you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

/shrug. If you’re saying “this whole situation sucks”, I agree.

For the record, I didn’t say DoT made sense, just that it made more sense than the alternatives for cabinet-level representation. NASA administrator in the cabinet is an unserious suggestion - scope of the position is tiny with respect to a cabinet secretary’s even if NASA got all the funding it needed to do the job.

Neither Isaacman nor Duffy are going to prioritize climate science, so that’s a straw man.

My primary point still stands - Duffy throws way more weight in the Trump administration and is therefore better able to protect or advance NASA’s needs/goals/objectives. Isaacman doesn’t even have enough clout to survive a hatchet job during a straightforward nomination. Better qualified yes, but no indication he can actually be effective in this environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Between two crappy options I'd rather have the space nerd than the politician.

    NASA is bigger than the EPA and Small Business Administration, which are both "cabinet-level positions" (and not part of presidential succession). From the main cabinet, I could maybe argue Interior vs NASA (exterior?)...

    I get your point on effectiveness. Bill Nelson, despite being a former Senator, seemed to suck as a NASA advocate.

  • source
  • parent