Not quite true, Representative Ron Paul has a space policy statement too.
It's twenty years old and Ron Paul had only served in Congress for 10
years. The relevant part of the 1988 statement being "... and the rest of
NASA should be sold to private operators." This is when he was the
Libertarian candidate for President.

So, if his views haven't changed too much in 20 years as a Republican, the
Space Shuttle could very well fly beyond 2010. And the Space Station beyond
2015, most likely with a Space Hotel attached.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
--


http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html
SPACE - DOMESTIC POLICY
Ron Paul Presidential Campaign
Position Paper
(1988)

Time after time NASA has developed capabilities at great expense then
discarded them: a space station larger than the Soviet MIR, a heavy lift
vehicle competitive with the new Soviet Energia, a nuclear engine twice as
efficient as the space shuttle main engine and a well tested Earth-Moon
transport.

The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the saddest
examples of this folly. Production was intentionally halted and portions of
its tooling were "lost". This bridge burning ensured support for the next
aerospace welfare program: the space shuttle. Now we have a grounded
government shuttle that can lift a third as much as the Saturn V for the
same cost per pound. That's progress, government style.

Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid
well deserved embarrassment. American companies desperately need to get
their satellites into space. They have been blocked from using the
cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which unfortunately happens
to be the Soviet Proton.

NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty
years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well
be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have
committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better.

Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own
resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the government led space
program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any
defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA
should be sold to private operators. The receipts would be applied to the
national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of
space must be removed.

It is not the business of the defense department of a free society to veto
business decisions of remote sensing or launch companies. The interests of
liberty would be well served by a bevy of mediasats that will put any
future Iran-Contra affair under the full glare of live television coverage.
Maybe, besides competition, that's what our government is afraid of.

There is really only one proper role for the military in space or on Earth:
the protection of America. Otherwise, the new frontier of Space should be
opened to all. Space pioneers will generate knowledge and wealth that will
improve the lot of all people on earth. We should not let government get in
their way.




Matt wrote:

Ron Paul has about as much chance of being elected President as Jerry
Brown - and Jerry's not even a legal resident of the planet Earth.

Seriously, I prefer to spend time on candidates who are not asterisks
in the polls. Paul is running to get a platform for his message, and
good for him.

The only serious candidate who's even put out a space policy so far is
Senator Clinton, and she was careful to promise something for everyone
and not talk budget numbers.

I don't know what Hillary's space policy is, do you have a link. She sure
has been giving away a lot of stuff lately, stuff that doesn't belong to
her. If she were Bill Gates, yeah sure, go ahead and give every child born
in the US $5000.00. She's not Bill Gates, so she must be a modern day Robin
Hood, except she wants to work for the Government, to be Queen Hillary. I
guess that would make her equivalent to "John of England", not Robin
Hood...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_England
....King John's reign has been traditionally characterised as one of the most
disastrous in English history...

She most definitely believes in the Nanny State, that the Government should
take care of you from cradle to grave. That's not what freedom and liberty
is all about.