Skip to main content

Watching Republican candidates trying desperately to remain within the rigid confines imposed by the anti-science, dominionist lunatics known as "the conservative voting base," without burning their bridges with the majority of the country, is always good for producing an unsettling mix of amusement, revulsion, and sympathy. Thursday night's debate was no exception.

Below is an ad hoc reference table pieced together from the debate proper and/or from past statements or actions of the candidates by Jason Rosenhouse and I. We'd have liked to include a row on climate change, but those asked did not provide a clear response, most were not asked, and others have no clear views stated elsewhere.

Front Runners + 2HuckabeeGiulianiMcCainRomneyTancredo
Pro-Choice?NoYesNo2, 4No1No
Fed ESCR?NoYesYesYes5, 6No

The Other GuysBrownbackGilmoreHunterR. PaulThompson
Fed ESCR?NoYes3, 5 NoNo4No7

From a purely progressive health & science perspective, the more appealing candidate appears to be Rudolph Giuliani closely followed by Gilmore, the least appealing a three-way toss-up between Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee. But the candidates hedged, contradicted past statements, or offered up evasive blather in response to the questions they were asked, making it difficult to assign a clear position. For example, Gilmore unambiguously endorsed the repeal of Roe v.Wade (As did others). But he later said that he supports a woman's right to choose in the first 8 to 12 weeks of pregnancy, then quickly added that he had a strong pro-life record as Governor of Virginia.  On federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR), he ducked the issue saying "We cannot create people in order to experiment on people." Nevertheless, by taking a firm stand for a women’s right to choose and in light of past remarks or actions, we rate Gilmore as pro-choice and pro fed funding of ECSR. See footnotes below for more.


  1. Maybe "Yes," maybe "No" depends on what day asked and what audience needs to be bullshitted on that particular day.
  1. Based in part on past remarks/actions probably "No."
  1. Based in part on past remarks/actions probably "Yes."
  1. Incoherent or evading blather but probably "No."
  1. Incoherent or evading blather but probably "Yes."
  1. Courageously objects to wholesale manufacture of clone-slaves (And we assume opposes rebellious replicants, human/animal hybrids gone mad, cyborgs run amok, and/or reanimating the dead). But supports somatic nuclear transfer, meaning Mitt is unware SCNT is a method for cloning or he approves of it.
  1. Unclear

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:11 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  A note (22+ / 0-)

    to future moderators: That hand-rasing format used by Jim Vandehei on the evolution question must be used again, in all debates, on multiple questions, both Democratic and Republican. It’s quick, plus the candidates can’t open their yaps and hedge, evade, or bullshit. But they can’t freeze up or ignore it, because their answers will be recorded one way or the other. It was amusing to watch guys like Duncan Hunter either 1) affirm their belief in secular Darwinist materialism on national television in full view of their prospective wingnut voters, or 2) simply lock up unable to process the mental calculation quick enough to determine what their answer should be.

    Read UTI, your free thought forum

    by DarkSyde on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:03:59 AM PDT

    •  In psychology its called a "Forced Choice." (5+ / 0-)

      Equivocation and deception are not allowed.

      True XOR False.

      A beautiful system to throw at the slimier politicians, whose whole existence is wrapped around keeping their options open.

      It also highlights differences between presentation and substance.

      One example is Huckabee. Smooth voice, solid body language, carefully softened phrasings.... Engineered to be likeable.

      A perfect vessel for disguising extremist, reactionary theocratic leanings and anti-science rabble-rousing. A dangerous politician, indeed.

      Jefferson and the Dixie Chicks. Imus and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

      by vets74 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:31:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huckabee expains it perfectly (0+ / 0-)

        When he was asked whether his statement that he does not believe in evolution was outside the mainstream, according to the N.Y. Times he responded.

        "Not in this country."

        That said it all!

    •  Only "caveat" (4+ / 0-)

      related to yes / no ...

      • Clarity of questions ... make sure they are valid yes/no issues (questions)

      Just for the hand showing, I regret not watching the debate (really couldn't ... wasn't a question of choice).

      Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

      by A Siegel on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:16:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Romney vote on Evolution (0+ / 0-)

      I have heard that Romney was raising his hand to vote that he did not believe in evolution and then put it down. Have not been able to track down anything to support this. Can't find anything on Crooks and Liars or TalkLeft.

  •  Tancredo is a frontrunner? (5+ / 0-)

    If so, the Republicans are in even worse shape than I thought.

    -5.13,-5.64 (Insert witty, pithy sig line here.)

    by gizmo59 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:13:39 AM PDT

  •  This issue is a real winner for us. (5+ / 0-)

    It speaks to the fundamental (no pun intended... okay, it's intended) flaws in the Republican Party and the kind of leadership (sic) that they offer.

    We must hammer this over and over and over. Independents and "temperate" Republicans may or may not pull a Blue lever, but a large number of them sure as Hell won't pull a Red Lever or write checks to the GOP this time. We win. Big.

    "One does not discover new lands without consenting to leave sight of the shore for a very long time." -Andre Gide

    by pat208 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:32:23 AM PDT

  •  Embarrassing 3rd World Quality of Views in GOP (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alwaysquestion, vets74, wondering if

    For a babyboomer who was taught from infancy how Science was the way to keep the USA safe and powerful it is heartbreaking to see ANY American party sink as low at the GOP is now.

    The GOP is Racing to make the USA the most ignorant, backward military bully in the world.

    I'm a Christian and a Biologists.  There is no real incapabliity between religion and science.

    The GOP is just terrible at this point

    •  Was thinking this morning ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alwaysquestion, Maaarrrk

      in comparison to the French election ...

      3 of 10 Republican leading Presidential candidates fundamentally reject a core scientific theory: Evolution.  

      I cannot imagine such disconnection from basic knowledge and foundations of our understanding of our relationship with the world being core to meaningful candidates in another major country.

      Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

      by A Siegel on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:20:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gun Killings descriptive narrative Time May 2001 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There are many peer reviewed articles on gun killings. But this article from 6 years ago is what everybody remembers.

    Time Magazine gun killings May Week 2001 summary

    These 464 killings slice-and-diced as follows:

    -- 14 self-defense killings

    -- 13 were ordinary police shoots

    -- 216 suicides

    -- 9 murders by people who then committed suicide

    -- 22 easily preventable accidents

    -- Most of the rest fit what "Karole Avila, a psychiatrist at Detroit Receiving Hospital, has called a permanent solution to a temporary problem"

    Guns are a plague. Fear is a plague. They have a nice satanic marriage going.

    FBI stat has it 44:1 for killings vs. self-defense killings. They quote that at the FBI HQ orientation process. "Lock up your guns" is their prime directive.

    I'll be interested to see what these preserve-your-options candidates have to say about the 30,000 gun deaths every year in America.

    Science ??? Two years of gun deaths kill more Americans than have died here in 25 years from AIDS.

    Give me a politician who addresses gun deaths head-on as a public health plague.

    Jefferson and the Dixie Chicks. Imus and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

    by vets74 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:45:36 AM PDT

  •  This makes me think that the republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    primary needs some intervention from the democrats.  This '08 leader will be a turning point in our history.  I just don't think we can afford to let the worst of those candidates be on the top ticket.  I don't like Rudy, but at least he would not block abortions, stem cell research or science.  At least he could work somewhat with a Democratic congress and perhaps the Supreme Court picks could be something talked about WITH the democratic leadership.  The way it is now, those fundy folks rule the primaries and so many people will just vote republican in the generals as they always have in the past.  I certainly don't want Rudy to win, but if we lose, it just can't be to one of the flat-earthers, which is my fear.

    •  I (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobinson, A Siegel, alwaysquestion

      find it hard to imagine that Rudy will make it through the primary. But the fact that he's performing so well suggests that the conservative voters have caught onto the scam, or perhaps they are not nearly as fringe as their social conservative leaders.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:55:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rudy will not make it through the primaries (0+ / 0-)

        without a little help from the other side.  My fundy family and friends have not lost sight of the Supreme Court.  They are so close to what they have fought for now for over 30 years.  It is a dream almost realized.

        I am only saying that given the choice between them and us, I would say Rudy is the best we could lose to especially if we can gain seats in congress.  Don't get me wrong.  Rudy will be a disaster too.  I just want the Supreme Court from blowing up.  I have a daughter to raise.

    •  no no no (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      April Follies, alwaysquestion

      If Rudy makes it through the primary, he's the most formidable candidate in the general election.  

      If he takes the White House, he's going to take our foreign policy back to the dark ages.  

      What liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument. -- Thomas Friedman

      by markymarx on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:50:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I understand what you are saying (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but I have one hope and that is that the Democratic camp will keep (and gain seats?, veto proof?) of both houses and they will be able to control the WH effectively.  And that seems more likely to me.  Things are bad, but just not bad enough for those republicans not to give a new face a fair try than to vote Democratic.

        But, my biggest fear is the Supreme Court.  And if we get a knuckledragger in the WH, we will never get a nominee that is anything other than a flat earther.  Look at what the two new ones have managed to accomplish so far.  We are in trouble.  But I think Rudy would have enough sense to know he must negociate with the Democrats before nominating and also that the Pat Robertsons will not influence his choice like it does the Chimp.

        Now, looking at the bigger picture, I have a greater concern, which is that the next president is likely to be a one term president before the other party then rules again for 8 or more years.  The reason for that is because there is too big of a mess left from this Chimp and republican controlled congress for the last 6 years.  Too much damage in all issues.  Way too much rebuilding has to take place at a time when oil prices will sky rocket.  All together now: PEAK OIL!!  It will be a disaster.  The president's seat will switch to the other party in 2012.  What to do?  

        •  2012? impossible to predict this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          April Follies, alwaysquestion
          • On foreign policy and civil liberties, Rudy is a knuckledragger.  
          • Rudy doesn't admire Justices Scalia and Thomas?
          • Rudy played to New York City to win. Do we really know how conservative he really is?  

          What liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument. -- Thomas Friedman

          by markymarx on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:04:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, Rudy idea of civil liberty (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            markymarx, Mike Erwin

            is pretty much non-existent.

            And his SC nominees wouldn't be anything to brag about, but I also think he would be more inclined to see how he may be forced to negociate to work with a democratic congress and would perhaps be more likely to do so without the Pat Robertson's of the world doing the choosing for him.  He will be less pressured and perhaps more able to sit down and talk with the democratic leaders.  But maybe not.

            True, he may be more conservative than we know.  I have always gotten the idea from how he talks about abortion that Roe should be overturned because he really thinks it should be settled in each state regardless of his often stated support of individual choice.

            I don't like Rudy, but the other candidate down right scare the shit out of me.  I have too many fundy folks around and thinking of them as total control gives me a heart attack what with a daughter to raise.

    •  I see your point, but... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      April Follies, alwaysquestion

      ...Rudy is known for his tendencies to micromanage. The Bush Administration (Cheney) loves to micromanage and has shown they will do it any chance they get if it can give them a political advantage.

      If Rudi runs the country like he ran his city, every little decision in every federal agency will be made inside the WH. It would continue to be a Presidency with a lapdog cabinet only worse.

      We simply HAVE to win this election.

      Losing in Iraq is not an option, it is a result.

      by bobinson on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:31:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tancredo ?! A front-runner ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That's news to me. He's going have problems, if that's true, given that he's supported the idea of a vast, sweeping Catholic conspiracy to culturally take over the US,

  •  Giuliani is toast (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lisa, alwaysquestion

    The GOP won't tolerate this kind of liberal thinking.  God, it sounds like he actually went to college.

    •  The republicans do have a bit of a (0+ / 0-)

      problem.  It is when big business joins force with the religious right that they both back and win.  And the neo-cons and flat earthers have yet to gather and agree it seems as of yet.  So until they can unite, we just may have a chance.

      But our window of opportunity is so very short.  The next president is likely to be a one term president.  Unless we can get someone with a big vision and very progressive ideas.  If we could get Edwards or other to tout the Kucinich plan, we just might have a winner.  But so far, our top three have not gone far enough.  We need sweeping change, not small fixes on every issue.  And then maybe.

    •  Giuliani isn't pro-choice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      He said he wouldn't mind if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Isn't that the anti-choice litmus test? I don't think he deserves an unambiguous "Yes" in that column; it's his perceived moderateness that makes him do better in the general election.

  •  Excellent work ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Appreciated ...

    But odd that Gilmore gets "pro-choice" when stating strongly that he supports reversal of Roe v Wade.  Perhaps there needs to be a 'conflicted' line.  There is only

    And, well, would like to see the GW discussion ... what other key science related issues?

    Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

    by A Siegel on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:14:56 AM PDT

  •  Gilmore (4+ / 0-)

    HOSED Virginia's state budget by giving a stupid popular tax cut.  Mark Warner spent the next four years cleaning up his fiscal mess.  Can't recommend him, despite his stances on these issues.

    What do Republicans and cockroaches have in common? -- Shine a light on them and see.

    by kismet on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:15:36 AM PDT

    •  And to add... (4+ / 0-) a person who worked as science faculty at a state university in Virginia during the Gilmore and post-Gilmore years, what his mismanagement did to the state budget and to state university employees was not "science friendly".  Nor friendly to any other discipline.

      What do Republicans and cockroaches have in common? -- Shine a light on them and see.

      by kismet on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:18:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Have I been banned from publishing diaries? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have been unable to publish for the last to days. I get "an error in publishing..."

    and, if so, why was I not informed of the reason

    "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

    by theRoaringGirl on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:20:58 AM PDT

  •  Giuliani Repubs only viable "national" candidate? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparky McGruff, alwaysquestion

    We know the public favors women having the right to choose an abortion, favors evolution/science in schools and favors the science of stem cell research vs. the imposed religious dogma of the Republican Party.

    One of the "changes" the public wants is for the US to move beyond having to debate these issues time after time.

    That would mean that only Giuliani would be viable as a national Republican candidate.  The current polls ( reflect this fact.

    After seeing Giuliani's performance in the Republican debate, I don't see him beating any of the leading Democrats, Clinton, Edwards or Obama.

    The good thing about the Republican debates is they will draw the Republican candidates further and further to the right.  Giuliani will further alienate the Republican base.  Having to vote for a pro-abortion, pro-stem cell, pro-evolution candidate is going to be downright discouraging for the neolithic Republican base.

    On top of that voting for the bland and bald Giuliani is not going to fire up the Republican moderates nor gain much traction with independents especially if independents and moderates have a choice like Obama who offers a break from the past which voters crave.

  •  Democrats and a certain reform issue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Watching Republican candidates trying desperately to remain within the rigid confines imposed by the anti-science, dominionist lunatics known as "the conservative voting base," without burning their bridges with the majority of the country, is always good for producing an unsettling mix of amusement, revulsion, and sympathy. Thursday night's debate was no exception.

    This very eloquently captures the essence of why I the think Democratic party needs to add cannabis reform language to thier "platform".

    More than appealing to a very wide swath of American voters, it's a n opportunity to SEVERELY frustrate the GOP as they are stuck with repeating their nonsense - which further alienates them for Americans - or it forces them to break their lockstep with their party and side with science, reality, and decency. (Oh... the horror...)

    This is the focus of The GreenState Project.

    All that is necessary at this time os for Democratic Party candidate to "talk" about reform like sane, responsible adults, nothing more. GSP is about getting them to talk about it.

    • pot NOT a good move for Dems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This is going to another very close election. No peripheral bomb tossing issues please.

      2006 is the mainstream.

      It's enough because that is where the public is...against Iraq war, for environmental action, for women's choice, for science in education, for science in medicine, for health care reform, for energy independence.

      •  Sorry... It's not "peripheral" anymore (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mike Erwin, alwaysquestion

        and "legalizing" was nowhere in my particular post.

        Talking.... this is the part people have the hardest time with ... talking.

        Not introducing laws or anything like "work".


        And regarding "bomb-tossing... cheerful metaphor - it's an "umbrella" isue, the basic opposite of a wedge issue.
        Wedge issues divide, umbrella issues include. Thus my reference to wide swath of american voter demographic.

        It needn't hjiack a debate (or this particulr thread - I am just "observin'), though a question about medical marijuana IS likely to happen sometime - dems clearly need to support it without all the "we need more studies" nonsense; it's not as acute as Iraq or the Team Bush crime wave, but it is a chronic issue aggravating a variety of seeming unrelated issue I shan't go into here.

        It's not fringe, its not a bomb, it's not divisive and with the GOP in full-on melt-down it's a prime time to do it.... just to fuck with them if nothing else.

        This is the beauty of  politics: we can accomplish the right things for all the wrong reasons.

        •  You are right, we do need to talk about it. (0+ / 0-)

          Because they are.  The other side always says we are the party of pot.  This is something that needs more attention during off campaign years to enlighten the population so they are not so taken by it when the other side spews.

        • pot is wedge issue fer shure (0+ / 0-)

          ""legalizing" was nowhere in my particular post."

          It was every where in your post and would certainly be  the headline of Republican ads.

          "- it's an "umbrella" isue, the basic opposite of a wedge issue."

          Legalizing pot pretty much defines wedge issue and pointless one at that.

          US has major survival issues we need to unite around, oil/energy/national security, health care, deficit/debt...pot laws aren't on the radar.  

          Work on getting a few states to legalize it if you are looking to prove it's politically viable.

          Going into a national ditch over fringe issues like legalizing pot (which I support) is so NOT the thing to do in 2008.

          •  Then you clearly grasp half (0+ / 0-)

            of what I amtalking about.

            Sure it's be in Repub adss. Sure we'd see their ilk going bananas - or trying to whip up that Old Time Reefer Mad hysteria (The Fearmongering of Ages) right at a time they can least afford to piss people off further, right when their "credibility" is in shreds,they will launch into their schtick to find themselves demonstrating how out of touch they are.

            It appears that you aren't really aware of the size of this issue if you still consider it a "wedge". It's popularity transcends all demographics. Fuckin repubs smoke pot.

            It's wedginess is over, all that remains is to break the blackout in the MSM.

            Look no further than the ongoing success of medical cannabis issues on ballots as a sign of how popular this is in the context of a media blockade on rational cannabis discourse.

            Democratic candidates should anticipate such bullshit from the GOP and simply act in unison with detachment and amusement and call for sanity in the issue and move along.

            Democratic leaders talking about cannabis reform in unemotional terms, business like and moving on will break this media blockcade by causing the media to have to report it....eventually: e know thay can ignore the elephants in the living room and make it look easy.

        •  Agree...not even fringe issue status (0+ / 0-)

          Legalizing pot is the fringe de la fringe...light years past the periphery.

          •  So the Drug War goes on forever ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xxdr zombiexx

            There's a reason the United States has the world's highest incarceration rate.

            No returns for privilege; full returns for labor! Labor has a right to all that it creates.

            by Mike Erwin on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:58:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So pot irrelevant to abortion, evo and stem cell (0+ / 0-)

              is the issue.  You can see what a distraction legalizing pot is in this conversation about science issues and the Republicans and the 2008 election.

              Republicans would love for Democrats to overreach and make legalizing pot an issue in the 2008 election.

              It's political suicide.

              For those who want to make legalizing pot an issue, start in your state where you have a much better chance. Demonstrate that there is grass roots (ouch!) support for the issue.

              •  Wrong, wrong wrong. So, so wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                Completely relevant.

                Those are CHOICE ISSUES as is medical cannabis, at the very least, though I have no idea how evolution can be involved in this discussion: evolution is not a choice.

                All pro-choice folks need to be supporting right to medical cannabis, at the very least.

                And I do  NOT want  "legalizing pot" as a 2008 campaign issue/ballot thing. I will heartily agree America isn't ready for that. America needs to talk first and this is all that I am about.

                And the "starting at the state" issue is a decent point, but it's wrong.

                The Federal Government is the problem.

                They use reefer madness as a crowbar against the 9th and 10th amendments,  which are about limiting the powers of the federal government. The Feds use the "primacy of drug laws" - or that basic concept - to nullify state's rights, particularly on this issue.

                It's a clear pattern.

                Change has to be federal.


  •  The Repubs have done their reasearch (4+ / 0-)

    Did it long ago. It's as if they went out and found all the crazy issues that large segments of voters would base their voting decisions on if only one issue mattered. They then folded those issues into the Republican movement.

    For instance, the courting of the gun nuts. There is a segment of voters out there who will base their entire voting decision on weather or not a candidate will make it easier or harder to own a gun. Based on that, the candidate becomes instantly qualified to set the budget, decide corporate regulation, set forign policy, choose federal judges, domestic policy, trade policy, weather or not we go to war...

    Same can be said about the abortion people. The Republicans, by choosing to court the irresponsible voters, can pass their unpopular, irresponsible corporate policies once in office. That was one of the things Thomas Frank said in his book, What's the Matter With Kansas?

    Losing in Iraq is not an option, it is a result.

    by bobinson on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:20:18 AM PDT

  •  Way to go, Mitt! (4+ / 0-)

    Mitt Romney sounds like he's following in the footsteps of Dan Quayle, who when asked about what a woman should do if she his raped (if abortion were made illegal), said,

    "My position is that I understand from a medical situation, immediately after a rape is reported, that a woman normally, in fact, can go to the hospital and have a D and C. At that time... that is before the forming of a life. That is not anything to do with abortion." ---- Senator Dan Quayle, explaining that Dilatation and Curettage, a form of abortion which occurs after fertilization, is not really abortion

    To recap:
    Quayle: She shouldn't have an abortion, she should have an abortion.  
    Mitt: We shouldn't clone embryos for stem cell research, we should clone embryos instead!

  •  Evolution/ID (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alwaysquestion, wondering if

    Although it's crap scientifically, ID is an evolutionary hypothesis.  A political candidate could legitimately say "I believe in evolution" while espousing ID.  Even the YECs (Young Earth Creationists) accept "microevolution", or some amount of speciation occurring post-ark (while still denying human evolution, of course, despite the fact that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than the kinds of post-ark speciation these nuts consider possible.

    Sadly, the statement "I believe in evolution" can be made by scary creationist nuts...which really puts Brownback and Huckabee in perspective (given Tancredo's past statements, he probably believes that non-white people descend from Adam and Lilith, so evolution denial is probably the least worrying thing about him).

  •  There are no pro-choice Republican candidates. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sxp151, alwaysquestion

    Every one of them said that he was either enthusiastic or "okay" with Roe v. Wade being overturned (or "repealed" as the ignoramus Tweety put it).

    No one who favors reproductive rights will consider a candidate who endorses overturning Roe "pro-choice."

  •  Why creationists believe earth is 6,000 years old (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Is this because the earliest writings are 6,000 years  old?  So they believe before the first writings, the earth didn't exist?

  •  modest suggestion for new qualification (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    April Follies, sxp151, alwaysquestion

    to run for the office of President; be able to turn on a computer and perform several basic functions, such as write a letter, make an annual budget, use a calculator, etc.
    These guys' performance has proven they can do none of the above to date.  

  •  Without vearing off the subject too much (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    April Follies, alwaysquestion

    I'd like to mention that the administration is busy trying to dismantle an important scientific institution.  Funding for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL) has been entirely cut (a whopping 5 million dollars) and this will force its closure at the end of the month unless something is done.  

    SREL studies the effects of nuclear radiation on the environment.  It operates on the Savannah River Site which stores a whole lot of high level nuclear waste. Should SREL be eliminated there will be no independent oversite of this waste.  The Savannah River Site is right next to the Savannah River and there have been radioactive spills into it in the past.  This is scary stuff.

    I wrote a short diary on this issue yesterday explaining how you can help.  Thanks.

  •  Evolution and Rudy (0+ / 0-)

    If Rudy were smart, in the next debate if he's asked that question, he'd not only say that he BELIEVES in evolution, but that it has been thoroughly proven by the scientific community, and anyone who errantly thinks otherwise is simply not educated enough to run this country.

    Can we just smack down these IDIOT unintelligent-designers? I mean, talk about being proof that you're wrong and all... There is no intelligence, nor design, in Tancredo. Yeesh.

  •  This is why they are called the wingnut party :: (0+ / 0-)

    Three of ten Republican candidates for President of the United States in 2007 do not believe in evolution.

    Ask AL GORE To Run For PRESIDENT! Send your letter to: The Office of the Honorable Al Gore, 2100 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN 37203

    by ezdidit on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:05:16 AM PDT

  •  Huckabee -- disappointing (0+ / 0-)

    Whenever I've heard him speak he seems like a decent enough guy.  But he raised his hand to say he doesn't believe in evolution (WTF?), and his positions on abortion and stem cell research put him way out of the mainstream.

    Mind you, I have no intention of ever voting Republican -- just saying that Huckabee is likable until you hear his positions.

  •  Thank you. The footnotes are terrific. N/t (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site