where the campaign is decided will come in the next month, over the debates. Everything up until now is noise.

    I don’t think any of this conservative pressure and criticism will have even the slightest effect on the polls or the vote on Nov. 6th — zero. It could have a positive effect, however, in that it keeps Romney on his toes. I don’t think it’s bad advice to say he should be in the swing states.

    The average voter I don’t think gives a crap what Peggy Noonan says, nor are they concerned if certain conservative pundits are criticizing Romney’s campaign.

    Again, the pivotal moments for Romney are the debates — can he show vigor, leadership, passion? Can he show consistency? Can he minimize the president? Can he navigate the inevitable attacks?

    If Obama comes at him on his business record and his aristocratic background, I think he *must* fight back. He has to get angry. He has to talk about the millions he’s given to charity and his church. He has to push back hard and stand up for himself.

    It’s the number one thing he’s got to reassure voters of — and it’s how he needs to silence the media. His number one biggest misstep, in my opinion, is that he hasn’t defended himself more vigorously, he literally needs to say, “Look, I’m not bad a guy, I’m not only looking out for the rich, I care about my church, community, my family — the media is obsessed with painting this phony picture of me and it’s garbage!”