It’s interesting that even some of the folks at Think Progress like some of Newt’s SF policy. I don’t think this is as wonderful a weapon against him as Romney seems to. Speaking of which, he doubled down yesterday:
That article also includes a clip of a video interview with Romney on Monday where the former Massachusetts governor again raised the issue when asked about differences between himself and Gingrich. “The idea of a lunar colony? I think that’s going to be a problem in the general election,” Romney said about two and a half minutes into the clip. “So you’re suggesting he’s a little nutty?” asked POLITICO’s Mike Allen. “I’m suggesting he has differing views than I do on very important issues,” Romney responded, but later added, “I’m not going to characterize the Speaker’s views on science.”
Emphasis mine. That Romney thinks that this discussion is about science just demonstrates how completely out to sea he is on the topic. One of his advisers really needs to explain things to him. He’s going to turn off a lot of people needlessly, and probably already has.
That Romney thinks that this discussion is about science just demonstrates how completely out to sea he is on the topic. One of his advisers really needs to explain things to him.
What makes you believe any of his advisors understand it?
Engineering, math, science, science fiction. It makes no difference. To non-technicalmtypes, including most politicians, it’s all “rocket science.”
Newt is the rare exception. Mittens is smart not to debate him on space or science. It would be like attacking an F-22 with a Piper Cub.
Of course, that would be true on most issues.
heh! I agree, Edward Wright.
I am astonished to see how many of my smartest guy in the room blog friends still seem to be critiquing Newt without much understanding of what Newt is proposing. I’m talk to you, Rand Simberg.
I don’t know much about space, mostly what I read on transterrestrial (great name, btw) but I was a huge sci-fi fan in days of yore, and I don’t see why we can’t and don’t go into space.
I spent the last months watching Newt’s speeches and interviews. Back in 2009: “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH.” In 2010, “MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE.” “STRONG AMERICA NOW.” These are readily available on YouTube. “THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION.” Available with a net search. Newt did a speech at the Staten Island Tea Party on Dec 3, 2011, also on YouTube. No one can stop you from finding out what is in these speeches. (Unlike if we were in China, for example.) There’s also the new Contract With America, and I never see a reference to that.
There may be something I don’t understand, but as far as I can see, someone like Rand would be thrilled with a candidate like Newt. I am genuinely perplexed.
I would love it if some of my favorite smart guys would actually go and see what Newt is saying and then analyze it and critique it. I might actually learn something.
Right now, they are critiquing something left over from the 90’s or something that got reported on the MSM and has no relationship to what’s actually being proposed.
It’s like the joke about the drunk who lost his keys in the park but searches for them under the lamp post because the light is better there.
The keys are in the park, guys.
um, “I’m talkING to you, Rand”