Campaign '04

More debate news

Since there’s a not a lot of space policy news of late, here’s a recap of a few articles written recently about the Garver-Sietzen debate and related topics.

  • Offering some straightforward reporting about the debate are articles in Aerospace Daily, SPACE.com/Space News, and my own article for The Space Review. (I will note for the purposes of full disclosure that I’ve known both Garver and Sietzen for several years.)
  • The Houston Chronicle had an article Monday with a combination of notes from the debate as well as the standard discussion of why space doesn’t get any attention from the candidates.
  • Much of the discussion about the debate has centered on Keith Cowing’s article, the first full-length article to be published after the debate. What’s most interesting about it is not the bias towards Bush some see in the article (as well as the disclaimers about his association with Sietzen), but that, in the end, after strongly criticizing Garver and Kerry, he says that he’s voting for Kerry because of his positions on other (presumably more important) issues. If anyone’s ever doubted the role of space policy in Presidential campaigns, that should clear things up…

62 comments to More debate news

  • I’m a bit confused by Lori Garver’s comments on the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).

    In the debate with Frank Sietzen, Garver was against the VSE:
    “Exploration is exciting, but it isn’t the only thing we get from space. Sending a few people to Mars maybe isn’t the most inspirational thing that we can be doing.”
    The Space Review

    But in a debate earlier this year with Robert Park, she supported it:
    “I’m very enthused about the initiative. This is what we should be doing with our space program. The reason Mars is exciting when spirit land on it is because we believe we’re going further.”
    NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, January 14, 2004
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june04/moon_01-14.html

    I hope that both parties will support the VSE. It got some partisan criticism initially, but it’s been gaining support since then.

    If the Democrats support it, it might help their cause in Florida.

  • NASA Watch has also noticed this:
    Kerry Campaign Space Advisor’s Flip Flops
    http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/000292.html

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The difference between last January and now is the nomination of John Kerry for President on the Democrat ticket. Kerry is against the VSE. Garver has fantasies of being Kerry’s NASA Administrator. Therefore she too is now against VSE.

  • An Informed Observer

    Nothing in Kerry’s comments indicates he is opposed to VSE, or better yet, a clear vision for the U.S. in space — he is opposed to moving out on an agenda that is inadequately funded relative to its importance and scope. The Republican Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, appears to agree that this particular Bush vision is flawed.

    Thus, as the Houston Chronicle rightfully expressed, it is best to allow the political season to pass and return to the hard, daily process of making space work on behalf of the nation, not the other way around.

    If space truly is the future, as it no doubt is, today’s politics are not adequate to define it, despite attempts by many to set a secure, but false, political haven in place. If this — be it VSE or some other vision of the future of space — is the future of American Enterprise, as it most certainly should be, “politics” will follow, not lead, this transformation.

    If a vision of space is not seen to serve that purpose, the idea will die no matter what the political aspirations of a few. That is the challenge of the moment — not today’s ephemeral urge to elect one or another man.

  • Mark Zinthefer

    An Informed Observer,

    It sounds like you’re confident in the idea that America’s space program will just “take care of itself”. If you really care about what America does in space, this is a dangerous attitude to have. Due in no small part to political decisions, our space program has been largely languishing and acting as a thinly veiled foreign aide and relations program.

    Who gets into office now could drastically affect the direction of our space program. If you think that Kerry is not opposed to the VSE, please let me know what news sources you’re reading. Since he’s said so little to begin with, I’m pretty sure I’ve ready everything he’s said on the subject and it all points to fuzzy direction and Earth-centricity.

  • Tom Haloise

    October is different than January. One thing that is apparent now is that other projects at NASA will be cut to support the VSE. Space science has taken a hit, for instance. So it is a question of restoring some balance to NASA’s program, rather than simply killing the VSE.

    “Garver has fantasies of being Kerry’s NASA Administrator.”

    You are getting this from NASAWatch, which is not an unbiased or credible source. Keep in mind that NASAWatch has an agenda and is not neutral or objective. The site’s author wrote a pro-VSE book with Garver’s opponent in the space debate. He also is getting perks from NASA, such as the ISS news conference. It is fair to ask if, in return for these perks, NASAWatch is now doing dirty work for the NASA Administrator by ridiculing people he does not like. One wonders why, five days after the space debate, NASAWatch chose to take a shot at Garver. It seems rather petty.

  • Keith Cowing

    (sigh) more conspiracy mongering from the Peanut Gallery.

    Gee Tom, how little you know about what I do – or how PAO works. Spaceflightnow.com, space.com and a number of other Internet-based space news sites have had multiple ISS and shuttle crew chats – solo – over the years. This was my very first solo chat. There are also a dozen or more regular opportunities for media to talk with the crew – such as the one held this morning.

    As for my bias – gee, if I were such a big Bush/O’Keefe fan why did I publicly state that I was voting for Kerry – regardless of Bush’s space policy? How does that help O’Keefe – or Bush if I won’t even vote for him?

    As for Lori Garver, she is adept at putting her own foot in her mouth without any help from me. I just remind people of it.

    Some advice: Think the logic of your posts through a little more carefuly next time. Yours simply makes no sense.

  • John Malkin

    What is a vision? It is the implementation of long ranging goals to properly focus US government resources.

    Kennedy’s plan was to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade.

    Johnson’s plan? Continue moon thing…

    Nixon’s plan is to have the space agency continue to take a cautious evolutionary approach in the development of a new system. Even so, by moving ahead at this time, we can have the Shuttle in manned flight by 1978, and operational a short time later.

    Ford’s plan?

    Carter’s plan?

    Regan’s plan was to build a space station by the end of the decade.

    Clinton’s plan?

    Bush’s plan is to have NASA lead the way into deep space with both robotic and human missions for the foreseeable future with an overall goal of settling the Moon, Asteroids and Mars.

    Kerry’s plan is to increase scientific research on the space station. Replace space shuttle with something else. Spend more money on NASA. Discuss with the parties related to space and science to come up with a plan.

    To be fair I don’t think Kerry can really have a concrete plan without being in office. No other president has had a plan for spaceflight before being elected at least that I know.

    America needs a definition for the responsibilities of NASA and the parameters for the private space sector. Should the government invest either directly or indirectly in private space companies? How should foreign competition effect American’s investment in space? What are the strategic military and commercial benefits of pushing deeper into space?

  • Brad

    What would Kerry do?

    Hmmm…Kerry blasts Bush’s space policy and praises Clinton’s space policy. Despite Kerry’s dodging of specifics, can anyone doubt that Kerry space policy would merely rerun Clinton’s?

  • Ellen

    Mr. Milkan,
    I agree with your assessment that there needs to be a definition of the role NASA (and the government) should have within the space industry. An associate of mine in Washington was discussing this idea just this morning. He mentioned he had obtained an interesting white paper entitled; “Space Policy Development via Macroeconomic Analysis”. I have not read the entire paper myself and I do not have the author’s name, my associate is sending me a copy of the paper this week. However, the paper describes just the type of analysis you mention.

    It uses macroeconomic methodologies to analyze the space industry cost, infrastructure and governmental responsibilities. While it appears the author is pro-manned space flight, it also gives justifiable reasoning why the new space policy will not be sustained over multiple decades. I will not bore you with the details on this post, but the analytical approach is interesting. I’ll post the author’s name when I receive a copy of the white paper.

  • Jeff Foust

    If the Democrats support it, it might help their cause in Florida.

    I’ve heard this claim a number of times before, and I have to wonder if I’m the only one who has a hard time accepting it. Florida’s a big state, and the number of people whose votes are influenced primarily or even secondarily by space is small, despite the presence of the Cape. Given the limited time and resources available to each campaign, it’s no surprise they’re going to devote their attention to topics that will influence the greatest number of voters: Iraq, the economy, terrorism, and some assorted domestic/social issues. Kerry could swing far more votes by promising to ensure a sufficient supply of flu vaccine than by promising to send humans to the Moon.

    Moreover, I bet if Kerry suddently came out in favor of the VSE (or a VSE-like policy), he would be eviscerated by a number of people, including some of the participants of this blog…

  • Dogsbd

    “Moreover, I bet if Kerry suddently came out in favor of the VSE (or a VSE-like policy), he would be eviscerated by a number of people, including some of the participants of this blog…”

    I don’t know about that. I think if Kerry were elected (God help us) and in one year from now he announces “his own” space vision (not likely) and it is for all intents and purposes the same as Bush’s Jan 04 plan, well a lot of the people who have been bashing Bush’s plan will then think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread JUST because it’s not from Bush, or because it’s from a Democrat.

    I believe strongly that at least half of those in the space enthusiast crowd who dislike VSE do so purely because it is a Bush and/or Republican sponsored idea. Ms. Garver being a prime example, she thought it was great until bashing it served her political ambitions.

  • Dogsbd

    It is simply amazing for me to read the statement below from Ms. Garver back in Jaunary and tehn compare thenm to her current statements.

    LORI GARVER: “The price is absolutely much cheaper (than the Bush Sr 1989 plan). You have a NASA today that is willing to invest not only some of the current infrastructure that we talked about, it would be scaled back like the shuttle and space station investments, at that time we had a Democratic Congress with a Republican president who immediately zeroed the program. And it looks like this program has a lot more detail. This focus on going to the moon was some real time dates without setting a Mars date allows me to believe they’re going to do this the right way. This Crew Exploration Vehicle, very exciting development of a vehicle that can have a lot of benefits to our national security, to our economic security, and I think this plan is much different than the one we saw 15 years ago from the father.”

    Is this really the same woman who debated Frank Sietzen????

  • Tom Haloise

    Dogsbd wrote:
    “It is simply amazing for me to read the statement below…”

    Why? Not all of the details of the VSE were unveiled back when she made the first statements, particularly how it would impact other aspects of NASA’s program. One thing that has become clear in the meantime is that the VSE is eating up other parts of NASA, sucking money out of other programs. Astronomy, for instance, has taken some hits. In addition, NASA did not release any cost estimates at first, and those did not become available until months later.

    How come it is not possible for you to simply disagree with someone else’s opinion, but instead you have to question their motives?

  • Dogsbd

    So if she had no idea what the cost was going to be whay did she state: “The price is absolutely much cheaper ”

    I understood that money would be re-programmed, come from other areas thus have impact on those areas. Surely Ms. Garver understood that when she spoke on NewsHour. I understood it, and she’s supposed to me “smarter” than I.

  • John Malkin

    Politics is like the dark side of the force, it clouds everything. Year after year campaigning has become more about spin than actual fact. Oh well maybe the Mars constitution will bane politics after the Mars colony declares independence from Earth because of taxation on iron dust.

    Seriously, I think that it’s important for advocates and lobbyist to continue to voice support for human spaceflight through the political season. It’s more important to express the general importance than to get all the details perfect. NASA will follow either VSE or another plan in the end. I’m sure Congress will have many debates over the next two years about the long range plans for NASA. I don’t see either party terminating human spaceflight or NASA. I think one big question is “Does our Nation choose to have NASA lead us in human spaceflight development or do we depend on the private sector and/or international partners to lead?”

  • Tom Haloise

    Dogsbd wrote:
    “I understood it, and she’s supposed to me “smarter” than I.”

    So do you have a point other than to attack someone’s character? Do you have anything constructive to say?

    And is it possible for someone to change their opinion, or modify it slightly, based upon the acquisition of more information? Or must one be totally consistent with whatever opinion one has taken initially, even when circumstances change?

  • Dogsbd

    “Do you have anything constructive to say?”

    Yes, George W. Bush has a plan for space exploration.

  • Dogsbd

    I wouldn’t want to once again be accused of attacking Ms. Garvers character, so here’s a link you can all read if you like and then make your own call.

    Kerry Campaign Representative Spreading False Shuttle Rumors: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/000301.html

  • John Malkin

    It says “they are planning to limit flight to 10.” what is that 10 a year? I think they are targeting more like 6 a year. What is the origin of this quote?

  • Anonymous

    Don’t forget, Dogsbd, that Cowing is hardly an unbiased source for rumors and innuendo. Weigh his posts carefully.

  • Tom Haloise

    “Don’t forget, Dogsbd, that Cowing is hardly an unbiased source for rumors and innuendo. Weigh his posts carefully.”

    If you read that post on NASAWatch it ends: “The best thing Lori Garver could do right now for space exploration would be to sit down and shut up.”

    That kind of rudeness and unprofessionalism says a lot about the quality of this source of information.

  • Keith Cowing

    Stay tuned Tom.

  • Anonymous

    NASA Watch is a blog, which is the internet equivalent to a column in a newspaper.

    Blogs and columns have facts and opinions.

    As long as all the facts are accurate, blogs and columns have important roles.

  • Dogsbd

    “Don’t forget, Dogsbd, that Cowing is hardly an unbiased source for rumors and innuendo. Weigh his posts carefully.”

    And don’t forget; Cowing is a Kerry supporter.

    Like Keith said above, Garver puts her foot in her mouth very well on here own.

  • Tom Haloise

    “As long as all the facts are accurate, blogs and columns have important roles.”

    But how do we know that NASAWatch’s “facts” are accurate?

    NASAWatch bills itself as media. But it has no real standards of professionalism or tact. Statements like “sit down and shut up,” which it uses repeatedly, demonstrate this.

  • Keith Cowing

    TOM: But how do we know that NASAWatch’s “facts” are accurate?

    Duh, like veryone else. I guess you just wait to see if what I say is verified by others.

    If NASA Watch annoys you this much Tom why not save yourself the heartburn: don’t read it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    What I find as somewhat entertaining is that KC acts as if Garver is well someone who is going to change something.

    Other than the “Average Mom” in space and calling almost everything wrong at her tenure at NSS she has about as much claim to talk show fame as KC does.

    Today John Kerry was campaigning in Ohio…guess who was behind him. That guy has a much greater chance of being NASA in a Kerry administration then Garver does, as does anyone.

    but KC is good at throwing bombs. and who knows who he is voting for.

    Robert

  • Keith Cowing

    Poor Oler. He is so bitter. No one listens to him – and it bothers him so.

  • Mark R, Whittington

    John Glenn (the fellow Oler is refering to) is a partisan Democrat. Lately that fact has been making him say and do things that John Glenn the astronaut would have been astonished at.

    I also doubt, as Glenn is pushing eighty, that he would have any official role in any administration.

  • Dogsbd

    “I also doubt, as Glenn is pushing eighty, that he would have any official role in any administration.”

    He’s 83. No way he’ll ever be NASA admin.

  • Anonymous

    As long as all the facts are accurate, blogs and columns have important roles.

    But sometimes they are not complete. Cowing and Sietzen have excluded votes by Kerry that don’t support their contrived hypothesis that he doesn’t support manned spaceflight:

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=965

  • Keith Cowing

    And those votes we “excluded” are…?

  • Jeff Foust

    Keith,

    I’m not sure what the anonymous poster was referring to, but it may be to votes cast by Kerry in 1997 and 1998 to block amendments (by Sen. Bumpers) to appropriations bills intended to kill the ISS. These were amendments like the ones you mention in your list from 1991 to 1996. I brought this up here about six months ago:

    http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000150.html

    As you recall from last week’s Garver-Sietzen debate, Garver said that Kerry opposed the station because he felt it would cost more than planned, but “once the train left the station” he changed his mind and supported it.

  • Keith Cowing

    I will have to look into that. If nothing else it is yet another example of a Kerry flip flop on space. First he is against it then he is for it now he is against it.

    Kerry also voted for Hollings’ bill introduced this time last year which would have set up a National Space Commission – of sort s- but that bill did not specify support for – or against any project or program – just that they wanted a commission to talk about it. The real intent of the bill was to torpedo what the Administration was proposing – and Sen. Hollings made no secret of that underlying intention.

    As for Garver’s characterization of Kerry changing his stance – this has to be *her* interpretation of Kerry’s stance after th etrain has left the station. I seriously doubt Kerry would have characterized his decision that way. It makes his decision making process look rather ad hoc and like putting his finger in the wind to sense how he should vote.

  • Robert G. Oler

    e’s 83. No way he’ll ever be NASA admin.

    Posted by Dogsbd at October 22, 2004 07:52 AM

  • Robert G. Oler

    John Glenn (the fellow Oler is refering to) is a partisan Democrat. Lately that fact has been making him say and do things that John Glenn the astronaut would have been astonished at.

    Posted by Mark R, Whittington at October 22, 2004 06:41 AM

  • Tom Haloise

    “I will have to look into that.”

    You could have looked into that six months ago, but you didn’t. Instead, you continue to repeat inaccurate information.

  • Has anyone found a full transcript of this debate? We all have biases one way or another, conscious or subconscious. THis bias come from our own desires and our own experiences. Instead of arguing whos biased against whom, we should have the full transcript and decide completely for ourselves. and debate the full debate.

    Granted the two people in the debate could say what ever they want, and it would not affect the election one way or another. Its a doggie treat to the tiniest runt of the little, the space community. As long as they say they won’t dismantle NASA and loose all there jobs they are safe.

  • Keith Cowing

    TOM: You could have looked into that six months ago, but you didn’t. Instead, you continue to repeat inaccurate information.

    Actually, Tom, I just checked my notes: we did. Had we included this in the book we would have characterized it as an after the fact flip flop by Kerry on space policy. Other research shows Kerry making noises to the effect that he still did not see the value of the ISS up until the moment he voted – both times.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Re Oler’s last rant about my allegedly wanting battleships. Huh?

  • kdspace

    I attended the debate last week, but it was clearly not the same debate Keith attended. From the opening of the debate it was made clear that these were the candidate’s proxies — they were not speaking for themselves. Garver was introduced as a member of the Kerry science advisory group — representing the Kerry Campaign. I suspect that her remarks had to be cleared in some way by the group. I think it is a safe bet that Sen. Kerry is not quite as pro-space as Garver. She supports him anyway. I’m in that camp as well, along with — supposedly — Keith Cowing.

    Someone mentioned above that Sen. Glenn has been traveling with Sen. Kerry. I have noticed that too. Sen. Glenn has been against the Bush vision from the start. He got pretty nasty with O’Keefe at a NAC meeting about it this Spring. Glenn’s criticism isn’t as much partisan (he was never very pro-space or pro-Democrat during his Senate days). Glenn is just continuing to try to justify his 2nd space boondogle on the backs of the taxpayers. As I recall, Keith bashed Goldin on this (deservedly so) back in the days when NASAWatch was worth reading. Chances are that Glenn has had a lot more to do with developing Sen. Kerry’s views on space than Lori Garver. Maybe Keith knows differently.

    Garver clearly stated, DURING THE DEBATE, that she had supported the vision in January and in fact said something like “had this happened while I was at NASA I would have been justifiably proud…” She said there are now concerns about the implimentation — lack of adequate funding, lack of bi-partisan support, cuts to other programs, lack of interest in an international program. Why has Keith not told the complete story? Keith probably has the only transcript of the debate — why has he not published the entire transcript. Would it not serve his purposes?

    Perhaps Keith is worried he will lose his unlimited access to this NASA Administration, free flights on the NASA private jet, and exclusive conversation with our ISS crew — our tax dollars at work! These are not perks for a “journalist”. Keith has no editor and is a blogger. He is doing the bidding for the seniors at NASA who should be spending more of their time managing the Shuttle RTF than paying off their lap dog.

    Can we have a vote as to who we’d like to “sit down and shut up”?

  • anonspace

    As an aerospace industry professional involved in the political and advocacy aspects of the civil space program, I have learned to stay above the fray in the plethora of online chats, weblogs, and internet discussion forums. But the spate of recent postings on the controversial weblog known as ‘NASAWatch’ by its ‘Editor’ Keith Cowing deserves a new place in the pantheon of scurrilous online musings. I believe that the Washington aerospace community must not allow the rantings of a few to go unchallenged. With this message I hope to encourage others to publicly expose the many undeniably questionable ‘facts’ that Mr. Cowing offers up to our community. Folks, we are smarter than this, and we shouldn’t allow the transgressions of one to deceive the masses.

    Many unknowing readers of Mr. Cowings’ website are unaware that he is, in fact, just another in a long line of internet bloggers that claim to be objective. He claims to be an ‘editor’, as if he were a credentialed reporter. Despite the fact that Glenn Mahone of NASA public affairs has granted him credentials, he is, in fact, not a reporter. At least not in the sense of the construct where a reporter hands his or her work into an editor to be fact checked and run through the legal gauntlet for review of possible issues of character defamation before it appears in print or online. I will grant you that he is a fairly talented writer. He and Frank Sietzen are co-authors of the recent deep throat account of the inner circle of NASA HQ. (Somebody really ought to do an outing of the sordid relationship these two have with Sean O’Keefe, Bill Readdy and others at NASA HQ, but that’s for another day). My point here is that an editor does not ordinarily edit one’s own work. That’s simply not the definition of an editor in the journalistic sense nor is it what most readers expect. Mr. Cowing seems to have a pretty high opinion of himself and is deluded into believing that his blog and self-publishing record qualify him as a bona fide trade journalist. Now mind you, I am not suggesting that he must have or even need an editor for his weblog, just that his readers should be aware that he is not edited and is not an objective journalist (with or without the obvious biases that even objective journalists bring to the table).

    But my point here is not to slam Mr. Cowing. In my humble opinion, he clearly has way too much time on his hands and fancies himself as a king-slayer working towards (admittedly a good cause) a space future in which we all get to play a part.

    Just so you know, I am a former colleague of Lori Garver’s and am close to current clients of hers. So I believe I speak with some authority about her capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. I’m not really trying to be objective here, and I just told you so.

    First off, I must say that she is one of the most competent people I’ve had the opportunity to work with in more than twenty years of Washington experience. The highest accolade I believe I can bestow is that the lowest rung of NASA employees – the secretaries, administrative assistants, and clerks all talk with admiration for her – and about her leadership. In conversation with others it has been noted that she has always been able to work with both kings and common folk; a personality trait that many of our aerospace industry breathren lack in spades. As a consultant to aerospace industry, she has that set of skills which we in industry value highly – the ability to provide concise analysis and insight, access to both senior-level decision makers in government, media and industry and contacts at the working-level. Most importantly she provides, as the saying goes, not just data and information, but knowledge, understanding, and ultimately wisdom on the current civil space program in all its aspects.

    Let’s take a look quick at some of the innuendo and poorly supported diatribes that Mr. Cowing has put up just this week alone. He claims that Ms. Garver was heard to suggest at last week’s debate between herself and his co-author (and presumed close buddy Frank Sietzen) that aerospace contractors should block access to NASAWatch on their corporate networks. Well, I was there, and speak to her often and she never said anything of the sort there or anywhere. It’s totally illogical for her to do so as it would obviously backfire. Who’d Mr. Cowing get this from? Or did he just make it up? Why?

    Next, he claims that “stories continue to circulate around Washington” that Ms. Garver is spreading “false shuttle rumors” (my friends beyond the Beltway: are you seeing a pattern here?). Further he says that “Garver is going around town telling people that she has spoken with people inside OMB and NASA and that there is a plan under development by the Bush Administration to limit shuttle flights.” Well, first off, what would Mr. Cowing truly know about what the Bush Administration plans anyway? Do Mssrs. O’Keefe and Readdy really know with any confidence what their budget requests are going to be for the out years, or for that matter, whether or not the current Republican leadership is going to hang them out to dry once the election is settled? I am told that Ms. Garver has advised her clients that either a second Bush Administration or a Kerry Administration are going to be very hard pressed to fund the Exploration initiative, Shuttle Return to Flight, Hubble telescope mission, and move nearly 2,000 MSFC employees off the overhead budget. And anybody who thinks that the Shuttle should fly 30 more times is seriously in need of oxygen.

    Ms. Garver may be dead wrong about all of this, but her private and public advice has been long sought and seems to be appreciated and respected. I notice that Mr. Cowing put a photo of Ms. Garver appearing on the PBS Newshour on his webblog. Now that’s a credible news outfit! Ms. Garver can be faulted for a strong will and perhaps a lack of hubris. But I know Ms. Garver to be a person of family, faith and moral values. She and her husband, also an aerospace professional, are active in their community (she teaches an aerobics class at a county recreation center on the weekends, he is a Cub Scout leader, and they share the usual sporting and school activities with their boys). Ms. Garver, while conducting her professional career, raising a family, and volunteering for various other causes would not deliberately lose sight of that one focus she has very clearly had for nearly two decades. That is the task of advocating a more successful civil space program for which we can all be proud and in which we can all be participants. As a friend of Ms. Garver, but more importantly as a Washington-based aerospace professional, I am proud of her and wish her well in any future role she may play in our nation’s future in space.

    Mr. Cowing certainly can take issue with her public statements without making things up and spreading false rumors. I would request that Mr. Cowing put a comments section up on his blog to allow others an opportunity to specifically discuss Ms. Garver’s participation in the Presidential campaign, the candidate’s positions and the Exploration initiative. And I’d hope he’d do so without his unseemly commentary or questionable editing. On the other hand, I wouldn’t believe anything I see on his blog unless it is a redirect to another site. I long ago moved NASABlog from my “Media Favorites” to the “Space Blogs” Internet Explorer favorites menu. Right next to the Onion online newspaper!

    I’ll not be reading any of your replies, not for lack of appreciation for Mr. Foust’s good work, but because like Ms. Garver I’ll be working for a candidate over the course of the next few weeks. But I hope more of you in the community elect to voice your opinions on Mr. Cowing’s actions.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Re Oler’s last rant about my allegedly wanting battleships. Huh?

    Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 22, 2004 07:24 PM

  • Keith Cowing

    I just love it when all these people pile on me with such vigor and bravado – but are too cowardly to use their real names.

  • anonspace

    It is because I am an aerospace professional you idiot. What is your profession?

  • Keith Cowing

    C’mon “anonspace” who are you?

    Why are you afraid to use your real name? If you are really such a pal of Lori’s I’d think you’d want to let people know just who you are.

  • Keith Cowing

    Ah, so I am an “idiot” (its quite possible that I am!)

    I see, so that is how an “aerospace professional” such as you claim to be conducts a conversation – an anonymous one at that.

  • kdspace

    Perhaps not the best manners, but the question stands. Keith — what is your “profession”? Many people have wondered why you spend your time trashing people on a webblog? Don’t tell us you are a journalist because we’ve already established that you are not. Have not seen your book on the bestseller list. Are you actually somehow on O’Keefe’s payroll? That would explain a lot. You must be concerned that if the Democrats get in office (no one believes you are voting for Kerry for a minute!) there are records of e-mails and phone calls among you and “the boys”.

  • Keith Cowing

    KDSPACE: Are you actually somehow on O’Keefe’s payroll?

    Yea right – I say publicly that I am going to vote for O’Keefe’s boss’ political opponent in a close election and you think that I am on the payroll. What planet do you live on?

    You folks all complain about NASA Watch – yet you still read it? Make your life easier: fight the urge – read something else.

  • Anonymous

    “Kerry also voted for Hollings’ bill introduced this time last year which would have set up a National Space Commission – of sort s- but that bill did not specify support for – or against any project or program – just that they wanted a commission to talk about it. The real intent of the bill was to torpedo what the Administration was proposing – and Sen. Hollings made no secret of that underlying intention. ”

    The real intent of the Hollings bill was not to torpedo anything the administration “was proposing”. The bill was introduced on Nov 5, 2003, well before Kitty Hawk; the Bush Plan didn’t become public until Jan 14, 2004, and was just a “buzz” until nearly Jan 1. This was never Hollings’ intention — Hollings was focused on NASA and seven astronaut deaths, not the politics the White House was about to make of this tragedy.

    Keith, you really do need an editor/fact-checker — otherwise, who do you have to believe in other than yourself?

  • Keith Cowing

    “Keith, you really do need an editor/fact-checker — otherwise, who do you have to believe in other than yourself?”

    To my anonymous admirer: Why would I write things that are not true or that I could not verify?

  • Anonymous

    How do you know they’re true? Because someone at NASA says so?

    You must be the only person who doesn’t realize that who you quote is a direct reflection of what you think is true — and that’s easy to know because you make it very clear what you think is true. But how do you know it’s true if you never think you’re wrong? That’s what editors and fact-checkers are for — to be sure you aren’t just using quotes as records of truth unless the truth they refer to is, in fact, true. And you never know that. And it’s obvious to everyone that you don’t.

  • Keith Cowing

    Dear Anonymous Admirer – why not use your real name?

  • Anonymous

    get a life Keith

  • Keith Cowing

    “get a life Keith”

    Get a name.

    So, are you the anonymous “aerospace professional” or the anonymous no name poster? Its so hard to tell you two apart.

  • Robert G. Oler

    I just love it when all these people pile on me with such vigor and bravado – but are too cowardly to use their real names.

    Posted by Keith Cowing at October 22, 2004 10:54 PM

  • Keith Cowing

    With all of this armwaving about me (most of it anonymous) – and what a horrible person I am – there is one person we haven’t heard from: Lori Garver. If what I have been posting is inaccurate, you’d think that she’d want to set the record straight herself.

    Not one peep – publicly at least.

  • Robert G. Oler

    that she’d want to set the record straight herself.

    Not one peep – publicly at least.

    Posted by Keith Cowing at October 23, 2004 03:34 PM

  • Tom Haloise

    “I just love it when all these people pile on me with such vigor and bravado – but are too cowardly to use their real names.”

    Doesn’t NASAWatch regularly use anonymous sources? Why is it acceptable for _you_ to attack people on your website and claim that this information is from people too “cowardly” to use their own names, but it is _not_ okay for anyone to attack you without using their own name? In fact, you did not state who, exactly, told you that Ms. Garver was “spreading false rumors” around Washington. So your hypocrisy is evident.

    But I can actually answer the question as to why people would be reluctant to use their own name when attacking you–after reading your blog for the past year, by your own admission you have accepted a free trip on the NASA Administrator’s airplane and gone drinking with him in bars. It is also clear that he has used you to attack some of the people he does not like. So if someone from NASA criticizes you, they may fear that you will give their name to NASA leadership and they may face retribution. In fact, on several occasions in the past, when someone using a NASA e-mail account has criticized you, you have publicly aired their name in order to get them in trouble. And yet if someone with a NASA e-mail account tells you something that you like, you will list them as “someone@nasa.gov.”

    So by your own actions it is obvious that you will seek to get people fired or reprimanded at NASA if you do not like what they say.

  • Keith Cowing

    Tom “So by your own actions it is obvious that you will seek to get people fired or reprimanded at NASA if you do not like what they say.”

    That’s libelous, Tom. Prove what you’ve said – or retract it.

  • Jeff Foust

    Sorry, folks, but I’m going to have to close the comments on this post. The comments long ago went beyond the original subject, and while I tried to give this some leeway, that doesn’t seem possible any more. I may reconsider allowing anonymous comments, or even allowing comments at all, in the future.

    If you have any questions about this please let me know.