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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

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!

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

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]

Originally Posted by C1ay

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...