Top. Men.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, it’s clear that Mitt is completely out to sea on the issue (if it wasn’t already).
He just lost the votes of anyone interested in space, completely needlessly, because he saw it as an opportunity to bash Newt. As I said, a soulless technocrat.
[Friday morning update]
Who has the best plan for space? Take the poll.
[Update a few minutes later]
For anyone interested, here’s the transcript.
There doesn’t seem to be a link.
Or was that the point?
No link, just live blogging the debate.
Oh, OK, I saw your update. You’re liveblogging the debate. I’m maintaining my perfect record of not having watched a single solitary minute of any of them. Have at it.
All of them missed a golden opportunity…and none of them would have had to compromise their positions:
All they had to say was that once they get the nation working and prospering, that the already burgeoning commercial efforts – they could have done a trifle of research and gotten the names of Space-X and XCOR – the already burgeoning commercial efforts and American enterprise (always good to use that word connected with space) would put Americans on the moon without huge government programs, and long before any command economy nation.
But that’s the thing.. the Republicans believe in the command economy for space and Ron Paul believes in the command economy for national defense, thus his answer was that the only space stuff that the federal government should be doing is national defense.
Ron Paul believes in the command economy for national defense, thus his answer was that the only space stuff that the federal government should be doing is national defense.
If only that were true, but Ron Paul signed on to the letter to save Constellation.
The amazing things is not that he finally sold out his principles (all politicians do, sooner or later) but that he sold them so cheap.
No idea what you’re referring to, but I’d love to see where Ron Paul signed for federal spending on (non-defense) space. url?
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/reps-tells-nasas-bolden-stop-damaging-constellation.html
“Put not your faith in princes.”
Yep, basically the opposite of what you said it was. The letter was not authorizing spending on NASA, it was telling NASA to follow the law and do what Congress had already told them to do.
Yep, basically the opposite of what you said it was. The letter was not authorizing spending on NASA, it was telling NASA to follow the law and do what Congress had already told them to do.
In other words, spend money on Constellation. Lots and lots of money.
In other words, exactly what I said.
But spending isn’t spending if Congress already authorized it in the past? Or do you think Constellation is “doing national defense”?
If you can parse that to be consistent with Ron Paul’s principles, you can parse anything.
Huh? Ron Paul is Mr Constitution.. of course he’s going to sign a letter that calls for the executive branch to stop overruling the Congress. I don’t know if you’re trolling or just stupid.
Trent, where does the Constitution authorize Congress to fund a national socialist space transportation system? Which Constitutional power does that fall under?Quote the section, please.
Funding Constellation is not about protecting the Constitution. It’s about protecting pork.
You’re also forgetting about the Launch Services Purchase Act — which is still on the books. Why doesn’t Ron Paul object to the executive branch overrulng that law?
You’re getting desperate, Trent.
So – because some people are “interested in space” ‘n’ stuff, we have to spend countless billions – why is that my problem? Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority for space exploration? Why don’t those of you that are “interested in space” pay for it yourselves?
I’m interested interested in backrubs – can all of you and the rest of the country subsidize my happy endings?
I thought I was the one who said Top Men and Souless Technocrat? That’s ok, you can use em! đ
I read Romney’s comments. Why did Newt keep letting him get away with the hundreds of billions or trillions nonsense?
If that is the best Romney can do, we might be better of if Obama just barely squeaks by him in the general and the Republicans take the Senate and hold the House. At least mabey next time the Republican party can stop flushing us turds like Romney.
Only stopping Obamacare and SC nominations could make me vote for Romney and if the Supremes flush that, then I am not going to cry if he loses.
Rand, Why are you surprised by your own dictum – that space is wholly unimportant except to a tiny few – being once again proven out?
Because of that, that anyone brought up a vision and hardball is being played with Newt, it becoming merely a brickbat and a topic for mockery and slander in itself is utterly predictable.
And Newt will just as predictably always be protect himself before he tries to set the record straight on space.
Put not your faith in princes, indeed.
Yes, its Governor Moonbeam all over again. Newt Gingrich’s statements, especially the one on statehood for a lunar colony, is just turning the idea of space settlement into a joke.
Someone proposes a practical way of settling the Moon, and Moonies cry it is turning their daydream into a joke.
Sadly predictable. Once again, the Moonies are their own worst enemy.
Who the hell would go to all the trouble of fleeing to the Moon, establish a colony, and then voluntarily saddle himself with a federal regulatory structure that would allow him to die as it pondered whether to give him “permission” to make use of local resources by whatever means necessary? The United States would be the last country on earth anyone would join as a state.
Edward,
Newt Gingrich’s proposal is about as practical as the crazy scheme you had for turning a Mig 21 in a space plane…
His proposal to turn the Moon into a state has made him a laughing stock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCcSFbam5pU
If Newt Gingrich had just stopped at proposing to build a American lunar base through a partnership with commercial firms it would have been fine. But no, he had to go the full Space Frontier Foundation fantasy route with billion dollar prizes and lunar annexation to create real property rights.
Did I say I was surprised?
Yes, what this country needs is a “conservative” that travels from place to place promising massive government programs that WOULD cost 100’s of billions of dollars.
Let’s here from all the “experts” here on how we could build A MOON BASE LARGE ENOUGH TO APPLY FOR STATEHOOD for less than several TRILLION dollars.
Wake up! Newt said it because he was visiting the area around *TITUSVILLE, FL*
Gee, what’s going on there? If you believe he’s serious, maybe you’d also buy his 30 second pander during his introductory statement in which he dangled an ENTIRE NUCLEAR CARRIER BATTLE GROUP to Jacksonville, former home base of the JFK.
I’m pretty sure those aren’t exactly cheap, either. Romney’s point is right on: Newt’s full of crap and playing you for rubes.
That is correct. Mitt articulated a need to create a new mission for the space program in the last debate but a lunar colony of 13k is ridiculous and would be prohibitively expensive. We have some pressing matters on earth to deal with too.
Newt is not proposing that the federal government pay for a lunar colony of 13,000.
This isn’t the first time he has talked about space but doing it in Florida does seem to be pandering. Im sure Obama would never change the material of a speech based on his location.
Let the education begin.
How easy it is to mock and belittle when statements, through either ignorance or malice, are taken out of context to erect convenient straw men. Because that is what you have done.
A permanent lunar base is NOT the same thing as a lunar colony. When Newt has spoken of long-term aspirations, such as a 13,000 person colony granted admission as a U.S. state, that is NOT the lunar base he wants established by 2020.
The few concrete proposals Newt has suggested so far for NASA are neither radical nor require the expenditure of additional funds. The primary thing Newt pushes is that if NASA could spend more wisely, ambitious goals could be achieved in the near term. Newt pointed out the cost over-run of the JWST project as an indicator of the management rot inside NASA.
Romney with his ridiculous and ignorant attack during the debate has proven he values the cheap soundbite over rigorous policy, at least when it comes to space policy. Trillions of dollars! Moon colony! Good grief. It’s Romney who is treating his audience as rubes. And it’s deeply insulting to people who care about the subject.
Newt claimed 90% private funding, which would be 10% government financing.
We are utterly broke. If we returned to the debt limit we just blew through, we’d have enough monthly revenue to pay off all the seniors in social security (screwing the disabled who depend on SSI), then pay the Tricare bills for veterans, than pay the medical portion of medicare and medicaid spent on retirees, and then get about 50% through the defense budget before we ran out of money.
Half of the defense budget, gone. No foreign aid. No welfare. No section 8 housing. No educational grants. No National Science Foundation grants. No NASA. No park service. No foodstamps. No mail. No FDA. No FAA. No FCC. No EPA.
It sounds like a libertarian dream come true, but if you tried to enact this tomorrow, which is the time-frame which would be required if we were to tap the brakes now , our cities would be burning by next week, which is why no fiscally sensible person would advocate anything so ridiculous as worrying about a moonbase when you’re borrowing 45 cents on the dollar to keep the lights on. You’ll excuse my backwards provincialism in thinking that avoiding the breakdown of society in the places where 2/3rds of all Americans live is slightly more important than a moonbase.
As for who mischaracterized what, Newt is the person that suggested they could apply for statehood, which as Ken points out, is big scale talk. And let’s not pretend that keeping a small colony on the moon has minimal startup costs. They’d have to ship EVERYTHING in. You don’t happen to have a space elevator, do you?
Wodun:
I would hope that we would hold the Republican nominee to a slighter higher standard of spendthrift pandering than Obama. His record on picking technologies to sponsor is far worse than randomly rolling dice.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/289369/obamas-favorite-companies-hitting-hard-times-again-and-again
7 high profile failures (including Evergreen Technologies) by my count, and we’re not even counting GM’s $48,000 combustible claptrap version of a Civic.
And anyone with their head screwed on straight knows that the current deficit spending can’t be maintained indefinitely, that such cut backs WILL happen one way or another.
And the longer those cutbacks are delayed, the deeper they will have to be. If they delay long enough, one month the seniors won’t be getting their checks either.
I see. You have your talking points, and by jingo! you are sticking with them regardless of contrary evidence.
Now I know which side of the ignorance vs mailce scale your straw man is built on. A friendly tip. You aren’t convincing anyone here by using such methods.
Brad,
[[[And itâs deeply insulting to people who care about the subject.]]]
And why would Gov. Romney care about them? Unlike the American Association of Retired People neither the Space Frontier Foundation or even the National Space Society is large enough to impact any elections even local one.
Just look at President Obama, he made giving money to New Space firms part of his space policy and even put Lori Graver in the number two position at NASA and hard core space advocates like Rand will still not vote for him. If space is not an issue important enough to swing the votes of even hard core advocates why would it matter to the average voter? By the same token, space as an example of how the government “wastes” tons of tax payer dollars is a theme that has always played well. Look at how much success it gave Senator Proxmire.
Don’t count me among the supporters of Obama’s space policy. So obviously his policy will not swing me, a pro-space voter, into supporting Obama.
Though I applaud the support for commercial manned spaceflight in the Obama plan, and the cancellation of the Ares rockets, that is about the only positive aspects I saw. What I saw in the Obama plan was an abandonment of deep space manned space flight; by locking in spending for politically correct and white elephant programs, and kicking the can down the road rather than make real choices for the future. In detail and method the Obama space plan was sluggish and unserious, and a retreat to the status quo of the era prior to the Columbia disaster.
After watching both Romney and Santorum deliberately distort Gingrichâs prize-based space proposal in order to attack a strawman, I got this idea for a commercial and rattled it off to Winning the Future PAC:
(Picture of Burt Rutan and Spaceship One) Burt Rutan won the Ansari X-prize. A big payoff for being the first non-government sponsored man to reach space.
What would Mitt Romney say to Rutan?
(Video from Romney in debate) Youâre fired!
(Pictures of Space-X vehicles and people working on rockets)Space-X is building and launching systems for commercial satellite and manned launch vehicles much cheaper than NASA can build and launch.
They stand to make billions.
What would Romney say to Space-X founder and CEO Elon Musk?
(Video from Romney in debate) Youâre fired!
If you want to build a profitable, self-sustaining American presence in space and build Americaâs future, what would Romney say to you?
(Video from Romney in debate) Youâre fired!
Mitt Romneyâs America. No vision, No future.
.
(Video from Romney in debate) Youâre fired!
What do you think?
I think it is great. Nice job. You should be hired.
Whose distorting what: Elon Musk is working on a replacement for a Saturn 5 lift capacity, not a moonbase. The X prize that Space X won stood for 20 years, no? And was it for a moonbase? No, it was to get into orbit, a feat accomplished by man in 1961.
Do prizes make sense? Yes they do. Is private investment the way forward? It’s the efficient way forward. Should a candidate for a federal office be talking about sponsoring a prize when we are crossing the point of no return while circling a fiscal black hole?
No. No he should not.
Are you in favor of reducing NASA’s budget, or are you just against redirecting some of that budget toward prize sponsorship, or another option?
Good question. Cutting NASA’s pitifully small budget to zero wont solve our fiscal problems and they can do a lot with $17-20b if they do some restructuring.
I will reprint what Dr Jerry Purnelle had to say…in 2003. He said yesterday that he stands by it today.
I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences.
Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:
The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:
1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.
2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.
3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.
4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.
5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.
That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can’t be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury.
I had Newt Gingrich persuaded to do this before he found he couldn’t keep the office of Speaker. I haven’t had any audiences with his successors.
Henry Vanderbilt points out that having a prize, say $1 billion, for the second firm to achieve point (1) above will get more into the competition, and produce better results.
This is just the rough outline. LASFS and other collections of real engineers and scientists who read sci-fi (not the nerdy fans, the dirty hands) have been hashing this over for decades. It is just a plain fact that every time a prize-based incentive has been tried it produces a net technological, economic, and scientific positive in that order. Every. Single. Time. Before the prize is ever won. Even when the prize is never won!
By the way, the 10% New mentions for the government would be less than we are paying for NASA now. Buying the Space-X rockets for other use and such.
So there it is. We can turn NASA into little more than a licensing and purchasing agent while expanding space exploration with the majority of the expense being voluntary investment. All for less than we pay for NASA today. Unless you think all those prises will be handed out next week, I don’t think it getting more for less is a problem.
Or do you want to stick it out with an agency that has to take five years to do a study to decide what they need to do a ten year study on to discuss preliminary planning stages on the concept of deciding whether to start collecting ideas about a possible design?
You obviously know nothing about the X Prize, and you seriously distort the priorities of SpaceX.
Here is the reality: the NASA funding level is completely irrelevant to the national debt, because no matter who wins the Presidency, the NASA budget will remain at roughly the same level, around $17B/yr IIRC. The question that Newt has posed is: Do you want that $17B/yr spent on bureaucratic overhead, or do you want at least some of it spent on actual HSF accomplishments? The other candidates’ responses are obtuse and cynical.
Newt’s not perfect; overall, he may be a disaster in the making. But he knows, and cares, far more about space than any other candidate in either party.
“But he knows, and cares, far more about space than any other candidate in either party” at least since President Johnson
The difference (for whatever that’s worth) is that Johnson’s interest in space was purely political, and he succeeded in his aim–giving us the entrenched space mafia that Southern politicians of either party protect so carefully today. While Newt is a “true believer” and has said so at his political cost.
I have say this eye rolling over Gingrich’s lunar base idea is starting to get offensive. Still, Gingrich needs to do a better job selling it, laying out the science, commercial, and national security benefits of going back to the moon. It’s not as if these have not been covered thoroughly before.
Do my eyes deceive me, or did Whittington nearly endorse Gingrich’s private-enterprise space policy? Did something happen to him on the road to Damascus?
I’ve always been in favor of a private-enterprise oriented space policy. That is why I oppose the Obama crony capitalist approach. In any case, how Gingrich wants to do space is not as important as the fact that he wants to do space. In the face of all the journalistic and political ridicule, that takes epic courage and vision. I am not going to nit pick that.
Iâve always been in favor of a private-enterprise oriented space policy. That is why I oppose the Obama capitalist approach [which is endorsed by Newt Gingrich].
You left out some words, Mark. I fixed them for you.
In any case, how Gingrich wants to do space is not as important as the fact that he wants to do space.
Obviously not true, since you’ve spent so much time and energy bashing the approach advocated by Newt Gringrich, Bob Walker [and, yes, Barak Obama] in the past.
It was EXTREMELY important to you that the US government build a national socialist space transportation system designed by Mitt Romney’s space advisor Mike Griffin.
So, when did you go from “we must absolutely NOT do space the way Newt wants” to “how we do space is not important.”
But no, he had to go the full Space Frontier Foundation fantasy route with billion dollar prizes and lunar annexation to create real property rights.
And that’s the real issue for Matula. He’s not concerned about the money, he’s concerned about private property in space.
Saving money is popular with the voters. Absolute socialism is not. If Matula had his way we’d not only keep the vile Outer Space Treaty, he’d pass the even more vile Moon Treaty.
Oh, and BTW, I did some research on Matula. You know how he always talks about how the Tea Party is ruining the GOP, and he’s really concerned about it? Well, I did some research, and it turns out Thomas Matula is registered in Clark County, Nevada–
–as a Democrat.
Address the arguments, not the man.
Ken, also realize that in open primary states, voters “register” with whichever party they choose to vote in, and in some states, this “registration” can occur automatically and without comment at the polls. I’m a Democrat, but in March, if the GOP presidential nomination is still being contended, I may choose to vote in the Illinois GOP primary. If I do, I’ll be a “registered Republican” until the next primary election. I’ll still think of myself as a Democrat, I’ll argue as Democrat, and I’ll laugh at anyone who points out that I’m technically a registered Republican.
(In fact, I’ll probably participate in the Democratic primary because there is a hot race in my congressional district, but it could easily have been otherwise.)
1. I did address the argument, in the first paragraph. I pointed out that Matula, while playing the “Speaker Moonbeam” card, slipped in the extremist view that private property should be illegal in space.
2. Nevada is a closed primary state.
Nevada is a closed primary state.
Nice rebuttal! But, according to the following site, you just have to register 30 days in advance, which makes it functionally an open primary for anyone who thinks ahead and bothers to take action.
http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us/Elections/Voter%20Registration.htm
You can still swap parties for every election, if I understand correctly.
Ken,
No, I never said private property should be illegal in space. I stated there was no need for REAL property rights in space. There is a huge difference between the two.
There are two types of Property. Real Property which is land and the improvements to it and personal property, which is everything else, including the ore you mine from the ground, once its out of the ground.
The U.S. government has already established the Moon rocks are property once they are removed from the lunar soil. They established that when the sued for the Guatemala moon to be returned to Guatemala, and when they put folks in jail for stealing moon rocks. The laws they were prosecuted under were the same ones used for stealing a government vehicle. So the right to personal property in space is already established.
The various schemes for creating Real property rights in space won’t advance private property, because Real property rights ALWAYS come with an obligation to the authority granting those rights. When you buy a piece of Real property in the U.S. you get with it the obligation to pay taxes to the government, to pass laws restricting your use, etc. By contrast, in the current state of affairs the surface of the Moon is like the surface of the open ocean. No one has any right to deny from doing what you want to do.
Do you really want the U.S., or any other nation, to have sovereignty over your lunar land and be able to tell you what you may or may not do? Do you want all the various government agencies to have a right to tell you what you may or may not do? That is what Newt Gingrich is proposing when he says the Moon would be a U.S. state.
Why libertarians would want to change the current situation where governments have NO right to mess with anyone who isn’t one of their citizens with a new regime where you must ask permission to do anything is beyond me. Yes, if you are a U.S. citizen you must get permission from the FAA AST if you want to go to the Moon today, but there are 200+ other countries that could care less if you wish to open a corporation there and go stripe mine the Moon, or paint it green, or doing anything else to it.
The ability to shop for the most favorable laws in a market place of laws is the closest you will ever get to having no laws to govern you. And once on the Moon you have the ability to renounce your citizenship and do what you wish with NO one having any rights to say no.
That freedom is the the ultimate private property right far more the having some piece of paper saying that you own a acre of land, and oh yes, don’t forget to file your taxes and environmental impact statements on time…
BTW Real Property rights were why governments were created in the first place and provide the justification for the government to tell you what to do. Why would any sane person want to drag them into space?
Bob, I’ve known Matula for well over 10 years. I never heard him claim to be a Republican until he started trolling here.
Even if he did register as a Republican, so what? Should the party ignore the majority of its members just to please one person from the opposite side of the spectrum?
Edward,
You really enjoy lying about people don’t you? The only place you know me from is when I used to waste my money attending the Space Frontier Foundation conventions before I realized they were a waste of time.
Bob-1,
Exactly. Its easy to change party registration. If he looks in San Diego County he would see that I was registered as a Republican there from 1998 to 2010. As I was in Elko County from 2010-2011.
This may surprise Rand (who knows my pro-commercial space bona fides), but after reading the transcript, I think Romney made the most responsible remarks. Especially his last statement. He didn’t come into the debate with a firm policy plan, but outlined his process for arriving at one. That’s fine. But his remark about pandering was the most correct thing anyone said.
While Newt probably was pandering in the other states (and about the Port of Jacksonville), he has been saying things like this about space for decades. I’m sure he is quite sincere. And Romney had clearly not given the subject any thought whatsoever.
He hasn’t given it any thought, but that matters only to us space enthusiasts. And I can’t fault him for that right now, because very few people care. But he should come up with something before the election, because it is a visible (if not high dollar) part of America’s image.
It’s the job of elected representatives to care about things most people don’t think about.
The average American never thought about the possibility of a terrorist taking over an airliner and using it as a weapon. The average American doesn’t think about the possibility of an asteroid causing a global extinction event. They have more mundane concerns. That doesn’t mean leaders shouldn’t think about those things.
If Romney were clever, he could have neutralized Gingrich with one line. “I’d appoint Newt Gingrich Administrator of NASA.”
“Itâs the job of elected representatives to care about things most people donât think about. ”
Eventually, yes. But we’re talking about 0.6% of the federal budget, here, and “most people” don’t care about that. And it’s a part of the budget that Republican politicians typically don’t care about at all, a part of the budget that was designed into the system to be a Democrat concern by James Webb.
When Webb set up NASA to “do” Apollo, he put the Centers in largely Democrat states. The Apollo program was the brainchild of a Democrat president, so Webb figured that the pork money would continue to flow to those states as long as their congressional representation was largely Democrat. That was the only way he could see sustaining Apollo across two (and, as it turned out, three) Administrations, and he was right.
Webb was a genius in that regard. He built better than he knew, to paraphrase Franklin. He created an unkillable pork machine that has long outlasted its original mission. The fact that it has served other useful missions is good, but that it has suppressed commercial space development is not.
But I digress. Space is one of the Democrat industries. As someone recently wrote, “oil” is a “Republican industry” while “renewables” are a “Democrat industry.” Whoever is in power gives the pork to his party’s industry. Hence the Reagan administration’s “favoritism” toward the oil industry, and the Obama administration’s wasted subsidies of Solyndra (and of all of the other doomed-by-physics renewable energy companies). Those were Administration handouts by agencies that Congress didn’t really control very tightly
But Obama upset the apple cart with his commercial space policy. Congress closely controls the NASA budget (miniscule percentage-wise as it is today). But Obama’s commercial space policy is out of character for a party which mostly lives by dispensing government largesse. Probably as a result, he hasn’t gotten the Democrat support Kennedy and Webb did for Apollo. Instead, both Republican and Democrat members of congress are listening to the lobbyists from Utah, Colorado, Maryland, and Illinois. But it gets worse…
The Republicans can assert that Obama’s policy is a monolithic Democrat policy (when it isn’t), and therefore condemn it (Jim is correct here), even though the Democrat congresscritters are supporting the olde NASA way rather than Obama’s policy. And they can propose an “alternative,” which is nothing other than the olde NASA way their Democrat brothers already support.
Politically, Obama is a one-man show in his space policy. He doesn’t have the support of his own party, and the Republicans can cave to the whining of Oldspace because it opposes Obama (and, by extension, the Democrat Party).
We’re pretty much screwed either way, this election cycle. Newt would be a cool “space president,” but I don’t think he’d get any more support for his approach than Obama has gotten for his.
And even if Obama is re-elected, and passionately gets behind his commercial space policy (which he doesn’t really care about at all), I don’t think either party in Congress will go along with it. The dinospace lobbies have them too much in thrall…
However, if Romney actually listens to his advisers (when elected), he would fire Griffin instantly, and might just slow-roll the Constellation architecture.
It’s not optimal. In fact, at my age, it isn’t even good. Like Charles Lurio, I won’t live to see BEO no matter how this election goes down. But my kids have a fighting chance to regain the high ground.
The race for space will be across many generations. It sucks, but I don’t think ours will be the one to make significant headway…
Democrat. .
But weâre talking about 0.6% of the federal budget, here, and âmost peopleâ donât care about that.
If that’s what you think, then it’s not worth talking about. But Mitt decided it is worth talking about. If you’re going to talk about something, it’s worthy saying something intelligent.
“He didnât come into the debate with a firm policy plan, but outlined his process for arriving at one. ”
That was the Herman Cain method to answer any question, and it doesn’t cut any ice with me – I think it was a wuss answer. I heard the answer in real time.
Firstly, this isn’t the first debate where expensive space ideas from Newt came up – it came up several debates ago. And Romney has exhibited a marked inability to take cues from past debates and form a strong reply (if he disagrees with the idea).
Next, as I say, claiming you will gather experts and form a plan is a GIVEN. It’s no answer at all. It’s a massive cop out.
Even if it’s the correct answer.
Worse, it’s a massive lost opportunity to exhibit one or more operating principles the candidate has.
Lastly, Mitt gave the “Stingy Daddy” answer: it’s expensive and we have to forego projects like that given the economy. It might be quite true, in his mind. But answers like that don’t win elections.
yeah yeah straight talk is good. But there are a zillion better ways to say “No” or “Not now.”. And given that the main reason for the whole debate topic (in my opinion) is the emotional pizzazz factor, you lose if you come across as stingy daddy.
Better to say something along the lines of what I wrote above:
That a vibrant robust US economy, allied with the commercial efforts we see going on now (notwithstanding the economy) gets us to the Moon any anywhere else the *Market* deems profitable in the most rapid efficient manner possible.
So Step 1 on the march to the stars is to get the US economy roaring, and to do that…….yadda yadda….
You throw in a few phrases such as the frontier/push the boundary/aggressive/outward looking nature of your average American will take us to the stars, stuff.
This sort of reply does a number of things:
Cements your Conservative Market-driven cred
Doesn’t say “No”, directly, to the idea.
Shows you can prioritize (economy first).
Is uplifting and tells the people they are great and can do great things.
But from Romney all we got was “No…too expensive”
Bah
You know something? From the perspective of most people in the entire world, part of which is the United States, it is “too expensive.”
I’ve voted for Republican Presidents since Reagan in the 80s… I’m not voting for Romney if he’s the GOP nominee this fall. He has the best shot to knock off Obama, probably… but his lack of vision (correction – I guess healthcare for Massachusetts counts) has turned me off. What does Romney want to do… vision wise… if he becomes President? Not be Obama? What?