Several news sources are reporting that Obama has decided to the controversial (but I believe effective) Michael Griffen as NASA's top administrator. Obama's pick, according to Scientific American, is retired Air Force General Scott Gration. Gration was an important supporter of Obama during the primaries and spoke at the Democratic National Convention in order to lend some national security credibility to Obama's run for president. Gration was also used for his appeal to moderates and republicans as he voted for Bush in 2000.
Politically, this is a good choice. He's a man that can help the military and NASA's space programs work together more effectively due to his extensive military experience. He's also a moderate, which appeals to both parties without alienating the liberal wing of Obama's party since NASA isn't known as a hot-spot for controversy. He's a man that Obama wasn't afraid to put on the campaign trail so I'm sure he will avoid some of the public dust-ups that Griffen is famous for (the most recent was a heated argument Griffen had at a public reception with the head of Obama's transition team for NASA). Politically Scott Gration is a smart choice.
In my opinion, however, he's wrong for NASA. Michael Griffen may have been a jerk, but he was an engineer that knew how to make things work. He ran NASA as an exploration agency for really the first time in 30 years. He played fiscal hardball to keep important projects running. He refused to turn NASA into the NSF for space, which irked astronomers to no end. He looked bad doing it, but Michael Griffen was one of the best things to happen to NASA in a very long time.
I think Obama's choice to replace a proven engineer with someone who has no experience at all with space-flight is a politically motivated move. I have come to expect better from Obama - more often than I would expect from a politician he makes decisions based on facts rather than perception. Here, however, I think he made the wrong move.
