Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Moon Base Newt



Yep, it seems Newt is really serious about this moon base,

 "By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon, and it will be American," Gingrich promised during a speech in the city of Cocoa, on Florida's Space Coast, Jan. 25.

The daffy one just can't seem to let go of this notion despite the absurd timetable he set,

"When we are not expecting a U.S. crewed launch to the ISS until 2016-2017 and are just getting started on a lunar-class launch vehicle, establishing a lunar outpost by 2020 is a fantasy," space policy expert John Logsdon, professor emeritus at George Washington University, told SPACE.com via email. "It would be much better to set realistic goals, but that is not Mr. Gingrich's strong suit."

But, as usual Jon Stewart gets the best dig.

36 comments:

  1. As if this would be a good use of resources at this point in time. But it allows him to seem so . . . forward thinking. All he needs is clown shoes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This would an excellent use of resources. That kind of technological development has done wonders for our economy. Problem is that by the end of a second Gingrich term The Republic would likely be a smouldering ruin...and sans moon base.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reminds me of Moonraker,

    "Other films promise you the moon but we deliver,"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2GTKBx4H5Y

    substitute "candidates" and "Newt delivers."

    ReplyDelete
  4. What kind of technological development would that be, for instance?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, how about this thing we're on right now? Ya know, computers and the intratubes and ComSats. Most of that is a direct result of the Space Race.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm just curious where Newt plans to get the funding, as the GOP'ers are obsessed with keeping the federal budget "revenue neutral." To speed up development of a moon base would require big bucks not to mention a new fast-track schedule if we expect to be sipping pina coladas on Moon Base Newt in 2020!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Too bad he doesn't also want to build roads and bridges here on earth. We really need them out here in snow country, not to mention needing the jobs. I drove to California last year and some of the interstates between here and there are barely passable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The GOP is currently trying to sell a $260 bil transportation bill,

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/commuting/2012/01/30/gIQA8qWfdQ_story.html

    that doesn't seem like much of a bill at all, with the onus being to transfer much of the road-building authority to the state and private level.

    Newt probably imagines private companies, like Virgin Atlantic, getting into his "Space Race."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, Gingrich actually said that in one of the debates. He doesn't imagine the government spending much at all, but simply facilitating it.

    To which Romney replied, if someone came to me with an idea like that I'd tell them they were fired ....

    The weird thing about transportation is that it is largely accomplished by the private sector and benefits local economies. I don't know why the republicans should object to that -- I think they just want to draw it out long enough to keep it from impacting the economy until after November.

    ReplyDelete
  10. True, much of the work is subcontracted. It's not like the federal government has its own road crew. Also the case for many other aspects of the federal government. The Village Voice joked during the '92 campaign that Perot was welfare's first billionaire, as he made his first billion distributing welfare checks in Texas and other states.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As for the transportation bill, it seems to be a less than clever subterfuge for the Keystone oil pipeline which Boehner has "vowed" to insert into the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Corporate elites have been given trillions in corporate welfare. Therefore, Gingrich and his supporters should finance with space campaign with private, not public, dollars. Wasting taxpayer dollars in a venture that generates so few jobs yields will do very little to the benefit of society. All it would do is to give right wingers another excuse to blame Democrats for federal bureaucracy and wastage.

    ReplyDelete
  13. nebris, but do we have to build a Moon station to develop new technology?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think it's like the national defense interstate highway system -- sometimes it takes something bigger (and even bogus -- like saving the rainforest in order to cure cancer) to motivate investments in the country. One of the main reasons we had such an enormous investment in R&D and education in the late 50s/early 60s was because of Sputnik (see today in history).

    It seems like we should be able to invest in our country and in education for the good of the American people, but that's not how Congress thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Interesting to me that Newt is so gung ho to embrace space, but doesn't seem the least bit interested in the potential of alternative energy, despite solar energy being a key to space stations and other cosmic ventures. I suppose he is holding out for dilithium crystals to be found on the moon ; )

    ReplyDelete
  16. By the way, I can obviously post again. Not sure what has occurred, though. I didn't want to change my browser to Google Chrome because it is not supported by my college's course management system. The only difference I notice now is that the blog's font seems to have changed, or at least it doesn't look the same.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Interesting observation, Gintaras. It seems like that would be right down his alley except that us conservationists like it, too, and that might be enough to turn him off the idea. I guess I need to fall back on Rick's idea that the man might be mentally ill. He does seem to have the erratic and unpredictable behavior of someone a little out of control.

    Speaking of whom -- welcome back, Rick! The font and format (i.e., it allows for direct replies) have changed here as well -- but not at another blogger site I use. Only google knows why since they know everything.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I sent Google an email (never answered) about how I suddenly could not post at a blog and explained the situation. Maybe Google received a lot of similar complaints and put in a fix.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, and another thing. Newt is definitely mentally ill. Has been for a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow ,I haven't been able to post for months with my Google account.Newts parents named him well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Indeed, Mr. Abel. I think more of these sites are becoming "browser specific." The blogs are sponsored by Google.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I use firefox and haven't had any trouble. But since these sites are free, they obviously want to get as much data about you as they can.

      If I think too much about how much information these companies have about me already -- down to my shoe size -- I probably wouldn't ever get on the internet again.

      Delete
  23. The Newt never ceases to confound critics,

    http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-wants-brad-pitt-play-him-173106536.html

    I would go with Rainn Wilson,

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/office-actor-rainn-wilson-finally-admits-looks-newt-174532667.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. He wants Brad Pitt? Now THAT's delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yep, the GOP primaries really should come with a laugh track.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Talk about the classic bait and switch,

    http://news.yahoo.com/romney-plays-trump-card-las-vegas-202758803.html

    I'm not sure Romney benefits from Trump's "endorsement."

    ReplyDelete
  27. The commentariat suggests it's an appeal to the base of the base. And besides, this way Trump won't/doesn't have to run as a third party.

    ReplyDelete
  28. For a man of history, it seems Newt has a rather loose grip on it,

    "Reagan had this challenge with John Connally. Goldwater had this challenge with Nelson Rockefeller," Gingrich said, adding, "Reagan lost five straight primaries before he started winning in 1976."

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/entrance-poll-results-nevada-look-good-mitt-romney-000650988.html

    ... but he is appealing to an electorate that has an even more tenuous grip on history.

    ReplyDelete
  29. .... but he is appealing to an electorate that has an even more tenuous grip on history...

    ....and definitely appealing to a group of people who are not so interested in the "facts."

    Another great Moyers & Co last night with a psychologist talking about the different ways liberals and conservatives see the world in a very non-judgmental way. But the one thing he noted that conservatives have done well is frame their argument so that it's extremely clear to people who have similar beliefs (i.e., the government is evil). Liberals not so much. I have to remember to record this. Last two times I just lucked into it at around the starting time.

    He also did a nice commentary about who Saul Alinksy really was.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Democrats have long had a problem framing their arguments to the electorate. All too often it is the Republicans who do the framing, figuratively and literally.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Moyers' guest did a great job with idea of "fairness" -- and how the left hasn't articulated that position very well. From the right, the argument isn't framed as anti-tax but rather that it isn't fair to take from people who work hard to give to those who don't work. Just because a person is really rich, doesn't mean he or she should be taxed more than someone who isn't rich. The person who is really rich is being penalized for working harder which is counter to the American way. Then it becomes evil in that the government is rewarding those who don't work hard.

    That's the argument I took away from listening to him talk about his research, and the issue I think we need to address from the left. For me, it's what kind of country do you want to live in? And how can we all contribute to make us a better nation, with liberty and justice for all, etc.? But from the right, that's not the right or correct argument.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Plus, there's the argument that Romney and others like him did not make their money by hard work alone -- assuming they worked at all. Government has stepped in and helped his class with everything from roads to public education to safe food and drugs. But other than Elizabeth Warren (bless her heart) no one seems comfortable making that argument.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It surprises that more Democrats don't challenge the Republicans on their pathetic argument "what's mine is mine." When you think of all the industries and energy companies that have directly benefited from government subsidies and contracts (we aren't even talking tax breaks here) you wonder how many of these companies kept afloat without federal help. Just ask the auto companies. Yet, no sooner do they get a bailout than they are right back in Washington lobbying for more tax breaks and less regulations. As I said before the entire defense industry is federally subsidized, and a lot of American industries benefit greatly from this.

    ReplyDelete