So why are we going back into space?

[Lone Pawn]

1. To rally political support?

2. Another excuse to spend money, widening the deficit and preventing future generations from being able to afford a welfare state?

3. To make Bush look like he has a plan and interest in the future?

4. To challenge China, giving Americans a common, tangible, yet ultimately benign 'enemy'?

5. Actual scientific progress?

I'm not looking for whether or not people support this, but rather why they think Bush is announcing it right before the election campaigns start in full.

[R3dD0g]

1. Simple really

To challenge China.

* remembers how we spent the Soviets into oblivion and someone has convinced the simpleton that we can similarly spend the ChiCom into oblivion.

[mopinko]

2. 6. to change the subject np

[Lone Pawn]

3. I think that might fall under 1.

[Indiana_Dem]

4. 1 through 4

n/t

[Granite]

5. 1-4 all likely

plus add in the military aspirations of the neo-cons and you have a pretty good start. Mostly this is about the election IMO - painting Bush as a Kennedy-esque visionary, someone who is interested in ideas and moving America forward, as opposed to those nasty Dems who have no good ideas, no vision, and who only want to criticize the pResident.

Of course, we all know that this will be yet another unrealized, un/underfunded sham, just like everything else this administration does. More smoke and mirrors for the folks who will actually watch the SOU address.

[Samantha]

6. None of the above

Two is close but not quite it.

Bush* is encouraging this because Boeing is in financial trouble. NASA has already awarded it at least one, if not more, contracts. The program Bush* described yesterday will result in more government contracts from NASA for the troubled Boeing.

Kind of fits the Bush* pattern, don't you think -- all he needed was a sales pitch to the public.

[fairfaxvadem]

7. don't forget trying to look Kennedy-esque....

This people are gross and have no shame. Trying to make this creep look as if he gives a rat's ass about human progress and science. Not. Hell, he's the guy that basically said "well, the theory of evolution really hasn't been proven..." The most disinterested and detached president in all of US history and HE wants to send us out to space again? Please, I want the chance to slap him just once...My palms are itching terribly right now.

[Granite]

11. Fairfax - we were both thinking Kennedy-esque

at about the same time - too funny! I agree - Rove and co. have no shame - like Bu$h really cares about space exploration?!? I read where the guy never visited Johnson Space Station in Houston when he was Governor of Texas.

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. Ugh.

[JasonDeter]

8. bush* has conquered Earth, now he must conquer the moon AND BEYOND!!

His minions cheer him.

[Newsjock]

9. We're only SAYING we're going back into space

Because Karl Rove thinks it's a warm fuzzy issue that will capture the hearts and souls of the mythical "swing voters."

As story after story has pointed out today, there's no way in bloody heck that Congress will ever approve the $1 trillion needed.

[Q3JR4]

10. I think that

out of the five choices, choice number 5 is the least likely to be true. When have we known any conservative to be interested in what science has to tell us?

[RowWellandLive]

12. I know it must be #1

to rally political support, but who really cares that much? With people out of work and the deficit rising, I just can't see this as an issue that will resonate. #2 might be true but does not work unless combined with #1 (that I am skeptical is true) or #3 (which doesn't succeed unless people buy into #4 and/or #5.

I don't think most people really give a hoot about China so there fore this will only resonate with those that believe #5, that this is actual scientific progress that is so important to justify its huge cost.

My guess is that they need a unifying issue that is can appeal to people across all racial/class/political lines. This is probably the best they could come up with. It's hard to trash but unlikely to produce a rallying cry. Therefore it is a wash and a non issue. Best to ignore since no one really cares all that much.

[corporatewhore]

13. maybe to build a moonbase like in austin powers

[stevedeshazer]

14. #4 is close

Try these...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=998949

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=998928

[readmylips]

15. Did anybody watch the McLaughling Group?

The questions was asked, Why is boosh setting up policy to land on Mars?

Many of you said exactly what most of the McLaughling group said on the program, Eleanor, Tony?, and other political reports. McLaughlin himself said, "The administration needs a feel good program that the whole country can support. They are reaching for straws."

I was really surprised that Mr. McLaughling talked very positive about Dean.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. I don't mind scientific progress but this is Bush we are talking about...

I think space exploration is great, government should invest money in it. One problem, the Bush administration spent all of our money on that bogus tax cut, Iraq war, and medicare bill. Plus, didn't we stop going to the moon because we decided there was no scientific advancement to be made there? Oh well...

[Nobody]

19. I like the idea of restarting space exploration

For one thing, it may do something that hasn't been done in a while, create jobs for all those techies who are currently out of work.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

21. Why not?

I think it would help national morale. I thought it was great how people got pretty excited about the lander on Mars. Space is the next frontier. I think having ready access to the moon would exponentially increase our capabilities of missions to other worlds.

My only problem with it is that the funding feels like dirty money. No one seems to have a clue as to how *'s gonna pay for the war, let alone a moon mission. Its a terrible conundrum, something so potentially good from such a bad place.

Anyway, I say yes.



YES!

[drdigi420]

25. they will simply give those jobs to India

or anywhere else that will do the labor for cheap

cheap labor, that is all the republikkkans care about

[corporatewhore]

17. Hey lets send another chimp into space

where no one can here his insane rantings

[CrownPrinceBandar]

18. 4 and 2... n/t

[DBoon]

20. Appeals to a mentality

of a warrior interested in conquest, in seeing themselves as naturally appointed lords of creation.

"We conquered Iraq, why not Mars too?"

[economic justice]

22. Yeah.....

That "kind of mentality"......you mean like JFK in the sixties?? But then, as your logo reminds me, bands can call themselves with such incredible disrespect: "The Dead Kennedys"........uh....speaking of mentality.

[DBoon]

26. Well, yes

The original "space race" was an integral part of the cold war, and strongly supported goals of military superiority, explicitly by the propaganda value of having the first man in the moon, implicitly by justifying spending on technology with obvious military use.

The America of the 1960's though was a different place from America of the 2000's. Civil rights and support for third world de-colonization were part of what we stood for. Our freedoms were contrasted with the Soviet police state as an alternative for the rest of the world to follow. This is the America that put a man on the moon.

Bush's space race glorifies an America that invades countries for oil, that suspends inconvenient civil liberties at will, and has no concern for the welfare of the non-US part of the planet. His "man on mars" celebrates an America far removed from JFK's.

Yes, John and Robert were murdered. Had they lived, there would be less to be angry about in today's America. The death of their ideals is what the band is about.

[theophilus]

23. Closest to 4 but there is more......

Herr Rove seems very gifted in getting into win/win situations. He has more than one purpose,
as do the Corporate Overlords.

1. Militarize space. They indeed want to conquer the Universe. They will soon wear out the earth
and so we must have options. Who needs missiles when you can drop big rocks on evildoers?

2. Comercialize/privatize some aspects of space conquest. Those hotels in orbit and mining operations
must sound pretty enticing. (Did you see "The Time Machine"? Bush and his buddies could blow up
the moon, they could blow it up REAL GOOD!)

3. More bankrupting of the Government to supplie the Corporate Overlords venture capital at the expense
of the American People. Sure they'll do a little science, but not much! Soon the oversight of government
will be gone and then its Katie Bar the Door ----- in Space and everywhere else.

4. Sound smart and Bush can sit in a Captain Kirk seat at Nasa and press buttons and wear a funny
hat.

Add your own.....

[pippin]

24. so we can * up the galaxy

the way the early imperialist explorers colonized and *ed up the world? :evilgrin:

[midnight armadillo]

27. My thoughts

Two reasons:

1) Distract the populace by looking bold and presidential during an election year. After re-selection the moon base will be quietly dropped in favor of closer-to-earth projects.

2) The militarization of space in violation of international treaty and the enrichment of defense/aerospace companies.

The Pentagon wants orbital weapons to attack ground targets. Kinetic weapons (drop a bowling ball from orbit, who needs stinkin' warheads) in orbit would allow the US to further dominate airspace and allow attacks anywhere on earth with little to no warning, unlike with an ICBM.