However, if you’re interested in reducing the debt/deficit, NASA should be nowhere near the top. Social Security + Healthcare are the things we need to cut before we even begin to consider looking at NASA.

Yes, and since most legislation is awful (particularly the stuff passed this session) that’s fine with me.

That is not the model the founders had in mind.

The filibuster isn’t in the Constitution.

Neither side, unfortunately, will eliminate it because they fear one day they’ll be in the minority and will want it to block legislation they don’t like.

I think that it’s useful, whichever party is in power, to allow debate on a bill until the issues have been resolved, and if that requires a supermajority to allow (again, for whichever party is in power) that’s AOK with me…

that is not the model the founders had in mind.

Robert G. Oler

How can I “win” when that’s not what I said?

Answer my question. What is the right number of filibusters, beyond which they are somehow a threat to the polity?

I think that it’s useful, whichever party is in power, to allow debate on a bill until the issues have been resolved, and if that requires a supermajority to allow (again, for whichever party is in power) that’s AOK with me.

Some great flow charts. This is what maybe should have been released in a big way around the time of the event. I’ve given some thought to the idea (submitted by one of the regular folks here) that a power point video with lots swooping space ships and impressive vistas showing astronauts fishing on Mars or some such, THAT video should have been playing on a HUGE screen behind the President while he gave his talk.

What I think is that it would have been just another sharp object thrown back at him by naysayers and political enemies. “What a socialist load of balderdash this is, what utter crap! It’s unrealistic and reeks of Obamanitiative. And although it’s wonderful to think that we could extend humanity’s reach in our solar system, I have to tear these videos a new a-hole because it’s in my short term interest to do so.”

So, he went with words instead. I can understand the decision.

“So what is the right number? Maybe President Obama has had to deal with a lot more because he has a much more aggressive, radical agenda and (unlike Bush) he’s been unwilling to reach across the aisle?”

Okay Rand you win, the republicans are the saints and guardians and it is all the fault of the devil incarnate liberals and their policies as led by President Obama.

Click here to read the article on SpaceKSC.com.

My main interest was to see if anyone whined or complained about the potential job loss, and whether anyone complained about relying on the Russians to get to ISS.

The answer, as I suspected, was no.

But I did find one interesting revelation.

NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe appeared on January 28, 2004 before a Senate committee to discuss Bush’s proposal. The criticisms he received were eerily similar to what Charlie Bolden faced in the first days after releasing Obama’s proposal. The main complaint was the lack of detail.

I found this passage:

Lawmakers … asked O’Keefe to explain what would happen to thousands of government and civilian workers dedicated to the shuttle program once the reusable space planes are retired in 2010, as called for in the Bush initiative.

“We’ll have to work out those challenges at that time,” he said.

And there it was. The job meter had started running, everyone knew it, yet no one was willing to do anything about it.

Another article reported that O’Keefe had met with U.S. astronauts in Houston the week before, and informed them he was considering shifting over ISS crew flights from Shuttle to Soyuz. The article cited astronaut Michael Foale, at the time the ISS commander, as saying he preferred Soyuz to Shuttle because the Russian craft had an escape system.

Keep in mind this was one year after the loss of Columbia.

Several articles warned that Bush’s proposal would wind up siphoning money from other NASA programs to pay for Constellation, and that also turned out to be true.