View Full Version : Presidential Candidates

2004-Jan-21, 01:08 AM
With the US presidential elections coming up later this year I was wondering without getting political and opinionated if any of the americans out there (or anyone else for that matter) know who of the candidates are for space exploration and who those are who are against it. Any sort of breakdown of that into their opnions on human exploration and robotic etc would be good too.



2004-Jan-21, 01:13 AM
Take a look at this article :
See : http://www.thespacereview.com/article/84/1

2004-Jan-21, 03:04 AM
Well that was refreshing, I hadn't heard anything from the republicans about space policy. But here I go again, I think everyone should be able to vote for the US President, since there are so many Americans who can't be bothered. I wish Australian politics was as interesting in the possibilities. Australia has trouble looking after one satelite at a time, no realy. We pull out some amazing one offs. Hitting above the belt I have often heard. But in America, you have a consoladated and active venture in NASA.

I'd stick with Bush since he put his carreer on the line. I think the politics of fear are still at play, 9/11 and Bush at the helm. The War on Terror is a great political creation. The front line is vaporus, shifting, from America to the Middle East, Australia then Europe. With a front that broad, you need troops from everywhere, but your vulnerability is that you can't trust anyone ! You could be training the next pilots in your own back yard. Such fears allow authorty to break it's own rules example? Cuba, for all the evils of communism look at what Capital is doing over the boarder ?? YOU CAN"T ! Such exceptional political circumstances to do the opposite of everything you hold prouldly, freedom, protection and liberty melt to naught. The war on terror contradicts the very Identity of America, it's strongest critics would suggest that that is all America is, an Identity, a myth.

It is good to see that the Kennedy ability to look beyond, to invisage bold new eras of human enterprise, has not gone to the republicans with the Terminator. If I where to put money on the election, I think Bush will win. For the same reason John Howard will win in Australia, it comes down to a leader who has the voice that instills confidence in the audience, who is preceded by their reputation. John Howard without charisma has the stablility that Latham doesn't. As much as I like Kerry and what he is saying, it is hard for candidates to communicate clearly what they will do and how they will do it.

Bush is clear, so is John Howard.

2004-Jan-21, 03:04 AM
Excellent work Tiny. Great article. Looks like Dean and Clark are the two most in favour of advancing human exploration and exploration in general! Which is good given that they're the front runners (as far as I know). Kucinich is even more in favour but bringing up the rear of the race.

2004-Jan-21, 03:26 AM
>< and Dennis Kuinich - refuse to spend that 1 trillion dollars on Space Missions, but for health care and education...

2004-Jan-21, 05:03 PM
:ph34r: None of the candidates from either party get it. Developing our spacefaring expertise is not optional; it is mandatory. Cost is not of the essence; time is. We live on borrowed time. Prevention of collisions from comets and/or asteroids is needed to avoid these clear and present dangers to all earthlings. If we start immediately, it will be 200 years before we become proficient at asteroid deflection/destruction and we have no way of guessing when Sirius may enter an SN1a process. These natural processes are the mega-terrorists; all terrorists must be controlled/defeated&#33;&#33;

The candidates, including Bush whom I support, are hyper-enchanted with pablum rhetoric based on perspectives that assume there is "an average citizen" who needs the tender loving care of a central government (it&#39;s interesting to remove the initial g) because of his/her zealous ineptitude. They practice the idiocy that bureaucracies can more wisely and efficiently administer the needs of an individual than can the individuals with much shorter feedback loops. The more indolence is subsidized the more of it we will have and we won&#39;t make it into interstellar space in time to assure our survival. The U. S. Constitution does provide for defense; it does not permit the social engineering and the attendant "enslavement of the producers in favor of the indolents" to which we have fallen victim. Such policies have a high probability of sinking our single lifeboat&#33;&#33; :ph34r:

When I have more time I&#39;ll tell you what I really think&#33;&#33;

2004-Jan-21, 11:07 PM
The future of space exploration is in the private sector&#33; A government that will not fund it should be seen as an opportunity to let the corporations take over&#33;

2004-Jan-22, 01:09 AM
kashi: Agreed&#33;&#33; The private sector is the right and preferred way to explore space. How can we get the ball rolling?

2004-Feb-13, 03:06 AM
The way we get the ball rolling is by setting up an international effort that has both governments and companies working together. Run like a board of directors. Government money and public sector know how and drive.

2004-Feb-13, 08:08 PM
I know that Clark and Dean are for space travel. But Clark has now dropped out and Dean likely will next week.

The front runners, Kerry and Edwards have not yet made a public statement that I know of either for or against.
I have sent an E-mail to Edwards, which you can read in the Whats your Plan string. I haven&#39;t heard back yet, so I think I will contanct Nick Baldick Edward&#39;s campain manager next.

2004-Feb-13, 10:38 PM
I think that the only way for this New Vision to continue will be to reelect Bush ...

I can&#39;t help it, but I have a hard time dealing with hypocrits like Kerry. All he can argue is how Bush did the wrong thing going to war against Iraq due to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Yet, he stated numerous times in the past (on the record) that going to war against Iraq was essential based on intelligence for our protection against what? ... WMDs&#33; I hate the guy. Sorry. Oh and not to mention his wonderfully poetic ending to a speech he gave ... "Like father, like Son, one term and you&#39;re done." Who wrote that? LOL&#33;

2004-Feb-17, 03:00 AM
I&#39;m sorry- it just rankles me-

Politics probably have little to do with national science. I&#39;ve heard that such and such a party supports/doesn&#39;t support research, etc. All BULL. Kennedy went to the moon and GWB wants to go back&#33; Go figure. Overall, with due consideration to all parties, I would guess that Republicans would (should) favor science over domestic spending. It&#39;s only natural.

But...who knows?

Algenon the mouse
2004-Feb-17, 03:21 AM
I think Bush is a safer bet for space exploration. I have no idea how he plans to get the money though. I think it is safer to ask Bill Gates to fund a space program with some other wealthy people.

2004-Feb-18, 03:56 PM
bill gates? he can&#39;t even design computer operating systems that are reliable.

2004-Feb-18, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by tac@Feb 18 2004, 03:56 PM
bill gates? he can&#39;t even design computer operating systems that are reliable.

:lol: That&#39;s true, but all he would have to do is fund the project... professionals would do the designing and building instead.

As for canidates, I think that Bush is best for space exploration, even though his current plan stinks.

2004-Feb-18, 11:50 PM
The only reason Kennedy proposed going to the Moon was to upstage the Russians... I&#39;m guessing the Bay Of Pigs fiasco had a lot to do with it too&#33;&#33;

2004-Feb-24, 01:48 AM
The only reason Kennedy proposed going to the Moon was to upstage the Russians... I&#39;m guessing the Bay Of Pigs fiasco had a lot to do with it too&#33;&#33;
I don&#39;t think the Bay of Pigs had anything to do with Kennedy&#39;s Moon proposal.
Upstaging the soviets I can aggre with, except it was not the only reason.

There were several reasons, and I&#39;ll even concede that upstaging the soviets was a major reason.
America was badly embarrassed over Spudnick situation, and that was our response, but it was also much more then that.

Kennedy was a visionary for his time, and had a unique ability to look well beyond a current event to how his actions would affect the world in years to come.
It is likely he even thought out the possibility of a killer satelite simular to the one in the James Bond movie Dimonds Are Forever.

But I wouldn&#39;t put any stock into Bush helping the space program to advance.
While the speech was nice and was what space enthusists want to hear, it was just that. An election year bid to increase his popularity.
At absolute best, President Bush may inspire some action out of others, and make an empty promise of funding. But in the end it would be no different then his barking about &#39;No child left behind&#39;.

Which was likewise, a nice idea, which he saw through well short of providing the promised funding to make it work.

Even a strongly outspoken opponent of space related issues would do us all more good then a smiling, fork tongued, promise maker who will lift hopes, then dash them by breaking his promises.
Because at least we would know where we stood with an opponent of space.

But I&#39;m tetering on the line of getting political, so I&#39;ll say no more about it here today.