What do you think of Kerry and his voting patterns

[snakef18]

What is going on with Kerry and his hatred for the space prgram with NASA? His voting record is terrible to anyone who agree with the idea of sending humans into space. What are some opinions on John Kerry?<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Kerry doesn't hate the space program, he just has a knack for recognizing pointless projects that won't succeed because they have no purpose or are simply not funded sufficiently. ISS, NASP, etc.. If you pay attention you will see he has been carefull not to condem the return to the moon, but rather questions that the funding has been adequatly thought out. He has gone on the record that NASA should get more money to accomplish its missions.<br /><br />I knew about the successfull Iranian lady who owned that business but I never associated her with the X-Prize until I heard/read a news story that talked about her.<br /><br />

 

[spayss]

Rogers. Agreed. Voting for white elephants is not the same as supporting space exploration. I'm a space keener but don't agree with keeping the Shuttle going.

 

[rogers_buck]

We came up with a pretty good plan right here on SDC to fly an extra crew to the ISS and launch shuttles unmodified and unmanned for as long as they last. The crew would ferry to the shuttle for ISS docking and the return flight would be automated over the pacific with a landing at Edwards. Of course the "gear down" button would have to be automated, but that's about it.<br /><br />By taking away the "manned" rating the shuttle could be turned in less time and could be flown more agressively.<br /><br />This plan would have saved billions and could have gotten the ISS building burden off the US back years ahead of schedule saving even more billions.<br />

 

[jcdenton]

<font color="orange">"I knew about the successfull Iranian lady who owned that business but I never associated her with the X-Prize until I heard/read a news story that talked about her. " </font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">What is this refering to???</font><br /><br />He's referring to the Ansari family, who are Iranian, the main sponsors of the X-Prize competition, hence the name <i>Ansari X Prize</i>. Here's the leading woman's profile.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">Kerry doesn't hate the space program, he just has a knack for recognizing pointless projects that won't succeed because they have no purpose or are simply not funded sufficiently.</font><br /><br />I quess these pointless projects would be the entire space program <i>except</i> the one's that could impact health care. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <br /><br />SnakeF18, Your might get the impression from these posters that the entire SDC board thinks that Kerry will not be bad for space, but that is not true. Its just that all of these arguements have been played out: <br /><br />Kerry's bad for space....<br /><br />No he's not....<br /><br />Yes he is, haven't you seen his record?.....<br /><br />So, you don't know why he voted the way he did.....<br /><br />The record speaks for itself, and anyways if he really cared about space, why did he go to KSC and talk about health care instead of space...<br /><br />Well Bush never visited NASA once while he was governor of Texas.....<br /><br />Yea but Bush has proposed a space plan....<br /><br />Bush doesn't mean it, its an election ploy...<br /><br />Well what has Kerry said? That we should stay in LEO and do nothing?.....<br /><br />Personally, I'm just tired of arguing this. We have worn out these arguements.<br /><br />Kerry's Stance on the Space Program is one of the threads where we have argued this topic. You might find it entertaining.

 

[jcdenton]

We really don't know how it'll play out. JFK (not John Forbes Kerry!) was said to be skeptical about the space program, yet his advisors managed to get him to support the bold initiative of landing a man on the Moon. The ball is still in the air so to speak.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yurkin]

Senator Kerry wanted to stop Cassini-Huygens, therefore Kerry is not pro-space.<br /><br />Kerry’s 3 trillion dollar healthcare plan is going to eat pretty heavy into other programs. Particularly programs that Kerry does not have an interest in like Nasa. Now that he’s promised not to raise taxes on 98% of the population it will be even worse. Fortunately congress controls the budget and barring and act of God it will still be controlled by the Republicans after November. This will limit the amount of damage that Kerry can do to the space budget. At the least, Nasa is safe through fiscal year 05 and in that time they might be able to generate enough inertia to keep Project Prometheus and Constellation going. Things like SpaceX, SS1, Bigelow, STS RTF, Cassini, Huygens and of course Shenzhou will help certainly help facilitate that inertia. So I don’t think Kerry will doom space exploration.<br />

 

[arobie]

Interesting point jcdenton, but still...I just can't see Kerry ever supporting a space initiative. He wants to take the money and spend it elsewhere. He seems to have his mind bent on hurting NASA. I guess we just can't know yet, but I am VERY skeptical that Kerry could ever be good or NASA.<br /><br />SnakeF18,<br /><br />Welcome to the space.com forums. I'm glad you found your way over here. There are alot of very interesting discussions that go on over here, from very heated political arguements to great discussions on space news, industry, future, and technology. I really enjoy these boards and probably spend too much time here.

 

[Swampcat]

I just read an interesting article concerning the space views of the Republican and Democratic candidates -- Debating Space: A Tale of Two Policies - One Real, One TBD -- and was quite impressed by this note that followed the article:<br /><blockquote><p align="left"><font color="orange">Editor's Note: For those of you who might be thinking that I am pro-Bush and anti- Kerry - let me set the record straight: if the election of 2004 was only about space policy, I would vote for George Bush without hesitation. I feel that a Kerry Administration would be disastrous for the prospects of a broad, exciting program of true human and robotic space exploration. Indeed, looking at John Kerry's voting record on space, I feel that under John Kerry, America would shy away from the challenge that has been put before it - and that NASA would revert to what it did under the Clinton Administration i.e. go in circles - and go nowhere.<br /><br />None the less, I plan on voting for John Kerry - but for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with space.<br /><br />As such, don't expect me to suggest how any of you should vote.</font>/p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The point is that using space policy as the sole determinate in making your choice for President of the United States is, IMHO, exceedingly unwise. There are indeed much more important things to consider than the space policy of these candidates.<br /><br />Besides, NASA is NOT the future of space. Private enterprise is the future. I'm beginning to think that even NASA has come to understand and accept that. Once private enterprise gets itself established in space then it won't matter what the Presidential Space Policy is or what NASA's plans are. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[arobie]

Nice article. That was a great read.<br /><br />I wish I would have been able to watch that debate. <br /><br /><font color="orange">"When asked to reconcile all that she had said about Kerry's purported positive views on space with a voting record wherein he repeatedly voted to cut or cancel various NASA activities including the ISS, Garver noted that she was not all that concerned about this - and that one should not consider Kerry's Senate voting record as being indicative of how Kerry would view NASA as President. To drive that point home, Garver complained that President Bush had never visited the Johnson Space Center (located in his home state) when he was governor of Texas."</font><br /><br />Typical...the "Yeah, well look what he did" reaction. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Anyways, not visiting a NASA center is no where near as bad as actively trying to cut NASA's funds. There is NO comparison at all. <br /><br />"I only tried to cut NASA's funds six times, so what? Bush didn't visit Johnson Space Center in Texas."<br /><br />That just makes me sick.<br /><br /><font color="orange">"In the case of the Bush Administration's space policy - Sietzen discussed a space policy that has actually been announced and is currently being enacted in great detail by NASA - with its budget now being debated by Congress. In stark contrast, and absent any overt space policy plan (Kerry has lots of 'plans') the best Lori Garver could do was to suggest what a Kerry policy might be. Indeed, one gets a clear indication that much of what Garver said was what she would like to see- not what Kerry might actually do."</font><br /><br />I liked that tidbit at the end.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Nice article. That was a great read."</font><br /><br />What I thought was so great about it was the editor's note at the end, again making the point that voting for a Presidential candidate strictly for his alleged views on space policy is myopic. Looking at the candidate's support, or lack of it, for NASA is, IMHO, ignoring, or at least discounting, all the other possible players in this game.<br /><br />Many space keeners on these boards have lamented the over-reliance of NASA on the Shuttle and ISS programs while others have touted the need for more support of private space efforts. NASA can play a role in the future of any private efforts but sooner or later it will have to be less of the lead organization in aerospace and become more of what it is in aeronautics where it performs a useful service to the flying community.<br /><br />I'm not going to bash NASA. It has had its great successes as well as its spectacular failures. It has done as well as can be expected considering the politics surrounding it. OTOH, it is time to move on to something bigger and better. It is time to unleash the private sector and take the pressure off of NASA as the sole focus of US space efforts. Not only will that get us closer to the day all of us can visit space, but it also has the potential of providing us with a boost to our economy.<br /><br />Of course, the best thing that could happen for space keeners would be for the economy to improve. The debate over which candidate has the best chance of managing that might be more useful than who would provide the most support for NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Space.com has a good article on the cover page featuring a debate with representatives of Bush and Kerry about space. Seems that there is a bit of hostility between the dems and the current NASA administration and accusations of partisanship. Bush closed door dealings sort of thing.<br /><br />It was also noteworthy that O'Keefe meets with Bush or Chenney every other day. I wouldn't have guessed that.<br /><br />The Kerry representative made the point that manned exploration will be just one of the things that NASA does. The R&D can't be sacraficed for exploration.<br /><br />I think the Chinese have set the goals and that the US will have to return to the moon to stay in the game as a percieved super power. Doesn't really matter who is president. The only question is will it be flags and footprints or a sustainable epoch of exploration.<br /><br />I think the Kerry people want to spend more time in the incubator making cheaper rockets and systems. They have technology progress on their side. But the clock is running. Who will get back to the moon next?<br />