To add to what Muncy was saying – Its a bit of a leap to go from space is not a priority, to anti-space. The 2 are not the same position. Also, I’d like to see proof that the only reason an elected official would change their position is because of popularity.

For example, if everyone remembers from the 2000 election, Bush was very much a free marketer, and yet look at what is happening with the situation on Wall St. An elected official/politicians position can evolve for any number of reasons – sometimes its a simple as polling, sometimes its because of new information.

And there is quite a bit of truth in what Muncy said.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret. Presidential Candidates don’t actually read all of the draft policy positions put out in their names. They’re way too busy giving speeches, meeting with donors, answering reporters’ questions, and convincing editorial boards of their viability… to read and edit everything their campaign puts out.

The reality is that some education staffers wrote an education plank that stole money from NASA. They didn’t check with the space advisors. They just did it. Eventually, that got overturned *by the candidate* when he had a chance to focus on it.

Everything else is just spin.

– Jim

P.S. Most people have no clue how busy federal elected officials are.
They are *overwhelmed* with information and action requests.
Especially Senators from populous states like Illinois.

But even if we except that he hastily formed his initial policy, then we must accept that his gut (that part of us that we use to make decisions when we don’t have any knowledge on the subject) is anti-NASA. And what was it that made him decide to reevaluate his position? The only logical answer is that someone told him it was unpopular, particularly in Florida. This is the way politics and politicians work. I simply wanted to state my sincere hope that he will maintain his new position when it matters.

So would you rather have a President who is willing to align his position with validated facts, or insist that the facts be spun to validate his position?
Chuck

Well, given that Obama has totally repudiated his earlier position, I would think that the answer to your question is obvious. Of course, if you still want to believe otherwise, or that changing your position after careful consideration is somehow wrong, then I guess you are of course entitled to that position.