Texas Academy of Science statement on Pianka

| 86 Comments

Someone in Texas forwarded this to me, from the Texas Academy of Science:

Subject: Texas Academy of Science and Dr. Eric Pianka Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:17:19 -0600

I, and the Board of Directors of the Texas Academy of Science (TAS), would like to clarify our status concerning the Distinguished Texas Scientist (DTS) presentation by Dr. Eric Pianka on Friday, 3 March 2006 at the 109th annual meeting in Beaumont, Texas.

Candidates for the DTS award are nominated by the general membership of TAS. Submitted supportive documentation is reviewed by the TAS vice-president and a committee of TAS Fellows. The candidates are individually ranked by each member of the committee and the totals compiled. The top candidate is contacted by the vice-president and if he/she accepts, is willing to attend the annual meeting and give a presentation, then TAS reimburses his/her travel, room and board expenses. The selected DTS receives a plaque at the Awards Banquet and no other remuneration.

As I have stated before, we (TAS) select the DTS speaker based upon his/her academic credentials and contributions to Science. We DO NOT mandate nor put constraints on the subject he/she decides to address, nor will we ever. The views expressed by any speaker (DTS or any of the 200+ presenters) are his or hers alone and are not meant to represent the Academy as a whole. To clarify this position for future presentations, we will include an appropriate disclaimer within the meeting program.

Whether or not we (TAS) as a body agree with the statements that Dr. Pianka made in his presentation is irrelevant. We are an Academy of individuals, and as such, each is free to make his or her alignments. TAS neither condones nor vilifies Dr. Pianka’s statements. We would like to state, however, that many of Dr. Pianka’s statements have been severely misconstrued and sensationalized. The purpose of his presentation was to dramatize the precarious plight of the human population. He did nothing more than apply commonly accepted principles of animal population dynamics to humans; an application not unique to this presentation and one that can be surmised by any student of ecology.

Dr. David S. Marsh 2006 President, Texas Academy of Science 2006 TAS Board of Directors

(bold added)

In other news, there is a lot of rumor-mongering in the ID blogosphere and some of the media about a “transcript” in the possession of the Seguin Gazette-Herald, the first newspaper to report on this, just after Mims’s own account. One news story said they weren’t giving it out for some reason – The Seguine Gazette-Herald says they will be posting a transcript of the second Pianka lecture, given in early April, later this week. My gut feeling is that if there were any “gotcha” moments in there, we would have seen them already, since the Seguin Gazette-Herald has pretty clearly been drinking Forrest Mims’s coolaid from the beginning. One important tidbit that no one seems to have noticed is that Forrest Mims happens to be a longtime resident of Seguin, TX, population ~24,000, and Mims himself sometimes writes for the Seguin Gazette-Herald. Also strange is the fact that an audio recording of Pianka’s direct reply to the Seguine Gazette-Herald reporter’s question, “I don’t advocate killing people”, never made it into the Gazette-Herald‘s story.

This news story from UT Austin’s The Daily Texan, although not without its flaws, has some more details on the (required!) FBI interview with Pianka, and many supportive comments from people who actually know and work with the man.

For the irony-deprived wingnuts out there who still don’t get Pianka’s jokes, like these guys, here’s another sample of Pianka humor for you to go into hysterical convulsions over.

86 Comments

It’s interesting that Dembski’s now offering to bet that Pianka’s popularity will soon decline. Not that Pianka will be charged with anything. Not that he’ll be judged by the FBI as any kind of a threat. But that his public image will become tarnished.

There’s only one reason I can see for making this wager in this particular fashion. It’s because Pianka’s public image is something that Dembski et al. can affect. As with the attempt to re-assign blame for the cost of Dover’s attorney’s fees to the post-decision board, Dembski knows that repeating hysterical charges will rally his base and hurt his enemies, regardless of the truth. I see Dembski’s wager as a statement, in effect, that he intends to see Pianka’s public image demolished.

The smearing of Eric Pianka is evidence that Dembski and the DI have abandoned any pretense of even wanting to contribute to the scientific discourse. It’s all about the culture war.

This is the start of a long campaign, folks.

This is the start of a long campaign, folks.

start?

This idiocy “started” long ago. this is just the latest iteration.

Well, the idiocy started long ago. But they’ve only recently ramped up the Rovian tactics.

I actually think that Dover has been such a monumental crisis for them that the DI is switching over to a kind of scorched earth policy. Whereas they until recently have portrayed themselves as members of the scientific academy – dissidents, but still scientists – it looks to me now like they are abandoning that stance.

The Wedge no longer applies: the entire ID game-plan has degenerated to “Swift-boat any scientist you can”.

That’s pretty new.

Marsh’s statement looks pretty solid. I approve.

Dembski, on the other hand, is a pathetic little prick. Reporting someone to the Department of Homeland Security based on hearsay is a disgusting tactic.

My theory on Dembski is that he basically sold his soul for notoriety’s sake. Sure, he could have been a reasonably successful mathematics or philosophy professor at a second-tier university, but how much more satisfying to be the darling of the anti-science set! You get to travel frequently and speak before adoring audiences!

I also suspect that he’s gotten far beyond actually believing in his own crap. It’s just that he’s ridden this pony far too long to get off now.

Matt Wrote:

There’s only one reason I can see for making this wager in this particular fashion. It’s because Pianka’s public image is something that Dembski et al. can affect. As with the attempt to re-assign blame for the cost of Dover’s attorney’s fees to the post-decision board, Dembski knows that repeating hysterical charges will rally his base and hurt his enemies, regardless of the truth. I see Dembski’s wager as a statement, in effect, that he intends to see Pianka’s public image demolished.

And so, as always, the Intelligent Design movement continues to pioneer new and innovative work in the field of public relations.

the entire ID game-plan has degenerated to “Swift-boat any scientist you can”.

Well the fundies are the experts at swift-boating and have been … forever.

I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that this is part of the “ID” game-plan. It’s just fundies being fundies. Remember when the fundies put out “The Clinton Chronicles” where they accused Clinton of murder? I hope so. That was not too long ago. Remember whose cable station carried ads for the “The Clinton Chronicles” long after the bogusness of “The Clinton Chronicles” was well-documented (as if that was necessary)? It was Jerry Falwell’s cable station. What is Falwell up to now? Among other things, he is fund raising for Liberty University, where revisionist history and revisionist science scripts are memorized by little fundie morons. Is Liberty University taken seriously by anyone?

Ask Republican Senator and presidential candidate John McCain.

Meh, McCain’s not really a fundie, he’s just too stupid to realize the collateral damage he causes, like most neocons, when they placate the religious right to garner a larger political base.

on that note, since he is a likely candidate for the next election, I would encourage all to write him and show him how damaging placating these idiots has been and will continue to be to the US economy.

I believe the McCain reference was due to the “turn on him like a pack of dogs” maneuver the far right is doing since his AFL-CIO talk.

I’ve never understood - what actually does “swift-boating” mean? It’s the name of a PR company, right?

Hi, corkscrew

I’ve never understood - what actually does “swift-boating” mean? It’s the name of a PR company, right?

A group of right wingers calling themselves “swift boat veterans for truth” launched vicious attack ads lying about John Kerry’s war record during the last presidential election, which helped obscure the fact that their candidate was a draft dodger and went awol. Swift boats were small boats used during the Vietnam War; it was very dangerous duty, and John Kerry won medals for his service on a swift boat.

The “Swift-boat Vets for Truth” was the astroturf organization that dedicated itself to portraying John Kerry as a coward and a war-criminal, and so to divert attention from George Bush’s mediocre (to say the least) career in the Texas National Guard.

The PR firm that help coordinate the attacks also represents the Discovery Institute.

“Swift-boating” is more or less the destruction of someone’s reputation in order to deflect attention from one’s own failings.

“Swift-boating” now refers to a deliberate campaign of misinformation promulgated to tarnish the reputation, and thereby credibility, of someone. Such tactics have been around for a long time, and are not limited to Republicans by any stretch of the imagination. However, in the past US presidential election, a group of conservative veterans ran a propaganda campaign against John Kerry disparaging his credentials as a war hero, specifically claiming that his medals received for wounds were undeserved, and his commendations for bravery in combat were based on fraudulent claims. Kerry served on a “Swift Boat” in Vietnam – a small river patrol boat. The claims of the veterans were largely shown to be fraudulent or dubious at best, yet the unremitting propaganda clearly damaged Kerry’s campaign. The relentless, aggressive savagery of the smear campaign was such that the name stuck for the practice.

All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans. The verb ‘to Bork’ never existed; no one ever went digging though Clarence Thomas’ video rentals.

Yes, it’s disgusting, and we should discuss issues, not personalities. But let’s not pretend one side is blameless. In the last 20 years, both sides have done it, and dozens of people, left, right and center, have been smeared.

All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans. The verb ‘to Bork’ never existed; no one ever went digging though Clarence Thomas’ video rentals.

Yes, it’s disgusting, and we should discuss issues, not personalities. But let’s not pretend one side is blameless. In the last 20 years, both sides have done it, and dozens of people, left, right and center, have been smeared.

While this is now a standard GOP talking point, I hope you don’t actually believe this “oh, everyone’s guilty of this, so the Republicans have done nothing wrong” nonsense. I also see you had to reach all the way back to the ‘80’s to find similar examples of Democratic perfidy. Betcha can’t think of any others, eh?

It’s matters of degree. The GOP does this shit to Democrats far far more often than Democrats do it to Republicans, and when Republicans do it, the shit they come up with is simply made up. The Democrats did not lie about Bork. Compare this to what Rove did to Kerry or what was done to Cleland in 2002.

If you’re going to claim to be ‘disgusted’ by this behavior, don’t make excuses for your side when they do it as a matter of routine.

Although I’ve never had much time for Dembski I am suprised at the how low this individual has sunk. Reporting someone to DHS on heresay evidence and, in particular, gloating over it is the action of a mean-spirited and probably mentally ill individual. It is certainly unchristian in any conventional sense.

Further, not only is this an abuse of the DHS it is a waste of taxes - isn’t there some law against making frivolous charges?

How about some of the high profile academics who frequent this site develop an online petition that condemns Dembski’s actions, publicize it to get as many signatures as possible from scientists, and then send it to Dembski’s School president, to the National Academy and the media, If anyone takes this up I suggest that it be (i) apolitical and (ii) not an attack on ID.

I’ve only been following this from the corner of my eye, so to speak. Is this stuff about Dembski and the DHS real? Is there are link or reference?

that is, “a link or reference?”

[damn cold medication!]

Here is what Bork wrote in National Review just last December: “Liberty in America can be enhanced by reinstating, legislatively, restraints upon the direction of our culture and morality,” writes the former appeals court judge, now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “Censorship as an enhancement of liberty may seem paradoxical. Yet it should be obvious, to all but dogmatic First Amendment absolutists, that people forced to live in an increasingly brutalized culture are, in a very real sense, not wholly free.” Bork goes on to complain that “relations between the sexes are debased by pornography”; that “large parts of television are unwatchable”; that “motion pictures rely upon sex, gore, and pyrotechnics for the edification of the target audience of 14-year-olds”; and that “popular music hardly deserves the name of music.”

The man has the instincts of an Iranian mullah. Democrats were entirely right to keep him from taking a seat on the Supreme Court.

Most of the regulars here have seen this, but check out this post on UD to ascertain Dembski’s attitude towards human suffering after natural disasters.

Being a political junky.

‘To Bork’ is significantly different than ‘To swiftboat’

Gerard Harbison makes the truly absurd comment:

All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans. The verb ‘to Bork’ never existed; no one ever went digging though Clarence Thomas’ video rentals.

Yes, it’s disgusting, and we should discuss issues, not personalities. But let’s not pretend one side is blameless. In the last 20 years, both sides have done it, and dozens of people, left, right and center, have been smeared.

The points being made were that: 1. Dembski and the DI are as much as promising to destroy Eric Pianka’s reputation 2. They’ve hired Creative Research Concepts, the PR firm that helped the Swift Boat Vets smear Kerry.

What’s the objection to calling this the “Swift-boating” of Pianka? How does your referring to Bork do anything other than attempt to divert attention from the very real parallels between the Kerry smearing and the Pianka smearing?

I was making a serious point. If you disagree, then explain why you do. Don’t revert to some kind of mindless “but the Democrats did this too” response. It shows a lack of ability to think on your own.

Matt Wrote:

I was making a serious point. If you disagree, then explain why you do. Don’t revert to some kind of mindless “but the Democrats did this too” response. It shows a lack of ability to think on your own.

Guys, let’s not get unnecessarily political. I read Gerard’s comment as a pre-emptive stand against this turning into a republican-bashing session, which is fair enough. He explicitly wasn’t disagreeing with you, or claiming that swift-boating was acceptable; he just thought it was all getting very partisan and wanted to prevent that.

I think he was mistaken, but I can see why he’d have made that mistake. Let’s not make mountains out of molehills.

Thanks to everyone who helped answer my question :)

All the way back to the eighties. LOL! How old are you?

Matt rather uninsightfully wrote:

What’s the objection to calling this the “Swift-boating” of Pianka? How does your referring to Bork do anything other than attempt to divert attention from the very real parallels between the Kerry smearing and the Pianka smearing?

Kerry made his own service an issue. Having done that, it was legitimate to question the details of his service. Let me remind you that in the same presidential campaign, a national media outlet paraded ludicrously badly faked documents aimed at attacking Bush’s term in the Texas Air National Guard.

If you’re interested in protecting Pianka, I’m with you. If you’re interested in disseminating Democrat talking points, you lost me. Your choice.

Gerard Harbison,

Don’t forget while the documents were fake, the information they contained was never disputed (the White House even acknowledged the information as accurate).

Fake but accurate! LOL!

There is really a world of difference between borking and swift-boating, the key difference being that borking involves the use of accurate writings from the victim, who then sinks himself with explanations making it clear that his real views are wilder than the wacky stuff in print. Swift-boating requires the wholesale fabrication of a case that a hero who gave blood to defend his country, didn’t really do it. John Kerry’s case gave the tactic its name, but the worst case was in Georgia, where quadra-amputee U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, who lost some or all use of all four of his limbs in service to his nation in Vietnam and then bravely defended veterans benefits and rights as Secretary for Veterans Affairs, was called a ‘coward’ and ‘soft on military issues.’

Bork really wrote the stuff he was accused of writing; Kerry and Cleland actually served and were wounded by enemy fire, not in a lawn-mowing incident.

In short, swift-boating is done by dishonest right-wingers; borking exposes dishonest or dangerous right wingers. One is done under cover of darkness (swift-boating) to avoid detection of the truth; the other exposes truth to the light.

(No, my bias isn’t showing – yet.)

“All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans. The verb ‘to Bork’ never existed; no one ever went digging though Clarence Thomas’ video rentals.

Yes, it’s disgusting, and we should discuss issues, not personalities. But let’s not pretend one side is blameless. In the last 20 years, both sides have done it, and dozens of people, left, right and center, have been smeared.”

And please lets not forget Bush and the Theoncon smear campaign against John McCain Here ins SC in 2000.

Fake but accurate! LOL!

think a little longer there, or drink some coffee to stimulate your brain.

the papers were faked, the information in them was not.

get it.

you went all Republican partisan scumbag on us, so spare us the hypocritical lecture, j**k*ss.

I think this is getting too harsh, and I’m someone who thinks the point is long past where people defending the current republican party get the assumption of good intentions/different views rather than delusion, fundamentalism, or something worse.

Let’s keep the name-calling to the climical level, folks.

Let’s keep the name-calling to the climical level, folks.

Uh, that’d be clinical.

The SwiftBoating of John Kerry was primarily an example of what people can do to a political opponent given enough money, access to mass media, and willingness to employ slander and libel as tactics. It’s also much easier to spread a damaging story, spurious or otherwise, than it is to take it back. Given the popularity of ants-in-a-jar “news” TV, it’s very, very easy to get a few hundred thousand people yammering in rage about a perceived threat, insult, or slight that has little or no basis in fact – and to keep at it even after the story has been thoroughly debunked.

I sincerely doubt that any political party has a monopoly on the willingness to manipulate public opinion. And, yes, I am a politically liberal voter.

I think this is getting too harsh

It got too harsh when Harbison derailed the conversation with his idiotic and dishonest ad hominem slam: All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans.

Uh, there’s a huge gap between “willingness to employ slander and libel as tactics” and “willingness to manipulate public opinion”. Of course both parties share the latter.

It’s also much easier to spread a damaging story, spurious or otherwise, than it is to take it back.

Thus the entire Creationist/ID quagmire, which is what we’ve been sidetracked off of.

Only slightly. The issue was swift-boating, and what happened here is a good example of how criticism of the swift-boating gets deflected and reflected back at those offering the criticism. “teach the controversy” and “both parties do it” aren’t that far apart, really.

Thus the entire Creationist/ID quagmire, which is what we’ve been sidetracked off of.

Actually, it’s a pretty interesting case study in the facts and tactics commonly used, and the usual observed reactions.

So here’s a thought - why doesn’t someone start a scientific association, which solicits money from private citizens, industry, and scientific organizations.

Then, whenever the IDiots do something particularly egregious or slam a scientist, this organization then swift-boats whoever did it.

Fight fire with fire?

Look, in any case, this is not the place to argue this. I just wish that the undoubted majority of political liberals/Democrats/progressives

(raises hand) Excuse me, but I am a *radical*, thank you very much.

:)

on this forum would realize that turning this into a partisan battle won’t further the cause of science. Those of us who consider ourselves pro-evolution conservatives are quite well aware of, and are disgusted by, the influence of the religious right on the GOP. We agree with you about Pianka; we agree with you about Dover. That, surely, is what’s relevant to Panda’s Thumb. Reminding us of why we disagree with you on a bunch of other issues isn’t.

Which is precisely why the endless religious wars at PT are also so silly and useless.

There, THAT should give everyone something else to fight about. …

ADMIN NOTE

This has gotten way off topic. Do we really need fifty posts about Kerry, Cleland, McCain, Thomas, and Bork on a thread about Pianka?

Lenny, does that make you a free radical?

Lenny, does that make you a free radical?

Well, it’s been a few years since I was arrested. :)

IIRC, the last time I was arrested was at the White House, back during the First Gulf War.

McCain is our best chance to remove the fundies from their position of dominance. I suggest we take it.

Hahahahhaahaahh.

Lenny, you must be joking.

If not, then this is surely the silliest thing you’ve ever said.

And one other thing: it seems to me it’s only the “registered Republican” types around here who threaten to take their little green footballs and go home whenever their political allegiances are questioned.

I think George Bush is the worst president in the history of this country and anyone who voted him for was clueless or deluded. Just my opinion.

Now, you can boo hoo hoo hoo about that or you can stop for a second and realize that half the country agrees with me and the an overwhelming majority of the country thinks the guy stinnks.

And then you can look at the Republican party as a whole and ask yourself why it is that so many prominent Republican leaders – including “straight talk” John McCain – recite the Discovery Institute script and play up to the fundies.

So why vote Republican? If you’re wealthy and want to get wealthier, then it all makes sense to me. Otherwise, you’re a sucker. Just my opinion. But don’t imagine that I can’t back up my opinion with reams of facts.

A guy named Chris Mooney wrote a book about Republicans and the War on Science. Was Chris lying to us? I haven’t seen much indication that Chris was lying.

The Swift Boaters accused John Kerry of war crimes, of intentionally shooting kids in the back, of shooting himself to earn a purple heart. And Republican apologists and fundies recited the script up and down the blogosphere and right to the faces of Americans watching TV. All this is documented. Pretending this didn’t happen or diminishing what happened by comparing it to the confirmation hearings of Bork or Thomas is a sign of stupidity or mental illness.

To address Lenny’s point about the “dangers” of pointing out facts which make Republicans and religious people uncomfortable I can only say: deal with it.

Republicans and religious people need to deal with the events of the last 6 years.

I’m never going to forget what happened in the last 6 years, and I’m never going to stop reminding people of what happened.

Someone wrote this laughable comment:

Those of us who consider ourselves pro-evolution conservatives are quite well aware of, and are disgusted by, the influence of the religious right on the GOP.

What the hell is a “pro-evolution conservative”? You mean you aren’t a reality-denying moron?

The GOP in 2006 is virtually synonymous with the “religious right.” If your conservative and disgusted by the fundies then you’re a typical DEMOCRAT.

And please let’s not try to parse what’s happening to Pianka out of the bigger picture.

Is Mims a Republican do you suppose? Does he have any political connections?

Connect the frigging dots.

actaully, I tend to agree with those who point out Mims’ vendetta against many folks at his univeristy, Pianka included, as being sufficient motivation on his end.

However the gross overpublication of Mims mischaracterizations was entirely due to the religious-right PR machine, and THAT is a good place to start connecting dots.

I’d say it’s worthwhile to show over and over how this has backfired on them.

Rely on the testimony of the insane and what do you get?

This always seems to happen eventually, as one or the other of these idiots pulls some lamebrain stunt like Mims just did.

Now if only the Republican majority would use times like this to further distance themselves from the fundies, maybe they could finally break the ties the neocons have so carefully and ubiquitously cultured since the neocons started utilizing fundies as a powerbase in the late 70’s/early 80’s.

Based on McCaine’s recent actions, I doubt it tho.

However small the chance, Lenny does have a point. McCaine HAS been rather wishy washy in his support of the far right. If you are a republican, this is your best chance to promote the dissolution of this political right-wing lovefest.

I think that has about as much a chance of happening as Hillary being elected president, which is to say very small, but still possible.

Now if only the Republican majority would use times like this to further distance themselves from the fundies, maybe they could finally break the ties the neocons have so carefully and ubiquitously cultured since the neocons started utilizing fundies as a powerbase in the late 70’s/early 80’s.

I think that Sir T. has very nicely summarized the rise of the fundamentalist bloc in the United States. I don’t buy for a minute that the political power of fundamentalists comes from some kind of critical mass of religious fervor. Rather, religious fervor has been very carefully cultivated, bottled, and marketed for political ends.

Tangential but not irrelevant: Here’s a wonderful quote from actor Stephen Fry.

“Family life, family values, decent normal family, family fun, family shopping, family leisure. The word is used these days much as the word ‘Aryan’ was used in Germany during the 1930s.”

I think George Bush is the worst president in the history of this country and anyone who voted him for was clueless or deluded. Just my opinion.

Couldn’t agree more.

Now, you can boo hoo hoo hoo about that or you can stop for a second and realize that half the country agrees with me and the an overwhelming majority of the country thinks the guy stinnks.

Indeed, two-thirds of more of the country (1) disagrees with the Gulf War, and (2) disagrees with the illegal warrantless use of wiretaps.

Yet, when some brave soul introduced a measure into Congres to censure Bush for it – not impeach him, not arrest him, just CENSURE him, just say “he shouldn’t have done that” — no one, absolutely no one at all, Democan or Republicrat, had the balls to say so out loud.

Half the country, simply isn’t being represented at all. By anybody.

The GOP in 2006 is virtually synonymous with the “religious right.”

The McCain wing has been the only force to challenge the domination of the fundies in the Republicrat Party and the government. Or even ATTEMPT to challenge it.

The Democans haven’t done diddley. They rolled over and played dead every time.

They should adopt the jellyfish as their new party mascot.

If your conservative and disgusted by the fundies then you’re a typical DEMOCRAT.

Alas, nobody being offered by the Democans is electable – least of all Hillary Clinton. Quite aside from the fact that the Democans have done virtually nothing to distinguish themselves from the Republicrats.

That leaves McCain.

If we focus on the Democans in the next election, then we will lose. Again. We need to split the Republicrat Party and force it into internal civil war. The McCain wing can do that (indeed, it’s the only hope to do that). We need to have the fundie nutters start COSTING the Republicrats elections. Until that happens, we will never be able to remove them from power. And the Democans have demonstrated that they are quite unable to do this on their own. They need the McCain wing.

However small the chance, Lenny does have a point. McCaine HAS been rather wishy washy in his support of the far right. If you are a republican, this is your best chance to promote the dissolution of this political right-wing lovefest.

I think that has about as much a chance of happening as Hillary being elected president, which is to say very small, but still possible.

Small chance, yes. But currently the ONLY chance.

And even if it fails this time, it lays the foundation for further growth and a bigger chance in the future.

There is (and always has been) an anti-fundie faction in the Republicrat Party. It needs to be supported. Particularly since the Democans have proven themselves utterly impotent.

So Ralph Nader won’t get my protest vote this year. John McCain will.

Lenny - I agree with almost everything you write on PT, BUT I just don’t see McCain as the answer.

Anyone that speaks at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty U, as McCain will do for their 2006 commencement, is NOT OKAY in my book. Yes, I saw him dissembling on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, and the reason, or excuse given by McCain, that he “will say the same thing he says at all commencements” so it’s okay, strikes a sour note with me.

So I think McCain, is not the answer, but sadly no, I do not have a better answer. Do you have anyone else besides McCain that MIGHT “lead us out of this wilderness”? Obama? Franken?

“Alas, nobody being offered by the Democans is electable — least of all Hillary Clinton. Quite aside from the fact that the Democans have done virtually nothing to distinguish themselves from the Republicrats.”

Bullshit. How about Mark Warner, the very popular Virginia governor who has that nice mix of being a popular Southern Democrat, telegenic and a self-made businessman. He also has that glow of being a “moderate,” much in the Bill Clinton mold.

Beyond that, you’ve got some heavy-hitters like Biden and Bayh (another popular Democrat from a “red state”). And I don’t think Hillary is quite the inevitable loser people make her out to be. She has trounced such notions before, remember. I personally don’t like her very much, but if it’s a choice between her and, say, Rick Santorum, I would put my money on her.

It’s pretty darn stupid to be dismissing any of the candidates as “unelectable” in 2006. Would people have seen Bill Clinton as “electable” in 1990? Probably not.

Honestly, this notion that McCain is going to get the GOP nod is silly. I’m not saying he won’t, but it sure isn’t inevitable. Given that the party apparatus is STILL doing everything it can to smear him in public (just follow Drudge and his hard on for dissing McCain), I think his chances of getting the nomination aren’t so hot.

I also wouldn’t count out Feingold, although I see him much more as VP material for the eventual nominee. Still, he’s got a spotless record and is one of the few Senators who has been consistent in his stances and is full of integrity.

The future of the Republicans is going to be partially determined by how well the Democrats do in these midterm elections.

If the Dems are able to take back The House and/or The Senate, there is a high probabity (IMHO) that the Repubs would turn away from the fundies.

If the Dems lose ground, then it is going to be a long marriage with the fundies for the GOP and there is no one out there that has the politcal capital (or fortitude) to try and break it up.

If the Dems lose ground there is absolutely no way McCain or Guiliani (sp?) will be the nominee in ‘08. Both are pro-choice (McCain less so) and against the Federal Marriage Amendment (again McCain less so). The ‘08 nominee will be a Sanatorum/Frist type.

/back to your regularly scheduled science talk

So I think McCain, is not the answer, but sadly no, I do not have a better answer.

Neither do I.

Which is why McCain is the answer.

Honestly, this notion that McCain is going to get the GOP nod is silly. I’m not saying he won’t, but it sure isn’t inevitable. Given that the party apparatus is STILL doing everything it can to smear him in public (just follow Drudge and his hard on for dissing McCain), I think his chances of getting the nomination aren’t so hot.

Well, I couldn’t care less if Daffy Duck got elected, as long as he helps to remove the fundies from power. (shrug) And of course, the very reason why McCain is getting so much opposition within the Republicrat Party is that the fundies don’t want him, and vice versa.

Given The Shrub’s latest, uh, approval ratings, this election is the Democan’s to lose. I sincerely HOPE that they discover a backbone somewhere deep inside them.

But alas, I won’t hold my breath waiting.

So I think McCain, is not the answer, but sadly no, I do not have a better answer.

Neither do I.

Which is why McCain is the answer.

No, McCain is no answer at all. No one who brownoses the religious right like he’s been doing is our friend.

The answer is no Republican at all.

The answer is no Republican at all.

Well, good luck with that. (shrug)

Me, I’d rather have McCain running against any Democan.

That way, the fundies lose no matter what.

Yet, when some brave soul introduced a measure into Congres to censure Bush for it — not impeach him, not arrest him, just CENSURE him, just say “he shouldn’t have done that” —- no one, absolutely no one at all, Democan or Republicrat, had the balls to say so out loud.

While the majority of Dems in Congress are afraid of their own shadows, this statement is factually incorrect – Barbara Boxer and Tom Harkin both stood up and supported Feingold’s resolution, and of course many registered Dems support it, and plenty have blogged about it. Aside from the factual error, the political analysis is grossly mistaken – regardless of their misguided election-oriented calculations that lead Dem politicians to resist making strong statements that they fear will alienate “swing voters” (don’t these politicians read the polls?), there are huge policy gaps between the Dems and the Reps. While it was fashionable for Naderites to talk about tweedledee ad tweedledum back before Bush got into office, it’s downright moronic to do so now.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on April 5, 2006 10:07 PM.

Pizza with the Guys was the previous entry in this blog.

Trollart on Tiktaalik is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter