President Obama’s announcement last April of plans to trash the Bush administration’s plans to return to the moon by 2020 in favor of planning for missions that might not take place until decades from now went largely without notice. That proposal was modified slightly by Congress to preserve a heavy-lift rocket. Although it is billed as something that will preserve manned space flight, as Robert Zubrin wrote in COMMENTARY last June (behind our pay wall), “it will be useful only as a lifeboat for bringing astronauts down from the space station, not as a craft capable of providing a ride up to orbit.” With the space shuttle being phased out by NASA, as Zubrin warned, “what this means is that the only way Americans will be able to reach even low Earth orbit will be as passengers on Russian launchers.”
But rather than worrying about why the government was scrapping practical manned flight plans in favor of building a largely useless rocket, it appears that Congress is mainly worried about the possibility that NASA might seek to preserve its options or even find a less expensive or more effective rocket. As the New York Times reported, at a Senate hearing held on Wednesday, senators of both parties berated NASA administrators about the agency’s perceived reluctance to follow this foolish course and warned them that any foot dragging about building the rocket would not be tolerated. In particular, “Congressional members from Utah, where Alliant builds the solid rocket motors, have also expressed worries that NASA is looking for a way around the law.” That is to say, they are upset about the possibility that a way will be found to stop this boondoggle. For most members of the House and the Senate, NASA-related projects are simply government jobs programs and nothing else.
We’ve come a long way since a bipartisan congressional consensus paved the way for Americans to land on the moon. Political logrolling has always played a role in the space program (Lyndon Johnson’s influence ensured that the program would shift from Florida to Texas in the 1960s), but Obama has essentially deep-sixed any chances for a return to manned flight in the foreseeable future. It’s a shame that the only interest that anyone in Congress seems to have in what was once America’s most innovative and glorious enterprise is merely a matter of patronage.
Considering that Karl Rove and George Bush destroyed the Republican party, turning into a rump that barely represents the old Confederacy and Appalachia, I’m amazed that anyone still listens to their advice, let alone reprints it.
Bush & Rove’s coddling of the evangelical-mormon base of the party turned off middle America, turning deep red states like Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Indiana bright blue. Bush & Rove’s lunatic spending spree has disgusted fiscal conservatives so that the Republicans have been totally wiped out in the Northeast, gone.
RKBG,
Let’s agree to completely and totally disagree on this point:
As the new “public face” of teh GOP is the party is smart it will encourage all three: Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin and Bobby Jinday to step up into the limelight as a coordinated trio. That would be powerful.
The “other” elder GOPers should stay in the background. There would be plenty for them to contribute in but a new fresh and compelling agenda and message has to be drive by Ryan, Palin and Jindal.
They don’t necessarily appeal to the exact same voter but their union has enormous reach.
Correction:
“As the new “public face” of teh GOP is ”
should be
“As the new public face of the GOP if…”
“In politics, good years follow bad years.” Karl Rove
Um, guys, the GOP got stomped in 2006 and 2008, so Karl is wrong. When an ideology is discredited and stagnant, and a party is out of new ideas, bad years follow bad years. In two years, the democrats will make modest gains. The GOP, having rationalized remaining out of the mainstream and continued its obstructionism, will panic.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/37249
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Back_to_the_vice_presidency.html?showall
They say they’ve been telling us this all along, that Obama’s “change” doesn’t necessarily mean Washington outsiders. Does anyone remember this ever coming up from any of there guys? Ever?
“For every election victory lie the seeds of defeat.”
– Captain America
Ryan, Palin, and Jindal are all appealing, but they could all stand another 10 – 20 years of seasoning. Unfortunately, we may need to call on them earlier than would otherwise be ideal. On the other hand, if Barack & the Dems govern reasonably well and events don’t turn strongly against them, the new wave Republican leaders may get plenty of time to hone their skills while we offer up some more traditional types, sacrificial old goats, before the incumbent juggernaut.
However, overinterpreting Karl Rove’s “good years follow bad years” is as silly as over-interpreting election results – particularly the penchant of many observers, including Ms. Rubin in her Palamas Media piece, to correlate particular outcomes with ideological and other factors that may have been almost wholly irrelevant to them. Whether the coming good years are right around the corner or a decade or two off is still an open question, and if you think you know, then I think you’re fooling yourself.
Joe Biden said it best – yes, really! – when he talked about the “low polling” Obama can expect. The economy will certainly worsen, and Obama will preside over the worst unemployment rate in nearly thirty years. That’s baked in the cake thanks to the worldwide recession.
At first the Democrats will blame it on Bush, and the media will go along. But every monthly jobs report will make the excuse sound more and more lame. Will the Dems play an already bad hand into a major disaster with tax increases and protectionism? It’s certainly possible.
Funny thought: Obama fans should hope for a GOP congress in 2010. Look what 1994 did for Clinton. Obama really does need rescuing from his worst impulses, and nothing could rescue him better than a Republican congress.
Elections in the modern era seem to turn on that elusive “moderate” or “independant”. One thing those in the middle share: Favoring a divided government. That bodes well for republicans.