"For those who claim that NASA's systems, the Orion crew vehicle and Ares 1 launcher, will compete with commercial providers, I will again remind everyone that, in our plan, commercial systems are "primary" for ISS logistics. Orion and Ares are the backstop if U.S. commercial providers are not successful in developing such capability. They are sized for missions beyond low-Earth orbit, and will not be as cost-effective as commercial systems built specifically for ISS transport. We should not yield to the temptation to build yet another government system solely for access to LEO. As a matter of fiscal responsibility, we should not design systems like Orion and Ares for low-Earth orbit operations, and then redesign them later for missions to the moon, the near-Earth asteroids, and Mars. And as a matter of strategic policy, the Earth-to-LEO market niche should be left to commercial providers, if they can fill it, and to government systems only if they cannot. "
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30052
Linked from: http://www.nasawatch.com/

It's an interesting emphasis Griffin using. I get that Ares is a "backstop" for LEO, but is it, and/or why isn't it that Orion and Ares can't be a "backstop" in regards to the Moon and Mars?
Or if Orion and Ares aren't a "backstop" for Moon and beyond, can it at least be seen as aggressively sharing some tasks for missions of Moon and beyond?

I like what Griffin is saying in this article, I particularly like his take on prizes-when they are a good idea, when they are less good idea, and how they "work".
Now, are these ideas stated in NASA policy and are said in such way that the bureaucracy can implement them in the coming years?