Well, that didn't take long: Romney mocks Newt's moon plan.

Mitt Romney mocks Gingrich's idea to "have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the Moon" - and the audience laughs. 14 seconds in.

Although Gingrich won that round, he did so by first ignoring the moon taunt and turning it around to attack Romney where it hurt: calling him a de facto career politician who lost an election to Edward Kennedy (thus indirectly reminding everyone that he's from the liberal state of Massachussetts who has opportunistically changed his political positions in each election). Gingrich then turned Romney's moon base mockery "into a spirited call for young people to pursue careers in science and a frustrated lament over the direction of NASA’s space exploration program."

Nice debating skills on Mr. Gingrich's part. But the moon base meme is getting people's attention and could be starting to stick to Gingrich. Presidential politics being the brutal process it is, Newt as a frontrunner candidate could turn lunar resource utilization into a joke. Credible leaders are needed to make that case. Newt is not. And although I'm not a Gingrich fan, I'm not being partisan.

UPDATE 14 Dec. 2011: I don't want to write a whole other post about this since I'm not here to blog about politics. But a couple of things to follow up, since this issue has gotten a fair amount of media attention - and a lot of hits on this blog.

1. First, here's what Gingrich said in reply to Romney: "I'm proud of trying to find things that give young people a reason to study science and math and technology, and telling them that some day in their lifetime that they can dream of going to the Moon, they can dream of going to Mars. I grew up in a generation where the space program was real, where it was important, where, frankly, it is tragic that NASA has been so bureaucratized. [cites Iowa State University as an example of a place doing “brilliant things” that attract students...] I’m happy to defend the idea that America should be in space and should be there in an aggressive, entrepreneurial way."

I think that is a great answer. 

2. I'm not attacking Newt. As I understand his proposed space policy, I generally agree with it, and think it's a shame that some people are mocking him for it. Comedian Jon Stewart, who said of all the things Romney could have ridiculed about Gingrich, “What?! What?! You start with the lunar mines idea? Romney, Newt Gingrich is a life support system for bad ideas, and you magically reach in and pick out his one awesome idea?” 

I agree.

3. I was suggesting that Newt's opponents - which certainly include many in the Republican media as well as the other candidates - will conflate Gingrich's reputation for grandiosity and unconventional ideas with the moon plan itself. If - and arguably when - Gingrich is painted in such a way, when that is his media "story", the idea of lunar bases will be discredited as well. Not fair, not right, but that's how things work. Clearly there is now a concerted effort by Romney and his allies to define Gingrich thusly.

To wit:

Mitt Romney: “Zany is not what we need in a president.” 

National Review: Gingrich's "character flaws - his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas - made him a poor Speaker of the House."

Peggy Noonan (former Reagan speech writer): "He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, 'Watch this!'"

David Brooks: Gingrich "has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with '60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form.""

Charles Krauthammer: "Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama's -- but, unlike Obama's, is untamed by self-discipline."

From the center:

Politico: Gingrich’s lunar base plans are "Jetsonian" and his future tech proselytizing led to his being coined “Newt Skywalker” by the press in his home state of Georgia.

And from the liberal side of the political spectrum:

Maureen Dowd, in an essay dripping with eviscerating irony: "In his 1984 book, “Window of Opportunity,” Gingrich cheerleaded for “a permanent lunar colony to exploit the moon’s resources” and honeymoons on the moon, blaming Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and “the welfare state” for our failure to build Hiltons and Marriotts in the Milky Way." "Sometimes you go with 'Future Shock.' Sometimes you go with present schlock."

ThinkProgress notes that "Gingrich has had a long fascination with ideas that most Americans would probably consider science fiction."'

Again, I am not necessarily endorsing any of these comments, nor am I quoting them in order to attack Mr. Gingrich the man or the candidate. Those above comments may well be unfair, untrue, and/or politically motivated. I'm simply pointing out that Gingrich is being defined in the media and by his opponents as "grandiose", "zany", "flaky", etc., and that the idea of lunar resource utilization (ok, "lunar mining") is being linked to that emerging negative perception of Gingrich. 

Hopefully readers of this blog understand there is a big difference between "a partisan attack" on Gingrich and commenting on dominant media narratives that have implications for a policy objective now associated with Mr. Gingrich.

However, I will say that I find Newt's "space mirrors" idea to be completely nuts. 

Comments

[Monte Gottbrecht]

What is the matter with you people? NASA finally finds a friend in Newt and it doesn't matter to you because he is not a Democrat. Your idealism is crippling our space program because your Democrat friends never pass on the opportunity to cut funding to NASA. Wake up!

[Burke Burnett]

Thanks for your comment. Sorry, I got caught up in holiday madness and neglected to reply.

I agree it's a bit complicated. I include a disclaimer about my own political bias, and in this post (on the entire blog actually) I try to be analytical but fair. (I can be very political, but not here on this blog.) To reiterate, I'm not criticizing Gingrich or his space policy - which, at least as I understand it, I generally agree with. Again, this post is about the media narrative about Gingrich - not about his merits or lack thereof as a candidate - and whether his media "story" might actually end up hurting, rather than helping, those of us who support NASA and other space endeavors.

In short, I am asking people to consider the possibility that Newt's support for the space program may actually end up hurting, not helping NASA (or more accurately, American space exploration beyond Earth orbit in general).

As for cutting NASA budgets, both parties have been guilty; NASA has supporters and detractors on both sides of the aisle. It's worth noting that the Republican-led House 2012 budget for NASA was smaller than the Democrat-led Senate, and both were smaller than the one proposed by Obama. Here are the stats:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/09/19/nasas-budget-a-comparison/

[Liberal Bias]

The information is precisely one of the desirable source every reader should takes place of. Keep on partaking such useful information. Good Luck

[Burke Burnett]

Thank you.

A new post on this subject is coming within a day or so. I generally wish to avoid politics on this blog since space exploration requires cooperation across the political spectrum and everyone gets plenty of politics elsewhere. But given the prominence of the "Newt and the moon" issue in the Republican nomination process, it will have an unavoidable impact on public perceptions of the topic, and hence why I'm covering it - hopefully in a non-partisan way, but I have to provide my best analysis.