I think there’s a difference in creating drama and correcting facts. Sometimes correcting factually inaccurate information is mistaken for creating drama, but I still feel the need to correct the misinformation anyways. I think the truth is usually more important.
That being said, I think I’ll post my comments here, though, instead of directly on the website in question, since as I understand it, said webmaster would rather not hear from me for now.
I read recently that Obama just announced he’s going to pull funding from NASA to fund his education plan. This was said to be good timing, as the primaries for the states with NASA centers has already passed. I have also been told by several people that I should vote for Clinton, as she will not pull funding from NASA.
So, here’s the corrections that I feel the need to make: 1) Obama said this months and months ago. 2) a vote for Hillary will still make me lose my job.
Now for references:
1) "Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq.." — [Obama's] Official Education Plan, 20 November 2007
- Note the date, there. Long before even the first primary election. He’s been saying this for a while now.
But I guess that’s really less important since I think we all now understand that a vote for Obama is a vote for a lost job at NASA. But what about Hillary?
2) "But in a telephone interview afterward, she said that in the short term she would subordinate Bush administration proposals for human exploration of the Moon and Mars to restoring cuts in aeronautics research and space-based studies of climate change and other earth science issues. Travel to the Moon or Mars ‘excites people,’ she said, ‘but I am more focused on nearer-term goals I think are achievable.’"
– The New York Times, 5 October 2007
- So, a vote for Hillary doesn’t mean lost funding for NASA, but it does mean that those of us who work in human space flight will either have to quickly become experts in global warming research, or we’ll be out of a job. So, any democratic vote is a vote for a lost job here at JSC, anyway.
I will say that Hillary was quoted on a space website: "Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) has pledged to pursue ‘a successful and speedy transition’ from the soon-to-be retired U.S. space shuttle fleet to ‘a next-generation space transportation system that can take us back to the Moon and beyond.’”
However, that’s in direct contrast to her interview with the New York Times… which either makes her fickle or hypocritical. Being a politician, I’m apt to believe that second one, there. Especially considering that second quote for the Space News website, as compared to the New York Times, which is for everyone.
Also, Mr. Clinton cut NASA’s budget significantly while he was in office. I wonder if it runs in the family…
Unfortunately, I can’t bash McCain on this issue, because he has avoided discussing NASA in any official interviews, or at least those that I can find on the internet or www.spacepolitics.com.