#11
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Dave Fowler wrote:
:From: Reed Snellenberger :Kerry probably won't do very much in a direct manner about NASA -- for :one thing, support for manned spaceflight among liberal Democrats has :historically been pretty low : John F. Kennedy, anyone? John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat. --- Gregg "Improvise, adapt, overcome." Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Phone: (617) 496-1558 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Kaido Kert" wrote in message om... "Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message hlink.net... "ed kyle" wrote in message om... What will President Kerry do with NASA? My guess is that he will want to dump the Bush Moon/Mars plans ASAP, but will he be able to stop CEV and the end of Shuttle? - Ed Kyle That's the assumption, though many people thought that Clinton would cancel the space station in 1993 and he did not. My guess is that we would probably see the end of Americans in space under a Kerry administration, sooner or later. I dont think he would have means to stop X-Prize or Space Adventures. Americans could still go to space. -kert Don't be too sure about that. I do not think Kerry would exert himself too much to pass regulatory or tax incentives for private space travel. Also, he is quite capable of forbidding travel to the Moon or Mars out of environmental reasons. Yes, but he couldn't cancel CEV. By this time next year it will have tremendous politcal momentum as Project Constellation and will no more be able to be stopped than Kerry and Kennedy's Big Dig. Tom Merkle |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Gregg Germain wrote in
: Dave Fowler wrote: :From: Reed Snellenberger :Kerry probably won't do very much in a direct manner about NASA -- for :one thing, support for manned spaceflight among liberal Democrats has :historically been pretty low : John F. Kennedy, anyone? John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat. Correct... and neither was Johnson. -- Reed |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om... What will President Kerry do with NASA? My guess is that he will want to dump the Bush Moon/Mars plans ASAP, but will he be able to stop CEV and the end of Shuttle? - Ed Kyle Why do so many seem to assume that Kerry would be less supportive of space activities? Bush never had any interest in this area at all until he saw an opportunity for some election year drama exploiting the excitement over the MERs. Historically, with the exception of Kennedy (driven by the cold war), there hasn't been all that much partisan difference on space efforts. Also, it's far from clear that the Bush proposals are really of substantive value. They don't address some of the remaining serious problems with NASA (particularly re. contractor cronyism and pork barrel spending). I haven't much about Kerry's positions on space, but see no particular reason to be apprehensive about them. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
"Gregg Germain" wrote in message ... Dave Fowler wrote: :From: Reed Snellenberger :Kerry probably won't do very much in a direct manner about NASA -- for :one thing, support for manned spaceflight among liberal Democrats has :historically been pretty low : John F. Kennedy, anyone? John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat. WHAT IS A LIBERAL? Sen. John F. Kennedy, acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination, September 14, 1960: What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960. In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo: I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them. Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well. Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961. Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb. Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads. In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist." And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend. This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope. I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic. Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
My guess is that we would probably see the end of Americans in space under a
Kerry administration, sooner or later. It's pretty clear that regardless of what some people might want, we can't keep the shuttles flying for more than about ten years in any case. So without something like the Bush plan to replace the shuttles, we'll see the triumph of Robert Park's "robots uber alles" additude. Kerry is often compared to Kennedy, but that's Edward (Ted), not John. And who is Edward Kennedy to us? A big nobody who for some strange reason the people of Massachusetts keep on reelecting to the Senate. Has Edward Kennedy proposed any bold new space visions like his brother? Of course not, he's much too modest to do anything like that. If there's anything John F. Kennedy will be remembered for, its the Apollo program that achieved Mankinds first landing on the Moon. that's what I learned the first time I heard of John F. Kennedy. The Cuban Missile Crisis I learned of later, but that's a non-event because nothing happened, nothing was achieved either except a resumption of the status quo that existed prior to that crisis. There is the Peace Corps, and the fact that he got assassinated. That's about it. Its too bad that Ted Kennedy doesn't want to emphasize the Moon program because that's JFK's main claim to fame, that's like talking about Abe Lincoln but refusing to mention the Civil War or the Abolition of Slavery. Tom |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Kerry's vision of the Future is definitely not "2001 a Space Odyssey" or
anything like it. Most liberals imagine a continuation of 20th century technologies with a reorganization of social programs with more spending. The Democratic "Futureland" looks much like today with perhaps more bicycles in the streets, mass transit, but no new technologies. Mass transit will more likely be buses than maglevs. Government will be bigger and more people will be working for it, businesses will be more regulated and heavily unionized while industries will be protected by tarriffs. To the casual stroller the Future would look much like today except the prices would be higher. Tom |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Reed Snellenberger wrote: Gregg Germain wrote in : Dave Fowler wrote: :From: Reed Snellenberger :Kerry probably won't do very much in a direct manner about NASA -- for :one thing, support for manned spaceflight among liberal Democrats has :historically been pretty low : John F. Kennedy, anyone? John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat. Correct... and neither was Johnson. -- Reed I read, once again, the usual nonsense about just what constitutes a liberal Democrat. Mike Walsh |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
My guess is that we would probably see the end of Americans in space under a Kerry administration, sooner or later. It's pretty clear that regardless of what some people might want, we can't keep the shuttles flying for more than about ten years in any case. Dumping the shuttle as soon as ISS is complete makes sense. The real question is: Will a successor be ready until then? Differntly put: Will NASA get its act together? I do not follow US politics enough to have any opinion on Kerry, but I believe that what NASA needs is a president who kicks some behind for the string of high-profile failures stretching back many decades. And I do not think any canidate, of neither party, cares enough about space to do this. Robert Kitzmueller |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Mark R. Whittington wrote: "Kaido Kert" wrote in message om... "Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message hlink.net... "ed kyle" wrote in message e.com... What will President Kerry do with NASA? My guess is that he will want to dump the Bush Moon/Mars plans ASAP, but will he be able to stop CEV and the end of Shuttle? - Ed Kyle That's the assumption, though many people thought that Clinton would cancel the space station in 1993 and he did not. My guess is that we would probably see the end of Americans in space under a Kerry administration, sooner or later. I dont think he would have means to stop X-Prize or Space Adventures. Americans could still go to space. -kert Don't be too sure about that. I do not think Kerry would exert himself too much to pass regulatory or tax incentives for private space travel. Also, he is quite capable of forbidding travel to the Moon or Mars out of environmental reasons. Environmental reasons? The Moon and Mars? Could you explain this in more detail? -- Hop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Shuttle | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Station | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |