The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
October 15, 2004
| Debate Exposes Kerry's Space Policy

From SpaceRef.com :

A day after the last of the Presidential campaign debates, a hundred or so space professionals gathered this morning in Washington, DC to hear a debate between representatives of the Bush and Kerry campaigns on space policy. One campaign talked about what it was doing in space - the other talked about what it might do.

Representing the Kerry campaign was Lori Garver from DFI International. Garver said that she had been volunteering her time to the campaign for eight months. Garver is a former NASA Associate Administrator and the former Executive Director of the National Space Society. In recent weeks Garver has made it very clear to a number of people in the aerospace community that she is deeply interested in - and, indeed, is pushing for - the nod to be the next Administrator of NASA - should John Kerry win, of course. As such, Garver had been very anxious to debate Sean O’Keefe so as to enhance her stature as a possible successor. Alas, the Bush campaign decided to use another representative instead. Also in the audience (but not speaking) was John Logsdon from George Washington University who has also been formally advising the Kerry campaign this year.

Representing the Bush campaign was Frank Sietzen. Sietzen is a veteran space journalist and active member of the Republican party in Virginia. In his opening statement, Sietzen sought to allay any concerns about possible conflicts by announcing that he was no longer going to be reporting about space as a journalist and, instead, would be speaking out in support of the President’s space policy.
[…]
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.
[…]
Sietzen replied with a detailed listing of the multiple occasions wherein Kerry consistently voted against NASA projects over the course of a decade to which Garver was repeatedly dismissive. Garver was either unwilling to defend Kerry’s voting record - or she was unable to. Given the constant harping that both campaigns make about the other candidate’s past - and their voting records - this is an amazingly lazy way for Garver to deal with the issue.
[…]
n 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.

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.

None the less, I plan on voting for John Kerry - but for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with space.

As such, don’t expect me to suggest how any of you should vote.

(Editor’s Note for TCP - of course, being Australian, I couldn’t vote anyway, the Editor’s Note above is from the original article)

John Kerry’s Voting record on Space issues :
  • In 1991, Kerry Voted To “Reduce Funding For The Space Station From $2 Billion To $100 Million,” And Transfer Funds To Other Programs. (H.R. 2519, Congressional Quarterly Vote #132: Rejected 35-64: R 3-40; D 32-24, July 17, 1991, Kerry Voted Yea)
  • In 1992, Kerry Voted To Terminate Space Station “Freedom” Project. (H.R. 5679, Congressional Quarterly Vote #194: Rejected 34-63: R 4-39; D 30-24, September 9, 1992, Kerry Voted Yea)
  • In 1993, Kerry Voted “To Terminate The Space Station Program.” (H.R. 2491, Congressional Quarterly Vote #272: Motion Agreed To 59-40: R 36-8; D 23-32, September 21, 1993, Kerry Voted Nay)
  • In 1993, Kerry Voted To Terminate Space Station Program And Divert Funds To Tax Cuts. (H.R. 3167, Congressional Quarterly Vote #335: Motion rejected 36-61: R 10-32; D 26-29, October 27, 1993, Kerry Voted Yea)
  • In 1994, Kerry Voted To Cut $1.9 Billion From Space Station Program, Thus Terminating It. (H.R. 4624, Congressional Quarterly Vote #253: Rejected 36-64: R 6-38; D 30-26, August 3, 1994, Kerry Voted Yea)
  • In 1995, Kerry Voted To Reduce NASA Funding By $400 Million. (H.R. 889, Congressional Quarterly Vote #105: Motion Agreed To 64-35: R 43-11; D 21-24, March 16, 1995, Kerry Voted Nay)
  • In 1995, Kerry Voted To Cut $1.8 Billion From NASA’s Human Space Flight Program. (H.R. 2099, Congressional Quarterly Vote #463: Motion Rejected 35-64: R 12-41; D 23-23, September 26, 1995, Kerry Voted Yea)
  • In 1996, Kerry Voted To Cut $1.6 Billion From NASA’s Human Space Flight Program And Terminate Space Station Program. (H.R. 3666, Congressional Quarterly Vote #267: Motion Agreed To 61-36: R 38-12; D 23-24, September 4, 1996, Kerry Voted Nay)


Posted by Alan Brain at October 15, 2004 10:48 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Alan E Brain - Finally, a leftie that’s even likable. And , yes, I even read parts of your blog. I don’t agree with you on some points but I don’t find you to be nearly as abrasive, high strung and accusatory as the lefties I’ve encountered here in the US. Maybe the Aussie left is different from the American left? Eh, who knows?

Posted by: Oyster [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 17, 2004 08:18 PM

Oyster:

By US standards, I am indeed a Leftie. If I could just work out what the heck Kerry actually stood for, I’d probably support his domestic policies, at least, compared to Bush. If I could trust Kerry not to abandon them, as he’s done so many times in the past.

By Australian standards though, I’m just as firmly a Right Wing Death Beast, definitely right-of-centre compared to most.

Australian Liberal John Howard is somewhere between UK Labour’s Tony Blair, and the US Republicans’ George W Bush. And that’s my comfort-zone, a “Gladstonite Liberal”.

The point is, the War on Terror is not about Left vs Right. It’s about self-defence, it’s about Liberation of the Oppressed, because the world is now too damn small for us to ignore the problem any more. And it’s about Statesman, as opposed to mere politicians, who have the courage to take a stand. You find them in the most unlikely places - in Tony Blair, member of a party where they still address each other as “Comrade”. In a Cowboy Fighter-Jock from Texas. Even stuck at the ass-end of the world in Australia.

Kerry doesn’t cut the mustard.

Finally, ta for the compliment. Too much of the US, UK and Australian Left has been infiltrated by anti-rationalist post-modernist fact-oblivious anti-semitic claptrap. People who believe it tend to think only they have a direct line to God, Truth, and Beauty, and all the rest of us are Evil, Evil, Evil. Such people cannot be argued with (though most of the Left can, even now). The only way to deal with them is to vote. So you know what to do come November 2nd - even if that means voting for Kerry. Because unlike Kos etc, I don’t have a direct line to God, and I also believe (from good evidence, not faith) in the Democratic Process as the best means of chosing an Administration.

I also believe in George Bush - but that’s me, not you. It’s your country, not mine, and only a Guardianista would have the arrogance to tell you what to do. I might try a bit of pursuasion though, as the Guardian and John Kerry did have one thing right: the POTUS is also the leader of the “Free World”, and who it is is of more than just US domestic importance. And that’s why I support Bush.

Posted by: aebrain [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 18, 2004 09:52 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)