BloggeRhythms

In her Wall Street Journal article today, the highly experienced Peggy Noonan attempts to explain that the newly elected president is missing an opportunity by not “arguing” for desired changes. Instead he “announces” his actions, which in Ms Noonan’s opinion is a mistake. Because by doing so, she feels he’s ignoring possession of the biggest “mic” in the world and the chance to permit voters to see the “back and forth” of “arguments.” 

What’s most interesting about Ms Noonan’s perception of President Trump’s methodology, however, is that it’s she who hasn’t yet grasped his operational outlook and style whereas it’s so different from the typical politicians of the past. And even more insightful is the commentary from readers who are a highly intelligent, well-versed, and astute group of individuals.  

They also have a far firmer grasp of what’s transpired politically and are far less concerned about Trump's particular actions to date as president. That's because they pale by comparison to his defeating an individual and platform they find despicable.      

Ms Noonan wrote @wsj.com: “An odd thing about the president—and this has contributed to the general lostness of Washington—is that he doesn’t perform a primary and obvious function of presidents, which is to argue for things. You make a decision, unveil a program, and make a case for its excellence. The other side then argues back. In the ensuing back-and-forth, voters get the contours of what’s being proposed. 

“This president doesn’t argue, he only announces. He asserts. Previous presidents in their early speeches were always making the case for a certain advancement. Not to do so is a waste of the biggest mic in the world. 

“The populists or economic nationalists of the Trump administration have, on some level and at the moment, swept the party. Now they’re trying to own it. But you don’t hear from them much about the meaning and content of their endeavor. And the symbolism that keeps cropping up around the White House, or rather Mar-a-Lago, is odd.” 

To that reader Byron Spain responded: “Today the democrats in congress are wounded. It is time for the kill. Trump, Ryan and McConnell should make every effort to minimize Pelosi and Schumer by continuously ignoring them and finding every excuse to create dissention in their ranks. Next step is to find and promote qualified candidates to oppose every democrat house member and those senators who are up for reelection now and daily hammer on the incumbents failures. Criticism done continuously and publically for two years will have a very positive effect on the 2018 election.” 

Thus, in this case, reader Spain doesn’t seem to care about particular issues at all. His primary concern is that Democrats are now gone from power and the mission is to insure that they don’t come back at any time in the future. 

Reader Catherine Pate focused on the MSM, which in her opinion would only distort the president’s utterings to their own advantage, forcing his use of other communication methods instead.  

Ms Noonan wrote: “Previous presidents in their early speeches were always making the case for a certain advancement. Not to do so is a waste of the biggest mic in the world.” 

Ms Pate commented: “Previous presidents also got the benefit of a press that wasn’t completely hostile, antagonistic and intent on misrepresenting what was said in those speeches. And no one (for better or worse) outside of the Washington cognoscenti actually listens to these entire speeches.Trump knows this and so he has no choice but to frame the debate by the only means available to him.” 

Reader Chuck Roehrich addressed major issues specifically that he and many millions of others found fault with specifically.

“[Infrastructure is]… for his supporters not a secondary but a primary issue..” – Wrong! 

“It was the overt corruption of the now defunct Clinton Global Initiative and struggling Clinton Fund. It was abortion on demand, the forced feeding of the homosexual agenda, the Merkel open borders policy, the “how does that make you feel” SCOTUS judges, the nanny State of government knows all – solves all that Peggy’s queen represented, that I voted against.”

For Addison Gardner Trump's appeal is precisely opposite Ms Noonan’s whereas she feels a need for discussion on all issues. Trump, on the other hand, simply takes action instead. That's because it's Trump’s perception that the voters gave him a very clear list of desires which he’s fulfilling to the best of his ability. And so long as he stays on the track of voter satisfaction, there’s really nothing at all to discuss.     

Reader Gardner put it this way: “I think Peggy sees the tree (Trump's brevity and assertiveness) while overlooking the forest (the near impenetrable media shroud covering the White House), and she draws the wrong conclusions. 

“Trump Tweets and he "announces," and "he asserts" because that's what it takes to penetrate media jamming and the press corps cloud of orchestrated disinformation.  

“He'll speak at CPAC tonight. He'll address a joint session of Congress next Tuesday. There will be plenty of time for 'splainin' to the American people; meanwhile, a month into his presidency -- Ft. Apache, the White House -- he's getting stuff done instead of yammering into a camera.

“Trump understands, unlike his media darling predecessor, that results are more important than the Teleprompted eloquence of staff speechwriters. Flowery language dropped us in the Obama wasteland you describe. 

“Trump bluntness may airlift us out. 

“A final note, Peg. Democrat "brains" are located well south of their "heads." They'll fight Gorsuch for dear life.” 

Michael Dixon presented a direct and completely accurate analysis of Trump’s practices and procedures:  

"Not to do so is a waste of the biggest mic in the world" 

“Yet the press are the speakers the mic is hooked to. And the press-speakers aren't broken, no - they are actively manipulating the channels so other words come out.  

“When 90% of the press not only hates you but wants to twist everything you say in order to get you fired, and the press is what broadcasts that mic to the world, would you get on that mic? I would guess no. You would find a direct channel, for now twitter. And twitter is unfortunately not a place to use for in-depth conversation. 

“Until the press gets fixed, I think he is playing it smart by staying off their mic.” 

James Hoffman added depth to  Michael Dixon’s thoughts, as follows: “My wife is always saying, "I don't understand why the Republicans don't say x or y."  I tell her they do, the Press just doesn't put that on the air or quote it in the papers. 

“Listing to NPR, when they talk about the Republicans, they interview a Democrat saying how bad the Republicans are and when they talk about the Democrats, they interview a Democrat saying how good the Democrats are.” 

Another reader, Tony Rizzo wrote a response that not only correctly contradicted Ms Noonan’s perspective but demonstrated the intellectual acuity of the column’s typical readers. And what surfaces clearly is that Trump’s win wasn’t simply a voter upheaval but a revolt by highly sophisticated individuals having very practical and feasible demands.     

Mr. Rizzo wrote: “The other side then argues back. In the ensuing back-and-forth, voters get the contours of what’s being proposed." 

“Contours!!!  

“UGH! STOP!! Is it perhaps possible that a Noonan column might take a look ahead and STOP OBSESSING with all of this endless non-stop verbiage on phony culture issues? Is it possible? Can we put an end to all of this ossified granny-style of writing? 

“Please - Gigot/Taranto - can you bring on a fresh new voice that will make all the dollars my WSJ subscription costs me every month not feel so wasted on this this tripe? 

“It is time to make an official Declaration(s) - Noonan's columns are no longer viable or readable! 

“Thank God for the brilliance of Kim Strassel, but it isn't enough of a Friday counterbalance to this nonsense...” 

And in his commentary, reader Rizzo inadvertently illustrated that it isn’t only Ms Noonan that Journal subscribers see through, but also the WSJ Editorial Board. Because when viewing the televised Journal Editorial Report on Saturday afternoon’s, the anti-Trump, anti-Conservative posture comes through quite clearly. Except for James Freeman, who like Kim Strassel strongly supported Trump throughout the presidential campaign and beyond to the White House. 

In conclusion, what’s glaringly significant today is the evidence of the declining power and effect of the MSM. Because if readers have more knowledge and are capable of producing more insightful analyses of what’s transpiring in the world around them than journalists, it won’t be long until those journalists won’t be needed at all. 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios