Noonan Uses Bullsh*t to Call "Bullsh*t" on McCain's VP Choice (Near Live Microphone, No Less)

by Deb Cupples |   Yesterday, "conservative" Wall Street Journal columnists Peggy Noonan had finished a TV segment with NBC's Chuck Todd and apparently hadn't realized the microphone was still on while she slammed Sarah Palin (and McCain for choosing her as his running mate).  Here's part of what Ms. Noonan said:

"'It's over,' said Noonan, who then responded to a question of whether Palin is the most qualified Republican woman McCain could have chosen.

"'The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullshit about narratives,' she said. 'Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.'" (The Politico, emphasis added)

Ms. Noonan isn't quite right.  "Narratives" (and false imagery and, using her word, "bullshit") are precisely where many prominent Republican politicians "live" -- and some have been very good at it. 

How else could President Bush and some goose-stepping Republicans in Congress have persuaded millions of folks making under $40,000 a year to defend Mr. Bush's tax cuts for big corporations and hyper-wealthy individuals?

How else could President Bush and his team of well-paid Republican strategists have falsely persuaded most Americans that our nation had national-security grounds -(and even moral grounds) to invade Iraq?

If Republican politicians aren't hyper-focused on "narratives," why would guys like Sen. Kit Bond (and President Bush and Dick Cheney and Michael McConnell...) have publicly (and falsely) proclaimed that Telecom companies would never again help us catch terrorists unless we gave retroactive legal immunity to Telecoms that had broken the law while spying on Americans? 

It's not as though Telecoms would wave their middle fingers at valid warrants requiring them to eavesdrop on terrorists: 1) our government gives hard cash to Telecoms for their services, and 2) valid warrants would protect Telecoms from lawsuits.

Perhaps Ms. Noonan uses the term "narrative" differently than I do.  My Webster's Dictionary defines "narrative" as follows:

1. something that is narrated: story.  2.  the art or practice of narrating.

Given that definition, I'm amazed that Ms. Noonan failed to recognize just how preoccupied with and adept at telling stories many Republican politicians have become: whether stories about campaigns or policies or ideologies or actions.

Below is The Politico's YouTube video of Ms. Noonan's remarks (they are toward the end):

And you can see Ms. Noonan's explanation of her earlier remarks here.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Comments

[Adam]

I think she means personal narratives - i.e. politics based on embracing the character and story of one leader over another. In which case, she's still demonstrably wrong.

How else do you explain the oft-cited argument in 2000 that people would rather have a beer with GWB than Gore?

How else do you explain Vietnam-avoiding Bush being cast as the noble warrior in 2004, while decorated Vietnam war hero John Kerry became a coward?

How else do you explain the intense focus throughout the general election campaign on McCain's war record, and on Obama supposed lack of patriotism?

Personal narratives ARE the Republican's thing. They might fail this year, but it won't be because they're bad at narratives.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

I agree. Personal narratives ARE the Rs' game. So is (false) story telling in general.

[Scottsdale Bubbe]

Deja vu, indeed! Phony personal narratives and lying are the R's game. Making a strength a weakness (ours) is the R's game. Making a weakness a strength (theirs) is the R's game. These people are dangerous. And they are liars. I don't understand why people don't understand that facts from Dems are not going to be enough in this campaign. Obama and his surrogates must start calling out the R's lying (think Hitler's big lie). And point out how dangerous for the country it is. The Dems must continually characterize the R's as liars and dangerous. A little well targeted anger wouldn't be amiss, either. Otherwise, the drama is all on the R's side.

And have you noticed the timing of the "on our way to victory in Iraq I told you the surge would work"?? It's a bit too convenient and another deja vu reminiscent of the timing of the release of the American hostages from Iran just as Reagan was taking office?