Word: fightingly
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...walks into the room, and you just instantly like him. Even people who disagree with him?and I'm one?think he's a charming character." There was reason enough to believe that he and Pat Moynihan, head of the President's Council for Urban Affairs, would fight for dominance in the domestic sphere. Both extremely strong-willed men, they have instead developed a close rapport. "Bob Finch," says Moynihan, his Irish speaking, "is an absolutely sweet...
...product of a wealthy, 97% white district of lakeshore suburbs north of Chicago, the Protestant, Princetonian Rumsfeld, 36, appears at first to be an unlikely choice to lead the nation's fight on poverty. He opposed much of the Johnson antipoverty legislation, including the measure setting up OEO. He says that his stand reflected a difference over methods, not goals. But since he came to Congress in 1963 as a crew-cut conservative, his sympathies for the poor, as well as his hair, have grown...
...parents might carry the fight to the City Council, but Mrs. Butler said last night that this would only serve to drag the personalities of the appointees into the fight. "I am not against the men appointed personally," she said, "but I felt more candidates should have been considered...
...Corporation's members must also have realized that Lamont's successor gave them a rare chance to fight their image problems. Lamont was a Wall Street banker, director of the Morgan Guaranty Trust. Compared to him, almost any new members the Corporation chose would look like a step away from the Eastern financial establishment. The only possible exceptions would be Rockefellers or Mellons, and the Corporation reportedly offered the post to David Rockfeller. But if he did get the offer, he turned it down, and the Corporation eventually turned to Hugh Calkins...
...first has to do with the mentality of a military establishment. It is a truism that soldiers exist to fight--and win--wars. Major "conventional" conflicts are unlikely, if only because they would quickly become nuclear once any party thought it was losing, the U.S. is inept at combating guerrilla units, and major nuclear was is, at the moment, strategically unacceptable. There just don't seem to be any kinds of wars the U.S. can win anymore. The obvious question becomes: What do we need soldiers for? or, at least, what do we need so many soldiers and weapons...