Oh, yes, as far as the election goes, two choices is too close to no choice!

We do need to get off this planet eventually (some time before we rot in our own filth), so for me it’s all about the money, honey, and MANNED space flight.

An observation, off-topic – how is it that libs/Dems/”progressives” seem to comprehend the concept of “evil” enough to paste the label on conservatives/Republicans/”neocons,” the “rich” AND corporations, but utterly fail to apply it to the Islamo-fascists (and to be clear, before I am accused of being racist and/or bigoted, I am talking about the terrorists, not Muslims in general)?

Finally, on the spending issue, McCain has always very clearly been anti-earmark and fought against wasteful spending, so for those of you who don’t know, thanks to his leadership, Arizona ranks dead last in dollars per citizen for earmarks. I seriously doubt he would reverse course on a long-held belief and continue the slash-and-burn spending that Bush has supported.

Stop using the term “neocon” as abusive (and utterly inaccurate) shorthand for “any republican you don’t like”. By the standard (actual) definition, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton could be described as neoconservatives. By continuing to be inaccurate in this, you are detracting from the rest of your message.

Steven R, do you ever get tired of posting your crazy far-leftist rants? We get your whole “people who disagree with me politically are evil and stupid” vibe without you having to repeat it 100 times down the thread. And as for your “As for their candidate, why in the blazes would anyone for an man who is nearly 100 yeas old wishing for a war that lasts 100 years in Vietnam er .. Iraq.”, well, that’s a lie of course. What McCain actually said was that if conditions in Iraq turned out to be the same as in Germany and South Korea (i.e. democracies at peace), he wouldn’t mind the troops being there.

P.S. although I’m British and across the pond from Phil, if I could, I would vote McCain. I would have voted for Bush both times without a hesitation. I’m also doing a degree in Astrophysics and have written for talkorigins.org. Am I “too evil, unethical, destructive, anti-science, anti-compassion, pro-war, pro-religious bigotry, pro-Big Oil at everyone’s expense for words!”?

his view on abortion is that he doesnt care much either way. mccain is no friend of the religious right; stopping his outright criticism of them is not the same as endorsing them. mccain deserves credit for that. the last point is especially important to me

This is what’s frustrating about the current campaign — it’s as if McCain’s actions and crystal clear statements over that past few years can be excused by claiming that it’s not really what he believes, he’s “just saying that to get election”.

Yes, it’s true that McCain is not an fundamentalist Christian, but he has done far more than just stopping outright criticism. He has sought out the endorsement of the religious right (with hilarious results, I might add) and has explicitly promised, over and over again to put more “originalist” judges (in the mold of Scalia and Roberts) on the court. You don’t believe him? They didn’t believe Bush either, yet he more than kept his campaign promise on that regard. You really want to see a hard-line right wing Supreme Court for the next 20 years? Because that’s what you’ll get with McCain and libertarians will not be happy with the results.

As for abortion. How on earth can anyone get the sense that McCain is ambivalent about it? He has been solidly anti-abortion his whole career, always voted anti-abortion, and he’s only wavered from the hardline position a couple of times when he said he would like to see exceptions for incest and rape. Funny though, since he became the candidate for the Republicans, that little concession has fallen by the wayside too. And we’re supposed to believe he doesn’t really care that much? He obviously cares enough to ensure that he keeps the religious right happy.

Any credit he gets in the past for criticizing Falwell and others has long since been squandered. For months he sought out two of the worst pastors of the religious right he could possibly find (Hagee and Parsley is really scraping the bottom of the barrel) and won their endorsement. Even as he had to back away, McCain must continue to court the religious right and, like Bush, will continue to do so after the election. He has to. They are a core constituency of the Republican party and party leaders will not let him abandon them (even if he wanted to).

I’m not interested in arguing the non-space related aspects of this particular discussion of the candidates. There are plenty of other sites I can debate the pros and cons of those subjects for both candidates.

But this site is dealing with Space and Astronomy, and I’m trying to keep the argument within the context of the post.

You have stated that the links I listed were “shilling for necons”.

Here’s one from the Boston Globe, that you cannot possibly accuse of “shilling for the neocons”.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/mccain_bashes_o.html

John McCain opened a new front today to bash Democratic rival Barack Obama, accusing him of straddling on cutting the space program.

Last year in New Hampshire, Obama suggested delaying NASA’s mission to Mars to help fund education improvements. But earlier this month in Florida, he appeared to back away from any NASA cuts.

Today at a business roundtable at the Astronaut Planetarium at Brevard Community College in Cocoa Beach, Florida, McCain pledged to keep space exploration a top national priority.

“I know that earlier this year, Senator Obama proposed cutting the NASA budget and delaying the timetable for our return to the Moon and the Mars mission,” McCain said, according to prepared remarks released by his campaign. “I believe that he later repudiated his own plan. Sometimes it is difficult to know what a politician will actually do once in office, because they say different things at different times to different people. This is a particular problem when a candidate has a short, thin record on the issues as in the case of Senator Obama.

“Let me say, just in case Senator Obama does decide to return to his original plan of cutting NASA funding – I oppose such cuts,” McCain added. “That position is a shortsighted approach that fails to recognize the benefits of space exploration and the technology and economic advantages that result from the space program.”

Thoughts?

I personally do NOT want someone in the highest office in this land who ranked in the bottom one percent of his Annapolis graduating class, as did John McCain.

John McCain is an elitist and not the good kind, the kind that educated themselves by dint of brain busting work. He comes from a privileged family with three admirals. He married into great wealth(his wife Cindy, bless her little heart, inherited a $ 100 million estate) while Obama earned his wealth.

I much prefer going with the one candidate running who made it working from the ground up. NOT someone who inherited his estate,,,like John McCain.

,,,and last but not least, Obama is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER. Which says a lot for his understanding of the limitations he must face as president, something the current weasel in the White House loves to ignore,,,

Gary 7
PS,,,besides, I just don’t like most of the people I know who are older than me (and I don’t mean chronologically),,,McCains brain is rusty,,,

“Neocons” are not a political party. They aren’t a lobbying group, they don’t hold rallies, they aren’t a particular 501 group. Wiki says “Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, maintaining that America’s role as the world’s sole superpower is indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order”.

So other than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, what government policy has been influenced by “the neocons”? I can’t think of any.

Now if you want to say “conservative religious republicans” you have a problem with, I would probably agree with you. I don’t like the creep of the religious right in to politics through the republicans. I don’t like their adversion to reason based science education policy, most specifically in terms of the non-debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

“Neocons” is more a misnomer than anything. Bill Clinton could be considered a “neocon” for all intensive purposes.

If you really want a debate about the presidential candidates on space policy, than let’s debate that. I tried to start it off by listing the first things I could find relative to their positions on space policy. From what I can see, Obama would not support NASA and other space projects the way that McCain would.

Do you agree? Disagree?