That first missile went into place in Alaska, I believe. Others have gone into place in California (and there's a live "test" missile in Alabama) for the NMD system. I know of no cool nickname for it, though. Sorry!
Posted on 03/08/2005 3:47:20 PM PST by CHARLITE
I understand the fear but this is a different time. Yes, she could be nominated. And yes, if nominated, she could win.
But we're more informed now. The important thing is to not go frothing mad if Hilary is the dems nominee, but just work hard doing whatever it takes to defeat her.
And in the meantime, doing what it takes to get Bush's Supreme Court and other court nominees past the nuclear option the dems have been employing for the last six years, or is it only five? Well, whatever it is, since our electeds have no spine and value the opinions of the NY Times over the opinions and desires of those who got them elected, we have to constantly ride these Senators esp. but the congress critters too.
It'd be nice if we could intercept their copy of the Times every morning and replace it with more reasoned reading material.
Brilliant!
Tony Blankley has already stated that he believes GW will easily surpass Reagan. That may bother some people, but not me. GW was a sort of protege of Reagan's and it's just fitting that GW learned a great deal from being associated with him.
I'm sure GW watched him the whole 8 years his father was VP. Then, GW got to witness even more when his own father was President. For 12 years he watched the democrats wield their arrogant power over the country - surely his policies today reflect what he learned during those 12 years.
IMO, Hill is going to have to dig deep to even win that nomination. H.C. is not likeable with most of the General population. Those that fawn over her do so because they believe it necessary to their career, or because she's married to Bill. People DID love Bill Clinton. Just isn't the case with his wife.
Further other Dems are tired of a Junior Senator that got her office because her last name was Clinton, make no mistake that is what they are really thinking behind her back, calling the show. She made enemies even so far back as presuming to be co-President. Nor is the base content to pretend "moderation" in hopes IF she wins she'll govern as they want her too. They feel they did that with Kerry.
Kerry, meanwhile, has chosen to go for the Hard Left crowd and may end up playing the role of Howard Dean. The primary will be interesting. Whether she can pull off not being dragged into the Far Left where she is really at home, if she can win the nomination with a slight wink to the base while pretending to be conservative is anyone's guess. Four years out is a long time. Right now, the answer would be no.
I've gone out on a limb to suggest I wouldn't be surprised if the nominees from the Reps and Dem fields were virtual unknowns in '04. I think the country wants new blood. Not the same old names, that is just my impression. I'm also of belief how well we do in '08 is dependant on how well we govern as a majority now and '06 which is why I'm trying to tell Rep Senators to catch a clue before it's too late. Who will want to change the power structure if Reps are doing a good job? That's the foundation we want to build an '08 campaign around.
I also believe that the president isn't going to hang us out to dry in '08. One of the hallmarks of his tenure has been to build the Reps into a lasting majority. My guess is that behind the scenes he'll be actively involved in finding and pushing a successor, if he hasn't already spied one. With Reagan, Bush 41 was the defacto successor. G.W. has more liberties at his disposal since Cheney will not be running.
Not only that, he helped run his father's campaign. I believe Rove is a brilliant man, imo G.W. exceeds him as a campaign strategist. If he hadn't wished to be President, he could be doing Karl's job easily. He's had a unique vantage point that most people with political aspirations would envy.
And, I don't think it would be an insult to say he could be greater in the books of history than Reagan. My position has always been that that we shouldn't seek to live in the past. Instead of wishing time to stop with one President, we should wish the next President exceeds the previous achievements. One President building on the lessons of the other. In the way parents wish better for their children, it should be our natural inclination to encourage better for each President. In that manner the successes are linked, a credit to all not just one. A credit to our nation as a whole.
I have no real idea where Reagan or Bush will rank 150 years from now when history has occured, and it's movement critically assessed. I do think both can credibly be said to be great in present. I will say I've felt the longest period G.W. is comparable to Lincoln. Reagan I'm not too sure. FDR maybe? I know some conservatives may think that to not be a compliment, but I mean it so and Reagan himself stated FDR was a favorite of his.
That may be, but as strong and visionary leader as Mr. Bush is (and he does deserve mega kudos), he is merely extending the vision of Mr. Reagan.
You're right. I know Joan. She's fiercely loyal to this president, as am I. She says that among her great pleasures is exactly as you put it - driving these "superior" and "elite" liberals bonkers with our successes, and most of all, the ongoing success of our "dumb Texas cowboy" president!
Someone from Bush's inner circle said, shortly before the election, "You know, George W. Bush is one hellova good poker player. He really is! He's playing rings around the "smarty pants" liberals. That's for sure!
Great post soul seeker. CyberAnt, I agree with you and soul seeker. We are fortunate to be witnesses to this.
I so agree with the things you said, especially:
"He's had a unique vantage point that most people with political aspirations would envy."
And:
"... we should wish the next President exceeds the previous achievements."
My actual choice for comparison with GW is Churchill. When the Nazis were gaining more and more strength - Churchill was the only person willing to risk his political career to do the right thing.
Great post Southack. Where does that lovely missile reside?
It's very pretty.
My 17 year old daughter likes it also. She wants to know if it has a cool nickname. Do you know?
That first missile went into place in Alaska, I believe. Others have gone into place in California (and there's a live "test" missile in Alabama) for the NMD system. I know of no cool nickname for it, though. Sorry!
bttt
bttt
Can we start calling him "the liberator" now ?
Very fortunate indeed!
Thanks Southack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.