There was a Titan IV that blew up higher than the Delta, but I don’t remember whether it was at the Cape or Vandenberg. I think it was in the late 80s.

Yes, you should be proud of your contributions to the space program. Thank you! I’ve been a space buff since I was a little kid.

You may be interested in checking out NASASpaceflight.com, if you’re not already aware of it.

I was working at the Kennedy Space Center at the time, installing the first fiber optic communications system on the cape, the CFON (Cape Fiber Optic Network).

I was and still am very proud to have contributed to the space program.

Thanks for the link.

FWIW: Those non-verbal cues you mention? – Thinking on’t, that may be one reason why I mistrust Romney, in exactly the same way – via, I suspect, exactly the same internal mechanism – you (and others) mistrust Gingrich.

…again, not enough so as I wouldn’t vote Romney, as an ABO voter.

I don’t like any of the candidates particularly well.

But I’ve known a [very] few people exhibiting similar characteristics – quirks – as Gingrich over the years …and often enough, I’ve numbered them amongst my small coterie of actual friends …with friendships that have sometimes stretched through decades.

“You say tomato, I say tomahto” LOL.

Dunno what “the real Newt'” is actually like personally, of course, (granted, he could actually be as repellent as some intimate …but his daughter’s belie that, don’t they?) …just don’t give much creedence to too much of the negative said about him, in trying to see the man as he is.

I think he would be a good [effective] president. Better than Bush II, at least (whom I had problems with).

…I think Romney would be merely adequate (I’m not fond of technocrats, and arguably he’s one if there ever was).

Santorum? – Dunno. I’d ABO vote for him in the general, too though.

Paul? – Disastrous. As bad in his own way as O’.

…the snow has made me all reflective and stuff LOL.

Conrad: I think Newt supporters are buying into a myth of his ability to combat the media narrative against him.

Now this comment I would like to address …as much because it is a nice encapsulation of the same argument other’s make rather less succinctly, Conrad (I’m not picking on you specifically), as due to my not agreeing with the premise.

How is it “buying into a myth” when you can watch Newt’ do it in real time?

Did you watch last night’s debate, and miss something that to others of us was quite obvious? Newt’ tearing into King and totally destroying his aplomb?

And – in a later discussion amongst the panel – Fleischer (Ari Fleischer) saying CNN should not have run with it. And the journolisto’s mumbling?

To some (many?) people, that was a publicly iconic moment. The MSM. Humbled by a politician. Live. On TV.

Devastating.

…and from the looks of at least two others present there (Romney and Santorum), they were impressed too.

That live and in living color Newt’ “performance” (I’d grant that as an argument, at least) does not appear to be typical of what you’d categorize as “myth”.

…but it DOES appear to be the stuff of which myths are made.

And I don’t think of that as being an unimpressive characteristic at all.

—
I’d like to suggest something else while I’m about this. Promethea [above] mentioned Newt’ as an example of the George Patton archetype (and I’ve read that on other threads too).

But I would suggest Newt as less of a Patton figure, and as more of a Churchill type.

Churchill was deeply unpopular for most of his career. Pugnacious. Argumentative. Mercurial. Unlikeable to the point of being despised by both his collegues and his opponents.

Doesn’t that remind you a bit of the reasons people give for not “liking”** Newt?

And. Churchill was the right man in their time of need, precisely because those qualities that made him a social and political pariah, also made him peculiarly fit to accomplish that task that destiny had fitted him to.

…though afterwards, the Brit’s chucked him out again.

(I’m sure someone is going to say that I’ve suggested Newt is of the stature of Churchill. I’m not [not yet, at least]. My major point is that weaknesses viewed from another viewpoint can equally be considered strengths.)

**I find the whole idea of a “likeability index” both vaporous and deeply disingenuous btw. When it should be on the order of “you say tomato and I say tomahto” and akin to “one man’s ceiling being another man’s floor”.

It’s okay to like or not to like someone/anyone, and to vote that way …but how does advancing what is in the end a purely emotional and wholly anecdotal preference – as being some kind of measurable attribute of a candidate – really any different that what an actual vote is?

Is this a high-school popularity contest? (And confess: you voted for your best friend over the geek who would have done the school treasurer job better, simply because well, you liked your best friend.)

I mean, I don’t care if you say you’re voting for someone because you like them. Fair enough. Me too.

But to suggest likeability as a hypothetical generalized attribute, is not really very useful in the argument.

(As an argument, this ploy is also akin to the entirely premature “inevitable” and the “electability” memes which some Romney partisans have been particularly egregious at making the past few weeks, which memes themselves are really palindromes …c’mon: isn’t inevitable in politics is generally determinative only in hindsight, and electability is what the outcome of the voting is about?)

You’re talking “wartime consigliere” here.

Newt should take aim at Obama and the socialist ideas that guide his administration.

My argument is this: media are Obama, and Obama is media. They are one and the same. Media are socialist ideas, and socialist ideas are media. When you fight the intellectual premises upon which media prop up their questions: you are fighting Obama and socialism. It is the same fight. It is not a question of directing fire at Obama vs directing fire at media. Rather, it is the same fight: directing fire at one = directing fire at both.

Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources.

Mitt did a fantastic job using the special subsidized status of the Olympics to raise money. And his “Bain Way” management skills turned a huge loss into a small loss that everyone liked.

Will we all be similarly pleased when President Romney efficiently cuts the FedGov deficit from $1.5T to $500B per year? And when does so by shifting costs to entities off his “official” budget?

Didn’t Gingrich also say something about wanting to teach a history course when he was in the WH?