Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

Mad Grad Student · 2004-06-01 17:50:34

I've said it before and no doubt will again, today's Democrats do not like the space program, at all. They by and large see it as a waste of money that could be better used "helping people" here. The Bush "plan" is riddled with flaws, but it's on the table. Kerry, whether in space policy or most anything else, has brought nothing to the table.

Yeah, so? Sure, space is a very important issue to me and undoubtablly every other member on this message board, but- dare I say it?- there are more important matters at hand this election. Let's have a rundown on Bush's take on the issues, shall we?:

Stem Cell Research: In my opinion the absolute worst thing Bush has done so far is have his attitude towards stem cell research. By continuing this research we could have cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Disease within five years, most kinds of cancer within ten, and heart disease within 20. Then he goes out and says that this research is "unethical." Denying millions of people cures for terrible disease, will someone please explain to me HOW ON EARTH THIS IS ETHICAL!? The argument for the research being unethical has no teeth at all. The fact is, all current stem cell lines (What the research is conducted on) have been harvested by embryoes created by in-vitro fertilization THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED OTHERWISE. Now I'd like to know how using embryoes that otherwise would have been thrown out accomplishing nothing for stem cell research is unethical. What possible defense is there?

The Environment: This pretty much sums up what Bush thinks about the environment. Hmm, coal seems pretty cheap. Let's give companys incetives to use dirty, polluting coal plants! No money for that? No problem, let's take it away from fusion and nuclear research. Hmm, there were a lot of big wildfires in the west. Let's cut down tall, old growth trees to fix it! There's one problem with that, cutting down trees accomplishes nothing. Forest fires are spread by the loose, dry underbrush, not the big trees. Besides, the forests NEED FOREST FIRES, it's part of their life cylce. In fact, there are kinds of grass that can't spread their seeds without fire. It's just downhill from there if you look at what he thinks about the Kyoto protocols, the endangered species act, or anything else environment-wise.

Same-Sex Marriage: Apparently we have conflicting views here. I'm sorry, Bush, I thought that marriage was a union between two human beings that love each other very much and want to symbolize that legally. Apparently you're trying to define marriage as a legal deal between Party A (Man) and Party B (Woman), so any two people in the enitre world can show their love for each other, provided they are of opposite sexes. Sorry about that misunderstanding.

Homeland Security: Bush does pretty much nothing anymore but exploit the fact that, since 9/11 happened while he was in office, he can cn say that he was the one who fixed up America afterwards. That he did. However, if Gore had been elected he could say exactly the same thing, it's not like any other president wouldn't have been there as Amercia recovered. Anyway, the point is that Bush really doesn't have an argument going towards him in the field of homeland security. In fact, he has some big minuses in this arena. The patriot act? Oh, let's allow police to arrest people with no faults against them because they're "suspected" terrorists. Ahem, cough *racial profiling*. No, Bush, you're beating a horse that died with the fall of Iraq.

So, after all that what does our 43rd president have going for him? Let's see, he gave a little money to fuel cell research and blew a teeny bit of hot air into NASA's ballon, but nowhere near enough to lift us to Mars. Trust me, the faults here far outweigh anything that could be identified as something good Bush has done. Kerry should be elected if only for the reason that it has been scientifically proven that he is, in fact, not George W. Bush. Thank you.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-01 18:05:06

Mad Grad, we have enough political threads in 'Free Chat' so I'll keep it brief. I agree with you on point one. On two, three and four you're grossly oversimplifying the issues. Followed with the grossly oversimplified "Vote Kerry 'cause he ain't Bush." I forgive you for you are young, but that just isn't a reason to vote for someone. "Vote for me, I'm not Bush!" Woohoo. That's a vision for a better America, I tell ya... :hm:

Bill White · 2004-06-01 19:35:06

I've said it before and no doubt will again, today's Democrats do not like the space program, at all. They by and large see it as a waste of money that could be better used "helping people" here. The Bush "plan" is riddled with flaws, but it's on the table. Kerry, whether in space policy or most anything else, has brought nothing to the table.

Unless we get beyond Democrat versus Republican - - for you older US-ian chaps I remind you of the old Mad magazine comic series, Spy v Spy - - none of the above really matters.

If space is a Bush plan, the first Democrat President will kill it, dead, dead, dead. Therefore it needs to be bi-partisan. As Ronald Reagan supposedly said, "be willing to share the credit and most anything is possible."

That said, I am pretty darn liberal and one heck of a space advocate. If Cobra and I can agree on stuff, maybe there is hope for America.

= = =

Visit Detroit! Ted Nugent and Strohs!

Locked, cocked and ready to rock!

= = =

First to tell me the origin of the above earns an "Atta-Boy" from me.

Gennaro · 2004-06-01 20:36:05

USA from the outside. Republican or Democrat? Don't think it matters one way or the other when it comes to space. Presidents don't rule, the middle-men and the above men does and they are always the same. Maybe sometime this was different but no more.
Regime change is much more profound than a typical presidential election.

Regardless, from a "responsible" perspective, the US has grave problems with the deficit and the pointless war sucks up resources like rain through grace.
Don't think this is the hour when anyone serious from outside the space community would elect to sink x billion dollars into some footprints on Mars just to please a fringe gang of nerds.
Face it, Bush's flawed plan was for all practical purposes a minor publicity stunt, or who knows, maybe he actually enjoys watching Babylon 5?

And Kerry, who's he? There have been candidates promising to rectify foreign misadventures before. Kind of hearing music from another time. Dare one say LBJ?

deagleninja · 2004-06-02 02:09:08

Ain't it a great country we live in when Republican administrations rack up huge deficits, give away tax breaks to get elected, then point their fingers at Democrats and call them 'tax-lovers' for balancing the budget?

Why do Republicans constantly cut education funding? Simple, it makes more Republicans. The average American is too stupid to read between the lines and see a bold-faced lie for what it is. Six out of ten Americans believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

I too wanted the murderers brought to justice. I didn't sign on for imposing capitilism on a country that we defeated 12 years earlier. Let alone paying for rebuilding what our military destroyed in its sledgehammer precision attacks.

You don't kill a fly by smashing it with a 747, you use a fly-swatter. Our military created its own need to occupy Iraq by killing civilians, pissing on their religious artifacts, and abusing suspected 'terrorists' in typical military 'guilty till proven innocent' style.

You don't see terrorists attacking Canada do you? Why? Because they are smart enough to stay out of everyone's buisness.

Here's some simple facts that I'm sure will tick a lot of people off:

Bush's IQ is 86 (borderline retarded).
Bush did not get the majority of the vote. In other words, he wasn't elected and occupies the White House by the grace of our least democratic institution, the Supreme Court.

If you truly value your freedoms and love this country, then do not vote for this puppet president. His support comes from people who make their money from war and oil, both of which this country could do without.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 06:49:53

This isn't the place to duke out general disagreements on partisan politics or differences on the war. Some is gonna happen, but let's try to stay vaguely on topic.

Back on the topic of Bush's Mars plan. It's time for some blunt honesty. It isn't a 'plan' at all. It's a policy shift. There is no 'Mars Plan' at this point but the Bush proposal takes that vital first step of changing NASA's policy toward that end.

If it gets funded and becomes a proper plan, and eventually a real mission it's good for Bush short-term and the Republican Party long-term. The Party can take credit for it for years while defense contractors, those people who make money from war deagle mentioned, profit as well and in turn continue their traditional support of Republicans. Continuing the Moon-Mars plan is good for Republicans, they will continue it.

Democrats on the other hand gain nothing from it. If it goes ahead, they look bad for having no hand in initiating it. But it's a symbolic thing they can kill. Next time some group whines about education funding (which is higher than it's ever been) or healthcare a Dem can dump the Mars program and blather on about helping the poor American people who apparently are incapable of taking care of themselves.

You can bash Bush or Republicans for a whole slew of issues, but the Democrats are not friendly to the space program, particularly an ambitious space program. If you want big government social spending then vote Dem, but don't think we'll be going beyond LEO. Your call, move forward or wallow.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-02 09:59:30

You can bash Bush or Republicans for a whole slew of issues, but the Democrats are not friendly to the space program, particularly an ambitious space program.

Kennedy got us to the Moon, and he was a Democrat. ???

Ok, so it's forty years later, and the Russians are now our friends. All we need is a good scare from China.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 10:07:46

Kennedy got us to the Moon, and he was a Democrat.

Kennedy also cut taxes, deployed missiles against the objections of other countries, provided support for an attempted (and botched) overthrow of a hostile regime and sent "advisors" to fight another regime America didn't approve of.

Sounds kinda Bushy.

deagleninja · 2004-06-02 12:39:51

Ah come on Cobra. I know you are pro-military (so am I if it is intelligently used) but how can you compare the Cuban Missle Crisis to Iraq? Cuba had missled aimed at US soil (60 miles or so off Floridas coast). Iraq is thousands of miles away with missles that can't fly but 100 miles. Iraq was also disarming at the time of our 'pre-emptive' strike, Cuba was not. Cuba had the best technology that the USSR could offer at the time and was a real threat. It is important to note that Kennedy did not strike first like Bush did.

Kennedy is not the great president that people think he is, I agree. However, he did issue a clear ultimatum that didn't change like Bush's.

'Saddam must disarm all weapons that violate UN resolutions'
Done
'Saddam must destroy all WMDs'
Whoa, hold on a sec, we don't have any.....
BOOM!!!

I totally agree that Democrats are losing out by taking a stand against PlanBush. I find it disapointing and disgusting that so many Democrats are against this plan simply because it came from Bush.

However, PlanBush ultimately moves us no closer to being a spacefaring race. This will only come about when the private sector is making profit and competing with one another. I believe that time has finally come now that SpaceShip One is set to claim the X prize and begin the 'bandwagon' effect that all new enterprises start. See my new topic for the link.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 12:57:43

Ah come on Cobra. I know you are pro-military (so am I if it is intelligently used) but how can you compare the Cuban Missle Crisis to Iraq?

Actually I was following accepted Dem practice and comparing Iraq to Vietnam. Kennedy sent those first <ahem> advisors.

I totally agree that Democrats are losing out by taking a stand against PlanBush. I find it disapointing and disgusting that so many Democrats are against this plan simply because it came from Bush.

I'm inclined to agree. As with many people on this board, I think we agree on more than we don't.

However, PlanBush ultimately moves us no closer to being a spacefaring race. This will only come about when the private sector is making profit and competing with one another.

Where's the motivation for private sector spacefaring? Tourism? Back to LEO. Asteroid mining? Still cheaper to mine on Earth, why make the expense? Government is going to have to take those first steps. PlanBush redirects NASA back toward exploration, and in that does move us closer to being a spacefaring race if it is carried through.

I believe that time has finally come now that SpaceShip One is set to claim the X prize and begin the 'bandwagon' effect that all new enterprises start.

You may be pinning too much on SpaceShip One's anticipated success. I hope you're right, but I wouldn't bet any large bills on it.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-02 13:09:01

Oh I think we can be fairly certain that there is way too much enthusiasm for SS1/WK... What will they have if they do pull it off? Nothing, because it is far, far, far, far and away too small to even ponder orbital flight of anything bigger than a lunchbox.

You ought to be turning your sights to Elon Musk, and see if his shiney little super-simple rocket will ever fly profitably... he's the only one in the game at the moment with much hope of turning a profit on using a 100% private vehicle to reach orbit... and his biggest customer is the USAF.

smurf975 · 2004-06-02 13:26:22

I don't know why the US wants to go alone to the Moon and Mars. As surely the US, Canada, Europe and some South American countries have the same basic values as the US. Such as free market, human rights, government styles and religion.

It would be a lot smarter to work together with those countries and share the cost and ideas. So that maybe things will happen faster.

smurf975 · 2004-06-02 13:34:40

It is important to note that Kennedy did not strike first like Bush did.

I don't think that Kennedy didn't first strike Cuba because he is very different from Bush. It's just that Cuba had the whole Sjovet Army behind it and had nukes! Ooh and don't forget the bay of pigs.

If you still don't believe me then why didn't Bush invade North Korea? As it has a good army and China behind it. And possibly nukes.

And as a matter of fact I think it was the Sjovet premier here that was the smart one not Kennedy as it was the Sjovet premier that backed down. While Cuba has soevreign rights and it's none of the US's biz what it does in it's country and who its friends. And all at the same time the US had ICBM's in Turkey aimed at several stratigic Russian sites.

However people say that Kennedy made a backroom agreement with the Sjovet Union that it will remove those ICBM's from Turkey but they were not allowed to talk about it in public so that the US could show that the US is strong and won this crisis.

Just my 2cents

smurf975 · 2004-06-02 13:44:21

*Cough* Oh you were talking about President BUSH? Gee sorry, just getting flashbacks of Clinton bombing Bosnia and "non exsistant" Iraqi nerve gas factories!

I believe the US was asked by Europe to help in the Bosnia situation. And there is proof that there was a genocide going on in Bosnia by the serbs.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-02 14:04:25

Asked by Europe? There was no UN authorization if memory serves... And what about the genocide in Iraq? I guess the gassing of Halabja and the mass graves aren't proof? The BBC even did a documentary about Halabja before Gulf War II.

The US didn't invade Cuba because of MAD doctern... the US hasn't invaded NK yet because it doesn't need to, the country will eventually implode on its own... but Iraq, Iraq did without question support terrorism in at least some offical state capacity, the former leaders of Iraq hate America, and said former leaders had the reasources and the will to create WMDs. Terrorists don't need an ICBM, all they need is an unsecured shipping box or piece of airline luggage...

Back to space travel... although we live in a world with unprecedented amount of economic interconnectivity between countries, survival of the fittest still rules the day... the question ought to be not why there isn't more space cooperation, but rather why there ought to be any to begin with at all.

Euler · 2004-06-02 14:37:01

It is really oversimplifying it so say that democrats do not support space travel. Kerry may not be a big supporter of space, but Al Gore was. And Dennis Kucinich wants to triple NASA's budget. Space travel is not a very partisan issue.

Bill White · 2004-06-02 14:42:37

Where's the motivation for private sector spacefaring? Tourism? Back to LEO. Asteroid mining? Still cheaper to mine on Earth, why make the expense? Government is going to have to take those first steps. PlanBush redirects NASA back toward exploration, and in that does move us closer to being a spacefaring race if it is carried through.

If is a very big word, here.

If PlanBush moves us back to EELV (Delta IV) as the sole means of lift then the most PlanBush will amount to is some uniformed astronauts collecting rocks and coming home.

It kinda all boils down to how you define "exploration" - - to my knowledge no concise definition has yet been offered.

But anyways, 2004-2008 just is not that important. Look at PlanBush more carefully. None of the good stuff happens until after President Bush leaves office. And, IIRC, clark has argued that the election of 2012 will be far more important than the election of 2008 and I now think he is correct.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-02 14:58:37

Here's a thought, if you want to be for space, you should be for the US economy. Take that with a grain of salt, though, because it's arguable who is better for the US economy.

I agree with Bill's statement here, though. If only Bush's plan was more aggressive. I feel it would be better to just push Kerry's people to reassess Bush's plan, scrap the Shuttle, work on SDV, etc. Essentially take Bush's glory and invent a plan that would work far better. And he could come off a lot better if he sided with the scientists instead of base nationalism like Bush is attempting to do (at least in my opinion).

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 15:01:31

Kerry may not be a big supporter of space, but Al Gore was.

Perhaps, have to check the record on that. But it doesn't matter since the Democrat Party, composed of a collection of little interest groups all clamoring for a piece of the government pie don't like it. Even if Al Gore wanted to send a big honkin' colony ship to Mars his party most likely wouldn't stand for it, at least not at their collective expense which is how they'd view it. "You could better spend that money on __"

PlanBush redirects NASA back toward exploration, and in that does move us closer to being a spacefaring race if it is carried through.

If is a very big word, here.

Absolutely, it has a lot of hurdles to get over. But Kerry will kill it now.

But anyways, 2004-2008 just is not that important. Look at PlanBush more carefully. None of the good stuff happens until after President Bush leaves office.

Yes, but the thing about a government project is that the longer it's around the harder it is to kill. If Bush really gets behind this for the next four years and NASA is on the ball showing real progress it will be difficult for a DemPres to axe it outright. If the ball gets rolling fast enough momentum can carry it through, a factor which shouldn't be overlooked with Apollo as well.

smurf975 · 2004-06-02 15:01:34

Asked by Europe? There was no UN authorization if memory serves... And what about the genocide in Iraq? I guess the gassing of Halabja and the mass graves aren't proof? The BBC even did a documentary about Halabja before Gulf War II.

I can't say if the US acted on its own on Bosnia or with the UN/NATO. But at the end they did get UN/NATO support unlike Iraq now. But this also due that Europeans didn't want to many refugees in their countries. Also Clinton believed if he didn't act other countries may follow with the same Serbian policy.

The US didn't invade Cuba because of MAD doctern...

I have seen this MAD doctern before on the net but I don't know what it is.

the US hasn't invaded NK yet because it doesn't need to, the country will eventually implode on its own...

I think there is a really small chance that the NK regime will collapse any time soon. As they tend to get all kinds of stuff from the US, SK, Japan and China to shut up and stop nuclear research.And the same time they will be selling WMD (buzzword alarm ) to other countries. Like they are doing now with Iran. Or just look at Cuba the only reason it may change is the death of Castro and that only if there is no other strong leader to follow him.

but Iraq, Iraq did without question support terrorism in at least some offical state capacity, the former leaders of Iraq hate America, and said former leaders had the reasources and the will to create WMDs.

Yes Iraq supported anti Isreal terrorisme to some degree. But so do a lot of Arab nations. And hate for the US is not only something that is something of the old Iraq regime. WMD, just look at what Iran is doing now.

Terrorists don't need an ICBM, all they need is an unsecured shipping box or piece of airline luggage...

No they don't need ICBM's but they do need money and a place to hide.

clark · 2004-06-02 15:04:21

The bill dosen't become due until 2012, Bill. haha. See what i did there.

Exploration of space by humans is silly. There is no point (other than the scientific value inherent in our versitility, which diminishes with advances in technology related to the mechanical...).

Everyone wants people to go because of the vicarious experience and the opportunity to then daydream, "it could be me." Which is then transmuted into a desire to populate the universe with more people, ala "colonization", so as to increase the odds and liklihood of the daydream coming true.

Plan Bush isn't colonization. Plan Zubrin isn't colonization. Colonization will not come from the government (other than as some type of commercialy subsidized program bent on producing economic value to a majority interest group).

NASA is doing what it has always been told to do- see how far you can fling a guy and bring em back. Maybe he will see something and tell us all about it. Other than that, there is no other than that.

2012 is the biggie moment though because that's when we decide if we're going to go through the trouble of building a CEV capable of more than the ISS. If ISS is scrapped before that, then we have to go to the moon (or shut down NASA, fat chance). I think though that we will go to the moon if for no other reason than we need to in order to justify building nuclear reactors in space.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-02 15:08:49

If Bush really gets behind this for the next four years and NASA is on the ball showing real progress it will be difficult for a DemPres to axe it outright.

That's one thing, he hasn't been behind it since he announced it. There's a good http://www.space.com/news/commentary_vi … ml]article at Space.com about how he simply announced, and disappeared. He had essentially a major publicity coup initially, and I mean it was really big when he announced, but what? What's happening? Where's it going? It's not as aggressive as some would make it out to be. Aggressive would be scrapping the Shuttle, going for SDV, etc. Actually making moves to get to the moon rather than pretending to hold out on your bargians (in the end snubbing the very scientific community the bargian existed for in the first place). Kerry can pull a space coup if he wants to. He just needs to be pressured.

edit: fixed link

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1086210822

smurf975 · 2004-06-02 15:12:59

Back to space travel... although we live in a world with unprecedented amount of economic interconnectivity between countries, survival of the fittest still rules the day... the question ought to be not why there isn't more space cooperation, but rather why there ought to be any to begin with at all.

As you can see from other posts that followed yours and those before the one I'm reponding on. The US has some little money issues. And private companies don't see any near time need to fund space research.

So I think if Bush stays or goes in the next election the next president will be forced to make cuts. And whats the most logical thing to cut first? Nasa and spin offs. As it has the lowest short and long term return on investments.

So what do you do if you have all this knowledge of space exploration but no money to put it in practice? Well just do what the Russians do, start joint ventures. This way the knowledge is not lost and you don't have to increase budgets/taxes.

smurf975 · 2004-06-02 15:17:32

Exploration of space by humans is silly. There is no point (other than the scientific value inherent in our versitility, which diminishes with advances in technology related to the mechanical...).
Plan Bush isn't colonization. Plan Zubrin isn't colonization. Colonization will not come from the government (other than as some type of commercialy subsidized program bent on producing economic value to a majority interest group).
NASA is doing what it has always been told to do- see how far you can fling a guy and bring em back. Maybe he will see something and tell us all about it. Other than that, there is no other than that.

You forget that NASA also has a very big military value so will a moonbase.

clark · 2004-06-02 15:21:24

josh, in an election year, everything the president talks about becomes politcal fodder. He can't really tak about it because he has to press national security (why are you talking about mars when we have troops over seas here on Earth?!). He also can't answer to specifics as those are being worked out.

If you kept up on thos UPI articles that put you to sleep you might notice that they are trying to give O'Keefe the power to close NASA centers.... helllooooooo, talk about a powerful tool to beat Senators and Represenatives over the head.

Shifting the bulk of NASA's budget to human space exploration is major as well. Axing the Shuttle is major. I'm sure we will here more about the ISS soon- it getting cut back. Altering the Iran non-proliferation treaty is pretty major too.

Bush will be more successful, and gain all the glory by keeping his mouth shut, and waiting for this to be a done deal... just in time for the November election.

Edit: Smurf, Moonbase ain't no colony.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-01 17:50:34

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#27 2004-06-01 18:05:06

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#28 2004-06-01 19:35:06

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#29 2004-06-01 20:36:05

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#30 2004-06-02 02:09:08

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#31 2004-06-02 06:49:53

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#32 2004-06-02 09:59:30

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#33 2004-06-02 10:07:46

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#34 2004-06-02 12:39:51

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#35 2004-06-02 12:57:43

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#36 2004-06-02 13:09:01

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#37 2004-06-02 13:26:22

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#38 2004-06-02 13:34:40

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#39 2004-06-02 13:44:21

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#40 2004-06-02 14:04:25

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#41 2004-06-02 14:37:01

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#42 2004-06-02 14:42:37

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#43 2004-06-02 14:58:37

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#44 2004-06-02 15:01:31

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#45 2004-06-02 15:01:34

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#46 2004-06-02 15:04:21

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#47 2004-06-02 15:08:49

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#48 2004-06-02 15:12:59

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#49 2004-06-02 15:17:32

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#50 2004-06-02 15:21:24

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

Board footer