I found this poll, dated January 09 and on Fox News sure, but still very disturbing… Look for Ms. Palin’s approval. So, she may not be winning BUT someone like her just might and it is not great news. So for now I stick to my comment that if this WH fails then someone like her if not her will be sitting at the WH in 2012.

Favorable Unfavorable Can’tsay Neverheard
13-14 Jan 09 49% 40 9 2
Democrats 24% 63 11 2
Republicans 85% 10 4 1
Independents 46% 41 12 1

Sorry for the format don’t have time to correct. Look it up here:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011509_poll.pdf

Like it or not but the only chance for this WH to survive 2012 is to make a real health care/insurance reform that will cover all Americans. The current installation of the bill at the House looks like a bad joke. A public option single payer is the way to go if he wants to succeed. It is a case where for-profit institutions have failed us (so far) and will most likely continue to fail us. Profit on others’ ailments seems unethical to me and to a lot of people. A little like WS having huge bonuses on your and my money while ruining the country because otherwise those highly talented people on WS would go work elsewhere… Whatever…

Anyway. We shall see.

Robert G. Oler

First off Sarah Palin, without a major makeover, and her book isnt it…is going to be president of the Levi Johnston lynching committee…and that is about it.

The odds still have to favor Obama getting a health care bill and if he does then he has a chance to salvage his administration. Reagan had a rocky first year and recovered, Bush the last would have likely been a one termer had not 9/11 occurred and he encountered feckless opposition in 04…Carter had a bad first year and never got it back…

But Obama has the Congress and he might be able to convince the party that they either swim together or sink separately. But to get his health care bill he is going in my view have to explain to the American people “why” (they want a health care bill BTW) and how he is going to get the deficit and jobs under control…which is starting to correctly scare them.

I’ve looked at the recent elections pretty closely and my view is that the most likely course is that both parties will revert to their natural tendencies, the GOP will go rogue as it succumbs to the right wing Glenn Beck, Rush extremist and the Dems will go indecisive and waste their power.

However, there is also a good chance that one or both parties will start to try and redefine themselves…if Obama is smart he will lead that for the Dems in trying to do a Clinton, ie reestablish himself in the center and start attempting to get the deficit under control while moving to redefine the role of the federal government. The chance for the GOP is going to come in a series of bruising primaries (CA, TX, and FL come to mind) where the extremist on the right (Rick Perry in TX) are going to do battle with the “moderates” or “centrist” like KBH in Texas for the direction of The Party and hence their presentation to The Republic in 2010…the moderates in the GOP might be aided by Dems who are disaffected with their parties slightly left and ineffective answers to the current crisis. If this happens it could be the start of a redefining of the two party system.

ANY solution of a moderate nature however is in my view tough news for any completely discretionary spending such as human spaceflight. As the dollars are cut “why” and the “urgency” of something being done is going to get extremely important.

That is why things like human spaceflight and the war in Afland are in my view going to be easy chops. There will be some (like here) who believe that the American people cannot live without human adventures in space, but my guess is that it is kind of like Afland. If Obama said “good election there, we gave them 8 years we are leaving” the chickenhawks in the GOP would be loud for about two weeks and most Americans would say “Yeap good idea”.

As they will when Obama says “we are not going back to the Moon.”

I see very very hard times coming. But if we dont do them, then I see worse things happening.

Robert G. Oler

I agree. If any NASA funding boost is in store, it would probably be safer for a politician to focus the boost on NASA areas with a more obvious and near-term benefit to the nation than the human space exploration program, like robotics, Aeronautics, Innovative Partnerships, and Education.

If NASA’s human spaceflight budget is considerably increased, it probably wouldn’t make sense to present the increase as a human space exploration program increase:

– An increase to better support and use the ISS can be presented as just that. This could even be presented in a way that sounds fiscally responsible to those who believe sunk costs matter: why waste the tens of billions spent to build the ISS? This could also be done in a way that supports national needs (eg: promoting the economy through commercial vehicles that can spur non-NASA space commerce, promoting defense and security by enabling those vehicles which can be used by DoD and intelligence agencies, ISS R&D in areas like health, medicine, energy, environment, etc).

– A budget increase to restore NASA’s R&D / technology development/demonstration capabilities can also be presented as helping solve national problems (security, health, energy, economy, etc). The key is to pick technologies that, if successful, actually do this in an obvious way. Some of these technologies could also be useful to human space exploration, but the “national problem solving” part should be an important if not primary consideration.

– A budget increase to add satellite servicing capabilities to satellites and to NASA astronaut missions could also be presented as fiscally responsible – if the servicing can be shown to be economically reasonable – and promoting national interests – if the satellites serviced promote the national interest (security, environment, commercial/economic, etc), or if the servicing capabilities will be handed over the commercial space which can then apply them to satellites that promote the nation interest. The servicing capabilities could also, as a secondary consideration, help the exploration effort which may (in the Flexible Path) including servicing of Lagrange point satelllites.

– If a budget increase comes with some fiscally responsible reform in the human spaceflight area, such as replacing Ares 1 with more cost effective commercial alternatives, replacing Ares V with more cost effective alternatives (such as nothing, refueling, assembly/docking, Phase I or II EELV HLV, or Shuttle deriviatives that are more affordable than Ares V), the whole package may also be more believable to a skeptical and fiscally concerned public.

– I’m not against Moon-first exploration, but the ESAS approach has poisoned that well enough that the public may find a switch to the Flexible Path – especially if focused on the more affordable early steps of the Flexible Path like lunar orbit, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and (if I may add a potential Flexible Path destination) GEO – to be more fiscally acceptable and believable.

However, I don’t think the public will be fooled by these if they’re not done sincerely – i.e. with full attention on returning national benefits, fiscal responsibility, and bringing more players (i.e. commercial and international) into the effort.

The current leadership at the GOP deserves no less than being fired and a total restructuring of the GOP. Let’s hope it does happen or we’re in for Palin the sequel since I hardly see how this WH will get another 4 years.

“and that message is “to much spending and to few jobs” how they work in “but we want more spending for the space program and for government jobs”. ”

What is sad about this whole thing is that they, the GOP, cannot even come up with a plan themselves! – Not that I like the overall plan of the current Democrats but at least they have a plan. Oh yeah, cut taxes, free the market… The market is so free it’s off the reservation but heck who cares? The WS guys even got the H1N1 shot before those who fit within the CDC priority list. Unrelated? You decide. HSF yeah sure will decide the next President.

After all maybe we need a Sarah Palin like to lead the country. At least we’d know where we’re going.

Oh well.

It is going to be interesting to see if the GOP tries to come up with a national campaign theory in 2010 (other then self destruction which is completely possible) and that message is “to much spending and to few jobs” how they work in “but we want more spending for the space program and for government jobs”.

Robert G. Oler

I actually hope they [NASA HSF] get a cut; as a citizen of this country.

And I hope similar for other ‘organizatons’ of this country.

Cut spending, you morons on the Hill.”

This is what the President faces if he proposes a large spending increase for NASA’s civil human space exploration program. (Or Congress, if the majority adopts it.) Opponents will make it Exhibit A in any argument that the Administration or party in power is fiscally irresponsible.

[Note, I’m not arguing with Eng, just using their comments as an example.]

FWIW…

Cut spending, you morons on the Hill.