Which Presidential hopefuls don't believe in evolution?

[Zythryn]

Holy cow, does this scare anyone else??

 

Crooks and Liars » Who Doesn’t Believe in Evolution?

 

I saw this during the debate last night. Three of the ten republican presidential hopefuls raised their hands when the group was asked 'do any of you NOT believe in evolution?'.:)

 

I fell out of my chair. I'm a fiscal conservative, but holy cow:eek:

[InfiniteNow]

At some point we must elect a leader whose is not driven by the ignorant masses, but who lifts the masses out of ignorance and drives us forward as a society. Someone who leads by example, and whose example is grounded in science, education, and compassion.

 

 

Then again, if we did that, someone would probably assassinate them.

 

 

That article makes me sick. Thanks for posting it Zyth. :)

[Buffy]

I was surprised that only 3 raised their hands! Rudi was the only one who didn't want to ban abortion...

 

Arianna Huffington had a nice summation of the debate this morning though:

Last night on Anderson Cooper 360°, Anderson Cooper asked David Gergen, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, and me to pick our headline for the GOP debate. A Competition to See Who Could Be the Biggest Neanderthal was mine. The Republican Ten seemed to be competing over: Who would stay in Iraq the longest?

Who would cut taxes the deepest? Who would be alright with firing gay Americans from their jobs? Who would jump the highest if Roe v. Wade was reversed? Who would build the biggest fence around America? Who would put an end to stem cell research the fastest? Who would reject evolution most passionately?

*Both* parties have been slaves to their "hard-core" base. The Punditocracy has been hard on both Clinton's but I think they both have done a tremendous job in bringing the Democrats to the political center where most of America is. Obama too, oddly enough: look at the hot water he got in this week with his comments about Black America....

 

But these "Neanderthals" are really something else....where did all the Howard Baker's go?

 

Inverted Bell Curve,

Buffy

[Zythryn]

When Tommy Tomson said he would have no issue allowing private companies to fire homosexuals on that basis alone.... grrrrrrr

[Buffy]

And this little tid bit (subs. req'd) from Salon:

Number of Republican presidential candidates who appeared for their party's first 2008 presidential debate last night: 10.

 

Number of times they mentioned George W. Bush by name: 1.

 

The single mention: In response to a question about pardoning Scooter Libby, Sen. Sam Brownback said: "Let the legal process move forward, and I'd leave that up to President Bush. And I think he could go either way on that."

Sea change nonetheless...a big move away from what Rush was quoted saying yesterday: (via Think Progress)

Rush Limbaugh on Bush’s legacy: “Long after we’re all dead and gone, when historians who are not yet born begin to write about this era, they’re going to place George Bush in the upper echelon of presidents who had a great vision for America, who looked beyond our shores, who didn’t just restrict himself to domestic policy niceties.”

 

Rush may not know it, but there is already a debate going on among historians. Rolling Stone recently wrote, “Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.”

 

Don't stand in the doorway, :)

Buffy

[jackson33]

as to the topic; Republicans will answer to their base. i do not doubt each is sincere with an answer, however the base of the party is, conservative, religious, favors less government, lower taxes and the rule of law...among other things.

 

Infinite; as an interested science promoter, i would agree from my point of view, as a conservative the idea of a science based candidate would be nice.

however i am also an American, with principles, a certain pride in history and a believer in free market capitalistic systems. when we are talking governing a300 million population, with in a world that trends socialistic, i feel these qualities or those of my chosen party, take priority. additionally the vast majority of elected presidents have a history background, generally US with some world.

 

Buffy and the Bush haters; history takes a great deal of time to sort out opinions of the people involved. some place down the road, what each accomplishes during his tenure takes shape, falls apart or in some manner reflects the programs and idea's of the man and the administration. Lincoln, himself was the single greatest person to promote the equal value of people in a society, yet is know for so many other things. then as today the same that hated his agenda have viewpoints which if allowed would seem to make him "the worst ever". he did hold the country together, a feat 60% did not want and another 30 couldn't have cared less. those 10% left, did not write the history we read, but the historians who have judged decisions did so and IMO have done well...they will do the same for Bush.

 

Rush Limbaugh, like him or not, listen or not, speaks for 20-30 million folks or at least reflects viewpoints which are similar and given attention where no one else can. he is and claims to be nothing but a voice for ideas which reflect his conservative values. most of his audience would like to see him, run for office or be more instrumental in the movement he talks about. he has chosen and for good reason to leave the name calling and all that goes with any such attempt to those that want the power he has no desire to have.

additionally Mr. Limbaugh promotes the individuals ability to achieve, knowing he has done this, after numerous failures, which all people have during a lifetime. he is the picture of the American Dream, the notion that any person, man or woman can achieve what ever they want, with work, passion and sincerity in objectives.

[TheBigDog]

Holy cow, does this scare anyone else??

 

Crooks and Liars » Who Doesn’t Believe in Evolution?

 

I saw this during the debate last night. Three of the ten republican presidential hopefuls raised their hands when the group was asked 'do any of you NOT believe in evolution?'.:shrug:

 

I fell out of my chair. I'm a fiscal conservative, but holy cow:eek:

This is a big "So what?" from me. The three guys so raised their hands will combine for less than 5% of the primary vote, with most of that coming from their stance on other issues.

 

What it does show me is the successful diversity in our political system. We are a nation of very diverse opinions - even in the face of fact. This is true of every nation in the world. Much of that diverse opinion is cultural and regional. So an individual may rise to political power in one area with a belief system that seems foreign or backward to people in other areas. That is the way it is supposed to be. This primary process is to shake out the hangers-on until we have the candidates left who best represent their parties as a whole on the national level.

 

The purpose of the question was simply to shine a biased light on the Republicans as a whole based upon what is a very minority position. From the reaction I read here it appears to be successful. It would be interesting if the same, or similar question were posed to the Democratic candidates, but that would be contrary to the (left) agenda of making the Republican party appear to be backward hicks.

 

In the end I am left wondering, what would the actual impact be if we elected a person who didn't believe in evolution? Debate about school curriculum ending with no change?

 

So what.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

This is a big "So what?" from me. ...

 

We are a nation of very diverse opinions - even in the face of fact.

 

I think you underestimate the depth of this issue, Bill. You seem to make the case that we are concerned because one candidate likes vanilla and the other chocolate, and I think you present an inappropriate perspective of the discussion being had.

 

I’d equate what happened the other night to a candidate stating the earth is the center of the solar system (ala pre-Copernican understandings). Flat wrong, ignorant, yet accepted to a large number all the same.

 

 

Yes, let's elect the most unqualified ignorant person we can since they appeal to the lowest common denominator. That's the ticket! :shrug:

[C1ay]

Holy cow, does this scare anyone else?

 

What scares me is the fact that out of approximately 20 candidates across the parties I haven't seen one that I think has presidential qualities. What will it take to get truely presidential candidates to run for the presidency?

[jackson33]

What scares me is the fact that out of approximately 20 candidates across the parties I haven't seen one that I think has presidential qualities. What will it take to get truely presidential candidates to run for the presidency?

 

interesting point, one which i agree 100% with and of all things at this forum....

 

Infinite; we are discussing the election of one person, who will lead our nation as the most powerful person on the planet. if there is a depth to the issue, its far below anything achieved...

[Buffy]

Buffy and the Bush haters; history takes a great deal of time to sort out opinions of the people involved. ... Lincoln, himself was the single greatest person to promote the equal value of people in a society, yet is know for so many other things. then as today the same that hated his agenda have viewpoints which if allowed would seem to make him "the worst ever". he did hold the country together, a feat 60% did not want and another 30 couldn't have cared less. those 10% left, did not write the history we read, but the historians who have judged decisions did so and IMO have done well...they will do the same for Bush.

Of course we'll see, although Bush himself has said he'll be dead by the time they "see the light..."

 

I have no idea where you get those numbers about Lincoln, but he won re-election "by a landslide" in 1864, when the worst of the war had already happened but the end was not yet in sight. This isn't a terribly good analogy for a whole lot of reasons, one of which is that the war in Iraq has now gone on several months longer than the Civil War, with pretty clear indications that its not going to end anytime soon. You can take this topic to the History Forum if you'd like to debate it.

 

Rush Limbaugh....has chosen and for good reason to leave the name calling and all that goes with any such attempt to those that want the power he has no desire to have.

Yah, like "Barack The Magic Negro"! Rush and Coulter and Malkin don't "represent" anyone but themselves. Yes, they get ratings, but what's problematic is that they and many other right-wing extremists--calling what they say "conservative" is a joke--do nothing but say "everything that Bush is doing is right." That's not thinking, that's blind idolatry.

 

That some people want to blindly follow this sort of line is easy and comforting: it requires no energy wasted on thinking, all you have to do is say "ditto," and there's all those flags and fireworks to let you know that you're on the "right" side and are helping the fight against "truly evil people."

 

It would be nice if people actually followed the Jeffersonian ideal of studying the facts and making independent opinions about what is right, instead of simply falling in line with whatever "their" party says. "Stop snitchin' and don't go to school cuz its just whitey history" is not just found in the "godless liberal ghetto" its found among those extremists on the left with the simple substitution of "evolution-believing liberals" for "whitey". Obama and Cosby are railing about that attitude in the Black community. Why can't someone on the "conservative" side rail against this know-nothing-ism? If you think what Sharpton does is bad, the folks on the left have the same opinion about Rush for all the same reasons.

 

Now what came out of this debate was *facinating* *precisely* because as I said, *no one* had anything good to say about Bush. They are *all* running away from this presidency like rats fleeing a sinking ship. And *that's* what makes Rush's blind idolatry so silly. Why does he do this? Doesn't he recognize that true conservatives have started actually *thinking* about the issues and are starting to question this blind devotion?

 

I actually agree that none of the candidates from either party stands head and shoulders above the rest, but I've *never* voted for one that I thought did. Clinton grew into the job. I think folks that voted for Bush have legitimate reasons for thinking that he would too, but it sure looks like a lot of folks decided they were wrong. The fact is that a lot of CEOs and other leaders out there just plain suck, and a lot of folks that could do a good job wouldn't want it no matter what. This is not a perfect world, and we have to make decisions on who gets the job with a lot of imperfect information, but we're all better off with more information than less, and it would be *much* better if people actually talked about the pros and cons of issues rather than slapping those you disagree with as "haters" or "evil" or "traitors" or other meaningless epithets.

 

Not believing in evolution certainly tells me that a candidate does not believe in science or in rational debate, and he won't get my vote because of the fact that so much of what a president has to decide depends on rational and scientific weighing of facts and making hard decisions based on seemingly conflicting data when there are so many special interests. I was *encouraged* that 7 of the ten did not fall into "pander mode" and show blind obidience to the extremist Evangelical block. That's *progress*.

 

There are extremists on both ends of the spectrum trying to scream "there is no middle in politics" anymore, and fomenting "us versus them hatred." If you want to spread hate and bile, that's your business. Its a free country. But don't expect the middle to fall for it anymore. Candidates from both parties are at least starting to recognize this. If you and Rush and Coulter want to scream "traitor" until you turn blue, but its *bad* for America.

 

Don't be afraid to see what you see, :phones:

Buffy

[CraigD]

This is a big "So what?" from me. The three guys so raised their hands will combine for less than 5% of the primary vote, with most of that coming from their stance on other issues.

I agree. After hearing some vague mentions of the incident on the radio, I read about it expecting 9 of the 10 or some other appalling portion of the GOP candidates to come out as fundamentalists. I was heartened to see only 3/10ths, and those (Brownback, Tancredo & Huckabee) ones who’s names I didn’t recognize. If 70% of all Americans rejected creationism, rather than the actual appalling 22 – 52% (per 2005 Harris Poll #52), I would be even more heartened.

 

For reasons unrelated to science and religion, it’s unlikely I’ll vote for a Republican candidate for President in ’08. Nonetheless, I felt pride and admiration for McCain and the other 6 candidates who refused to “play to the base” of Creationsists (who, according to the poll linked to above, comprise 73% of self-identified Republicans, and 75% of self-identified conservatives).

 

I hope, if the same question were put to the Democratic party candidates, one (or, most likely two) of whom I likely will vote, they will behave as well.

[Zythryn]

While there are a number of good point on both sides of the discussion, I wanted to address one in particular.

 

Jackson33: the base of the party is, ... favors less

 

If this were true, the republicans might get my vote. Big business gets huge favors from the government. This happens under both democrats and republicans. It seems that it happens more with every new administration. We are no longer in a free market. Those with big pockets, get big favors. Those that can't afford lobbyists that will take politicians on golf outings to Scotland don't get as big favors.

 

Excellent point C1ay regarding the quality of canidates. I don't think there are really any great choices, just choices that aren't as bad. I don't believe those that wish to serve the public are any longer attracted to office, only those seeking power and/or money.

 

I don't care if a canidate is science orientated. I would just hope that the canidates would not be anti-science. Reason and logic will go a long way towards winning my vote. Showing a lack of either or both will go a long way towards winning my vote for the opponent:)

[jackson33]

Buffy; as to Lincoln's popularity in the early 60's, i don't think any of the Confederacy was pro-Lincoln. the Northern states were split and the Western at best, didn't care. McClellan the Democratic candidate, was not the best of candidates for the time, condemning freedom of the slaves and demanding a cease fire. slavery itself was not popular, at all in the north. prior to the election decisive battles were won and the outcome pretty well determined.

if you call the results a real landslide, the Bush's 04, election was as well. the popular votes in 1864 was 55-45 Lincoln, however 11 states in the south did not participate. historians at the time were concerned with the issue of State Rights which were at issue for some time and nearly over road the ones which gave him his due fame.

 

*The Magic Negro* as portrayed on the Limbaugh Show was an off take from another black mans portrayal. AGAIN, your giving Rush, to much credit for origination. much of what he is said to say, are quotes from other folks, which he may agree with. you ladies often refer to his "feminatzi" verse, which was his, but referred to a limited number of woman who, even by you definitions, were extreme in their views. think he often says about 10 or 15 radical leaders of extremist groups.

 

of those ten Republican and all the Democrats, if asked if a God created mankind, i would suggest all 20 would say yes...to say no, would mean automatic defeat in the US, which you well know. i happen to agree with you on faith based government. i oppose it well beyond you, but practicality or realization of what the voters require (%), leads to incomplete answers.

 

i also agree and its becoming clear we are not alone, no single person is standing out, which fits the times we live in. on my side Newt G. would be philosophically the best, not not electable. i see no others, even Fred T...

IMO, the Dem's, will nominate Hillary which in my financial life will be devastating, however unless some one comes out of the woodwork, she will win...

 

Polosi and Reid, in my mind are traitors. many others as well, when displaying politics overs actions. you cannot vote for something such as a war or national commitment, then for reasons as politics, change your mind. Limbaugh, Hennessey and Colter are declaring their views, as do many on the other side in media, especially the arts, but none are decision makers which is the problem....and differance.

[Guest chendoh]

I have a short, but succint, theory on this subject, that I would like to broach, in the near future. ( politics always involves a connumdrum )

 

In the meanwhile, I am enjoying this discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:hyper:

[jackson33]

Zythrun; i understand your frustrations with the perceived lobbyist problem.

however i feel its seriously mis-understood. to me its a process which government can hear from the people themselves. business, organizations or groups of like minded persons can give and take from discussions which are not conceivable one on one with 300 million people. with all due respect, i doubt any president (R or D) has ever talked to any one, with intent to make a decision. his administration heads or their staff, yes and to much more degree then most would like. yes, this includes party donations or to sponsor some event, but thats the way our system works. it also includes talks on issue which each individual as some connection to...pro or con on. you, me and every one is indirectly represented by many of the lobbyist, unknowingly giving our opinion to the people that count. we can write all the letters or e-mails, even receive prepared replies but we know the total influence.

 

business and corporations, the biggest single factor in our daily lives by products produced, working for or a component of and the effects on our city, state or national interest. even here these companies have a vested interest in you as the customer, stock holder or advertiser (word of mouth) for whatever the objective is.

[CraigD]

What scares me is the fact that out of approximately 20 candidates across the parties I haven't seen one that I think has presidential qualities. What will it take to get truely presidential candidates to run for the presidency?

I’m unsure if one should approach the problem as one of finding a candidate who matches some template of “Presidential qualities”, or conclude that “Presidential qualities” is a sort of vague historic term describing the personalities and policies of previous holders of the office. Are the best presidents one’s who fit the mold, or redefine it?

 

I think Democratic party candidate Dennis Kucinich would be an excellent President. His views, as evidenced by his executive and Congressional voting history, seem well-aligned with my own, and with those of the majority of America. Yet, to my puzzlement and dismay, his candidacy seems dismissed by political activist, media spokespersons, and ordinary people.

 

Increasingly, I think, consideration of the electability of candidates, rather than their stated platforms, public service histories, and personal character, is driving voters’ decisions at the polls. This strikes me as a gross and damaging example of people accepting having their decisions made for them, and tends to fill me with bitter cynicism.