No, I’m not. I’m stating the facts as they exist in writing. Nowhere, including the link you provided in your second post, did the Obama campaign propose delaying the Constellation program by “ten years”, per your first post. “Ten years” are your words, not theirs.

Again, we should stick to what the campaigns actually say or write, not what we think or wish they would say or write.

“After the ofuscation didn’t work”

How does a clear and public campaign statement about redirecting funds from program A to program B meet the definition of “ofuscation [sic]”? How is that confusing, opaque, or difficult to perceive or understand?

“Obama merely followed the advice of Bill Nelson and he flip flopped, another thing he constantly does.”

“Flip-flop” is a lazy insult that implies that our candidates should be unintelligent, ideological automatons incapable of changing their minds in the face of changing evidence in a complex world. We don’t do the nation any favors by insisting on such a ridiculously simple litmus test for our Presidents.

But to the extent that there has been any “flip-flopping” on civil space, both candidates are equally guilty. McCain is actually on the record in the Senate as being opposed to the VSE just a few years ago. For example, see (add http://):

edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/28/space.senate.ap/index.html

FWIW…

Sorry, Anon, but you’re spinning. But then that’s exactly what the Obama Campaign did in the months following their proposal as the its implication became apparent. See the following:

“http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/”

After the ofuscation didn’t work, Obama merely followed the advice of Bill Nelson and he flip flopped, another thing he constantly does.

I’d modify that slightly – how it happens makes sense – but that doesn’t mean that the policy itself makes sense.

Bush definitely holds responsibility next as it’s supposed to be the implementation of his vision and his legacy, and by shear priority of time, he had the first opportunity to protest. History is rife with leaders who, upon seeing a displeasing proposal, have simply said ‘this is unacceptable, show me something better.’ If he really wanted to make this a centerpiece for his legacy, he should have had the guts to speak out on it before he made the big speech.

The next level of responsibility lies with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I’m not a McCain supporter, but I think it unfair that the failure of that committee to make some major noise about it is placed squarely on his shoulders. It is a committee after all. While he may hold the reigns on the agenda as it stands, anyone in the room had the power to make it an issue.

Congress as a whole does certainly have responsibility here. I would agree that the squeaky wheels should be held to the fire first. You wanna make it a political weapon? Make sure you’re holding the right end. As for the rest, it’s not in most of their districts, most of them haven’t made space a priority so I expect them to justifiably view this from a big picture perspective and vote on it based on its place in the budget at large.

The only people I particularly hold in contept here are the politicians from the white house down who claim to hold a grand space view but fail to support it. In that way, my candidate, Obama, is just as guilty as Bush.

An incorrect statement. The Bush II White House (and Congress) did provide most of the funding promised under the VSE. They did not provide _all_ of the funding promised under the VSE.

“They shortchanged their own program from the start, which was pretty much what people like Gordon were saying was going to happen.”

It’s a little two-faced for any member of Congress to complain about White House budget shortfalls for anything. Under our system of government, there’s a balance of power when it comes to developing the budget, and Congress always has the option of passing an appropriations bill that exceeds the President’s budget. Gordon and other congressmen on NASA’s committees should spend more time lobbying their fellow congressmen on NASA’s budget (which is hard), and less time criticizing the White House (which is easy).

And regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that those budget shortfalls have nothing to do with what’s driving the gap. Even if the White House and Congress had met their VSE budget commitments exactly, it wouldn’t change the Ares I/Orion’s myriad technical problems and critical path issues.

FWIW…