GOP Making a Comeback?

Remove all ads!

I'm not taking sides on this, because, while I think it's great that a few guys walked around the moon, I really don't care that much about the space program. But it appears that Kennedy was somewhat intrumental in this regard (I'm not sure if we should praise or blame him for this space business).

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/Space+Program.htm

 

NASA programs are funded by appropriation bills. Appropriation bills are legislation. Nixon cancelled Apollo early. US Government 101 is over for today, kiddies.

 

So, in other words you couldn't find any specific legislation regarding funding for the Apollo program -- and especially none sponsored by Kennedy.... I guess the fiction writer's workshop is over, too.

 

I did find this from the link:

I'm not sure if it is what you are looking for....

 

@TB,You're welcome to research the history of all the appropriation bills to disprove me, but you'd be wasting your time. That's the way NASA programs are championed. Believing otherwise is willful ignorance.

 

Well, of course you won't find any funding for the Apollo program sponsored by Kennedy - or any other president for that matter. Presidents do not, and in fact cannot, sponser any bills - appropriations or otherwise.

 

Presidents can encourage certain legislation to be written by working with congressional leaders, which is a form of leadership for those taking semantics 101, but you're right, in the formal sense, they cannot "sponsor" legislation. That term is reserved for members of congress.

 

Funding for NASA really took off after Kennedy died. But then again believing a dead guy is unable to actively lobby congress for money is "willful ignorance."

Chandos -- Kennedy's real gift was in understanding the temperment of the public -- America had been embarrassed by the Soviets. He never had to do much of anything; Kennedy did his great "man on the moon" speech and then let the wheels turn on their own. Johnson was already championing the space program with a few other key senators. One other thing though, Kennedy really understood the military value of a space program -- NASA research put us far ahead in ICBM development, a topic which was quite fresh in his mind.

 

Guess what, he started it, in other words led the funding effort BEFORE he died. There's that word again, lead, led, leadership, and its other forms. It is usually not this hard for people to understand the meaning of a word...

 

That's just it Thrasher -- he didn't lead it. The guy who led it was his VP and the guy who started it was Webb. Of course the President can take credit for the accomplishments of his staff. But the funding would never have been okayed (and Kennedy would never have pursued Apollo) if the soviets had not succeeded in a manned space flight. Kennedy let the guys who understood the issue lead -- THAT was a strength of Kennedy.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

 

Again you fail to understand what the word "lead" means. Doing research and developing proposals is not leading.

 

Fine, you win. Kennedy was the savior of the United States and the greatest president of all time. He singlehandedly launched the space program and would have been the first man on the moon had Oswald not acted in concert with the CIA, Cuba, South Vietnam and the Soviets (not to mention Johnson).

Oh yes and he had a nice smile too.

By the way, there is a big difference between saying "let's do that" and taking lead in getting "that" done. But then I probably have a narrower definition of leadership than you do.

Edit: A follow on question -- NASA was started by Eisenhower, it was funded by Eisenhower, Apollo was conceived under Eisenhower, and the manned space program was put in action by Eisenhower -- since Eisenhower was the first to say "let's do that" isn't he the real leader of the space program? But then perhaps I'm just failing to understand what the word "lead" means.

 

From what little I know of the space program, I agree. But it's not that I'm against the space program (I think a lot of good technology, research and knowledge has come out of it), I think the whole notion of a race to put a man on the moon had dubious benefits (like no one really bothered to go back again after the initial race).

When I think of Kennedy, I think of his leadship on the important issues of the early sixties (like Civil Rights and personal rights), but he never saw the fulfillment of those issues as a result of his short presidency.

 

Yeah, Chandos, JFK set some powerful wheels in motion as a Representative, a Senator and as President. I think you can look at nearly all legislation regarding civil rights for the past five decades and see his influence.

I think a defining moment of leadership of JFK actually occurred in the South Pacific back in 1943.

 

Yes, you are. Leading is not doing - it's inspiring others to do. In this case, actually inspiring Congress to fund it. I've seen thick skulls before, but this just about takes the cake...

 

Once again you fail to understand what inspired Congress to fund it -- a big hint here ... it wasn't Kennedy.

So, let's recap...

Kennedy created the space program ... strike one, it started in 1958.
Kennedy created the Apollo program ... strike two, it started in 1960.
Kennedy inspired Congress to fund the space program ... strike three, it was a response to the Soviet manned space flight.

Perhaps you learned a different version of history than I did. But then, what do I know, I only worked in a Naval Reserve Unit that provided direct support to NASA for two years.

 

Other people have made the point that in the mid term elections, the party that holds the White House tends to lose seats. I'm assuming that applies to the entire House of Representatives and the 1/3 of the Senate that goes up for re-election every two years. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Assuming that I am right, then the best technique for an observer is to look at the past, oh, 100 years or so and look at the mid-term elections. Then calculate how many seats, on average, the governing party loses. With me so far?

OK, then we look at what happens in 2010. If the Democrats lose more than the average, we can say that the possibility exists that the larger number is on account of Obama's policies. We might look at it as a possible sign of a GOP comeback.

If they lose less than the average, then we can say that the possibility exists that the population is relatively happy with Obama, and that the GOP comeback is not really likely.

I use "the possibility exists" because despite the fact that some people are going to treat it as such, the mid term elections are not a direct referendum on the President. People may have strong feelings regarding particular candidates that have little or nothing to do with the President. People who may be classified as "swing voters" in Presidential races may be die-hard partisans when it comes to their Congressman -- oops, scratch that, Congressperson or Senator.

 

Well, aside from the international PR, let me ask you this: was there any point to developing atom bombs and using them once, only to never use them (in war) again? If you're purely looking at the single goal achievement, then I'll agree it was kind of pointless, but no other achievable project at the time would have led to even a fraction of the developments that a manned mission to the Moon did. Of course, a robotic mission to the Moon may have led to some other developments (I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that.) but that's the path untaken.

LKD, I think the mid-term elections would really be a better gauge of how strong the political roster is. Even if people like Obama, if there's no other candidates worth their weight in dung, the people will vote for a Republican. I think only a landslide one way or another could really be used to gauge public opinion on Obama.

 

Back to the GOP, as I've said before, keep on keeping on.

"We'll come after you" is an awesome message for your own party.