Jonesy STS - 20/1/2007 12:05 PMThen the Queen, as reigning Monarch, has to approve it in.
Justin Space - 20/1/2007 1:46 PMThat Veto sounds a bit worrying. Can anyone bring down the president if say one went veto crazy?
PurduesUSAFguy - 20/1/2007 2:03 PMHillary would be a disaster, not just for the space program, in general.
vt_hokie - 20/1/2007 12:03 PM QuotePurduesUSAFguy - 20/1/2007 2:03 PM Hillary would be a disaster, not just for the space program, in general. I agree. I am a somewhat left leaning independent, but I really hope the Dems nominate a better candidate than Mrs. Clinton for '08.
PurduesUSAFguy - 20/1/2007 2:03 PM Hillary would be a disaster, not just for the space program, in general.
I voted Democrat the last two elections... I just might vote Right in the next one. Or maybe just waste my vote if Ralph Nader runs again.
Jonesy STS - 20/1/2007 12:05 PMIf she gets into office what do we think will result as far as NASA, the budget and the VSE?Also, I don't know if it really makes a lot of difference, as in the UK, the Prime Minister can't really decide things, it all goes to a vote in the House of Commons, which then has to vote in law and policy as a majority...it just helps if your party has a big majority (apart from the war, which had Labour rebels, but the Conservatives made up for that when it came to the vote). Then the Queen, as reigning Monarch, has to approve it in.So how does it work. Is it more to do with what party is in charge, rather than what president? But, Hillary said on the news that she's going after Bush's policies and the VSE is a President Bush policy right?
Hillary Clinton does not have much of a history with regard to the space program. While it is true that the Clintons were the only First Couple to be present at a space shuttle launch (the John Glenn launch), President Bill Clinton’s terms in office were accompanied by declining NASA budgets and a perceived lack of vision for the future of the space program. This certainly does not mean that the same trend would prevail during a Hillary Clinton presidency, however. Since becoming a senator, she has certainly shown that she is no political clone of her husband. Whether this will translate into a strong support for Moon, Mars, and beyond is unknown. To date she has voted favorably on key legislation: she voted for the fiscal year 2005 NASA budget, which was one of the first major hurdles for the Vision.
When the Democrats regained control of Congress in the November elections, some wondered if this would result in a change in direction for NASA. In the near term, that appears to be unlikely. The Vision has had bipartisan support in Congress over the last three years, including overwhelming passage of a NASA authorization bill in 2005 that explicitly endorsed the Vision. The new Democratic leaders of key committees may take a fresh look at NASA and the Vision, but Congress doesn’t seem likely to press for wholesale changes in the Vision. Even if it wanted to, there are simply too many other higher political priorities at the moment to warrant giving NASA much attention...Given the depth of public support (or lack thereof) for the Vision to date, a new president could shift NASA’s direction away from the Vision with little outcry, especially if the program appeared flawed. However, space is unlikely to be a high priority for the next president, given all the other pressing issues in the nation and world. A Vision that is running relatively smoothly isn’t immune from significant change or even cancellation, depending on the desires of the new president, but it will help the program avoid undesirable attention and give it a fighting chance to continue in more or less its current form by the next administration. That makes the next two years as critical as any for NASA and supporters of the Vision for Space Exploration.
The main danger (or opportunity depending on ones point of view) may be the desire of the new President to put his or her own stamp on the program. One could see--for example--a Gingrich Administration trying to make the Vision more commercial (though what that would entail one cannot be certain.) A Hillary Clinton Administration might--following the lead of her husband--make the project more of an instrument of foreign policy, bringing in the Chinese for example, deemphasizing the commercial aspects.
collectspace - 20/1/2007 4:16 PMI agree with Ben; this site prides itself on staying on-topic. It would be nice if the participants abide by that and limit their own opinions to those relevant to the space program...
Dana - 20/1/2007 6:21 PMOK-to sum it up, IMO based on her past statements and actions, Hillary would all but shut down any kind of meaningful space program.
collectspace - 20/1/2007 4:30 PMQuoteDana - 20/1/2007 6:21 PMOK-to sum it up, IMO based on her past statements and actions, Hillary would all but shut down any kind of meaningful space program. Except that her past actions would disagree with this position, as she has voted favorably for NASA funding, among other examples. Not to mention the points raised above: that the space program would be too low on the radar for any newly appointed president in 2009 to make any dramatic changes. (I had removed my post to edit it at apparently the same time you responded, hence the now stranded quote.)
Dana - 20/1/2007 6:56 PMShe wasn't running for President then.
hornet - 20/1/2007 9:07 PMif your concerned she started her explortory commite today go to her website and tell her your concen about the space program people will read any letter sent during this phase to see what people think and if enough people say something she will listen
PurduesUSAFguy - 20/1/2007 1:03 PMHillary has stated previously that, "The space program is inspiring but is an expense we can afford with problems here on Earth"Hillary would be a disaster, not just for the space program, in general.
JonSBerndt - 20/1/2007 11:07 PMPolls almost universally show her behind McCain (apart from CNN and Newsweek - no surprise?). It's way too early ...
The key thing in my mind has not yet been mentioned here: whoever the next POTUS is will have an opportunity to be "our hero". I suggest my fellow space advocates quit wringing their hands over imaginary worst-case scenarios and consider influencing things to achieve a positive outcome.
Even if space flight isn't a high priority for the new POTUS, a safe assumption in all cases AFAIK, at some point in the crafting of a budget they will look at NASA's funding and programs. The three choices are always to cut, stay flat or increase, and the recent history is flat budgets. To cut the budget is political suicide IMO, so in the absence of reasons to increase the budget they will choose to keep it that way.
In the absence of a strong demonstrated personal interest in our future in space, the standard party line can be safely assumed for nearly all congresscritters and senators: "I believe NASA is an important part of our country's future, especially in terms of inspiring our young people to take up careers in Science and Engineering. Our investment in space in important to our country but of course must be balanced with other priorities, such as (insert ideologically-driven pet programs here)"
If HRC wins, it can be safely assumed that will be a result of successfully positioning herself as a moderate. I take it as axiomatic that a liberal cannot win the White House any time soon. The right wing media will do their best to paint her as a fuzzy-headed liberal but they will likely do that in the absence of looking at her actual voting record and public positions. She cannot win unless she defeats the campaign to paint her as an unreformed liberal.
Therefore I conclude that in the absence of reasons to do otherwise, NASA budgets would remain flat and space exploration would have no particular prominence in her administration. So we need to make sure there is no absence of reasons for her to step up to the plate and put her own stamp on VSE.
There are a myriad of really good reasons to care about the space program and excellent strategic outcomes can be expected to ensue from wise investments in NASA and commercial space. I trust I do not need to convince present company of that, so the obvious conclusion is that we space advocates need to communicate those thoughts to all the candidates, in particular HRC.
Much has been made of the thought that VSE will be "canceled" by an incoming dem prez simply to distance themselves from the current guy. I think this is absurd from several points of view. There will be way too much institutional momentum and actual progress to just cancel it: think of the contractors and congresscritters and all their vested interests. I won't call it pork, either, I'm talking about the good work done by NASA centers, and under Griffin these programs are generally well-focused and important. Canceling is a political non-starter.
However things go over the next 1-1/2 years, it seems a safe assumption that there will not be any sense that the current administration will be known as having an inspiring vision of a positive future. The country will be very thirsty for a positive vision of the future - with tangible programs for securing such a future being the key to securing those votes.
IMO the primary political dynamic in the election of 2000 was a desire for a "man of the people" and the current guy's people jumped all over the opportunity and won. The people were hungry for something and they were provided an alternative which appeared to be able to sate that hunger. IMO the primary dynamic in 2008 will be a thirst for a positive vision of the future.
I predicted VSE in terms of the current guy needing to come up with some form of "positive vision thing" prior to his reelection campaign. The logic was simple: if you are talking about the future being demonstrably better than the past, if you are looking to define such a vision, what else is there besides space flight? Making war in the middle east for the next 30 years may be a vision, but a positive one? Does a successful moderate propose some form of updated 'Great Society'? Not bloody likely.
IMO a lot of people still have not figured out that the key to Bill Clinton's term is that he was a pragmatic moderate, operating in a polarized environment where the right wing was unable to process the very concept of being a moderate. Over and over he would adopt some of the positions of his political opposition and they would respond with outrage that he was "stealing their ideas." They hated him so much that even when they got what they wanted they hated him even more. Hillary was right there on the inside, watching and learning.
One of the marks of a reformed liberal is walking away from liberal dogma and in this case we need to make sure that you ain't an electable moderate if you remain in the "first we need to fix the problems right here on earth" camp. Ideally we would convince all the liberal voters but convincing the candidates is good enough.
It is frequently assumed that she is a political clone of her husband, but every thing I read by the political pundits indicates otherwise.
To wrap this up, all of this adds up to a terrific opportunity for space advocacy, even if she wins, but ONLY if we act NOW to put space flight and VSE on the agenda. If we wait until she's going thru the budget in Jan 2009, it will be flat. If we make a fuss now and educate all the candidates on the potential, we can make it an issue during the campaign. The political handlers will see the opportunity to provide a positive vision, and if we provide the details to them such that they are politically sound, we can cause the candidates to criticize VSE only on the basis of it being too slow and unambitious.
We can put a POTUS in place who wants to put their own name on VSE, by accelerating it.
Hillary as president would be in a position to be 'our hero' and so would all the others. But every one of them needs to be educated and we need to somehow make it a campaign issue.
dbhyslop - 20/1/2007 10:29 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 20/1/2007 11:07 PMPolls almost universally show her behind McCain (apart from CNN and Newsweek - no surprise?). It's way too early ...I don't know if he's even a contender: Does the RNC want their candidate running his re-election campaign at 76, leaving office at 80? Its unfortunate for all of us that he lost out in 2000, but I doubt he'll have another chance.
CuddlyRocket - 21/1/2007 2:11 AMThere may be pressure to spend more money on science. But NASA doesn't want to spend less on science. It just doesn't have the money to do everything it wants on science and keep the manned space program going. But I'm sure they wouldn't object to an increased budget. And I don't think Republicans would be particularly opposed, they just don't want to propose it themselves.
punkboi - 20/1/2007 3:20 PMQuotevt_hokie - 20/1/2007 12:03 PM QuotePurduesUSAFguy - 20/1/2007 2:03 PM Hillary would be a disaster, not just for the space program, in general. I agree. I am a somewhat left leaning independent, but I really hope the Dems nominate a better candidate than Mrs. Clinton for '08. I voted Democrat the last two elections... I just might vote Right in the next one. Or maybe just waste my vote if Ralph Nader runs again.
clongton - 21/1/2007 7:56 AMQuotepunkboi - 20/1/2007 3:20 PMI voted Democrat the last two elections... I just might vote Right in the next one. Or maybe just waste my vote if Ralph Nader runs again. Please don't waste your vote. Vote for who you think could best benefit the country and the Space Program. Party lines are great for generalizations, but when the voting booth curtain closes, it's just you and your beliefs. Polititians are afraid of you because you control their future. Don't diminish your power.Chuck
punkboi - 20/1/2007 3:20 PMI voted Democrat the last two elections... I just might vote Right in the next one. Or maybe just waste my vote if Ralph Nader runs again.
HailColumbia - 20/1/2007 1:20 PMShe is far to the left of her husband.
clongton - 21/1/2007 5:56 AM Quotepunkboi - 20/1/2007 3:20 PM Quotevt_hokie - 20/1/2007 12:03 PM QuotePurduesUSAFguy - 20/1/2007 2:03 PM Hillary would be a disaster, not just for the space program, in general. I agree. I am a somewhat left leaning independent, but I really hope the Dems nominate a better candidate than Mrs. Clinton for '08. I voted Democrat the last two elections... I just might vote Right in the next one. Or maybe just waste my vote if Ralph Nader runs again. Please don't waste your vote. Vote for who you think could best benefit the country and the Space Program. Party lines are great for generalizations, but when the voting booth curtain closes, it's just you and your beliefs. Polititians are afraid of you because you control their future. Don't diminish your power. Chuck
punkboi - 20/1/2007 3:20 PM Quotevt_hokie - 20/1/2007 12:03 PM QuotePurduesUSAFguy - 20/1/2007 2:03 PM Hillary would be a disaster, not just for the space program, in general. I agree. I am a somewhat left leaning independent, but I really hope the Dems nominate a better candidate than Mrs. Clinton for '08. I voted Democrat the last two elections... I just might vote Right in the next one. Or maybe just waste my vote if Ralph Nader runs again.
Thanks for the advice. McCain, it is. As soon as I know his stance on the space program
Andrewwski - 21/1/2007 8:13 PMHonestly, I don't see as how she'd cut the spending. There's so much she'd prioritize to cut back on first...namely Iraq, and with NASA being fairly low-budget, there's not much to change. Her best move would be to keep Mike Griffin. Does he even have a party affiliation?
gladiator1332 - 21/1/2007 8:50 PMThere is the key to why NASA is doomed if Hillary gets in. Bill wasn't exactly a big fan of NASA, and Hillary can't be anything but worse.
edkyle99 - 22/1/2007 12:46 AMQuoteAndrewwski - 21/1/2007 8:13 PMHonestly, I don't see as how she'd cut the spending. There's so much she'd prioritize to cut back on first...namely Iraq, and with NASA being fairly low-budget, there's not much to change. Her best move would be to keep Mike Griffin. Does he even have a party affiliation?I was surprised when I looked at NASA's budget history versus which political party was in the White House. The biggest decline occurred when a Republican (Nixon) was President, and the biggest increase when a Democratic administration (JFK/LBJ) ruled, but things haven't been that way since Nixon - since the end of the first "Space Race". Since then, NASA's budget has been flat or in slight decline when the President was a Democrat and rising when a Republican was President. - Ed Kyle
edkyle99 - 22/1/2007 12:46 AMQuoteAndrewwski - 21/1/2007 8:13 PMHonestly, I don't see as how she'd cut the spending. There's so much she'd prioritize to cut back on first...namely Iraq, and with NASA being fairly low-budget, there's not much to change. Her best move would be to keep Mike Griffin. Does he even have a party affiliation?I was surprised when I looked at NASA's budget history versus which political party was in the White House. The biggest decline occurred when a Republican (Nixon) was President, and the biggest increase when a Democratic administration (JFK/LBJ) ruled,
but things haven't been that way since Nixon - since the end of the first "Space Race". Since then, NASA's budget has been flat or in slight decline when the President was a Democrat and rising when a Republican was President.
Zachstar - 20/1/2007 2:19 PMI'm hearing conflicting reports about her support for the space program. Most of them say she supports a mars push.However I'm not going to vote another republican in just because he supports the VSE. Things are bad enough as it is. I'm simply voting for the libertarian ticket. What about Obama-D ? What's his views?
TheMadCap - 22/1/2007 9:02 AMQuoteZachstar - 20/1/2007 2:19 PMI'm hearing conflicting reports about her support for the space program. Most of them say she supports a mars push.However I'm not going to vote another republican in just because he supports the VSE. Things are bad enough as it is. I'm simply voting for the libertarian ticket. What about Obama-D ? What's his views?Conflicting reports are not surprising with her. Her ususal M.O. is to see which way the wind is blowing that day, and then support that.Not to turn this into a politics discussion, but I don't see her getting even nominated by the Dems. I think she is far too polarizing of a candidate to have a real chance...
MartianBase - 22/1/2007 9:59 AMIt's not about Hillary, Jeb Bush, Al-Gore, McCain or anyone in particular....
gladiator1332 - 22/1/2007 11:19 AMI'm not believing all of this Obama / Hillary hype...I would keep a closer eye on Richardson and Edwards.
bhankiii - 22/1/2007 4:29 PMRemember - only 652 days until the next election!
Chris Bergin - 26/1/2007 9:39 AMQuotebhankiii - 22/1/2007 4:29 PMRemember - only 652 days until the next election!When do they start campaigning? We might get to hear some of their thoughts once they get to States with large space industry links?
Firestarter - 26/1/2007 5:13 PMSpace will never be important to politicians until the voters say it is. Problem is, NASA don't have a clue as to how to get the public interested.
Suzy - 26/1/2007 8:17 PMJust wondering, are there any politicians, anywhere in the world, who are genuinely interested in spaceflight (and not just for political expediency)? Or is that too much to hope for?
SimonShuttle - 12/2/2007 1:34 PMNot sure what to make of that Omba, or whatever his name is, with his patronising of the Aussie PM.
stefan1138 - 12/2/2007 3:45 PMQuoteSimonShuttle - 12/2/2007 1:34 PMNot sure what to make of that Omba, or whatever his name is, with his patronising of the Aussie PM.What the story of Obama and the Australian Prime Minister?Stefan
oriolesfan61 - 13/2/2007 4:29 PMIf the US can extract most of the troops from Iraq, that could free up more dollars for NASA. I don't know what Obama's budgetary priorities would be.
Bruce H - 6/5/2007 6:41 PMPresident H Clinton appears to be far less likley since this thread was first stared.
clongton - 13/2/2007 3:40 PMQuoteoriolesfan61 - 13/2/2007 4:29 PMIf the US can extract most of the troops from Iraq, that could free up more dollars for NASA. I don't know what Obama's budgetary priorities would be.Dave, sorry to disappoint, but exiting Iraq would free up zero dollars for NASA. That's because there is no line item in the federal budget for the war. All the combat operations were financed by "special appropriations", completely outside the budget. Translation: deficit spending. GW financed the war by doing what you and I go to jail for doing: spending money he doesn't have.
Jorge - 7/5/2007 10:59 AMQuoteclongton - 13/2/2007 3:40 PMQuoteoriolesfan61 - 13/2/2007 4:29 PMIf the US can extract most of the troops from Iraq, that could free up more dollars for NASA. I don't know what Obama's budgetary priorities would be.Dave, sorry to disappoint, but exiting Iraq would free up zero dollars for NASA. That's because there is no line item in the federal budget for the war. All the combat operations were financed by "special appropriations", completely outside the budget. Translation: deficit spending. GW financed the war by doing what you and I go to jail for doing: spending money he doesn't have.Incorrect. Bush (and previous presidents) are simply borrowing money on the good credit of the US Government. I do that every day, every time I use a credit card. So do millions of other Americans.-- JRF
clongton - 7/5/2007 10:21 AMQuoteJorge - 7/5/2007 10:59 AMQuoteclongton - 13/2/2007 3:40 PMQuoteoriolesfan61 - 13/2/2007 4:29 PMIf the US can extract most of the troops from Iraq, that could free up more dollars for NASA. I don't know what Obama's budgetary priorities would be.Dave, sorry to disappoint, but exiting Iraq would free up zero dollars for NASA. That's because there is no line item in the federal budget for the war. All the combat operations were financed by "special appropriations", completely outside the budget. Translation: deficit spending. GW financed the war by doing what you and I go to jail for doing: spending money he doesn't have.Incorrect. Bush (and previous presidents) are simply borrowing money on the good credit of the US Government. I do that every day, every time I use a credit card. So do millions of other Americans.-- JRFSorry - wrong.The deficit spending that you and I do every day with our credit cards is not the same as the deficit spending being done at the federal level.You and I have to repay what we "borrow".
Federal deficit spending is unrestrained, and won't be repaid by the people running up the debt. That is a VERY BIG difference. I hope you do not have any children or grandchildren, because THEY are the ones that will be footing the bill for GW's personal war.In short, my original observation stands. Ending the Iraq war will not free up funds for the space program, because there are no funds to free up. It's all debt financed.