Bush Outlines Plan for 2015 Moon Landing

[Todd]

Bush Outlines Plan for 2015 Moon Landing



By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites), envisioning "new journeys to the worlds beyond our own," unveiled a plan Wednesday to send astronauts to the moon, Mars and beyond on missions sure to cost hundreds of billions of dollars and stretch the bounds of technology. He called for a manned lunar landing as early as 2015.












Bush's election-year initiative represents the boldest space goals since John F. Kennedy laid the groundwork for the Apollo program that landed Americans on the moon in 1969.


Intended to inject new life into a space program shattered by last year's loss of the Columbia shuttle and its crew of seven, Bush's proposal faces tough questions in Congress. Many Democrats say the administration should take care of problems at home before setting its sights on costly space initiatives, particularly in the face of budget deficits of about $500 billion.


Some scientists say it would be more efficient and less expensive to use robotic spacecraft instead of manned missions. Bush's father proposed a Mars mission in 1989, but it collapsed when cost estimates hit $400 billion to $500 billion.


In a speech at NASA (news - web sites)'s headquarters, Bush laid out a timetable for robotic missions to the moon no later than 2008, the first manned flight of a new spacecraft by 2014 and a manned lunar mission as early as 2015 and no later than 2020.


The president did not set a deadline for reaching Mars, and NASA Director Sean O'Keefe, briefing reporters later, said the timing of the mission would depend on the results of studies on the effects of space travel on humans.


Bush said the moon, with a gravity pull one-sixth that of Earth, could be the launching pad for "human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond." He said his goal was to "extend a human presence across our solar system."


Bush's speech put him in the political spotlight in the run-up to Monday's Iowa caucus battle among Democrats who want his job. It was the president's second headline-grabbing announcement in recent days, after his immigration proposal last week.


In vivid terms, Bush portrayed the nation's space program — with its three shuttles grounded by the Columbia accident — as at a standstill. "In the past 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world or ventured farther up into space than 386 miles, roughly the distance from Washington, D.C., to Boston, Mass.," Bush said.


"It is time for America to take the next steps," he said.


In terms of the cost, Bush gave an estimate only for the initial downpayment on his space plan. He said it would cost $12 billion over the next five years, but only $1 billion in new funds. The remainder would come from money reallocated under NASA's five-year budget. Thus, it would be for Bush's successors to figure out how to finance the costliest part of the plan.


Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who flew on a space shuttle in 1986, questioned whether $1 billion in extra funding would be enough. "You can't go to the moon by 2014 with that," Nelson said.


House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's plan faces strong scrutiny. "As we go forward with any initiative we have to examine our priorities," she said. "We have serious challenges here on Earth."


Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., chairman of the House Science Committee's Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, praised the plan.


"America is not going to remain at peace, and we're not going to remain the most prosperous nation, and we're not going to remain a free nation, unless we remain the technological leader of the world," he said. "And we will not remain the technological leader of the world unless we are the leaders in space."


In his speech, Bush got a high-tech introduction from a beamed video image of astronaut Michael Foale, aboard the International Space Station (news - web sites) 240 miles above the Earth.


"I know that I'm just one chapter in an ongoing story of discovery," said Foale, making his sixth trip into space. In the NASA audience sat Eugene A. Cernan, commander of the last Apollo mission to the moon in December 1972, the last man to leave his footprint on the lunar surface.





Bush brushed aside arguments that robotic exploration should replace human missions.

"The human thirst for knowledge ultimately cannot be satisfied by even the most vivid pictures or the most detailed measurements," Bush said. "We need to see and examine and touch for ourselves."

An AP-Ipsos poll out Monday found the public evenly split on Bush's plan to build a long-term base on the moon and eventually send astronauts to Mars. That's similar to the way Americans felt more than 35 years ago about the first efforts to land men on the moon.

The poll found that just over half said it would be better to spend the money on programs like education and health care rather than on space research.

"Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn to unknown lands and across the open sea," Bush said "We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey."

Under Bush's plan, the shuttle fleet would be retired by the end of the decade.

NASA would develop and build a new "crew exploration vehicle" to ferry people first to the space station after the shuttles were retired, and then to the moon.

Defending his priorities, Bush said the space program has brought tangible benefits with advances in weather forecasting, communications, computers, search and rescue technology, robotics and electronics.

To carry out his program, Bush formed a new panel, the Commission on the Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy, to advise NASA. Pete Aldridge, a former Air Force secretary, was named to lead the effort.

Bush spoke as NASA engineers in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California were maneuvering the Mars rover toward its first touch of the soil of the red planet. It was supposed to roll off its landing platform early Thursday.

[motownphilly]

what politicians will promise in an election year? He fooled me with his promises of unity and working across the isle in 2000. I think we should ban him from the Hall of Fame for lying to us 4 years ago. Fool me once...ya know.

[shabba4detroit]

Originally posted by motownphilly
what politicians will promise in an election year? He fooled me with his promises of unity and working across the isle in 2000. I think we should ban him from the Hall of Fame for lying to us 4 years ago. Fool me once...ya know.

Are you kidding? All this guy has done is worked across the aisle. Big education bill. Medicare reform. Immigration reform.
Fooled you? How?

[TigerCap]

Originally posted by motownphilly
what politicians will promise in an election year? He fooled me with his promises of unity and working across the isle in 2000. I think we should ban him from the Hall of Fame for lying to us 4 years ago. Fool me once...ya know.

He's been VERY amiacable to the other side of the aisle. He's spent a lot on their pet-projects. Hasn't touched the abortion issue. Does not take obvious opportunities to bash the moronic things Kennedy, Clinton, Gore, Daschle, etc. say. He was known, and respected, in Texas by Dems and Republicans for being a great mediator.
I'd say the effort has been there, and then some!

[motownphilly]

So why is what he did in Texas not translating on the national scale. He has the worst reputation with everyone from the allies his Dad used to fight Iraq the first time....to the countries (Mexico and Canada) he is now beginning to pander to... It seems like overcompensation.

The thing that really bugs me is, I'm a fiscal conservative. Forget all the increase spending in the past two years, why the heck are we suddenly "going to Mars"? First we were going to Mars with people, but then Bush found out that was not a good idea, so now it's unmanned missions. He sounds like me at a record store with a credit card. Problem is, the bill comes due.

He can spin it anyway he wants, but when I spend more money and don't take more in...I can't give donations (tax cuts) on top of that. Tax cuts are fair, but he has to become a responsible spender and get the congress to balance the budget. I swear, if he continues on this way, I'm gonna be voting for...gasp! A Democrat in 2004.

[ToledoTigerFan]

Still, it's not all that unreasonable to think that announcing that during an election year is simply a populist political ploy. To me, it sure seems like one.

Having grown up in the 60's and 70's, I love the space program, but how, pray tell, does it get funded?

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by ToledoTigerFan
Having grown up in the 60's and 70's, I love the space program, but how, pray tell, does it get funded?

I totally agree. Maybe we did need to move toward a space program again. But where was this talk when we elected him the first time? Actually, I member talk during his state of the union a year ago saying we were going to fund solar energy and alternative fuel programs. Since nobody cares about that (due to the increase of SUV's) suddenly we are going to the moon.

So what is he doing? He's getting a team together to discuss it. Great, this so-called conservative is going to create MORE government jobs. I still can't figure out why other Republican's like this guy? I once heard Limbaugh say, he loved that Bush was creating more government because it was taking the Democrats fire away. Huh? So it must be because people like the words Republican and Conservative, but not the actions...

Spend, spend, spend. Let's go to Mars, if it's necessary...after we find the money!

[Sid Monge]

Why spend billions on going to the MOON? Why go somewhere we've already BEEN, for crying out loud?

Any budget Bush puts up, don't believe it. It will be a false budget. Reagan's " International Space Station" was supposed to cost $8 billion in 1984, and it has already cost $32 billion.

As if you needed any more proof that Iraq was the new Vietnam, here comes a new round of bread and circuses to pacify the population while U.S. GIs die in an unjustified war!

Don't believe the hype.

An AP poll reports a "tepid" response from the public. on Bush's space program:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/215825.shtml

[Todd]

Originally posted by Sid Monge
[B.

An AP poll reports a "tepid" response from the public. on Bush's space program:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/215825.shtml [/B]

because the public in general is shortsighted and doesnt understand the improvements in their lives that the space program has brought

Benefits from the space program

[djhutch]

I don't care where NASA goes, as long as they take Al Franken with them.

[Sid Monge]

All the technology on that NASA site, Todd, has a purchase price or a service fee.

It is the role of risk-taking entrepreneurs to make that technology. The entrepreneurs design it and produce it, the American people buy it, and the risk is rewarded. That's the American way.

Bush is wrong to ask taxpayers to spend BILLIONS for the government to develop this sort of technology when, in a free market system, risk-taking entrepreneurs are the ones that should be developing it!

It's a government subsidy, a make-work program, and it goes completely against Republican ideals.

Bush isn't really a true conservative. He's Uncle Moneybags with the taxpayers' money. Why doesn't he refund to the taxpayers that $1B he wants to spend on space? Then they can spend on all the new technology they want- themselves.

[DetroitFolly]

Originally posted by djhutch
I don't care where NASA goes, as long as they take Al Franken with them.

Have you read his book yet, Dj?

[Shaggy Ry]

I'm actually in favor of a reinvigorated space program, however I had to smile when Bush talked about finding resources on the Moon or Mars - in my minds eye I could picture the moon and mars with fully functioning oil derricks covering the surfaces.

Once an oil man, forever an oil man.

I, to,don't know where the money is going to come from since Iraq is costing $76B(give or take) and there is still a list of brutal dictators that we have to launch a pre-emptive attack on in the name of humanity.

I hope they land on the moon and put a huge laser beam on it. He who controls the sky controls the war - and not too many countries could even come close to matching America's space programs. This big laser, similar to the one Dr. Evil had, but who's payload is more akin to the rayguns the martians had in Mars Attacks(Maybe that was the resources Bush is talking about- learning Raygun technology from the Martians), could use the much improved GPS to shoot down and incinerate at the push of a button. It could be precise enough to pick off one in a crowd or big enough to cut a swath of destruction the size of a North Korea instantly. It would be the ultimate peacemaker, there would be no reason to have armies or conventional warfare - the US could play world referee.

[DetroitFolly]

So Shaggy...

you seem to be advocating a huge escalation in the global arms race...that'll go over big with the rest of the planet.

[Todd]

I have a feeling if this was another president we would have a different tune from some people... i am amazed for the blind hatred of anything connected to Bush

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by Sid Monge
Bush isn't really a true conservative. He's Uncle Moneybags with the taxpayers' money. Why doesn't he refund to the taxpayers that $1B he wants to spend on space? Then they can spend on all the new technology they want- themselves.

A life long fiscal conservative, I don't know if I've seen a more liberal president than George W. Bush when it comes to our money. Reagan had the same problem, but to a lesser extent.

The Republican's better find someone in 2008 that has a brain and doesn't use the taxpayers dollars as his personal re-election fund. He should be using his bully tactics to get the congress to cut pork programs and trim the deficit so we can give people an HONEST tax cut instead of putting us so deep in the red that our kids will be paying for his re-election for years!

I think too many people see Republican and Conservative labels the media puts on things and they are satisfied. Heck, Howard Dean is closer to my idea of a fiscal conservative than Bush is. Yet, they paint Dean as a Liberal because of a couple of social issues. Rediculous. People need to stop being lemmings.

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by Todd
I have a feeling if this was another president we would have a different tune from some people... i am amazed for the blind hatred of anything connected to Bush

Man, it's not blind...and it's not hatred. I voted for the guy. I was pumped about his campaign. I loved the idea of "compassionate conservative". Heck, even Howard Dean said he liked Bush in 2000.

But he's not doing what he promised. He's not reaching out. He's not taking care of our money. He is making government larger by creating redundant departments of government (Condy Rice should be blasting him for undermining her National Security Department with Tom Ridge's redundant Homeland Security Department).

I don't know what facts you're looking at, but this guy is a fiscal left winger. He deserves to be bashed...along with all the Republican talk show hosts who are saying his liberal spending is good because it is helping him in the election.

SICK SICK SICK!

[Mikeshoe21]

While I freely admit that I don't like Bush, I also would strongly support the space program. I am not sure NOW is the right time to be trying to shoot for Mars though. I know NASA needs a boost after the Columbia tragedy, but I think we should be researching newer, safer, cheaper technology first, not for Mars, but for space flight in general, rather than making grand plans to go to Mars or build a permanent colony on the moon.

[Shaggy Ry]

Originally posted by DetroitFolly
So Shaggy...

you seem to be advocating a huge escalation in the global arms race...that'll go over big with the rest of the planet.

Actually I'm advocating the exact opposite. By making a weapon so vastly superior, countries would just give up their war machines. Imagine the individual war budgets going to healthcare and education.

What other countries are in space? Russia, soon to be China and the collective of Europe? Russia needs to be watched closely - nobody can tell me they actually trust Vladimir Putin, Europe is too much like us theorically to ever come to serious conflict with and China would have too much to lose, not playing nice. What choice would North Korea have - seriously - either conform or get incinerated at a push of a button without ever knowing what hit you. Launch a pre-emptive attack and you'll never live to see the missles land. Sure we'd need to make sure our super-secret forcefield is activated and at full strength as certain nations might see certain writing on the wall and launch a doomsday missle attach rather than being under the thumb of the Americans.

It would be our one ring to rule them all!

[Todd]

Originally posted by motownphilly
Man, it's not blind...and it's not hatred. I voted for the guy. I was pumped about his campaign. I loved the idea of "compassionate conservative". Heck, even Howard Dean said he liked Bush in 2000.

But he's not doing what he promised. He's not reaching out. He's not taking care of our money. He is making government larger by creating redundant departments of government (Condy Rice should be blasting him for undermining her National Security Department with Tom Ridge's redundant Homeland Security Department).

I don't know what facts you're looking at, but this guy is a fiscal left winger. He deserves to be bashed...along with all the Republican talk show hosts who are saying his liberal spending is good because it is helping him in the election.

SICK SICK SICK!

hmmmm maybe the spending has something to do with an unforeseen terrorist attack on this country or are one of the people that think that Bush knew all about it... yes i know theres probably pork programs that he created or what not , but he was also been trying to jump start the economy

[Shaggy Ry]

Originally posted by Todd
I have a feeling if this was another president we would have a different tune from some people... i am amazed for the blind hatred of anything connected to Bush

And they'red be a totally different tune from certain other people as well. That's two party politic's for you. I am amazed with the lapdog following Bush gets from certain circles.

[Sid Monge]

I just want to say that I would be outraged by the idea of expanding the space program whether it came from Bush, Clinton, Sparky Anderson, or anyone else. It's an idiotic fiscal decision at a time like this.

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by Todd
hmmmm maybe the spending has something to do with an unforeseen terrorist attack on this country or are one of the people that think that Bush knew all about it... yes i know theres probably pork programs that he created or what not , but he was also been trying to jump start the economy

I'm with you buddy...a terrorist attack was cause for a change in direction. But again, Homeland Security when there is a National Security Department?

He would do a lot better in jump starting the economy to give me a job. To stop touting NAFTA and start talking about trade reform. Here in South Carolina we have lost a ton of manufacturing jobs to Mexico. Now the Mexicans are losing those jobs to China. With 32 percent unemployment in Mexico due to those jobs moving overseas...those Mexicans are now coming across the border to take jobs here illegally.

If he could just focus on a sensible trade policy. He could save us billions, put our corporations back to work suppling jobs for Americans, which creates more tax revenue...which brings more spending...which stimulates the economy...and creates so many jobs we don't have to worry about Immigration stealing what jobs we have left.

There is little sense in Washington. We are getting screwed because we are happy a Republican that thinks he's Ronald Reagan incarnate is in office.

[Buddha]

"I have a feeling if this was another president we would have a different tune from some people... i am amazed for the blind hatred of anything connected to Bush"

Or maybe we just think it's a dumb idea, no matter who came up with it.

"hmmmm maybe the spending has something to do with an unforeseen terrorist attack on this country or are one of the people that think that Bush knew all about it... yes i know theres probably pork programs that he created or what not , but he was also been trying to jump start the economy"

Giving a huge tax cut is the equivalent of a spending program, and that was not a result of 9/11. That was his program long before the terrorist attacks.

Medicare prescription drug plan?

Bush throws money around more than any "liberal" President or democratic Congress.

[Buddha]

"To stop touting NAFTA and start talking about trade reform. Here in South Carolina we have lost a ton of manufacturing jobs to Mexico. Now the Mexicans are losing those jobs to China. "

You can't stop "globalization."

Is American labor overpriced in the world market? Can't blame that on NAFTA.

The only thing you can do is hope other countries someday have the same labor standards that we do (even though Bush is trying to erode our labor standards as we speak). Unionization in Mexico and China would go a long way to making sure our manufacturing jobs don't disappear.

But good luck with that one.

[motownphilly]

I didn't really answer the question....which was about terrorist attacks and pork programs...but in a way I did.

If we just looked at terrorism instead of vendetta's against Iraq...we would not be spending $87 billion. Yes Saddam needed to go, but we went for the wrong reason. If Bush were smart, he would have gone in on "Human Rights Abuses" rather than "WMD's". We can prove the Human Rights abuses and he would have had Conservatives and Liberals alike on his side. And the UN would have jumped at the chance. This is where Clinton was (gasp) smarter than Bush. Kosovo was a Human Rights issue. It's easy to rally people behind that. Saying Iraq was linked with Al-Queda and had weapons we had no intelligence on was a HORRIBLE move. If we got the world behind us...by doing this, we would not be spending $87 billion or $1500 per Iraqi...to solve this. Also, why did Bush GIVE them that money? We made friends with Germany and Japan by making them OWE that money. Have we learned nothing by history.. It gives you a negotiating chip. Now Iraq will just be the spoiled stepchild.

As for Pork...there are programs that have built up for years and years...not so much Bush... I think someone needs to dig into pet projects and cut the useless ones...and there needs be a real line item veto...so presidents can cut a bill where the pork begins.

But instead, we are talking about a Moon base and missions to Mars. I'm glad we didn't get Al Gore, but this country can't take 4 more years of this!

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by Buddha
"To stop touting NAFTA and start talking about trade reform. Here in South Carolina we have lost a ton of manufacturing jobs to Mexico. Now the Mexicans are losing those jobs to China. "

You can't stop "globalization."

Is American labor overpriced in the world market? Can't blame that on NAFTA.

The only thing you can do is hope other countries someday have the same labor standards that we do (even though Bush is trying to erode our labor standards as we speak). Unionization in Mexico and China would go a long way to making sure our manufacturing jobs don't disappear.

But good luck with that one.

It's called a Global Minimum Wage, tied to NAFTA and any global trade plan. If a country wants our jobs, fine, but they have to meet certain standards. Hey, if the Chinese risk losing $8 trillion dollars of Wal-Mart money, don't you think they might up their standards a bit?

[Buddha]

"It's called a Global Minimum Wage, tied to NAFTA and any global trade plan. If a country wants our jobs, fine, but they have to meet certain standards. Hey, if the Chinese risk losing $8 trillion dollars of Wal-Mart money, don't you think they might up their standards a bit?"

Fine with me.

As long as we're not pissed when the prices of everything start to rise. And I would be willing to pay more for things if it meant more americans had higher paying jobs.

Do you think Wal-Mart would go along with that deal? I doubt it.

Vote Gephardt if you want ideas like a Global Minimum Wage.

[Amish Love Machine]

Originally posted by motownphilly
Here in South Carolina...

I just noticed you were from Greenvillle. Home of Bob Jones U. Woohoo!

Sorry, just thought I'd throw that out. Carry on with the discussion at hand.

[sngglybllz]

I enjoyed reading these posts. I happen to be a Republican who supports Bush, but I do have a problem with this space program and the new immigration plan. Like a previous poster said the Republicans better come up with a solid candidate for 2008 because we may be in trouble when the Clintons decide to run for their third term. Maybe Condoleezza Rice up against Hilary Clinton. Anyways I was happen to read posts not pro-Bush that were well thought out and didn't just bash the man. Anyone have any good ideas on who the Republicans should use as their presidential candidate in 2008?

[Shaggy Ry]

Is Invisible Dick Cheney on the ballot with Bush in 2004 or is Dubya going to shake things up?? Could Connie Rice maybe get the nod if Cheney isn't around - or is there still too many racists and women haters to risk such a move. I have to believe that Bush is pretty much a shoo-in, especially if Dean gets the nod, why not try something with Condoleza Rice as Veep.

[sngglybllz]

I think that would be a good decision to make for the Bush camp. I think as a society we would excpet Rice as the president, especially being a conservative Republican. On the other hand if Sharpton, Jackson, etc became a viable candidate they would have no chance.

[Mikeshoe21]

Originally posted by sngglybllz
I enjoyed reading these posts. I happen to be a Republican who supports Bush, but I do have a problem with this space program and the new immigration plan. Like a previous poster said the Republicans better come up with a solid candidate for 2008 because we may be in trouble when the Clintons decide to run for their third term. Maybe Condoleezza Rice up against Hilary Clinton. Anyways I was happen to read posts not pro-Bush that were well thought out and didn't just bash the man. Anyone have any good ideas on who the Republicans should use as their presidential candidate in 2008?

I am very much a democrat, so you can take this with a grain of salt if you want...

I think a lot will depend on this election. If Bush wins big, and that momentum puts him on a roll I think you will see someone from his "team", maybe Jeb, or Condi...if he squeeks by again, or loses, then I think they will go with someone not affiliated with him. Frist might be good, or a governor

[sngglybllz]

True, I am assuming that G. Bush wins this election and his approval ratings stays were it is right now. I agree if he loses this election or really makes some people mad over the next four years they would really have to look in another direction. Another Rebuplican that could make some noise in 2008 is the ex-oklahoma QB J.C. Watts. As you can see I am going with a particular theme for the Republicans in 2008. I beleive it is important for the Republicans to win some votes from minorities that have felt alienated or forgotten by the Rep. party.

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by Buddha
Do you think Wal-Mart would go along with that deal? I doubt it.

Vote Gephardt if you want ideas like a Global Minimum Wage.

Can't sell my soul for one issue...I like Gephardt's idea, but that's one of the few.

I can say, I think Wal-Mart should stop running this country. The American people are electing them though by living on the cheap. I think I can tell from your tone (and correct me if I'm wrong), that you would see nothing wrong with people going back to buying from the mom and pop small businesses that make this country great.

I for one have not stepped foot in a Wal-Mart since they started all of this illegal immigrant hiring and making people work off the clock. That along with buying everything from China. Hey' it's what the country is doing...living in debt and giving our money to China...I guess I should expect no less from our President.

I now just save a little more to buy quality products from companies that are owned by Americans and sell American products. There are things you have to buy from foreign manufacturers, but I try to buy things made in reputible countries like Canada, Germany, England, etc.

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by Amish Love Machine
I just noticed you were from Greenvillle. Home of Bob Jones U. Woohoo!

Nice Yup, right down the street from here. Worked with a lot of people from there. Some are great partiers. Others are very strict and don't think for themselves. It's a confusing place to live...home of Jesse Jackson and Bob Jones....

Oh, and let's not forget Shoeless Joe Jackson. We cover all bases around here!

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by sngglybllz
Anyone have any good ideas on who the Republicans should use as their presidential candidate in 2008?

I used to like Jack Kemp and Tommy Thompson. Not sure where they stand on issues now though. Kemp changed when he went with Dole. I think it will need to be an outsider...and someone not from the South. I'm sick of people thinking you can only win by being from the south.

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by Shaggy Ry
why not try something with Condoleza Rice as Veep.

To be honest. I don't think Bush trusts her. Just a gut feeling, but when you come up with Homeland Security to do her job... I actually wouldn't mind Tom Ridge as a VP candidate with a shot at the Presidency in '08. That's if we get stuck with Bush again. But I don't know if Bush is strong enough now to be able to take on a quality VP candidate...no person with presidential aspirations is going to tie on to a ticket that's iffy. Jack Kemp learned that the hard way...

[shabba4detroit]

Expect a bombshell at the Convention. Cheney agrees to step down as VP, as he isn't healthy enough to run for President in 2008, and he has said he doesn't want the job. Condi Rice joins Dubya on the ticket, as she will be groomed for 2008 to run against Billary Clinton. Colin Powell retires after the 2004 election, and Cheney steps in as Secretary of State.


Remember, you've heard it here first.


Peace,

Shabba

[motownphilly]

Originally posted by sngglybllz
As you can see I am going with a particular theme for the Republicans in 2008. I beleive it is important for the Republicans to win some votes from minorities that have felt alienated or forgotten by the Rep. party.

The Republican's have to make an honest EFFORT, rather than just paying lip service to blacks. JC Watts would be an interesting candidate, but I don't think the whole Republican party would embrace him. Same for Condy Rice running for President. She's a smart woman, eliquant speaker, but I don't think the Republican party is ready to push both a woman and an Afro-American for president. It's a risky proposition with the white rebel flag toting crowd and they get a lot of vote from thier far right. If they made that effort, I would appreciate it, but they'd have to back that candidate strongly and if they didn't it could backfire on them.