A conversation with astronauts

And the Speaker's Ukraine dilemma

Let me tell you how I wound up on the Space subcommittee as a freshman member of Congress. 

I was assigned to the Science committee early last year. 

When I showed up to the first meeting, they said, “Jeff, what subcommittee would you like to serve on?” 

I said, “Space.”

They said, “Why?” 

I said, “Because I think that stuff is cool.” 

And they said, “Great - welcome to the Space subcommittee.”

It’s been fantastic. One of the highlights has been meeting with astronauts. Last week was a good example. I met with a crew that just got back from the International Space Station after a six month mission.

Here was one of them doing some maintenance:

And here was their splashdown as they returned home:

My job was simple: to welcome them home, and to ask every question I could think of. So I dove right in.

“Do you have duct tape in the space station?”

Yep - and they use it all the time.

“Do you have the internet?”

Yes - but it’s spotty.

“Do you bring water with you or do you recycle it?”

They bring some water, and then recycle 96% of their urine and sweat through an advanced filtration system. 

“What’s the first step to becoming an astronaut?”

Surprisingly, you apply online through the regular federal jobs portal by clicking a link that says, “Astronaut Candidate.” For you dreamers out there, here you go.

I’ve also had the chance to meet with some of the leadership at NASA. We’ve had some long discussions about upcoming missions.

Going back to the Moon, Mars, Europa - there’s so much planned. Those conversations are always the best part of my day. They leave me with two very different feelings.

The first is that, in many ways, space exploration is one of the best things we do. It brings together excellence and determination and hope and collaboration all at the highest possible levels to achieve something singular and remarkable, a pinnacle of human existence.

The second is that it doesn’t get much media coverage because those kinds of stories would make you feel good.

It’s certainly newsworthy. And it’s also open to debate. Maybe we should focus more on the Moon versus Mars, maybe the overall timeline is too aggressive or too slow, or - heck - maybe there are other funding priorities and we should focus on those instead. All fair questions! 

But the whole topic of space exploration is missing the essential element for so much of our national political coverage: it just isn’t upsetting enough. 

That’s why, when I give a speech back in my district, I try to start by talking about the Space subcommittee. It’s my little example of a way in which you would actually feel better about Congress if you could see certain pieces of it operate up close. 

For a lot of folks, their only sense of Congress is a building fully engulfed in partisan flame. And there are moments when it feels like that to me, too. But not all the time. Even in this environment, I’ve seen much more cooperation and seriousness than you’ve been led to believe exists - all because broadcasting that would work against the prevailing business model of inducing outrage. 

And to everyone at NASA - and all the companies that work with NASA - you folks rock. Thank you for what you do.

Ukraine defense package

And now for the other end of the partisanship spectrum. We’re exiting the realm of good feelings and civic-mindedness and entering crass, brutal politics. Here we go.

Here’s what’s going on with congressional support for Ukraine.

For the last several weeks, the Speaker has privately told people that he wants to find a way to pass a bill to support Ukraine. He started saying this more publicly a few days ago.

His challenge isn’t policy - it’s politics. He’s trying to figure out a way to pass it without getting fired by his right-flank, virtually all of whom oppose Ukraine support.

He’s got two basic options:

First, he could take the Ukraine bill that already passed the Senate and try to pass that. But that doesn’t solve his political problem because that bill was passed by a Senate that is controlled by the other party, so it would lead to a perception that he was doing their bidding. 

Second, he can create his own Ukraine bill and make it as right-flank-friendly as possible. This is where he’s at right now, and I think we could see his version within the next week or so.

BUT even that approach wouldn’t actually earn support from the right-flank. He’s just trying to minimize his odds of getting fired by basically saying, “You’re not going to like this, but I hope you’ll give me enough credit for at least trying to make it more acceptable to you that you won’t come after me.”

But Jeff, what if the minority party agrees to provide the votes to save the Speaker if he allows a vote on Ukraine?

The main issue there is whether the Speaker would be willing to strike that deal, given what a devastating political defeat it would mean for him personally.

Remember - the previous Speaker didn’t get fired because the other party refused to support him. He got fired, in part, because he knew that if he accepted support from the minority party, his goose was cooked. He might still hold the title of Speaker, but his life would become a living nightmare as the entire partisan media ecosystem went to work on him 24/7 for being in debt to the other side. He never asked for help because he couldn’t imagine paying the price for accepting it.

The new Speaker is in an identical situation. If he 1) holds a vote on Ukraine, and 2) faces a revolt within his party, and then 3) is saved solely by virtue of support from the minority party, he will never, ever return to the level of influence that he currently holds. He may survive as Speaker for some amount of time, but he’ll take an enormous hit that will define him politically going forward.

He’s trying to avoid that, with very little time left on the clock. 

Campaign update - A.I. Jeff

A big part of campaigning is making phone calls. It’s something I do for a chunk of time every day. I’ve done a bunch of campaigns, so I’m used to it.

But this time, I’ve noticed something different: When people answer, they often don’t believe it’s me. They think it’s some highly sophisticated A.I. robocall.

A bunch of my conversations begin with me saying hello, introducing myself, then hearing a long pause until they say, “Um... is this a real person?” 

And that’s new.

So yesterday, I was making my calls.

And sure enough, I got the question: “Is this a real person?”

I gave my answer: “Yes, I get that question a lot, but I’m not A.I., I’m a real person.”

Long pause, then: “But isn’t that what A.I. would say?”

Me: “Well, yes, probably. But as it happens, it’s not A.I., it’s me.”

Reply: “I’m sorry, but I’m not sure.”

Long pause, then me: “Well… I’m not sure where that leaves us. I might be out of luck here. I can’t think of anything to say that A.I. couldn’t also think to say.”

Then I started laughing, because it was just a funny situation to be in.

And she said, “Ok, I don’t think A.I. would laugh like that. You’re real. What’s up?”

This is my life these days. Campaigning involves reaching out to a whole lot of people and you get a wide range of reactions. Thankfully, most of them are pretty pleasant.

But here’s what you don’t see: To keep our campaign gears running smoothly, I have to make sure we bring in a certain amount each week. And, to be honest, everything usually hinges on how much support comes in through these emails. If we have good support on a certain week, that can cut my hours on the phone in half - and that’s a really big deal.

It would be wonderful if you’d be willing to support us this week. You can do that here (through ActBlue) or here (through non-ActBlue). Both options fund our campaign directly.

And thanks, as always.

Best,

Jeff Jackson

P.S. - Of course, I couldn’t resist asking A.I. to depict the scenario in which I found myself, being mistaken for A.I. while making phone calls. A little dystopian, but I think it nailed it: