This is silly. There's nothing either new, or illegal, about NASA administrators endorsing political candidates (though some, thinking NASA some kind of "special" agency, above the fray, may find it distasteful). The Hatch Act was meant to prevent civil servants from being pressured to engage in political activity by political appointees, not to prevent political appointees from committing acts of politics.

[Update a few minutes later]

The problem here is not that the administrator is doing anything wrong in such an endorsement, but that, as Keith Cowing points out, he can't keep his story straight as to whether he is or isn't, or whether he can or can't.

And this email to Dr. Griffin from a "tax payer" is also silly:

When you say that "every effort should be made to re-elect him to office" that sounds to me like a civil servant making an endorsement of a political candidate and a violation of the Hatch Act. I am a huge fan and supporter of the space program. It is hard for me to imagine why it is helpful to tie a corrupt politician to NASA, which needs more federal support, not less, especially when you just had to cut your science budget to shreds.

I am a tax payer and pay your salary and you do not speak for me when you publicly encourage people to re-elect someone who has become less effective since he has been indicted on felony charges. If another NASA employee had made this same speech, would he or she have been fired?

a) As already noted, this is not a violation of the Hatch Act.

b) Whether or not Tom Delay is a "corrupt politician" is a matter of opinion, not fact (and in fact will remain so even if he were to be convicted, though the case for it would obviously be stronger).

c) Whether or not such an endorsement increases, decreases, or has no effect whatsoever on public support for NASA is purely speculative (my opinion is the latter).

d) The notion that just because someone is a taxpayer, all public officials are "speaking for them" is ludicrous and illogical. Even ignoring the fact that he puts forth no reason why anyone would conclude that a taxpayer's views are somehow being represented by public officials' statements, consider the inherent contradiction, since many public officials say many things, often at odds with each other. How could anyone think that they all speak for our confused emailer without their head exploding?

e) Finally, yes, some other NASA employees could potentially get in trouble for making such a speech, because they would be covered by the Hatch Act. Not all NASA employees are equal, despite the egalitarian ideals of some NASA idealists.

"he can't keep his story straight as to whether he is or isn't, or whether he can or can't."

That's not really fair. Clearly when he made the earlier remark he did not understand the Hatch Act. Now he does. What's the big deal?

Frankly, I admire his intention to stay out of electioneering.

Rand,

(in regards to point D) You mean to tell me that in a Representative government that not all the Representatives represent my view point. Why hell, you make it sound like a Democracy.

Well, a republic, actually. And the NASA administrator is appointed, not elected. And no one with any sense claims that the act of paying taxes means that the official represents anyone--that comes from voting. The emailer was confused (and incoherent) on several levels.

"Much Ado About Not Much" says it all, and pretty much covers most of the posts on NASAWatch these days.

What makes this unusual is that historically NASA
administrators have been non-partisan.
Sean OKeefe set a new precedent by campaigning
for Bush-43, and now Griffin is expanding that.

It is unwise for NASA to become a political football.
When programs are going to outlast an administration,
or a congress, playing footsie, is ultimately dangerous.

If a democratic administration comes in, or a democratic
congress, they could easily decide to start slashing
the NASA budget

What makes this unusual is that historically NASA administrators have been non-partisan. Sean OKeefe set a new precedent by campaigning for Bush-43, and now Griffin is expanding that.

Nonsense. Goldin campaigned for Barbara Mikulski. What's so special about NASA that it shouldn't be a "political football"?

"they could easily decide to start slashing
the NASA budget"

There would be no need to cut NASA, the new admin could simply replace Griffin with a Democrat.

"Much Ado About Not Much" says it all, and pretty much covers most of the posts on NASAWatch these days."

Don't tell me that you're not fascinated to learn that he has not been invited to participate in a teleconference, or invited to attend an STA breakfast, or is still defending Sean O'Keefe's honor in the finest tradition of Waylon Smithers. Personally, I get much enjoyment from reading these things.

And you gotta love this: "why should I pay any attention to complaints from NASA HQ PAO about the accuracy of things on NASA Watch[?]"

It's comments like that which make it a must-read website.

"It's comments like that which make it a must-read website."

For entertainment maybe, not for news. ;-)

Maybe today there will be another breaking report on dual media releases from NASA!

David, if you find NASA Watch so distastefull, why do you continue to put yourself through this seemingly awful experience by reading it? Find another news source. You'll feel much better, I promise. You too Cecil.

"David, if you find NASA Watch so distastefull, why do you continue to put yourself through this seemingly awful experience by reading it?"

That seems like an awfully childish response. Is your standard reply to criticism to say "go away" rather than to try and improve your website? Do you do nothing wrong? You've already noted that your standard response to complaints about accuracy is that you don't feel any obligation to be accurate.

Seems to me that a professional would be interested in producing a quality product.

David: If you don't like my website, then don't visit it. If you want to continue to read it and get yourself upset in the process, that's a decision you have to make.

As for your wholly fabricated statement "You've already noted that your standard response to complaints about accuracy is that you don't feel any obligation to be accurate" this is all the more reason I am inclined to ignore your comments. You write these things here simply becuase you don't like me. Yawn.

Boo hoo hoo.

"Boo hoo hoo."

You really do act like a two-year-old. Go back to throwing some tantrums on your website because NASA public affairs won't invite you to their reindeer games. It's amusing and why we love you so much. The Web has such a dearth of self-important whingers.

Yawn. Feel better now, David?