Posted on 12/31/2006 5:10:46 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, December 31st, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; former Gov. Tom Vilsack, D-Iowa, presidential candidate.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw; journalist Bob Woodward.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Alexander Haig, former Ford White House chief of staff; journalists Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post and Tom DeFrank of the New York Daily News; Gerald Ford biographer James Cannon.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., presidential candidate; wife, Elizabeth Edwards.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Feisal al-Istrabadi, Iraq's deputy ambassador to the United Nations; Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.
How about Rick Santorum for VP with Romney? It doesn't give the ticket geographic balance, though Pennsylvania is technically not part of New England, but it certainly provides good conservative credentials as well as great credibility in the WOT.
#344, Good grief, all he needs is a Nursing Bra.
How can he get that so wrong? It was such a huge deal, and such a failure on Frist's part.
Good to see you, Rodguy! I hope your New Year goes well!
I see the Teachers Highland Cream in the background! Oh, to be young again! Happy New Year, Snugs!
Facts are facts. You really can't compare the two because they served in much different circumstances as far as the composition of the Rep party was concerned, i.e., the percentage identifying themselves as conservatives. The GOP during Ford's tenure had many Northeasterners and Midwesterners. It was more liberal overall as a party. This changed as the GOP gained in the conservative South, which has now become the GOP's principal power base. Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford were not conservatives nor did they pretend to be so. Neither was Bush 41. You can't fault Ford for being accommodating to the Dems because he had little choice given the large Dem majorities. Most of the politically meaningful dialogue took place within the Dem party with the Southern Dems pitted against the rest of the Party. The Reps could use some leverage in forming coalitions with Dems to determine the outcome of some issues.
Also, the Dems controlled the House to a much greater degree when Ford took over as the minority leader [1965-73] than under Gingrich's minority whip tenure [1989-95] when he took over for Cheney. The Dems controlled the 89th Congress [1965-67] in the House 295-140 and 68-32 in the Senate. The Reps high water mark in the House never got above 192 during Ford's tenure and many of those Reps were not conservatives.
The GOP under Gingrich was a much different party thanks to the success of Reagan and the shift of the South to the Rep column. It was much different than the GOP that had been practically destroyed when Goldwater was the standard bearer in the 1964 election.
I also agree with those that characterize Ford as an "anti-conservative Republican," if you take Reagan to represent the conservatives in the party. Lots of people have pointed out the slap in the face selecting Nelson Rockefeller as his VP was to conservatives. At the time it was intended to broaden his standing across the party as Ford was nominally a midwestern conservative (of the old school) and Rockefeller represented a different wing of the party, but events later made me associate Ford (and the old school midwest Republicans) with the country club Rockefeller Republicans as oppposed to the Reagan conservatives.
Ford was being a political realist. In 1964 Goldwater, an avowed and proud conservative, got the nomination of the GOP. He lost the popular vote 61% to 38.5% and the electoral vote 486-52. I can understand why Ford would be reluctant 12 years later to place another conservative on the national ticket.
None of this is that strongly held or backed by any research. It's just my impression, having lived through the times in question (though I wasn't paying that much attention to politics at the time).
It sounds like you a bit older than me. I am only 63, but I can remember much of it, especially the 60s having served in Vietnam. As a 17 year old in 1960, I was distributing campaign literature door to door in a small town in very Rep upstate NY on behalf of JFK. Of course, by today's standards, JFK might be considered a conservative.
#363, they just harbor these negative feelings about a pre-born baby unless it is a freaking Duck egg. I hate it also when they club those helpless seals, I would like to club them, and I would never wear Fur that was taken from a baby anything. Those wackos should use the same kind of enthusiasm against the Human Baby Killers as they do against the Baby Animal Killers.
You are very right about any investigation into 8/29..needs to go back decades.
But, just like the 9/11 Commission decided it wasn't necessary to go back to the 90's to find out what happened...you KNOW any Katrina commission will only go back to right before the hurricane..or maybe to 2001, in order to say that Pres. Bush should have known that during HIS presidency this was going to happen so he should have been prepared for it...
I think the VP is laughing at what Prez Ford was saying about, "Now Dick, I may not be around much longer, but listen, 'Don't believe a thing Woodward may say after my passing & don't believe any taped evidence. As you probably know, Woodward is better at doctoring tapes than Rose Mary Woods.'
"Are you paying attention Dick"? .....and VP Cheney laughs out loud.
:)
That is why I posted that whole post last night...
I was only going to post about Frist and the nuke option...but, is just got crazier.
#368, they are doing it now simply because they can. It has been in their plans for quite a while. They see the Rats in Power and the Rats will not look into it, and they know this. They know the Rats have thrown up all the roadblocks that they can muster to prevent this Country from Defending itself against the Islamofacists. It is not surprising to me, they are influencing Senators like Levin, and Congressmen like John Conyers because they have money and voting power and that is all The Rats care about, certainly not the Safety of their Citizens.
Just who are these so-called "poor?" The brief AEI study that I ref'd in a recent post to a different thread, demonstrates how lousy our "poverty" stats are. Edwards really needs to be called on his misleading use of "the poor." "...Recently, Rush Limbaugh cited a study by a scholar from AEI (Nicholas Eberstadt) who demonstrated that today's "poverty" standards are equivalent to US middle class living standards of the 1960s. Transfer payments aren't included in calculating "poverty income," etc....
Don't tell anyone but I was wondering that myself)
------
Thanks Snugs!! .. They look so good whenever you've posted your pictures .. but I couldn't figure it out .. I've never had them before
Hey rodguy911 ... we're in business .. Snugs posted the recipe here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1760559/posts?page=446#446
And here is a picture of what a parsnip looks like
Parsnips resemble carrots, but are paler and have a stronger flavor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsnip
I'm not sure that all of your predictions will come true, but I surely do like them!
Was it black coffee, or did it have sugar and/or milk in it? If it's just black, you may be able to let it dry naturally. If it's got sugar in it, I'm not so sure.
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.