Comments on: Reacting to the space policy reaction

By: Nemo

Nemo — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:54:19 +0000

And that means that in the short term, things like NASA will get damaged. Because, yes, with his name on it, we can’t agree to it.

In other words, yes, you admit you’re going to oppose a policy you’d otherwise support because Bush’s name on it.

Childish and petty. Case closed.

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:02:35 +0000

Nemo and Donald – to a point we do agree. Yes, Bush displays an arrogance. But every president has arrogance (they should, after all, they are president). No, this has moved beyond arrogance.

When a person, any person, continually demands total and absolute agreement on every issue, and has been totally wrong so many times, there comes a point when you realize that it is more dangerous to leave him in power, and that the only way he will go is if you wrestle each and every piece of power from him. And that means that in the short term, things like NASA will get damaged. Because, yes, with his name on it, we can’t agree to it. With his name on it, it leaves some level of power in his hands. And with power in his hands there can be no discussion or compromise on any issue. Not by our choice, but by his. When someone demands that you stand totally with them, or totally against them, that person stands alone ultimately.

He has moved beyond gridlock gentlemen – we have entered the political equivalent of open warfare. I only hope it doesn’t end with true warfare.

By: Nemo

Nemo — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:24:24 +0000

I actually agree with most of the above, though there are a number of counter-examples — e.g., the way export controls on civilian satellites were handled, in which Republicans shot a key American industry in the foot for no better reason than to embarrass the Clinton Administration.

I agree, that’s a good counterexample, and one that’s actually relevant to space policy.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:40:48 +0000

Nemo, I actually agree with most of the above, though there are a number of counter-examples — e.g., the way export controls on civilian satellites were handled, in which Republicans shot a key American industry in the foot for no better reason than to embarrass the Clinton Administration. Nonetheless, I accept your corrections, and I certainly agree with your last statement about Mr. Bush. I think one key problem that the current Administration has is that essentially everything Mr. Bush does is handled the way Mrs. Clinton tried to handle health care.

— Donald

By: Nemo

Nemo — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:55:59 +0000

Mr. Valyn:
Point 1 – to a certain degree, thats politics, and par for the course. Don’t believe me, look at the discussion of health care in the early 90s – a bipartisan bill could have addressed some of the real problems, except the Republicains didn’t want to give the Democrats a victory going into the mid-terms.

Mr. Robertson:
(It is worth noting, though, that conservatives did just that regarding Mr. Clinton.)

Both of you are forgetting Clinton’s major accomplishments: NAFTA, GATT, and welfare reform, all of which were the result of Republican cooperation with the Clinton administration. The Republicans definitely didn’t oppose policies they supported just because Clinton would get the credit.

Regarding health care, HillaryCare[TM] was crafted by a secret committee, and presented as a finished product wrapped up with a bow on top. There was no opportunity for compromise; none was offered. It was definitely not a case of Republicans turning against a policy they’d have supported if anyone but Clinton offered it – the Clinton plan was anathema to what the party stood for. The failure of that plan resulted in the Republican congressional takeover in 1994. Clinton learned from that experience and went on to craft the NAFTA, GATT, and welfare reform compromises I listed above.

Bush continues to display the same arrogance as the 93-94 Clinton, so there’s a potential lesson for him in the above, should he care to learn it.

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:32:57 +0000

Donald, I appriciate that – the problem is, I go back, when you put idealoges in power, who demand idealogical purity, the idea of compromise disappears. And it was not the liberals and dems who put the idealoges in power (yes, we’ve had to respond with that to a certain degree, but we did not draw first blood). If and when Bush in particular and Conserveratives in general want to have discussion and debate, and allow for compromise, we’ll be here. Until then – nothing will happen.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:03:44 +0000

Nemo: What surprises me is that anyone would use that to rationalize opposing a space policy they’d otherwise support, just to avoid the appearance of supporting Bush. That’s juvenile and petty.

This relative liberal does hate most of Mr. Bush’s policies with a passion, but I fully agree Nemo’s statement. (It is worth noting, though, that conservatives did just that regarding Mr. Clinton.) Everyone on all sides needs to step back and separate policy from personality, and support desirable policies no matter where they come from. That is the only way we are going to get beyond “gridlock” and actually solve some of the problems our nation faces, not least what to do with human spaceflight.

— Donald

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:14:55 +0000

No one is surprised that liberals hate Bush. What surprises me is that anyone would use that to rationalize opposing a space policy they’d otherwise support, just to avoid the appearance of supporting Bush. That’s juvenile and petty.

It shouldn’t
Point 1 – to a certain degree, thats politics, and par for the course. Don’t believe me, look at the discussion of health care in the early 90s – a bipartisan bill could have addressed some of the real problems, except the Republicains didn’t want to give the Democrats a victory going into the mid-terms.
Point 2 – Bush (and to a certain degree, the conservative media, yes, ITS CONSERVATIVE) has done similiar things to liberals and democrats, on a scale that surpasses what has been done in past.
Point 3 – He has so screwed things up that anything he has touched in the government is suspect (why do you think the dems are going to open investagation after investagation when we retake the house and the Senate)

By: Nemo

Nemo — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:52:02 +0000

1 – Why is it people in the space community (espicially conscervitives) are surprized that liberals practically hate anything with a bush label?

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:04:10 +0000

One other thing – Phil Smith said
The tone of the policy is noticeably more belligerent, however, though not surprising given the source.

Is that somehow to be seen as a good thing?