posted 08-02-2008 10:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Tomorrow, Sen. Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech in Titusville, when perhaps he may provide further details about his plans for NASA.

---

And we have to do more than provide short-term relief. We have to secure our long-term prosperity and strengthen America’s competitiveness in the 21st century. One of the areas where we are in danger of losing our competitive edge is our space program. When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements we are still proud of. Today, we have an administration that has set ambitious goals for NASA without giving NASA the support it needs to reach them. As a result, they’ve had to cut back on research, and trim their programs, which means that after the Space Shuttle shuts down in 2010, we’re going to have to rely on Russian spacecraft to keep us in orbit.

We cannot cede our leadership in space. That’s why I will help close the gap and ensure that our space program doesn’t suffer when the Shuttle goes out of service by working with Senator Bill Nelson to add at least one additional Space Shuttle flight beyond 2010; by supporting continued funding for NASA; by speeding the development of the Shuttle’s successor; and by making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired – because we cannot afford to lose their expertise.

More broadly, we need a real vision for space exploration. To help formulate this vision, I’ll reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council so that we can develop a plan to explore the solar system – a plan that involves both human and robotic missions, and enlists both international partners and the private sector. And as America leads the world to long-term exploration of the moon, Mars, and beyond, let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world, make America stronger, and help grow the economy here in Florida.

"I told my staff that we are going to find an entirely diferent offset" he said. "I want to make sure that NASA money does go into R&D - and that is important."

"This is an administration that is anti-science. They have rejected science - I want us to be a science-based society."

posted 08-02-2008 11:30 AM               

Let’s look at this above statement:

He said that there had been some earlier campaign statements to the effect that "we were talking about delaying aspects of the Constellation program" to pay for education.

"I told my staff that we are going to find an entirely different offset" he said. "I want to make sure that NASA money does go into R&D - and that is important."

"This is an administration that is anti-science. They have rejected science - I want us to be a science-based society."

The subject is the Constellation program, a program that was started under the current administration.

He says he is going to support the efforts that started under the current administration but at the same time he says;

"This is an administration that is anti-science. They have rejected science - I want us to be a science-based society."

So either the Constellation program isn’t science (because the current administration is anti-science and has rejected science) or that last statement is hyperbole…political speak. So which is it?

Of course it is political speak. It is what politicians do. I’m not happy with the current administration myself but I’m not dumb enough to think they are anti-science. I don’t think the administration has done much to promote science but I don’t think they sit around and clamor, “Damned scientists! We’ve got to run them out of town on a rail!” There is a vast difference in making something a low priority and being against it.

I only bring it up to make this point; I don’t think it is possible to determine, based on these brief statements, who is going to be what when they are president. In campaigns, you don’t know what to expect unless the campaign lays out a fully formulated plan and releases it to the press. Trying to make guesses based upon speeches and debates that are designed to be played as new clips is NOT going to reveal much. Unless either candidate releases a detailed plan and makes space exploration a central part of their campaign, you aren’t going to get any idea of what their real intent is. A statement like the above can be seen as a promise but a president, as opposed to a candidate, must live with a reality that is far different. Political statements are made to evoke specific emotional responses to specific audiences. They are designed to motivate people to vote for the speaker. They are usually not designed to offer a true glimpse of the future.

Sorry to be cynical, but I don’t think this question will be answered by either candidate until they get into office and we see where NASA falls in the list of priorities by budget allocations. Space exploration isn’t that big of an issue with the general voting public. They will be for it as long as it doesn’t cost them much and the pictures are positive and uplifting.

And keep in mind, a president can set an agenda and push issues but if a Congress has different ideas, it won’t be funded. This is especially true for an agency like NASA that many people see as unnecessary and doesn’t have a ton of support from the press corps. I think the question needs to be what will the President and the Democratic Congress do for NASA and space exploration?

posted 08-02-2008 11:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by CAC:
The fact that he is talking to this crowd is encouraging, I’ll admit, but note the statement is in response to earlier statements that were problematic to this audience.

---

posted 08-02-2008 11:55 AM               

This was not a result of being swept off my feet. If you ever met me you'd know that that doesn't happen. This decision comes after a year of listening to all of the campaigns. Some of you will agree and some of you won't. I respect all of your opinions.

posted 08-02-2008 01:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Which is exactly the point: there was no pressing need for Sen. Obama to speak in Titusville for all the reasons you outlined in your reply. However, he did so (apparently) to underscore a change in his stated policy.

---

If he wins, I hope you can tell me “I told you so”. But I doubt you will be able to do that. At the most, I imagine you will get more of the same from either candidate.

posted 08-02-2008 02:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by CAC:
In four years no one will vote them out if they have funded NASA less than what they alluded to in a campaign.

---

posted 08-02-2008 02:31 PM               

Unfortunately, we never got a chance to see what his focus on space would have done for JFK's re-election bid. I'd have to defer to the folks on this board who both lived through and lived out the space race. The unique circumstances of history made NASA the priority that it was. Then history, as it does, diminished NASA. If the Moon is a Harsh Mistress, then history is a fickle lover.

Honestly, events have more to do with setting policy than candidates and promises do. Which is again, is sort of my point. And politicians can live and die with history.

posted 08-02-2008 02:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by CAC:
I wish against all odds it did but I don't think it will and thus I'm not going to trust either candidate to be able to tell me what they will do.

---

posted 08-02-2008 07:05 PM               

Why it didn't read "further shuttle flights beyond 2010" mystifies me given that political message would imply a more positive commitment without nominating a number above two.

posted 08-03-2008 08:29 AM               

However, Florida is a key battleground state in the upcoming election. Obama cannot afford to alienate the thousands of aerospace workers there by not expressing his support for space. His Titusville speech was totally political, but this is to be expected from someone running for president.

posted 08-04-2008 07:18 PM               

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, held a town hall meeting near the Kennedy Space Center today and vowed strong support for NASA, saying he favors at least one shuttle flight beyond the 10 missions left on the agency's manifest. Obama also said he would work to close the gap between the end of shuttle operations in 2010 and the debut of the Orion spacecraft that will replace it and said earlier reports that he would divert money from NASA's next manned spacecraft to education were unfounded.

posted 08-12-2008 03:34 PM               

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama will send representatives to a space policy debate this week.

The presidential candidates' representatives will meet Thursday to discuss how their administrations will fund, prioritize, and advance space policy over the next several years.

McCain will send Apollo VII astronaut Walt Cunningham and Obama will send former NASA Associate Administrator Lori Garver to speak on the candidates' behalf.

The Mars Society will host the debate at the University Memorial Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Attendance is free and the event is open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. Reserved seating is available for groups.

posted 08-12-2008 06:10 PM               

As President, John McCain will --

• Ensure that space exploration is top priority and that the U.S. remains a leader;

• Commit to funding the NASA Constellation program to ensure it has the resources it needs to begin a new era of human space exploration.

• Review and explore all options to ensure U.S. access to space by minimizing the gap between the termination of the Space Shuttle and the availability of its replacement vehicle;

• Ensure the national space workforce is maintained and fully utilized; Complete construction of the ISS National Laboratory;

• Seek to maximize the research capability and commercialization possibilities of the ISS National Laboratory;

• Maintain infrastructure investments in Earth-monitoring satellites and support systems;

• Seek to maintain the nation's space infrastructure;

• Prevent wasteful earmarks from diverting precious resources from critical scientific research;

• and Ensure adequate investments in aeronautics research.

posted 08-17-2008 10:32 AM               

As president, Barack Obama will establish a robust and balanced civilian space program. His NASA not only will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration, but also will again lead in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change, energy independence, and aeronautics research. In achieving this vision, Obama will reach out to include international partners and to engage the private sector to amplify NASA's reach. Obama believes that a revitalized NASA can help America maintain its innovation edge and contribute to American economic growth.

Closing the Gap

Since 1981, the Space Shuttle has been NASA's workhorse. Its retirement will leave NASA without human spaceflight capability until the first elements of the Constellation program are operational, some five years later. This gap between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the entry into service of its replacement is a serious concern. Barack Obama is committed to making the necessary investments to ensure we close this gap as much as is technically feasible and to minimize reliance on foreign space capabilities. He also will work with the space industry to ensure retention of workforce and technical capabilities during the transition from the shuttle to its successor.

Completing and Enhancing the International Space Station

The International Space Station is an outstanding example of what can be accomplished through international cooperation. Though we have spent billions to build the station, the microgravity research it was intended to facilitate has fallen victim to funding cuts. Barack Obama would ensure that NASA and other federal agencies are fully utilizing the ISS to conduct research that can help address global challenges such as public health and energy independence and can develop technologies that can provide economic benefits to Earth. Obama also will enable research on the ISS to support long-term human exploration and planetary research needs.

Embracing Human Space Exploration

Human spaceflight is important to America's political, economic, technological, and scientific leadership. Barack Obama will support renewed human exploration beyond low earth orbit. He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.

posted 08-17-2008 11:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by CAC:
I’m not happy with the current administration myself but I’m not dumb enough to think they are anti-science. I don’t think the administration has done much to promote science but I don’t think they sit around and clamor, “Damned scientists! We’ve got to run them out of town on a rail!” There is a vast difference in making something a low priority and being against it.

---

That is, of course, unless the scientists work for NASA. Have you forgotten about George Deutsch, the Bush political appointee who was at the heart of administration's efforts to censor NASA scientists, most notably to prevent James Hansen from speaking out about global warming?

Deutsch also instructed a NASA website designer to add the word "theory" after every occurrence of the phrase Big Bang. Mr. Deutsch wrote in a memo that the Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion... It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator... This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue."

At the time, Deutsch's NASA résumé falsely asserted that he had a B.A. degree in journalism from Texas A & M, which seems to be further testiment to this administration's disinterest in fact checking as long as their political objectives are achieved.

My point is, in the Bush world, "low priority = being against it".

Bruce Moody

posted 08-17-2008 12:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce:
That is, of course, unless the scientists work for NASA. Bruce Moody

---

Ok, let me make sure I understand your position.

A NASA scientist publicly aligns himself with John Kerry and Al Gore, and then uses his position as a NASA scientist (as a government agency, it is probably in NASA's best interest to remain as apolitical as possible) to forward a political position, and the Bush administration's opposition to this unchecked effort is evidence that they are "anti-science" against NASA scientists?

And does this somehow relate to how McCain or Obama's positions will emerge when one of them becomes President?

posted 08-17-2008 02:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
And does this somehow relate to how McCain or Obama's positions will emerge when one of them becomes President?

---

John McCain: "Climate change is the single greatest environmental challenge of our time. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington."

Barack Obama: "Global warming is real, is happening now and is the result of human activities. Barack Obama believes we have a moral, environmental, economic and security imperative to tackle climate change in a serious, sustainable manner."

posted 08-17-2008 04:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
A NASA scientist publicly aligns himself with John Kerry and Al Gore, and then uses his position as a NASA scientist (as a government agency, it is probably in NASA's best interest to remain as apolitical as possible) to forward a political position, and the Bush administration's opposition to this unchecked effort is evidence that they are "anti-science" against NASA scientists?

---

The Hatch Act, while restricting political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government, specifically allows federal employees to "express opinions about candidates and issues" and to even "make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections."

It's true that James Hanson did say he would be voting for John Kerry after this 2004 speech, which in and of itself makes for very interesting reading.

However, I do not believe Hansen was interested in "forwarding a political position" as such. He was simply reporting the science that he (and thousands of other scientists) agree on.

I do agree with you that NASA's best interests are served without the agency's employees making public political endorsements. In an effort to prevent this thread from steering too far off subject, I'll leave it at that and thank Robert for "grabbing the wheel" with his comments.

posted 08-18-2008 01:39 AM               

The first hints of Sen. Barack Obama’s space funding plans came to light on Sunday as the democratic candidate’s support for a robust program of human and robotic exploration began to attract some heavyweight boosters.

Two leading space pioneers – Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and former Senator and Mercury astronaut John Glenn of Ohio -- yesterday endorsed Obama’s new space platform.

In a nutshell, the comprehensive policy released on Saturday backs plans to go to the moon by 2020, supports both human and robotic missions, calls for at least one additional shuttle flight and increased international cooperation in space.

But until Sunday, the democratic policy, while clearly ambitious, was lacking in details of how much an Obama administration would give to NASA, and where the funds to speed up development of a successor rocket to the space shuttle were going to come from.

According to Nelson, the Obama campaign has pledged to find $2 billion for NASA by clawing back pork barrel earmarks, such as, Nelson said, “a highway in Alaska to nowhere.”

posted 08-18-2008 07:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Since both McCain and Obama both agree that the Bush Administration's position on global warming has been wrong, I think it is safe to say that this is an issue that now goes beyond partisan politics.

---

Is the argument not irrelevant since President Bush is not a candidate in this election?

The only way it is relevant is if one makes the argument that one of the candidates will also be "anti-science" ... or am I missing something?

posted 08-18-2008 09:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
The only way it is relevant is if one makes the argument that one of the candidates will also be "anti-science"... or am I missing something?

---

posted 08-18-2008 05:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce:
However, I do not believe Hansen was interested in "forwarding a political position" as such. He was simply reporting the science that he (and thousands of other scientists) agree on.

---

Bruce -

I'm sure you're right. Especially since Hansen received $250K from the Heinz Foundation (run by Kerry's wife).

Regardless, no one is going to agree on whether Hansen was engaging in "science" or "politics" ... not unlike the separation of church and state, sometimes it is remarkably hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Robert's remarks above notwithstanding, I still fail to see the connection between the introduction of the Bush Administration being "anti-science" against NASA scientists and the 2008 Presidential Election.

Thus, I shall walk away from this discussion. Enjoy!

posted 08-18-2008 05:12 PM               

Leaders of local space companies prodded Sen. John McCain to add funding to NASA's budget to speed development of new rockets, but some also implored him to keep flying the space shuttles beyond the scheduled 2010 retirement.

In a private meeting this morning between about 18 leaders and the Republican presidential candidate, the leaders of space companies involved in the civilian and military space programs here said that the next president needs to act to prevent U.S. reliance on Russia to get astronauts to the space station funded by U.S. taxpayers. McCain nodded several times and identified the reliance on the Russians as one of his chief issues related to the space program.

Howard Lance, chief executive officer of Harris Corp., said that money could not be considered the only issue.

"We need a policy and strategy that starts with leadership what is the mission. not just for NASA. What is the U.S. space mission and how does that drive innovation and how does that get young people excited? We are graduating fewer and fewer engineers. They are increasing the number of engineers in China and other countries. I think this is a multifaceted problem and it is going to take national leadership to move this ball forward - off a partisan discussion or just a budget discussion. It's going to take leadership."

In one exchange with a top Lockheed Martin government relations executive, McCain pressed him for one solution to the gap.

The executive, Adrian Lafitte, said increasing funding to speed the development of the new Ares rocket would be his top choice. Although, he and others pointed out alternatives that included funding a short-term solution using existing expendable rockets to launch NASA's proposed Orion spacecraft.

McCain said it is unacceptable for the U.S. to have to rely on the Russians, especially given the current conflict with Georgia and the resulting strain on U.S.-Russian relations. He got no argument from the people in the room, but several of the company and other local leaders said extending the space shuttle was the way to prevent that.

Mike McCulley, a former astronaut and former top executive with the space shuttle's prime contractor United Space Alliance, gave the most direct appeal for continuing shuttle operations so that the U.S. can get astronauts to the space station.

"We are going to look up one night and see this $100 billion thing going by with no Americans on it," McCulley said, his voice rising as he spoke and McCain nodded. "That just makes me shudder. It made me shudder in January of 2004 ... The only way that you cannot have a gap is to continue to fly our existing system and that is the shuttle."

McCain, however, questioned how to certify the space shuttle as safe to fly beyond 2010. The Columbia disaster investigators recommended that the vehicles not be flown beyond 2010 without a safety recertification, a complicated and expensive process that could pose a problem. That said, McCain asked several questions indicating that he is not against extending shuttle if that becomes necessary.

McCain said that the American people need to understand the gap and need to understand that access to space is a national security issue.

posted 08-18-2008 05:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejectr:
And what was [McCain's] record like in the Senate when it came to all that?

---

• McCain expressed Concerns that increasing NASA funding would contribute to the national debt. Speaking on the Senate floor, McCain lamented: "Specifically, the Senate voted to add $1 billion on top of the $10 billion the bill already provided to NASA. I continue to support NASA and space research, but at what cost to our Nation's children who will inherit the largest national debt this country has seen? Again, I would like to express my disappointment that Senate leadership has brought to the floor a bill that is $3 billion over the President's request, containing more than 600 earmarks. In my recent travels around the Nation, I hear again and again from citizens who are fed up with porkbarrel spending, and yet Congress fails to listen. It is a shame and I can only hope that the American people will join me and the President in expressing their displeasure with this bill. I hope that the remaining six appropriations bills do not contain such rampant and reckless spending, and that Congress works to regain some fiscal discipline." [Speech on Senate floor regarding The Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2008, H.R. 3093, 10/16/07]

• McCain voted against, Sens. Nelson and Martinez voted for, funding NASA and NOAA. McCain voted against passage of the bill that would appropriate $56 billion in fiscal 2008 for the departments of Commerce and Justice and other agencies such as NASA and the National Science Foundation. It would provide $24.3 billion for the Justice Department and $7.4 billion for the Commerce Department. It would appropriate $6.6 billion for the FBI and $5.6 billion for the federal prison system. The bill would fund NASA at $17.5 billion, the National Science Foundation at $6.6 billion and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at $4.2 billion. As amended, it would add $1 billion in emergency spending for NASA for costs associated with returning the space shuttle fleet to service after the loss of the Columbia in 2003. Sen. Obama missed the vote. [Vote 372, HR 3093, 10/16/07, Passed 75-19: R 28-19; D 45-0 (ND 40-0, SD 5-0); I 2-0.]

• 1995: McCain voted to take funding from NASA research to fund education. McCain voted for an amendment to restore $63 billion in cuts from the education account by capping federal employee bonuses and by cutting the intelligent vehicle program, NASA research and development for commercial aircraft, new federal building construction and the executive branch air carrier fleet. (CQ) McCain: Y [1995 Senate Vote #185, 5/24/1995]

posted 08-19-2008 12:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Orlando Sentinel: Obama vows to find $2bn for NASA

(...)

According to Nelson, the Obama campaign has pledged to find $2 billion for NASA by clawing back pork barrel earmarks, such as, Nelson said, “a highway in Alaska to nowhere.”

---

hmmm, so there IS money available to properly fund NASA!

So much for the concept that there are "fiscal/budget realities/constraints" (there are but who cares, it's election year).

There's oil in Alaska but you may not need a highway to have access to it!

posted 08-19-2008 12:59 AM               

Ketchikan, like Juneau the state capital, is not accessible by road to the mainland. You can only get to them by air or boat.

Granted Ketchikan airport is not an ATL, ORD or LAX, but man, if you had to ride a ferryboat to catch your plane on time and missed the ferry a few times, you would want a bridge too.

I just hope NASA doesn't become fodder for such silly political hyperbole this year or the next for that matter.

------------------
Kind Regards

Douglas Henry

posted 08-20-2008 05:35 AM            

I personally am accepting his word that he will fully fund NASA.

posted 08-20-2008 07:06 PM            

And on the same theme, which Republican would be the best VP choice from NASA's point of view?

posted 08-23-2008 12:30 AM               

In September 2007, RLV and Space Transport News reader Armin Ellis asked Biden "What is your vision for America's space program?" to which he replied, "I like the robotic programs". Ellis responded, "How about the manned missions, with clear leadership we could...", which Biden interrupted to reply, "With clear leadership we can do anything, good luck." [via: SpacePolitics.com, September 28, 2007]

In January 2008, the science journal Nature reviewed the various candidates' views on science issues, including space, wherein then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said he wanted "to make China a full partner in space exploration rather than a 'frustrated new entrant' that has to catch up with the United States." [source: SpacePolitics.com, January 3, 2008].

Most recently, according to NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale's blog, on June 9, 2008, Senator Biden, along with Senator Richard Lugar, chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee respectively, introduced S. 3103, legislation that NASA submitted to extend the exception to the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) to allow NASA to negotiate a contract with Russia for continued Soyuz services beyond 2011. The Committee is expected to consider the legislation when it meets in September.

posted 08-26-2008 03:39 PM               

We are told that Barack Obama believes too much in an America of high principle and bold endeavor, but when John Kennedy called of going to the moon, he didn't say it's too far to get there. We shouldn't even try. Our people answered his call and rose to the challenge, and today an American flag still marks the surface of the moon. Yes, we are all Americans. This is what we do. We reach the moon. We scale the heights. I know it. I've seen it. I've lived it. And we can do it again.

posted 09-01-2008 10:37 PM               

In November, 2007, a small group of six citizens - two screenwriters, a physicist, a marine biologist, a philosopher and a science journalist - began working to restore science and innovation to America’s political dialogue. They called themselves Science Debate 2008, and they called for a presidential debate on science. The call tapped a wellspring of concern over the state of American science.

Within weeks, more than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. Among other things, these signers submitted over 3,400 questions they want the candidates for President to answer about science and the future of America.

Beginning with these 3,400 questions, Science Debate 2008 worked with the leading organizations listed to craft the top 14 questions the candidates should answer. These questions are broad enough to allow for wide variations in response, but they are specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States.

Barack Obama's answers appear below. John McCain has said he will also answer the questions.

11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?

As president, I will establish a robust and balanced civilian space program. Under my administration, NASA not only will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration, but also will again lead in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change, energy independence, and aeronautics research. In achieving this vision, I will reach out to include international partners and to engage the private sector to amplify NASA’s reach. I believe that a revitalized NASA can help America maintain its innovation edge and contribute to American economic growth.

There is currently no organizational authority in the federal government with a sufficiently broad mandate to oversee a comprehensive and integrated strategy and policy dealing with all aspects of the government’s space-related programs, including those being managed by NASA, the Department of Defense, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, and other federal agencies. This wasn’t always the case. Between 1958 and 1973, the National Aeronautics and Space Council oversaw the entire space arena for four presidents; the Council was briefly revived from 1989 to 1992. I will re-establish this Council reporting to the president. It will oversee and coordinate civilian, military, commercial, and national security space activities. It will solicit public participation, engage the international community, and work toward a 21st century vision of space that constantly pushes the envelope on new technologies as it pursues a balanced national portfolio that expands our reach into the heavens and improves life here on Earth.

posted 09-10-2008 10:07 AM               

If John McCain and Sarah Palin were to say the moon was made of green cheese, we can be certain that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would pounce on it, and point out it's actually made of rock. And you just know the headline in the paper the next day would read: "CANDIDATES CLASH ON LUNAR LANDSCAPE."

Why doesn't somebody call Neil Armstrong? He's been there. Or go to the Smithsonian and open the glass case that contains a piece of the moon. The moon is a rock. That's a fact, Jack.

Facts are indeed stubborn things, but the McCain-Palin lies are more stubborn still.

In the face of demonstrable, provable, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, McCain and Palin continue to assert that Gov. Palin opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." They do so in their speeches and ads, and their supporters say so on television until their pants are on fire. McCain and Palin also claim the Alaska governor opposes earmarks -- despite the fact that she's gotten her state so much pork she's at risk for trichinosis.

I was in the middle of a Neil Armstrong Moment when I was on CNN Tuesday morning...