"You claim this over and over and post some hairbrained Gemini project as evidence but the fact that it was rejected at the height of the space race should tell you something about its plausibillity."

The reason it was rejected is understandable. First, there was a desire for a large booster. For those interested in opening the space frontier, having a large booster seemed to increase this potential (makes lunar bases and Mars manned exploration more within reach). Second, going to the Moon was seen as way of proving America's technological power- it was more about nuclear war than about scientific achievement. Therefore using a small booster would give impression of weakest. If NASA first landed on the Moon using small booster, the Soviets could trump this move by using a larger booster to get to the Moon. It would look much better if America used a big booster, and Apollo was all about PR.

"If we can return to the Moon with existing launchers great. Let's do it and explore the poles. I don't think we can and haven't seen anyone from NASA claiming that."

Well, remember Goldin did ask for a plan to land humans on the Moon for a billion- and what he got back was limited operation of one crew landing and a higher cost of 1 1/2 billion. What I'm suggesting is 4-5 billion [a bigger program] and I think it can be done cheaper, mainly by the way it's organized and executed.

"If we can't return with existing equipment don't try and BS the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars. The physics say otherwise."

I agree with you. If the first step is to build a bigger booster, then it doesn't make much sense to go to the Moon. My idea to use the Moon as stepping stone, fundementally depends on using existing boosters. And doing it cheap and relatively quickly. Some of the mangement model of doing this Lunar project could also be used for Mars Manned. Success with Lunar program could be used to sell the idea that a Manned Mars is possible at a relatively modest price tag- e.g. 20-30 billion. If the entire NASA Manned Mars actually ends up costing less than 50 billion, then I think it's worth the money.
My entire interest in the Moon depends on the possiblity of commerically using lunar resouces [lunar water]- IF this is possible then it's more realistic that Mars resouces could also be commerically used. Therefore the NASA Manned Mars mission could be seen as a Lewis & Clark type expedition, the commerical follow on might take a decade or so. Or it's also possible there is a more immediate interest in Maritian commerical development- depending on what is found in the NASA maritian manned exploration and public interest which could be generated.
The only way that any space development can be sustained is if there is commerical use of Space. We wouldn't have all these communication satellites if this was exclusively a govt program. Lunar exploration isn't about science, it's about finding resources which can be commerically exploited, it should be about involving the private sector. Of course, this does involve science and the should be various scientific discovery which accompany it. Now, if NASA discovers there isn't minable deposits of water at lunar poles, then of course there won't be the follow on of commerical lunar water mining.