Obama, on the other hand, continues to be specific about what he will and will not do. We know where he stands, specifically.

It is amusing to consider the complete role reversal.

During the primaries, Obama was heavily criticized for his generalities and platitudes, as compared to Senator Clinton.

FWIW, I have to think that a great deal of credit for Obama’s detailed & specific policy goes to Lori Garver. When you add up the 6-page policy document (which has many positives as summarized by Red), plus the fact that Obama acted to help NASA on INKSNA, we should all give Ms. Garver a pat on the back.

I would say the same for anybody who had a similar impact on Sen. McCain’s space policy positions.

– Al

I’m convinced that is a deliberate campaign strategy. It allows him to actually “commit” to nothing and let folks like Jim, who honestly believe in him, offer their informed opinions without McCain actually committing to anything. It makes him look better than he really is. That way he doesn’t have to take a stand and leaves all his options open. In the end, when folks like Jim who expect him to follow thru are left disappointed, he can truthfully say “I never said that”.

Take a look at his ENTIRE list of campaign pledges. Tons of generalities, but show me anything “specific”. That list is extremely small and, unfortunately, does not include NASA.

Obama, on the other hand, continues to be specific about what he will and will not do. We know where he stands, specifically. As for McCain, unfortunately all we have is Jim’s informed “opinion” based on his faith in John McCain and his interpretation of the measure of the man.

I’m not putting Jim down with this post, because he is obviously a dedicated man who is putting his money and his heart where his mouth is. Not enough people do that. In that respect I appreciate Jim and encourage others to follow his example. I would only caution him to not let his belief in McCain cloud his objectivity. Jim is certainly entitled to his opinion, but so long as it remains unsubstantiated by a corroborating specific statement from McCain, it remains just his opinion, not McCain’s intent.

Why would McCain let Obama beat him in the space policy area in these areas? Obama’s newer space policy document is for export control reform, operationally responsive space, space prizes and student contests, COTS, etc. These all encourage a strong defense, fiscally conservative spending, commercial space, etc – all areas that McCain should consider his. They even leave the possibility for the kind of manned suborbital and orbital space program that might be relevant to national defense. I don’t see any reason to thing Obama wouldn’t follow through on them, since they’re all cheap. Also see the suggestions from Al.

* PRIZES (McCain has proposed a $300M energy prize. Why not a space prize to “shorten the gap”? Why not listen to Newt?)

* TAX CREDITS (McCain likes tax credits, such as for health insurance. How about a tax credit for investing in commercial space transportation, which would deliver national security benefits?)

* ZERO-G/ZERO-TAX (McCain likes tax incentives. This is a good idea that has been around for years. It is budget neutral, since it gives tax incentives to new industries that do not yet exist, meaning it does not increase the projected deficit.)

* FIRM-FIXED PRICE CONTRACTING — McCain is committed to applying this approach the DoD. Why not say he will take the same approach at NASA?

* SARAH PALIN AS CHAIR of National Space Council — Now this would shake things up, and make life very exciting for our national space policy.

* EXPAND COTS — One way to eliminate the “gap” is to radically expand the COTS program. You would think this would be consistent with the philosophy of a Maverick Republican.

* NEWT GINGRICH AS NASA ADMINISTRATOR — If you think Sarah Palin would scare the “big money interests”, imagine what would happen if Newt was appointed as NASA Administrator. Change really would be coming.

Unfortunately, I don’t see any indication of support for any of these maverick space policy ideas from the McCain campaign.

I asked Mr. Hillhouse to go ask some questions of the campaign on such ideas nearly two months ago. He promised to go ask. His silence indicates to me that he has not received an answer either.

FWIW,

– Al

PS — Mr. Hillhouse, before you jump in and say “Vote for McCain because he is likely to do some of the above” … please remember that we just lived through 8 years of a conservative Republican who did very little on these same issues. I had hopes in late 2000 and early 2001 … hopes that were completely misplaced. I see no reason believe that McCain will give national space policy a higher priority than the benign neglect given to it by Bush. If a Shuttle had not blown up, President Bush probably would have gone the entire 8 years without personally doing much of anything about civil or commercial space.

If your point is that McCain really will increase NASA’s budget despite repeated promises to freeze spending, I don’t see how Mr. Foust is making your point any more clear. Rather, Mr. Foust is pointing out how conflicted McCain’s position remains with no indication of whether NASA falls into the category of a “vital program” or not. Mr. Foust is also pointing out that the Democrats in Florida are taking advantage of McCain’s muddled and contradictory positions on NASA spending to paint McCain’s support for NASA (or lack thereof) in the worst possible light.

“John McCain considers manned space access a national security issue.”

Evidence?

Again, in the Orlando Sentinel article, McCain only said that “space access”, not “manned space access” is vital to national security.

And again, any candidate who claims that human space flight is important to national security is just demonstrating their ignorance. NASA’s human space flight programs have played no national security role (nevertheless been important to national security) since the 1980s.

“Though he has not explicitly declared what his ‘vital’ programs are”

If you admit that McCain has not made this declaration (explicitly or otherwise), then why do you insist on claiming that NASA is exempt from the budget freeze?

“And campaign officials have left me with the distinct impression”

I don’t mean to be a jerk here, but a “distinct impression” isn’t worth a hill of beans. A revised policy on the McCain campaign website, a campaign press release, and/or a transcript from a speech by McCain or his surrogate is what’s needed to clear up the campaign’s conflicted positions on NASA spending.

“and about giving NASA an additional $2B to move Orion/Ares IOC up”

McCain has only mentioned the $2B increase once, on a bus trip to Cocoa Beach back in August, and he never said that the $2 billion would go towards Ares I/Orion acceleration, only to “lessen” the gap, which can be achieved a number of different ways. See (add http://www.):

floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080818/BREAKINGNEWS/80818009

FWIW…

John McCain considers manned space access a national security issue. Though he has not explicitly declared what his “vital” programs are, I work for the McCain campaign in Space Outreach not because I am highly, though perhaps a bit, partisan but because securing a strong American manned Space program is one of my key issues. For me, it is right up there as my top two or three, none of which I will compromise on when it comes to choosing a candidate. And campaign officials have left me with the distinct impression that, given what the candidate has said about NASA, about closing the gap, about the importance of American manned access to Space, and about giving NASA an additional $2B to move Orion/Ares IOC up, I know that a President McCain will make sure that NASA has enough to do its job of making America number one in Space.