“If they fail in that objective (among several others) I will join you in condemning them.”

And maybe you were part of the swing voters that voted out the Republicans earlier this decade, soon after Karl Rove declared that Republican were set to rule for a long time. If anything, voters have shown their distaste for both parties, and polls show that despite voting in many Republicans, that they have little faith in them being better than the Democrats.

People get engaged politically when they are not satisfied, and we’ll see what happens in the next two years. One thing is for sure, is that the Tea Party wing of the Republican party is going to make things very interesting for the traditional Republicans. We’ll see how well Boehner and McConnell do at creating voteable legislation, especially NASA-friendly legislation.

First, have some decency and please refer to him as the President. Second, although this was in some ways a repudiation of Democrats, there is a lot of evidence that it wasn’t an embrace of Republican ideas.

nice post…really nice Robert G. Oler

Is this the same GOP that just agreed as a caucus (House and Senate) to try and ban all congressional earmarks? If they fail in that objective (among several others) I will join you in condemning them. But for now, they appear to be more in-tune with the wishes of the Republic in significantly paring back the size of Govt. than the current regime. Pelosi and the man-child appear to be tone-deaf to the message the US voters sent November 2. I wonder if the rest of the Dems in Congress have the courage (or fear of a job-loss in 2012) to follow that lead.

That’s just a silly assertion. But then, considering the source, understandale.

Hmmm.

If Kennedy had gotten a deal w/t Soviets to conduct joint explorations in space, to the moon and suxh, he’d have pounced on it. JFK gets a lot of surface credit for giving the nod to Apollo but wiser heads know it was LBJ who really kept the cash flowing and pushed Apollo to the moon.

A lot can happen in 1,000 years, Windy.

Abreakingwind – the issue isn’t whether historians are going to argue about this speech, or that speech. The issue is, had the Cuban Missile Crisis gone differently, there wouldn’t be any historians.

You can believe whatever you want, but the fact that we exists, and might not have had different decisions been made – thats a hell of a legacy.

LOL Rest easy. The Under 40 crowd are pretty weak on history.

As a member of the under 40 crowd – sorry, but don’t assume abreakingwind is somehow representative of us (not even sure he is under 40)

Future historians, archeologists, and students will study both as they’re both essential elements of the Cold War. The era can’t be understood without grasping both the military and non-military means of confrontation that the US and USSR pursued. The Cuban Missile Crisis and Apollo were two sociopolitical sides of the same same technological (ICBM) coin.

1,000 years ago, the Norse were both discovering North America on their way to (temporarily) settling Newfoundland and invading Britain on their way to establishing a monarchy. These activities were two sides of the same technological (longship) coin. Both are studied today to understand the Viking Age.