Do Republicians support NASA more than Democrats in the US?

Is it possible that the Republician party in the US supports and has
always supported human spaceflight and NASA more than the Democratic party
in the US despite the fact that going to the moon was JFKs idea? I am a
registered democrat, a huge supporter of NASA and human spaceflight and
usually vote democrat, but think that the Republicians support it more. I
think this is probably because most space infrastructure and industry in
located in mostly Republician states. I heard once that Walter Mondall
tried to stop the Apollo moon landings after the Apollo 1 fire and I think
that John Kerry tried to cut funding to the space station back in 1991.
What do you all think?

Ray

"Ray" wrote in
news:VqzVe.12224$ck6.9724@trndny05:

Is it possible that the Republician party in the US supports
and has
always supported human spaceflight and NASA more than the Democratic
party in the US despite the fact that going to the moon was JFKs idea?

It's an oversimplification. It's true today, generally speaking, but it
hasn't always been the case.

Looking over the length of each presidential administration since NASA
was formed, we find that (adjusted for inflation), JFK was the only
Democrat whose administration ended with the NASA budget higher than when
it started. Conversely, Nixon is the only Republican whose administration
ended with a lower NASA budget than when he started.

The opposition to Apollo came from both ends of the spectrum, but the
loudest and most prominent opponents (such as the Rev. Ralph Abernathy)
were Democrats.

During the 1984-93 budget battles over Space Station Freedom, the station
always enjoyed much wider support among the Republicans than among the
Democrats. The two main opponents of SSF, Roemer (D-IN) and Zimmer (R-NJ)
were bipartisan but most of their cosponsors were Democrats. It wasn't
until after Clinton took the project over and renamed it ISS that he
could even get a majority of his own party to support it, and even then
the Democrats supported ISS in lower percentages than did the
Republicans.

I am a registered democrat, a huge supporter of NASA and human
spaceflight and usually vote democrat, but think that the Republicians
support it more. I think this is probably because most space
infrastructure and industry in located in mostly Republician states.

Keep in mind that when the infrastructure was built, in the 1960s, most
of those states (with the exception of California) were part of the
Democratic Solid South. The voting pattern in those states has gradually
drifted Republican since then.

I heard once that Walter Mondall tried to stop the Apollo moon
landings after the Apollo 1 fire

Mondale was a prominent opponent of human spaceflight and was part of the
Congressional committee investigating the fire, but I don't remember if
he actually seriously attempted to terminate Apollo.

and I think that John Kerry tried to
cut funding to the space station back in 1991.

Not the complete story. Kerry was a space station opponent and voted to
cut funding for it every year up until 1998. In 1999, with the first
elements already in orbit, he gave up and started supporting the program.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Do you mean, intellectual socially-progressive fiscally-responsible
Rockefeller Republican, or religious-fanatic reactionary
borrow-and-spend Rove Republican?

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

During the 1984-93 budget battles over Space Station Freedom, the station
always enjoyed much wider support among the Republicans than among the
Democrats. The two main opponents of SSF, Roemer (D-IN) and Zimmer (R-NJ)
were bipartisan but most of their cosponsors were Democrats.

My recollection is that Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR) was one of the
strongest opponents of the space station.

Challenger's Ghost

Ray wrote:
I heard once that Walter Mondall
tried to stop the Apollo moon landings after the Apollo 1 fire and I think
that John Kerry tried to cut funding to the space station back in 1991.
What do you all think?

Ray


If I remember correctly, back in 1984, when Mondall ran against Reagan
for the presidency (and lost big time), didn’t he vow to get rid of the
space shuttle and end all manned spaceflight altogether and use the
money “saved” in solving all the problems here on Earth?

Paul Mense ) wrote:
: Ray wrote:
: I heard once that Walter Mondall
: tried to stop the Apollo moon landings after the Apollo 1 fire and I think
: that John Kerry tried to cut funding to the space station back in 1991.
: What do you all think?
:
: Ray
:
:
: If I remember correctly, back in 1984, when Mondall ran against Reagan
: for the presidency (and lost big time), didn’t he vow to get rid of the
: space shuttle and end all manned spaceflight altogether and use the
: money “saved” in solving all the problems here on Earth?

Yes, "scuttle the shuttle" was the claim.

Perhaps, Republicans support manned spaceflight more than Democrats, and
Democrats support unmanned spaceflight (climate models, astronomy, science
in general). Whereas, manned spaceflight is viewed as an extension of the
military to some degree, unmanned is more for pure science.

Eric

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...

Perhaps, Republicans support manned spaceflight more than Democrats, and
Democrats support unmanned spaceflight (climate models, astronomy, science
in general). Whereas, manned spaceflight is viewed as an extension of the
military to some degree, unmanned is more for pure science.

Which is kind of odd, since the majority of the military's use of space is
for communications and intelligence gathering by unmanned satellites.

Ray wrote:
Is it possible that the Republician party in the US supports and has
always supported human spaceflight and NASA more than the Democratic party
in the US despite the fact that going to the moon was JFKs idea?

I don't believe that's possible, unless you limit "human spaceflight"
to military missions. For example, Eisenhower authorized U-2 missions
over Russia; but he thought going to the moon was "crazy."

On the other hand, the moon has been viewed as a valuable resource by
Democrats, and in my opinion rightly so. To realize its tremendous
potential for harnessing solar energy, one need only look through its
absence of an atmosphere to its obvious luminescence. The moon has
proximity; U. S. space pioneers have been there; and the harnessing
appears within reason. Why not get it done, before it's too late?

Challenger's Ghost

For sake of argument, I will say the Rockerfeller Republician.

"richard schumacher" wrote in message
...
Do you mean, intellectual socially-progressive fiscally-responsible
Rockefeller Republican, or religious-fanatic reactionary
borrow-and-spend Rove Republican?

When did Democrats view the moon as a valuable resource? What decade,
and if you know what democrats because I never heard of this?
Ray
" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ray wrote:
Is it possible that the Republician party in the US supports and has
always supported human spaceflight and NASA more than the Democratic
party
in the US despite the fact that going to the moon was JFKs idea?

I don't believe that's possible, unless you limit "human spaceflight"
to military missions. For example, Eisenhower authorized U-2 missions
over Russia; but he thought going to the moon was "crazy."

On the other hand, the moon has been viewed as a valuable resource by
Democrats, and in my opinion rightly so. To realize its tremendous
potential for harnessing solar energy, one need only look through its
absence of an atmosphere to its obvious luminescence. The moon has
proximity; U. S. space pioneers have been there; and the harnessing
appears within reason. Why not get it done, before it's too late?

Challenger's Ghost