White House

No space for space in SOTU

President Bush elected not to mention his new space initiative in last night’s State of the Union address. It shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise, given that he dedicated a whole speech to the topic less than a week earlier. Nonetheless, it seems like the Democrats were expecting some mention of the plan in the address: in the Democratic response, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle notes, “The president spoke of great goals, and America should never hesitate to push the boundaries of exploration. But neither should we shrink from the great goal of creating a more perfect union here at home.”

10 comments to No space for space in SOTU

  • I heard one commentator mention that the real conservatives in the president’s party are rather unhappy that he seems to think he has a magic checkbook and can spend whatever he wants. The commentator suggested that perhaps leaving out mention of this new program was a nod to those folks.

  • What really torques me off is that, in his defense (gads!), the President never mentioned abandoning all Earthly concerns for a damn-the-torpedoes mission to Mars. Indeed, most of the money for the new initiative has already been wrapped up in NASA’s projected budget across five years, with a little extra added along the way.

    The Democratic candidates, lacking true vision and the ability to use language in effective ways (except perhaps Howard Dean, who can scream very well), resort to describing the space initiative (read: ANY space initiative) as frivolous and a luxury that we can’t afford (which is nonsense). Having said that, I do appreciiate the joke that President Bush is dispatching folks to the Moon and Mars to look for weapons of mass destruction, because surely that’s where Hussein put them…

    It is so frustrating to be a citizen of a country lead by a government full of unimaginative, incapable dolts.

  • Of the most viable Democrat contenders, it seems that John Edwards is the most open to improving our space exploration endeavors. Research Triangle put Carolina on the map, so it would be tough for John Edwards (a law alumnus of Chapel Hill) NOT to appreciate the value of technology. Sure, neighboring Duke has a prominent NASA pundit in (I think his name is) historian Alex Rowland. However, Alex isn’t the first former NASA employee to be highly skeptical of that bureaucratic agency. I don’t know that he’d be against NASA’s simply funding competitive prizes though.

    What’s encouraging is that research triangle is somewhat OUTSIDE of the NASA center paradigm. The closest center is NASA Langley, and it’s not in the same state. Maybe John Edwards would be far more open-minded to pro-entrepreneurial reforms which could empower Research Triangle and other NON NASA sycophants to achieve in space what NASA hasn’t and won’t?

    On a different note, folks, love him or hate him Rush Limbaugh knows a thing or two about politics (and football). As a preface, Rush calls Edwards “the Breck Girl” for being such a “pretty boy”. That’s probably not a bad trait to have now in the t.v. age, as Kennedy discovered against Nixon. Much more interestingly, though, Rush says that Kerry won’t make it outside of the NorthEast, and that Edwards will be the chosen candidate. Rush also said Edwards can win against Bush, and mentioned that when the Democrats DO win the presidency it’s with a Southerner. I guess Kennedy’s the last exception. Anyhow, Rush theorizes that Edwards might ask fellow senator Hillary Clinton to run with him, and she might accept because if they lose, her slate’s clean for ’08 as her dirty laundry will have already been publicly aired.

  • William T. Sellers

    How can I put this diplomatically, hmmm….95% of all you idealistic space wonks are smokin’ rope. When Time/CNN did the numbers [1/18], polling data comes in at >67% oppose Bush’s Moon/Mars plans. In his own party it’s almost 50% oppose. Unless it’s radically restructured, BushMoonMars is DOA. Americans are stressed out enough from downsizings, tech jobs going overseas, credit card & mortgage debt, unfunded kids in college, and zero set aside for retirement. Space? that’s for 50 cent rental night down at the video store. Get real.

    If you really want us to ‘get back in the game’, you have to work with the forces of capitalism, not against them.

  • Anaxagoras

    William, the level of opposition to this initiative is not any higher than was the opposition to the Apollo program.

    The politicians know that there are very few people who would vote AGAINST someone because they are promoting space exploration, but there are many would vote FOR someone for the same reason.

    A month ago, I myself wasn’t even remotely considering voting for Bush. Now, unless the Democrats throw down their gaunlet by announcing their own space policy initiative, I will almost certainly vote for him.

    And I’m not the only one.

  • Rich,

    When you write:

    Of the most viable Democrat contenders, it seems that John Edwards is the most open to improving our space exploration endeavors.

    I’m curious how you reached this conclusion: was is based on discussions with the candidate and/or his staff, a review of his voting record, or something else? He’s said very little publicly about space, and seemed a little surprised when asked about Bush’s new initiative on Face the Nation on Sunday (that, or he was simply channelling 80s-icon Max Headroom, based on his response in the transcript. :-)

  • Anaxagoras,

    Do you have any data which indicates how many people are single-issue voters in Presidential elections in the area of space policy? I suspect that there are a few, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the number is insignificant compared to voters who base their decision solely on the candidates’ positions on economic, foreign, or other domestic policy issues.

  • Anaxagoras

    Jeff,

    I don’t think there’s even been a detailed analysis of space policy as a political factor. Innumerable polls have been done to see whether or not the public in general supports exploration, but as for those voters who vote exclusively on this issue, I don’t believe there’s any hard data.

    Still, what I said above seems to me to be but a concession to common sense. I can’t imagine any voter contemplating the election and saying, “Hmm, he supports space exploration, does he? That’s an outrage! I’m not going to vote for him!”

    On the other hand, I would find it very hard to believe that there aren’t a very large number of people who are so devoted to and involved in space exploration that they would support a candidate because he supports space exploration.

    This is set against the backdrop that thousands of jobs depend on NASA (and it’s no coincidence that the primary NASA facilities were set up in the politically-critical states of California, Texas and Florida). On could also point to the hundreds of thousands of citizens who belong to organizations such as the Planetary Society, the National Space Society, and so forth.

    I think the real reason there has been no hard data collected on this is simply because no Presidential candidate has ever made space exploration a key part of their election campaign. If Bush does so this year, I would expect us to see a lot of pro-space voters coming out of the woodwork.

  • Stargazer

    Who is this NASAWatch.INFO person? Have you seen his website? What a lunatic!

  • William,

    I would consider myself a space wonk, but one with a good measure of realism mixed in. Having said that, your point is well taken.

    I firmly believe that any sustained activity in space can only be executed through the individual capitalistic efforts of people working within a free market system (however, an empiral government could pull it off, only at the expense of the citizenry – not a desired option, to be sure). The government will have a role, of course, as will the communal sector (associations, groups, clubs, etc.). My earlier point is that in order to address the President’s plan with some degree of fairness, we must use numbers in context and try as much as possible to remove the politics from the math. Simply put, NASA’s budget, though I don’t agree with how it’s spent, is less than one percent of the national budget, and not this massive wasted pile of cash that so many would think. The President’s plan does not translate to an enormous increase in expenditures. It just won’t work because of annual budget cycles and constantly changing political moods on the Hill.

    Believe me, I take no please defending President Bush.