Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies

gracey1103 writes "Popular Mechanics has put together an easy-to-follow matrix of where the '08 presidential candidates stand on different science, tech and environment issues. Everything is cited and links back directly to each candidate's published policy pages so you can get more info."

Comments

Not every candidate

[LGagnon]

They didn't mention Kucinich or Gravel, and allowed more Republicans on the list than Democrats. This seems a bit biased to me.

Re:Not every candidate

[morari]

The media has been doing and wonderful job of either making Kucinich look like a nutcase or just outright ignoring his existence. Being the best candidate for the people quickly earns enemies though, I suppose.

Re:Not every candidate

[Entropius]

Kucinich gets my support simply because he wants to reduce the military budget. I don't care how much of a nutcase you are or what other bad ideas you have, it's hard to make an error that'll offset the hundreds of billions a year saved.

Re:Not every candidate

[PresidentEnder]

So does Paul get your support, too? (Kucinich is my other favorite, of course).

Re:Not every candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

He opposes them personally. But his beliefs that the federal government should have no say on abortions whatsoever trumps that. You can either wait for a candidate that aligns with you on every single belief you hold, or you can go for one that might disagree with you but will never use the machinery of the state to enforce that.

Re:Not every candidate

[alshithead]

"The media has been doing and wonderful job of either making Kucinich look like a nutcase or just outright ignoring his existence. Being the best candidate for the people quickly earns enemies though, I suppose."

Welcome to the wonderful world of modern US politics. If you aren't in the pockets of the multiple corporate overlords then the corporate owned media will spin you into oblivion...if they mention you at all. I'm not sure what the solution is.

Re:Not every candidate

[Elemenope]

I support Paul and Obama at the same time. It goes something like this:

"I'd like the government to curl up and die [Paul], but if I can't have that I'd rather it be in competent hands with interesting ideas [Obama] than incompetent or malevolent ones [most other Democrats, all other Republicans]."

Re:Not every candidate

[Elemenope]

Actually, Paul is the exception to his statement. With his policies, he's so likely to run the the country into the ground that no amount of military budget reduction can offset it (unless he completely eliminates the military altogether, allowing the people to revolt against the quagmire government he'll create).

And you're against this...why? A government should be "weak" enough that it cannot survive a determined effort from its citizens to change its form. I sincerely doubt that Paul's policies will "run the government into the ground", but even if they managed to I can't see myself getting very worked up about it. Government has been running people into the ground for so long, it might do for a teensy change...

Re:Not every candidate

[jcr]

Competent and interesting ideas like more taxation, more spending, and bombing an ally?

Obama's entire qualifications are 1) he's not GWB, and 2) he's not Hillary. Once you get past those admittedly great points in his favor, all you have left is an utterly conventional politician.

-jcr

Re:Not every candidate

[gambolt]

Here you go:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

That's what he's been up to in congress.

Ammending the constitution to define a zygote as a peson is not in any a consistent with a libertarian position on liberty.

If you read the above link you'll see he's opposed to federal funds for all family planning efforts, not just abortion. He's also opposed to gay equality.

There's a reason he's a republican. Libertarians consider the right to be left alone and unmolested sacred. They wouldn't let him get away with using elected office to impose his religious views on the country.

Re:Not every candidate

[Moridineas]

I think you must be confused somehow.. Please, if you're going to be preachy, it might help to post better info. My post was,

Whoa, I had no idea Ron Paul wants condoms, birth control pills, vasectomies, onanism, etc to be illegal. Can you provide a link to back that up please? Nowhere on your link is anything remotely like what I said suggested. Ron Paul wants to get the federal government out of EVERYTHING. That's why he wants to block funding. Let me explain simply. From your link "H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity." This does not make abortion illegal. This does not make family planning illegal. This doesn't make ANY actions illegal. This makes the *FEDERAL* government funding such things illegal. States--fine. Private people--fine. Hospitals--fine.

I find this topic very interesting--it seems to me that more and more people (primarily on the left, but certainly on the right as well) are so used to a huge and all encompassing federal government, that many people DO, like you, get confused that cutting federal funding is the same as making something illegal. We saw the same thing with stem cell research. Even on slashdot, a place full of generally well informed geeks and science wonks, you see statements like "bush made stem cell research illegal." That's not remotely close to the truth, and quite frankly, FUD--just as your post is.

I'm mixed on the zygote issue. I do think that abortion is killing a life and that it's a horrible thing to have to do... but... sometimes it's gotta happen, and for utilitarian reasons, probably better that it does. That doesn't make someone that thinks life starts at conception a cook. If libertarians / objectivists view an individual life as of great importance, is it any wonder that new lives are considered as important as old lives? You're viewing the issue of an abortion solely through the lens of "it's a woman's freedom to control her body." He's looking at the issue through the lens of "there's a new life with a right to live." I really hate this kind of "you're either with us, or you're against us" politics...

One of these things is not like the others

[Curien]

o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Gun control
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space

WTF??

Re:One of these things is not like the others

[megaditto]

You are right: while all the other listed issues are interrelated, this "Gun Control" stands on its own. To fix the list, we need to add:

Freedom of Speech,
habeas corpus and
Civil rights

Also needed is Immigration all of these up together.

Re:One of these things is not like the others

[jank1887]

No, it fits. This is a PopularMechanics list. They are quite proud of the fact that guns are a significant topic with their readership. they run ads for gunmakers, and don't apologize. they print both sides of letters to the editor about guns, gun control, gun ads, etc. gun control as a topic is likely high on the list of interest to the readership, along with tech/science/etc.

Disappointment

[pete-classic]

This seems to assume that 1. you only care about "mainstream party" candidates and 2. spending is the primary measure of support.

I don't know how willingness to spend confiscated funds on research became a qualification for office, but I am completely convinced that this point of view is part of the problem, not the solution.

-Peter

not easy to follow at all

[yali]

"Easy to follow matrix"? Not exactly. At first, I thought the matrix indicated endorsements, but it doesn't -- checkmarks simply indicate that they were able to find out where a candidate stands. If you actually want to know what that stance is, you sometimes have to click through many screens to get to it.

Great idea, mediocre execution. (And why is gun control on a list of science and technology issues, but not stem cell research?)

Re:not easy to follow at all

[Brandybuck]

Be careful with your definitions. There is a world of difference between opposing stem cell research, and opposing federal funding for stem cell research. As such, your list doesn't really tell me anything, as it doesn't separate these two distinct issues.

Affirmatives only?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't go through all of them, but it seems the matrix only shows which topics a candidate has an affirmative stance on. If they do, then a checkmark links to an explanation of the stance. If not, no information is given. For example, all of them except Giuliani and Huckabee were "in favor" of digital technology. I assume that Giuliani and Huckabee weren't taking the Amish approach, but rather they hadn't made any clear statements on the matter.

So the chart is a mildly intersting way of presenting a limited amount of information on candidates stances, but not particularly useful for comparing them. A better approach (although still imperfect) would have been to attempt to determine sides of an issue and divide the candidates that way.

For example: Should federal government increase spending on internet infrastructure projects? *

Biden: No
Clinton: Yes
Edwards: No
Obama: Yes
Richardson: No

* (answers randomly assigned)

Meaningless drivel

[Normal_Deviate]

Every election year, people get caught up in the candidates' "positions" as if they meant something. Face it: the Presidential election is the world series of lying, and you are not wise enough to detect it. In a political debate, you may safely ignore any sentence that does not begin with "When I faced this problem before, I ..." Remember, under Jimmy Carter we got deregulation of trucking, airlines, and natural gas. Under Nixon we got actual wage and price controls (!), and the EPA.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson

[Curien]

I'm intrigued, and I'm always willing to listen to a fellow Ada appreciator, so let's take a look.

Auto

Invest "in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment."

Wow, there's a well-thought-out plan!

Digital/Tech

Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet. [empahsis added]

Nothing to disagree with there!

Energy/Climate

committed to a balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources ... [and] places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency

Wow, that's a great idea! I wonder why no other candidates say stuff like that?

Science/Education

Encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

Joke elided for fear of sounding like a broken record.

You read this stuff and it reaffirmed your faith in this guy? I knew absolutely nothing about his platform or views before. Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans. I checked his website just to make sure I wasn't missing anything profound, and there's really *nothing* there other than vague hand-waiving. Given his "platform", I don't see why he's even bothering to run.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson

[mrchaotica]

Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans.

That's not true. He does have plans; you're just not reading into it cynically or deeply enough to see them:

Invest "in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment."

"I intend to pay lip-service to environmentalism while doing as little as possible to actually improve things, because if I really cared I'd have more to say about the issue."

Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet.

"I support filtering by ISPs and libraries. OMG, think of the children! Oh, and by "child pornography" I really mean 'music, movies, and subversive speech' too. Anonymity is bad, mmkay?"

committed to a balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources ... [and] places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency

"I support 'securing our energy' by subjugating the Iraqis, and I support 'increasing domestic supply' by drilling in protected wilderness areas."

Encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

"Just like the environment, I don't give a shit about this issue either."

By the way: I don't have anything against this Thompson fellow; in fact, I know nothing about him except these excerpts. Any candidate that says the same kinds of things should be suspected of having the same real positions.

despite NASA's charter...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Some friends of mine were involved in a private launch company back in the mid '80s. (At their request it will remain unnamed.)

One of their major problems was obtaining components for avionics and for handling cryogenic liquids. These were made mainly by the companies who contracted to NASA for various parts of the (very lucrative) shuttle program.

One of their contacts told them that a NASA administrator had let them know that if they supplied any parts to a private rocket company they wouldn't be supplying any more for the shuttle.

The company thus had to make do without components that had been developed with tax money, and (on their shoestring budget) develop their own from scratch or convert stuff intended for other purposes - none of them space-rated.

They did some amazing stuff on that shoestring. But it was the failure of one of those re-purposed parts that ended up trashing their effort and running them out of money.

Now NASA was SUPPOSED to be ENCOURAGING the private development of space capability, as they had air flight. But the government space programs had put them in a position where doing so would undercut the funding for their own programs. So it was in their interest to keep the suppliers on a short leash and kill off any company trying to assemble and operate their own craft.

Pulling the plug on NASA as the government-run space transportation company (and boondoggle) would, IMHO, not just open up the field to private companies, but is a necessary step in getting to affordable private space travel in what remains of my lifetime.

Which is not necessarily to say kill it off completely. But putting it out of the transportation business and back to R&D, with private enterprise actually running the spacelines, seems to me to be a necessary minimum for turning space exploration from a government-funded boondoggle (ala Columbus) to an ongoing enterprise (ala private cargo and passenger ships crossing the Atlantic and Pacific ocean).

Re:Ron Paul and NASA

[mrchaotica]

I think it's safe to vote for him because there's no way he'd actually accomplish all that, but he would manage to prevent the Federal government from bloating further.