I value competence and could not care less who is sleeping with who. If the man does a good job for NASA, then that's all that's important to me.

I would agree, but there's nothing in his background to indicate any experience that would help him "do a good job for NASA," and in fact, his job is not to "do a good job for NASA" but to be a liaison between NASA and the White House. He will work for the White House, not NASA. Just what is it that qualifies him for this position?

Editor's note: What qualifies you to ask the question - and to decide whether he has the necessary experience?

What qualifies you to ask the question - and to decide whether he has the necessary experience?

What qualifies anybody? I'm not entitled to an opinion? What's your point?

Editor's note: I sense snarkiness in the making Rand, its time for you to focus these discussions on your own site.

Keith,
The same thing that qualifies the rest of us to look at people like Gration and others with no known or discoverable background in space policy to all of a sudden become qualified to do so. You've asked that same question yourself of others. Are you aware of any background that Noble might have to do something like this?

-MM

Editor's note: Hmmm everyone seems to feel free, on a daily basis, to question my credentials, competency, sanity, yet if I do it that is wrong? Curious.

Who cares about his sexual orientation. The issue of his qualifications for the job are more important. If his only qualification is to have worked for Obama during the campaign, it's obviously not enough. But I don't know if he has other qualifications or not. I am more interested in finding about that than about his sexual orientation. Posting his resume would have been more news worthy.

Editor's note: I do not recall making any mention about his sexual orientation. I posted the only article I could find on this guy. If you find another, let me know. But if you do not like my research then read another website.

Interesting. I don't see anything in his background that impresses me, however.

Regarding Editor's note: What qualifies you to ask the question - and to decide whether he has the necessary experience?

Just a general comment on this, speaking only for myself. Being a citizen who cares about the effective use of our taxpayer dollars qualifies any of us ask questions about the competence of a gov employee to serve in a particular position. Whether we have the qualifications and relevant information to judge that competence is another matter.

As someone once said to me, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are equal. ;-)

Mr. Cowling: Reference your above comment, "What qualifies you to ask the question?," well, who are you to question someone else's simple desire to ask a reasonable question about an potential appointee in such a snippy manner?

Editor's note: and spelling my name wrong means ...?

After all, you're the one that's always promoting free inquiry and sketicism, when it suits your agenda or you agree with the questioner, after all. But you tried to shut down the question(er).

Editor's note: I am just tired (as people are tired of me) of Rand making broad statements as if he doesn't know or see something therefore there must be an issue. Did he bother to do any research on this guy? Guess not. That's all. I asked a question and he did not answer it. Oh well.

The proposed (if that's the case) liaison official is, for NASA, an important position, so why can't anyone else ask a question about the reported liaison official-to-be credentials and/or qualifications, even if that doesn't suit you? I don't think anybody's familiar with him, and I can't say I'm am. In a sense, that's neither here nor there for now, but to try to cut off any speculation in the manner in which you did it -- without knowing about the questioner's background either -- places you in the same arrogant rush-to-judgement compartment you have condemned others for in the past.

And where do you get off questioning whether someone else - besides you, apparently -- has the "qualifications" to ask any particular question? Judging by your voluminous commentary over the years -- and it is voluminous -- you feel perfectly qualified to do just that, at least when it comes to the Federal Government, NASA, and the America's space effort.

Editor's note: so I don't have the right to speak my mind? That's odd.

The questioner, I'm sure, would take it in stride -- at least they should -- if it can be demonstrated the individual in question has the appropriate experience to fulfill such a position. You certainly have been on the continuous warpath against various political appointees of the outgoing Administration for not having the appropriate credentials for their positions, but instead simply receiving an appointment for being "connected."

Fair enough, and warranted in I would guess in a case or two -- I can't say definitely on my own knowledge for all of them -- but apparently your version of free inquiry is going to end with the new Administration's appointees? Or not?

It struck me that your "slam" against that particular respondent was way out of proportion to any offense, such as you apparently constured it to be.

Curt Smith
Virginia

After 8 years of the Village Idiot and his parade of cronies and thugs who were only qualified to stuff their pockets and do Vice President Darth Vader's bidding, Obama and his team cannot possibly do any worse in their choices.

And add me to the list of people who don't give a flying fig about the gender preferences of anyone so long as they are good at their assigned jobs. Not so long ago there would have been similar reactions if the person were a woman or non-white. I guess it is one step at a time in the trek to growing up as a society.

> Editor's note: I sense snarkiness in the making Rand, its
> time for you to focus these discussions on your own site.

Which is what I suspected. Rand's question was the same question we're all asking about Gration and Noble: who are they and what is their "space cred"? So you're issue wasn't with the question so much as a prejudging of the questioner and his motives. You're free to do that. Its your site. Just don't get upset when people call you on it.

> Editor's note: Hmmm everyone seems to feel free, on a daily
> basis, to question my credentials, competency, sanity, yet
> if I do it that is wrong? Curious.

And you defend yourself well when people do question your credentials and those of us out here who know you and your background also dismiss them. But because there are some that do ignorantly question your credentials doesn't mean you should when it comes to Rand. Do unto others, yada yada...

Rand's question was snark free and justified in light of everything else going on (Panetta at CIA? huh?). Let it go...

Editor's note: I simply asked Rand what qualifies him to ask the question and everyone except Rand annswers. Yet he has certainly already rushed to judgment on the new NASA team over on his own website. Curious.

-MM

Everyone, as the old saying goes (it was an 80's saying no), - ...get a life.

What is a White House Liaison? I could not find a definition of the job so I did a quick research and found:

1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/off-descrp.html
Cabinet Liaison
"The Office of Cabinet Liaison is the primary point of contact between the White House, Cabinet members and executive agency heads."

2. http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/chapter2.htm
"...as White House Liaison was to interview and process applicants for political positions in the Department..."

So if we assume that the description at the DOJ website and the description at the White House website still stand for NASA I don't know that it matters so much. It looks like a job aimed at somewhat political propaganda inside an agency; suffice to look at former appointees and their "space" qualifications, for example: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/07/former_karl_rov.html

How many White House appointees serve inside NASA? Does it really matter? Do they make any decision that impact NASA? Are they on NASA payroll and use budget otherwise better spent on qualified personnel?

I don't know. Keith?

Ok, from what I can tell from a quick Google search is that Noble used to work for, in some capacity that I can't currently tell, for the NGLTF.

Now, my question (and from what I can tell, the question of others who have posted here) is what makes him the best person to be the NASA liaison to the White House? I suspect the answer to that question depends largely on the job description of NASA's White House Liaison, which, I admit, I do not know. So if anyone has any information what NASA's White House Liaison does and if Dave Noble has any experience that would help him fulfill that roll, please be so kind as to clue the rest of us in.

David Noble, former executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats and current director of public policy and government affairs at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/TF_in_news/08_0612/stories/19_obama_appoints.pdf

The "bio" link at www.thetaskforce.org does not seem to work.

If it helps...

Based on the definition provided herein, the position of NASA Liaison appears to be a sinecure bestowed upon a political supporter.

There have long been White House Liaisons, political operatives, placed in federal departments and agencies, such as NASA. After learning the particulars of their assignments (yes, sometimes its on-the-job learning), they can either be just place-holders in their agencies or become active connections between agency policies and operations and the political realities of Washington. Over the years, there have been both good and bad liaisons between NASA and the White House.

Let's hope that whomever is assigned to NASA -- and there is nothing official yet -- be an intelligent quick learner who can understand NASA and the space program's importance and keep them on the White House's radar screen in a positive way.

If NASA is lucky enough to get an effective liaison with the White House, who cares about gender, race, religion or sexual orientation?

The thing that may be worrisome though is whether the Liasion appoints people for political reason in positions where they make technical/budget decisions... Or are they only in those positions to enforce White House policy?

I have to admit that I stopped reading the comments half-way through, so forgive me if someone already said this.

The WH Liason gig is now, and has been for a while, nothing more than a high level personnel clerk. This person makes sure that political appointees and other Schedule-C types get their paperwork in order, for example. That they get processed in and out of the system in accordance with requirements from OPM. There is no need for this person to know anything about space - their responsibilities don't go to the functions of the agency as they relate to programmatic or even policy mandates. This job isn't even responsible for communicating between NASA and OMB or OSTP. If Mr. Noble is sufficiently qualified to push paper around, then he's qualified for this job. His sexual identity certainly has nothing to do with it. And neither does his familiarity with space.

Anon,

The job is more than just paper shuffling for the Schedule Cs. The WH liaison does in fact serve as one of several bridges to the WH, altho focusing more on personnel than policy, or certainly budget. It is itself a Schedule C (i.e. non-Senate confirmed political appointee) slot that serves at the pleasure of the President.

As for Mr. Noble, he is apparently an incredibly effective political organizer, which means he will be able to contribute greatly to NASA's outreach efforts, including aligning NASA with the new Administration's new focus on web 2.0 citizen participation in government. And as someone close to the political strategists around Obama, I can't but hope this will help NASA better make the case for space as part of the "governing" strategy of the Administration, instead of being a problem child agency that occasionally offers good photo ops.

My friends from his side of the aisle tell me David is also very pro-space, which implies that he chose NASA, vs. taking a similar slot at some other Department.

- Jim

question for background and understanding (to Mr. Muncy?): has there been a similar position in the Bush or Clinton administrations? who has filled it?

I found this on nowpublic.com:

According to Rea Carey, acting executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, Task Force Action Fund Public Policy and Government Affairs Director, Dave Noble, was chosen by Obama's campaign to secure the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Transgender vote on behalf of U.S. Senator Barack Obama's campaign for President.

“The Obama campaign has just inherited one of our movement’s most talented activists to engage LGBT Americans in this crucial moment in our history. Dave Noble has been a guiding force for our efforts in Maryland, and while we'll miss him terribly, we know this is an investment in our shared future,” said Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland.

“Dave has long believed in the importance of public service and his entire career has reflected this value. Being asked to serve his country in this capacity — a key position in a campaign of a candidate he strongly believes in — is a perfect fit for him. This is a momentous time for this country, and we are proud that a senior Task Force staffer has been chosen to fill such a critical role in this historic campaign season. Dave has been a strong leader at the Task Force and we will look forward to working with him in any capacity in the years to come,” noted Carey.

former CA resident:

Read and weep
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/07/former_karl_rov.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the White House already have a "liaison" to NASA in the office of administrator?

Let's see...this person "earns" this position because they were able to get out the vote?
Sounds to me like the Washington pork factory is still in business...so much for "change we can believe in."

It's more accurate to say that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Mr. Muncy -

As you admit, the WH Liason has no real role in policy and no role in budget. And I'm sure we can agree that that person would play no role in program management. There are other things to play a role in - Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Human Capital, etc. - but usually the WH liason doesn't play a role in those efforts, either. Or at least, not recently.

So - what's left? Making sure the machine of political people coming and going keeps itself working. Perhaps it was a bit of an over statement to call it "paper pushing," but, only a *bit.* And surely this can change with a new Administration and new Administrator, but for a while now the WH Liason job has not been a particularly substantive post if one thinks of the day-to-day business of the agency (even if it is high visibility). To that end, no space experience is required.

As for him being pro-space? That's great! So are many of the politicals at HQ who have left in the past month and will almost all be out of the door on Jan 16. Many of them had a good role to play; some of them used up oxygen. Mr. Noble seems good at what he does, so whatever role he is asked to play I'm sure it will utilize those skills and as a result it will be a net plus to NASA. Regardless, space experience isn't relevant.

Wow, it is quite telling that your post on Mr. Noble is not dripping with the same sarcasm and cynicism of your post regarding the previous White House Liaison linked in the comments. This is of course, despite the fact, that both are political operatives.

Why not be a little more upfront about your political persuasions?

Editor's Note: gee, yours are rather obvious too ;-)

No---I guess it is just best that all of us think of you as a pundit rather than a pseudo-journalist. You have a motive and agenda and I only think it unfair that you do not treat two people, with largely similar professional backgrounds (all politics/no space) the same...or at least reserve judgment.

Editor's note: why do you torment yourself by reading NASA Watch then? There are plenty of other places out there that must be more to your liking.

having never heard of the office of white house liaison, i really doubt this will directly affect anyone like me at the research level. i don't expect to hear the name "Dave Noble" in the news again until he moves to another high-profile position.

but as an openly queer, NASA-funded, junior scientific researcher, i still find this appointment to be heartening.