Campaign '12

Florida Today endorses Romney, Nelson, and Posey

Florida Today, the newspaper that serves the Space Coast region of Florida, ised a series of endorsements for key races on Sunday, including Mitt Romney for president. The space policy positions of Romney versus those of President Obama didn’t play that much of a role: the four members of the newspaper’s editorial board split their votes two to two on the position of “space”. The newspaper did appear encourages that a Romney Administration would continue one of the key elements of the Obama Administration’s policy, that of greater reliance on commercial providers:

In a line that bodes well for the Space Coast, he writes: “Government is generally not the source of new ideas, although innovations from NASA and the military have provided frequent exceptions.”

On space, Romney’s views match Obama’s plan for privatizing flights to the International Space Station and refocusing NASA on interplanetary missions. That approach led to a painful downsizing at Kennedy Space Center, but it also prodded our local space industry to become more competitive and productive.

Later in the editorial, though, the newspaper appeared disappointed that Obama had not carried out some of the promises he made in the 2008 campaign that led the paper to endorse him them, including one to “continue NASA’s moon-exploration program.”

In the Florida Senate race, where Sen. Bill Nelson (D) is running for reelection against Rep. Connie Mack IV (R), Florida Today endorses Nelson, citing in part his record on space in the last few years, including lobbying for passage of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act:

For the Space Coast, Nelson successfully fought to reinstate a major rocket program for missions to the moon and Mars after the White House unceremoniously killed the Constellation program. Nelson practically designed the Space Launch System rocket himself, found the money for it and took the unusual step of visiting the U.S. House to twist arms and win passage.

Nelson got all four votes of the paper’s editorial board on the topic of space.

And in the House race for the district that now covers most of the Space Coast, Florida Today endorsed incumbent Rep. Bill Posey (R) over Shannon Roberts (D) and Richard Gillmor (I). The paper noted Posey’s work on legislation “that could benefit NASA and Brevard’s space industry”:

For example, Posey passed legislation that will open military launch sites to private space contractors the same way Kennedy Space Center has opened to SpaceX and others. He has introduced a bill that would begin stable, multiyear contracts for NASA and shield its director from politics. And he and his staff regularly visit representatives from other parts of the country to pitch the commercial and security value of the U.S. space program.

However, the paper actually preferred Roberts’s position on space, “which she considers an investment in science and technical innovation — not pursuit of the “military high ground,” as Posey sees it,” the paper noted. “Roberts, a retired NASA manager, expressed stronger support for commercializing flights to low Earth orbit, a strategy already making Brevard’s economy more resilient.” Posey and Roberts split the four votes of the paper’s editorial board.

59 comments to Florida Today endorses Romney, Nelson, and Posey

  • Robert G. Oler

    I’ll have to go read the endorsement…but having lived in FL, VA, and CO it is one of the things that makes me think Romney (although it is close) will win FL

    This election is turning into a blue/gray match …except I believe VA and CO will go to Obama. It wont matter as Ohio and WIS/Nev are trending Obama and that give him the Presidency.

    Based on that the endorsement was foolish RGO

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Michael Barone, who knows more about American politics than anyone, including everyone who will post on this combined, predicts a Romney win. However usually newspaper endorsements don’t matter. Last time, the Houston Chronicle gave its nod to the One and now, in endorsing Romney, expressed regret. Since Romney’s space policy is a work in progress, albeit with some pretty sound principles behind it, this means the the next few years are going to be interesting,

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 28th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Michael Barone>>

    I read his tome and was not very impressed with his “reasoning”. In my view, which I expressed publically several places until the last debate this election was slipping away from Obama…that slip slowed after the second debate…but the third debate stopped it.

    Romney in my view had coming into this election a powerful argument “things are not going well” (essentially that is his) BUT thats an ice breaker…the problem is, and it is illustrated in his space “policy” (and that is being kind)…he doesnt have a clue that he is willing to share with the rest of us; how he fixes things….

    what he has shared is suspect in terms of its accuracy and while the substance of what he has shared appeals to the right of center people in the country; the country has actually moved (I believe) a tad left of that in an aggregate.

    Hence you have FLATODAY going with Romney for “other” reasons but expressing the view on Romney’s support for the Obama space policy.

    Romney HAD a chance to ennunciate a “OK things are bad and this is how I fix them” policy that could have moved a chunk of the middle enough to have moved some non red states and then he would win. Instead he is simply lying (see his latest Jeep tomes) and that is catching up with him.

    MB still thinks this is 1980. its not

    We will see not to long to wait now. But if as I suspect Obama wins a second term…try not and hurt yourself.

    but a do think an Obama victory makes the next few years “interesting”. RGO

  • DCSCA

    Newspaper endorsements mean nothing today. And apparently they missed the Romney slap-down of ‘Newt Gingrich, Moon President,’ during the primaries when Mitt made it clear he’d fire any ‘manager’ who came to him with talk of a moon base.

    Romney’s vaccuous campaign talk along the space coast has been nebulous as well. And his personal inerest in space is nil– case in point, on Christmas Eve, 1968, when the entire world was focused on Apollo 8 circling the moon and reading from Genesis, Mitt was chasing down Ann in an airport. No interest. Speaks voluimes.

    If Romney wins Florida it will have little to do w/space policy and given his plans for Medicare, he should lose it. At least Obama has given the space program some life line– under a Romney adminisdtration, its certain to be constricted and consolidated even more; NASA will be down for the terminal count. Romney’s key line for evaluating government ops has been “is it worth borrowing money from China to fund it….” and a space project like Constellation wasn’t. Romney will consolidate space ops and NASA wil be come a hollowed out civilian division of the DoD. It makes fiscal sense but makes for bad politics. Lots of beachfront property there along the Florida space coast ripe for redistribution and sale for private development. By-bye gantrys- hello condos. LOL

    ____________

    @Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 28th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    “Michael Barone, who knows more about American politics than anyone”

    Except he doesn’t. Sober up.

    Obama will win by 4%. He has banked plenty of votes already and the polls are a mess what with their inability to factor in cells in the calculus. Romney won’t win. He can’t– th numbers don’t add up in the EC.. Like any salesman, .Mitt’s been pitching and bluffing his way through this and most of his life for 65 years, whether peddling Mormonism, Bain or himself. . His numbers just don’t add up be it in tax policy, on budget matters, auto bailouts and certainly not on space matters– not to mention those EC tallies.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    FWIW, I strongly suspect that people who vote for Romney (with the possible exception of Almightywind) are not going to be doing so due to his space policy… which I thin is “TBD” apart from an opposition to a lunar colony in the short- to medium-term.

    Call me a cynic but my gut suggests that Romney, mostly because of the simple pressure of America’s current economic mess and also because of a lack of public or lobbyist pressure, won’t change much of Obama’s current “policy” (such as it is). CRS and commercial crew will go on before, SLS and Orion will continue mostly as a make-work program with only slowly-emerging goals (which will likely fail to spark much interest outside the on-line community). NASA’s budgets will be flat or even declining in real terms for the entire hypothetical first Romney first term. The only big change that I could see happening is him adopting the EML-1 gateway station idea to give SLS a mission. I think he is more likely to do so than Obama would, as the latter seems to be generally opposed to new big NASA HSF projects on principle, at least at this time.

    The only thing that could seriously change a continued status quo would be something game-changing like SpaceX getting Dragonrider (their crewed version of Dragon) to test-flight phase before the end of 2016. That could create enough popular interest that the 2016 election process might include lots of ideas for utilisation of America’s “new space ship” from candidates wishing to associate themselves with what would doubtless be perceived as an American success story.

    I have one or two ideas of what those utilisations could be but they don’t really matter in a politics-focussed blog. I’d just remind readers that success breeds political interest and, at least in the short term, sometimes shakes loose some cash. It might be the US civil space program’s best hope of getting out of its current rut before the first crewed flight of Orion (not until 2021 unless the project is de-funded).

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 28th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Michael Barone, who knows more about American politics than anyone, including everyone who will post on this combined, predicts a Romney win.

    No one person can be THE expert and know-it-all for American politics, since American politics is so big and complicated. He’s not even a pollster, just a pundit, so at most he has educated guesses, but even then his area of expertise is Conservative politics in general.

    For predicting what’s going to happen not only for the national popular vote (which doesn’t matter) and the Electoral College vote (which is the only thing that matters), I’m liking the New York times FiveThirtyEight Blog because of their broad analysis of all polls and economic indicators. As of now they are showing a 73.6% chance Obama will win.

    Since Romney’s space policy is a work in progress…

    i.e. he doesn’t have a space policy. Which sounds just like his plan to reduce the deficit.

    …albeit with some pretty sound principles behind it..

    Like supporting what Obama has been doing with the ISS and Commercial Cargo and Crew.

    …this means the the next few years are going to be interesting.

    Since NASA is unlikely to get an increase in it’s budget, as long as the SLS program to keep sucking up money NASA won’t have any money to do anything interesting beyond LEO. Regardless who is President.

  • PredictWise has Obama winning the electoral college 290-248.

    Nate Silver’s Political Calculus — commonly known as “FiveThirtyEight” — has Obama winning the electoral college 295.5-242.5.

    The Florida Today endorsement is very odd, because it attributes to Romney traits he hasn’t demonstrated. Bipartisanship?! Knowledge of the national economy?! And no mention whatsoever of his foreign policy ignorance, or his horrid record on civil rights for women and gays.

    He was a one-term governor. To quote from this NPR article, “Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously.”

    The equity capital business has nothing to do with creating jobs or growing the national economy. It’s just laughable to suggest that Bain Capital somehow gave him the skill to run the national economy.

    As for space … He’s made it clear he’s not interested. My guess is that, when he finally gets around to it, he’ll appoint someone in charge of NASA who’s a Michael Griffin surrogate that will assure OldSpace types like ATK and LockMart get their share of the pork. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Romney goes back to the Griffin-era plan of splashing the ISS in 2016 to fund SLS, meaning that there’s no need for commercial cargo or crew. Romney has demonstrated no grasp at all of space issues; I’d like to see someone ask him how many commercial satellite launches have happened in the U.S. in the last two years. I bet he has no idea they’ve all gone overseas because the government handed ULA a monopoly that SpaceX is trying to break.

    I know some here are of the belief that SLS will be the first program on the chopping block when budget cutbacks finally happen, but given the porking nature of Congress I think it will survive. There are few members of Congress interested in protecting ISS and/or NewSpace.

  • amightywind

    There are few members of Congress interested in protecting ISS and/or NewSpace.

    It is the sign of a rational person to see events clearly even though they go against his political preferences. I agree that Newspace types will be wearing the red shirts after the election.

    Florida is lost for Obama. He has offended too many Jews and elderly. Virginia is also a likely Romney win. Ohio is a toss up. This will be a photo finish. The House is a lock for the GOP. The Senate has become more problematic after the implosions of the Murdock and Akin implosions. How may times will the GOP take the pro choice bait?

    Romney (with the possible exception of Almightywind)

    I vote my pocket book, first and foremost. Still, I do believe “our crowd” will be brought back to power at NASA on a Romney win.

  • Fred Willett

    I care little about Romney or Obama, (I’m Australian) but the election appears to be on a knife edge and may be decided by a political bomb due to go off a day or two before the election.
    Sequestration kicks in Jan 1 with lay offs.
    Notice of impending lay offs must go out by Nov 1 just before the Nov 6 election. Now sequestration may never happen. Politicians say it won’t happen. But because it might, the layoff notices must be posted. It’s going to be big big news just days before the election.
    But which way will it cut?
    It seems to me the knife edge polls could suddenly turn into a landslide either way.

  • josh

    can’t wait for obama to be reelected so he can get back to work instead of wasting his time fending off frauds like romney and ryan.

  • Neil Shipley

    Interesting Fred. But who will wear the brunt of voter-anger should sequestration actually take place? Incumbants usually fair the worse however … Btw I’m a Sandgroper.
    Cheers.

  • Neil Shipley

    Off-topic but congrat’s to SpaceX for the successful completion of the first CRS flight.

  • Neil Shipley

    Actually pathfinder_01 (what does your handle refer to btw – just asking?!) they’re apparently ‘…likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan,” Lockheed said in a statement..’.

  • Justin Kugler

    I think the 2010 Authorization Act is a strong counterpoint to the idea that Congress isn’t going to protect the ISS. They chose to go with it over the Superconducting Super Collider and that means they want to see it work.

  • mike shupp

    Stephen Smith -

    “Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously.”

    That sounds “bipartisan” to me.

  • common sense

    “That sounds “bipartisan” to me.”

    Well it’s because you can’t read maybe? Oh well.

    “Romney clearly did not relish having to work with a Legislature that was 85 percent Democratic.”

    “But apart from health care, Romney defined success not with big-picture legislative accomplishments but with confrontation. In a 2008 campaign ad, Romney actually bragged about taking on his Legislature: “I like vetoes; I vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as governor,” he said.

    Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously.”

  • E.P. Grondine

    I just want to take a minute to remind everyone here that whoever wins the Executive, Comet 73P will still be headed our way. There is a very good possibility that that encounter will make Hurricane Sandy look rather trivial.

    (By the way, “hurricane” is a nice Mayan loan word to English.)

  • @Fred Willett
    “It seems to me the knife edge polls could suddenly turn into a landslide either way.
    No one knows what the outcome of the presidential election will be, especially now that a wildcard has been thrown in called Sandy.

  • Robert G. Oler

    This is from the editorial

    “Our biggest question about Romney: Which version would show up for the oath?”

    that the editors would put that in their endorsement makes me wonder the reasons they endorsed Romney…in large measure it sounds like the women who is helping some guy cheat on his wife “He really loves me”

    Still trying to think out what are the underlying basis of this election but the fact that mostly “the old Confederacy” except for the states which are trending to a new social order…says alot

    As does the op ed reference a few threads back by Romney’s “space advisors”… RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Fred Willett wrote @ October 28th, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    “It seems to me the knife edge polls could suddenly turn into a landslide either way.”

    Maybe but everything I read tells me its “over”…that the people outside a few margins and maybe some affected by the Hurricane (I see Romney is backtracking on closing FEMA now)…I think its baked…we are settling back to the trend line and I would be very surprised if that did not make Obama President again. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Tell you what else is over…the debate over commercial crew/cargo…the Dragon coming back to Earth with no events (thats three times now)…

    SLS floundering, Orion useless…

    put a fork in it..

    BTW I dont agree with Obama I think sequestration happens. RGO

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Still, I do believe “our crowd” will be brought back to power at NASA on a Romney win.

    That’s an interesting turn of phrase. Are you ex-NASA or NASA contractor who lost your job when the Stick was finally canned? It might explain your bitterness towards Obama and commercial space even though the latter really had nothing to do with the downfall of the unaffordable ALS.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Wow…I like the new format RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    Whoa, new Space Politics template! The smartphone format hasn’t changed, which is good, but the normal desktop/laptop version seems like the font and spacing is meant for those that are visually impaired. The older version was better for reading – more compact, but I can see the desire to update the template for more modern looks. However not all change is good… ;-)

    Just thought you’d like some feedback jeff.

  • Robert G. Oler

    all on mine and the Big E’s birthday! RGO

  • vulture4

    The endorsements are more an indication of which candidate is popular among the readers. Florida Today has lost most of its staff and one can understand that they want to appeal to the right-wing majority in Brevard. But it is hard to understand a Florida coastal community vulnerable to hurricanes going ga-ga over a candidate who wants to burn coal like its going out of style. Romney has said virtually nothing about space except to simultaneously attack Obama’s leadership and assure everyone that he would continue the same programs, except that he would “restore American leadership”. On taxes he takes a page from Reagan; cut taxes, boost military spending, and balance the budget. Bush Sr (when he was running against Reagan) called it “voodoo economics”.

  • JimNobles

    “Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously.”

    It looks like it was the legislature that governed the state with Mr. Romney being merely a minor speed-bump that they occasionally had to deal with. The more I find out about this individual the less I believe he is in any way suited for the job he’s seeking.

    @amightywind: I’m sorry but if Romney is actually elected (which I very much doubt he will be) he’s probably going to try to cut NASA as well as many other non-military programs. He’s no space cadet so that means SLS is a prime target for cutting. I’m not sure if that program will have enough protection in the Senate to keep it going. Especially after the Falcon Heavy comes online.

    Stop and think about it for a minute… Why would he protect SLS? What’s the logic behind that?

    Anyway we’ll see what happens when this silly-season is over.

  • Mary

    The font does seem a little water logged…

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Jim –

    “Why would he (Romney) protect SLS? What’s the logic behind that?”

    See the Ryan budget: cut everything but ATK.

    ATK is in Utah.

    Note also Romney’s defense promises – yet more ATK grains.

  • Neil Shipley

    I think RGO has now predicted 2 (down from 3)years for the SLS and MPCV to die. I agree no matter who’s elected. SpaceX is putting more nails in the coffins of the big NASA programs. Also does look like Obama’s heading back to the WH though.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Fred, pathfinder –

    Some small business owners have been telling their employees that if “Obamacare” goes into effect, they will be laid off.

  • Fred Willett

    Love the new format

  • pathfinder_01

    “Some small business owners have been telling their employees that if “Obamacare” goes into effect, they will be laid off.”

    If they are they are opening themselves up to lawsuit.

  • Scott Smith

    Two years ago, I was designing airports and military bases. Now I’m sanding cars. Many of our customers are small businesses. I have heard too many of them say they are just trying to hold on until after the election. If Romney wins, they will try to hold on a little longer and give him a chance. If Obama is re-elected, they plan to throw in the towel almost immediately. While it is hardly scientific, the consistency of the responses scares the hell out of me. I suspect the double dip in this recession is going to be spelled with a “D” if Obama wins a second term.

    The space program will go nowhere if our economy tanks.

  • common sense

    @Scott Smith

    You think that you are sanding cars because of this WH? What kind of nonsense is that? Please take it to Fox News or focus on the space politics.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Scott Smith

    “Many of our customers are small businesses. I have heard too many of them say they are just trying to hold on until after the election.”

    is this the people in the car sanding business or designing military basis/airports?

    I’ll bite…so if Romney wins what do they think he will do so they wont have to “throw in the towel”?

    Curious? RGO

  • Neil Shipley

    @Scott Smith
    And what will they do when they throw in the towel. Go on benefits – for how long? Defeatist is what I’d call it!

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Smith October 30, 2012 at 12:51 am

    I have heard too many of them say they are just trying to hold on until after the election. If Romney wins, they will try to hold on a little longer and give him a chance. If Obama is re-elected, they plan to throw in the towel almost immediately.

    I’ve been through more economic dips & recessions than I can count, both nationally and regionally, and both general and industry specific. Through it all it really didn’t matter who was President, as Presidents don’t really affect the job market – the economy is far bigger than what a President alone can affect. Even Congress can only make an effect if they swing the money flow substantially higher or lower.

    2/3 of our economic engine is consumer spending, and there is just no fast way to repair the loss of equity that occurred during the economic meltdown during you-know-who’s Administration. However a broad consensus of economists has said that it doesn’t matter who is President during the next four years, because the fundamentals of the economy show that we’re already on the road to recovery. The credit for that recovery goes to the efforts of Congress and Bush during the end of his Administration, and Congress and Obama during the beginning of his administration – both who dumped money into the economy.

    But the economy otherwise has been settling itself out like it always does – you sanding cars, and others “holding on” until something better comes along.

    I think it’s funny when people say they will make job decisions based on who is President. They don’t. Just like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory shows that money is not the sole motivator for taking or keeping a job, people will decide about work based on a whole lot of factors other than President – unless they are so politically driven that they are OK with hurting themselves to spite someone that will never know they existed. If so, then they need professional medical help, not Mitt Romney as President.

    My $0.02

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi pathfinder –

    Lawsuit? How so?

  • But it is hard to understand a Florida coastal community vulnerable to hurricanes going ga-ga over a candidate who wants to burn coal like its going out of style.

    It’s easy to understand once one comes to the realization that there is no established relationship between coal burning and hurricanes.

    I’ll bite…so if Romney wins what do they think he will do so they wont have to “throw in the towel”?

    End the White House war on small business…

  • common sense

    Hope…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/30/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE89K0A920121030

    @Rand Simberg:

    “there is no established relationship between coal burning and hurricanes.”

    What?

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

    “As the global population has increased and our reliance on fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) has been firmly solidified, so emissions of these gases have risen. ”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110523215823/http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html

    Of course you know more than NOAA or DOE on such subjects. I would stick to aerospace where you definitely know stuff.

    “End the White House war on small business…”

    Absolutely, utterly ridiculous and unsupported. So much so that the WH is supporting Commercial Crew, the poster child being SpaceX a small business itself. Partisan BS.

  • Florida Today published another editorial today trying to explain their endorsement of Romney.

    The odd thing is that they admitted they ignored subjects that might have gone Obama’s way, because their editorial board had tied on their final scoring. So they decided to give it to Romney because that’s what they perceived what their customers wanted. They deliberately chose to ignore women’s issues, foreign policy and health care reform because that would have tilted the endorsement to Obama.

    To quote from the article:

    We considered breaking the tie by adding issues on which to judge candidates, including women’s issues, foreign affairs or health care reform. But that would cause an issue like abortion or Libya to count more than the economy. That would be out of touch.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi pathfinder –

    What the truth is and what people believe are often two different things. Perhaps Obama’s failure or inability to set this straight is similar to his inability to set people straight as to his space policy.

  • Of course you know more than NOAA or DOE on such subjects. I would stick to aerospace where you definitely know stuff.

    Strange. There’s no mention of hurricanes in either of those links. Perhaps you have the URLs wrong?

  • common sense

    “Strange. There’s no mention of hurricanes in either of those links. Perhaps you have the URLs wrong?”

    You really need a lecture on green house gases and effects on climate change? That hurricanes are likely susceptible to such changes? But here. Read all, not just the first paragraph. I’ll leave it to you to believe or not believe whatever you like but your statement is wrong.

    Of course you may point that you said “established” yet I find it misleading since most evidence today point in the direction that there is a relationship, not the other way around.

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

    “It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).

    Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.

    There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.

    Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, with a model-projected increase of about 20% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.”

  • Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.

    This is drifting OT now, but I don’t believe the models. I’m a modeler, and I’ve seen them. I also don’t believe anything that comes out of the IPCC. That’s why I said “established.”

    I know that a lot of people (like Al Gore) want to believe that global warming causes more or worse hurricanes, but there is no correlation in the historical record between hurricanes and global temperature. It’s a scatter diagram.

  • common sense

    “I also don’t believe anything that comes out of the IPCC.”

    As I said, I cannot tell you what to “believe”, or not. I am a scientist and my experience tells me that if most evidence points in one direction and that a consensus among actual climatologists – not you or I – is that it exists then it is probably true. Not the other way around.

    Note also that if I am wrong and that climate change is not true and that hurricanes won’t be worse then so what? We’ll be better off and some people will gloat. But I would rather be ready than not. And the possible effects of taking care of our Earth rather than not are worth a lot more than not doing anything. One way or another we’ll see.

    I wonder why Al Gore made it here, surprisingly, right? Is he mentioned in the reference I gave to you?

    It is not off topic since one of NASA’s missions is toward the Earth, that there is an ongoing giganormous hurricane, and that it may effect the coming elections hence space politics.

  • Note also that if I am wrong and that climate change is not true and that hurricanes won’t be worse then so what? We’ll be better off and some people will gloat. But I would rather be ready than not.

    Do you believe that there is zero cost to reducing our carbon output?

    You may be a “scientist” (whatever that means), but you’re apparently no economist. Or technologist.

  • Jeff Foust

    Discussion of climate change is off topic here: please take the discussion elsewhere. Thanks.

  • common sense

    “Do you believe that there is zero cost to reducing our carbon output?”

    Did I say that?

    “You may be a “scientist” (whatever that means),”

    I hope this below helps.

    sci·en·tist/ˈsīəntist/
    Noun:
    A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
    Synonyms:
    scholar – savant – boffin – naturalist

    “but you’re apparently no economist. Or technologist.”

    Interesting perspective. And you know that because… As I said probably better to stick to aerospace.

  • Robert G. Oler

    E.P. Grondine
    October 30, 2012 at 2:48 pm · Reply

    What the truth is and what people believe are often two different things. Perhaps Obama’s failure or inability to set this straight is similar to his inability to set people straight as to his space policy.>>

    this is easy…Obama is in the words of Mark Helprin “a weak dick” and in large measure has no clue of leadership…coupled with the sad reality that neither the Administrator of NASA nor his deputies…have a clue.

    The one useful thing of this campaign is that I now think I understand Obama…I’ve had Willard figured out since 2008 when the lying sack of shit ran against McCain.

    Romney has no problem lying to the “rest of us” ie the people who are not in his financial circle. …

    It has taken me a tad longer to figure out Obama…in this the debates were useful.

    Obama thinks he is head of the Faculty Senate at a University…and if he just sends out enough Dear Colleagues, points out the obvious or has a better set of logical points, then people will be swayed by the power of his arguments. Problem is that is not nor never has been the US and it certainly is not today.

    As the debt crisis illustrated there are members of the GOP, some its leaders today who are fine with seeing the US go off a cliff as long as they can blame it on someone else.

    Go read tweelde Dee and dums arguments for Romney’s space policy in space news (a few threads back) and you see what the notion of logical arguments are. Things “I supported” a few years ago are horrible now…or heck just make things up (see Red State and the discussion of Libya…)

    Romney is pro life to Tony Perkins, has a different policy to the rest of us and now has Norm Coleman saying that “he” (Romney) wont appoint judges to repeal Roe…its all OK to lie it is not a lie if the masses believe it….because in the end in Romney world, they dont count.

    Obama has not a clue, even after these difficult four years that leadership is almost equal parts of defending your notions against those who would lie to hurt them…and advancing why ones policies are good.

    You just sort of sit there and marvel…Obama is babblling on in the last debate about jobs coming back to the US…and where is SpaceX in all of this?

    Now I realize that the technowelfare people who make up the former shuttle work force are not going to be convinced…but it is a coherent argument to make for the commercial aspects of his space effort…and in large measure he could Pin Romney on this as an illustration…but it takes more then a Dear Colleague letter.

    It is like chatting with oh say Whittington…when Mark babbles on about crony capitalism, immediately every time he needs to be painted as a hypocrite. I learned in the Bush 43 years running up to the war that lies repeated often enough become truth (Goebels is smiling somewhere) and Obama has never done that.

    When I ran for my minor political offices in Clear Lake (and run) I ran against a right wing nut…I won because in large measure when it came down to it; I wasnt afraid to call him that. RGO

  • Scott Smith

    Robert G Oler, Coastal Ron and Common sense: There’s a little bit of “shoot the messenger” in your replies but I’ll try to clarify.

    I’ve been a draftsman and designer in Civil engineering and mapping since high school. I’ve been through several economic slumps. We thought we had enough work with two very large projects to get us through a normal recession. In spite of the economic data, things didn’t hit our industry hard in Arizona until well into Obama’s term and we were half way through his term before it hit our company. In almost two years, I haven’t seen a single position advertised (and I can do a lot more than airports and military bases) that I am qualified for. I have sent out well over 100 resumes and received two return calls and no interviews. My unemployment has run out.

    I’m well aware that congress has more effect but all presidents will claim a good economy. After three and a half years, Obama owns this one. Personally, I place most of the blame on Barney Frank’s bill that required banks to make home loans to people that had no business buying a house. When the economy did go down, these people were the first domino to fall. Add Obamacare and the thousands of regulations that have been enacted and we have a neverending recession, again in spite of what the economic numbers say. The complete lack of a democratic budget for three years hasn’t helped either.

    As for the car issue, we do high-end restorations that can take well over a year and most of our customers are small businessmen. We have a bakery owner, several construction companies including plumbing, fencing and concrete companies, restaurant owners and more. Several of them have put their projects on hold and yes in a couple of cases they are considering closing down and taking unemployment. When Arizona’s low benefits look better than what you can make in 14 hour days, something is wrong.

    If nothing else, a least a republican president could have vetoed some of the stupidity.

    What all this means is that our space program will have little chance of improved budgets. Private space companies will find their prospects dimmed as well. the curent situation cannot be allowed to continue. I wish the republicans would get out of our bedrooms but the democrats want to be everywhere else.

  • common sense

    “If nothing else, a least a republican president could have vetoed some of the stupidity.”

    You must be kidding. This whole thing started with a Republican President.

    “the curent situation cannot be allowed to continue.”

    And what do you think can anyone do? What? It is a lot more than a Republican/Democrat problem. The greed of the banks and of Wall Street was bipartisan. And btw the greed of the owner of any Wall Street account growing at several percentage points was bipartisan as well. Whatever you may think because of your situation this WH did something that has prevented a global worldwide recession. So far. But you better believe that it can come back at anytime. And Romney has proposed nothing of value just like the other Republicans all he does is blame this WH without offering a solution.

    Also if I am elected I assure you I will balance the budget because my household has a balanced budget. What do you think about that?

    If you think that because you can run a business, any business then you can run the US economy your are in absolute, total delusion. There is a reason why it is called politics, not economics.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Scott Smith
    “Several of them have put their projects on hold and yes in a couple of cases they are considering closing down and taking unemployment.”

    go ahead. Part of capitalism is failure and these “private businesses” are on the road to failure if they cannot make more then unemployment.

    The cause of the great recession is not home ownership, that was the trigger, the foundation of failure was the federal government under Bush and GOP congresses allowing to many organizations that needed to go under to continue operating.

    If you’re unemployment has run out blame the GOP …RGO

  • Scott Smith

    Common sense: we’ll just have to disagree. Bush was the recipient of a normal and frankly overdue downturn in the business cycle. Far from averting a world-wide recession, Obama and the democrat’s policies created a far worse and long-lasting recession than we would of otherwise had.

    If you think Wall street was greedy for following their legal mandate to maximize their investor’s returns and expecting people to live up to the contracts they signed and if you think you can run a multi-billion dollar corporation without politics you’re the delusional one.

    We’re way off topic but I enjoy the discussion.

  • common sense

    @Scott Smith:

    “if you think you can run a multi-billion dollar corporation without politics you’re the delusional one”

    I know I am. As pointed out to me earlier by Simberg I am not an economist, not even a technologist.

    So even though you and Simberg only want to make me cry what can I say? Happy sanding?

  • Jeff Foust

    Since this discussion is no longer on the topic of space policy, comments will now be closed. There are many other fora better suited for general political discussion.