Evolutionary political change has affected our system in ways that no one could have predicted.
By now much has been written on presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s gaffe about the 47% of Americans who believe themselves to be “victims” and who supposedly don’t pay taxes.
Many years ago, in a state of frustration, a foreign ambassador said to me in exasperation: “The problem with the [Bush] administration is that they want a foreign policy without foreigners.”
Thank goodness this election is almost over. The toxicity of the campaign has turned off voters and undermined our future in ways that could be profound and possibly permanent.
For more than a month, members of my family and I have been engaged in private meetings to see what common ground is left between us and the Eisenhower Memorial Commission.
Since the March 20th hearing on “The Proposed Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial,” Philip Kennicott and The Washington Post’s editorial page have repeatedly mischaracterized my testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
The news media has been full of the testimony from Tuesday’s hearing on “The Proposed Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial” before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
The following testimony was given by Susan Eisenhower before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources at a hearing titled “The Proposed Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial” on March 20, 2012.
In writing on the collapse of the Soviet Union in my 1994 book Breaking Free, I noted the relish with which Soviet jokesters challenged the communist regime, and its ludicrous use of propaganda to trumpet the future and erase all traces of past failures.
One of the oldest ploys in the strategist’s handbook is to create side skirmishes of little value, except as a way to avoid or delay fully engaging the “enemy” or “adversary” in real battle.