As noted here last month, the Democratic Party platform includes a passing reference to space in its 2008 edition, while its 2004 edition made no mention of the subject. The 2008 Republican Party platform is now available, and it also makes a brief reference to space in the document, in the “Technology and Innovation” section on page 26:
Innovation is our future — in our approach to energy, to education, to health care, and especially to government. As a symbol of that commitment, we share the vision of returning Americans to the moon as a step toward a mission to Mars. In advancing our country’s space and aeronautics program, NASA will remain one of the world’s most important pioneers in technology, and from its explorations can come tremendous benefits for mankind.
On its own this statement doesn’t mean much: the McCain campaign has released a far more detailed space policy than that passage, just as the Obama campaign has issued a policy far more detailed than that fleeting mention in the Democratic platform. The 2008 Republican platform passage, though, is more detailed than what appeared in the 2004 platform, which only briefly mentioned space at the end of the “Research and Development” section:
The President’s support for NASA and vision for space exploration will also enhance scientific development and technological breakthroughs.
Compare that brief mention (odd, given that the Vision for Space Exploration had just been announced earlier that year) with this vision for space in the 2000 Republican platform:
In addition, the Republican Party will remain committed to America’s leadership in space research and exploration. We will ensure that this Nation can expand our knowledge of the universe, and with the support of the American people, continue the exploration of Mars and the rest of the solar system. We consider space travel and space science a national priority with virtually unlimited benefits, in areas ranging from medicine to micro-machinery, for those on earth. Development of space will give us a growing economic resource and a source of new scientific discoveries.
Later in the same document came this:
We will, as an urgent priority, restore the integrity of the nation’s space program by imposing sound management and strong oversight on NASA.
“We will, as an urgent priority, restore the integrity of the nation’s space program by imposing sound management and strong oversight on NASA.”
That language implies that integrity, sound management, and strong oversight of NASA has been lost. So the Republican platform is saying that the Republican president has done a bad job of managing and overseeing NASA? Does this mean that the Republicans want to fire Mike Griffin?
That quote was from the 2000 platform. The Republicans were criticizing Bill Clinton and Dan Goldin.
D’oh!
My mistake.
“That quote was from the 2000 platform. The Republicans were criticizing Bill Clinton and Dan Goldin.”
Shocker.
And the Columbia is testament for how well they backed up words with action. The last 8 years have been a floundering with lofty goals and platitudes backed up with too little funding and sound management.
But I guess when you’re spending $13B/month (the price tag of 5 Space Shuttles), it’s a bit hard to back up your words.
$13B/month on Iraq/Afghan wars, I meant, of course.
Can anybody find the 2000 space policy statement from the Bush/Cheney campaign? I recall that the Bush 2000 space policy statement was very good, and was the result of a group of Republican space policy experts led by Bob Walker. I thought I had a copy, but I can not find it.
I found see some inferences to it:
http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/gorebush_spaceplatform_000720.html
“Walker said … Bush would spur commercial investment in space
Walker said Bush would look for ways to generate commercial growth in space transportation to put humans in space”
and
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/aerospace_urges_changes_001213.html
“Texas Gov. George Bush has signaled that he would revive a body similar to the National Space Council, “
and
http://www.space.com/news/candidates_election_platforms.html
“The Bush campaign said it favors handing over responsibility for managing the ISS to a non-government entity.”
– Al
But there are so many prominent Republican supporters of space – Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Mel Martinez being the most popular nationally in my eyes – why isnt there more? do these individuals simply have no voice in helping form the party platform? my liberal friends will of course tell me no, there is no internal party debate, it is decided by a council of Sith overlords. but I like to pretend the market worshipping in teh GOP also extends to the exchange of ideas when formulating the party platform, and I very much hope the space supporters in the party are putting theirs out there.
personally, I believe that great part of today’s tension with Russia is due to the inherent political weakness of a President at the to end of his last mandate… if we limit the discussion to “Space” (but the same could be for every other issue … Iran, Iraq, China, Middle East, Oil, etc.). the greater strength and “political weight” of a new President (especially Barack Obama, that could remain at the White House for two terms) should make the relations between USA, Russia and China, much more cordial and based on greater trust, so much to make possible a new cooperation with Russia, even on Space
“… the greater strength and “political weight†of a new President (especially Barack Obama, that could remain at the White House for two terms) should make the relations between USA, Russia and China, much more cordial and based on greater trust, so much to make possible a new cooperation with Russia, even on Space”
The naivete expressed by this statement is astonishing. Russia made its move against Georgia based on an overall assesment of the “West’s” ability and willingness to respond in anyway more than loud protests. Russia is flush with oil-generated money that has been poured into its military and it is seeking to reestablish a larger sphere of influence by re-absorbing its previous satellite countries. It does not want these current free states joining NATO where in theory NATO would be committed to coming to their defense. Given Western Europe’s inability to defend themselves (the exception being Great Britain), counting on anyone except the US to defend these newly established democratic states isn’t going to happen and Russia knows it. Whether it is Bush, McCain, or Obama, this philosophy will not change until or unless the current Russian regime changes which is highly unlikely until Putin himself dies of old age or political assasination. And quite frankly, given Obama’s response to the Georgian affair, first calling for Georgia to quit being antagonistic and sit down and talk it out with Russia and then asking for the UN Security Council to denounce Russia (apparently not knowing that Russia has a veto on the UN SC) doesn’t give me a whole lot of confidence that he could or would hold a firm line against further Russian re-expansion aggression. Then again, given Obama’s Socialist agenda, teaming up with the two largest Socialist/Communist Govt’s in Russia and China might actually lead to more “peaceful” relations and the US can really give Western Europe something to rail about against the US.
The naivete expressed by this statement is astonishing. Russia made its move against Georgia based on an overall assesment of the “West’s†ability and willingness to respond in anyway more than loud protests.
The Russians made their move in response to the Georgian attack on South Ossetia, which Russia was protecting with peacekeepers.
Georgia lost.
Then again, given Obama’s Socialist agenda
Been out of grade school long ?
The ignorance you display in your post doesn`t suggest so. Or just maybe you are a fascist.
Hard to tell the difference but either way you need to check out the real world & how it works. Displaying such clutivated ignorance does your image no good.