Brian Rogers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
subplotkudzu) wrote2008-08-29 03:52 pm
subplotkudzu) wrote2008-08-29 03:52 pm
Entry tags:
My minimum bar
I have to admit, much as I've been tracking politics this season the news this morning of McCain's running mate caught me off guard. I had heard Palin's name floated, but I didn't honestly expect it.
Two comments here:
First, while this selection might have a lot of symbolism to it and might be a good tactical move for the next 3 months (in the hopes of both rallying the evangelical base and drawing disaffected Clintonites) I don't think it's a good Strategic move. I would have felt the same way about Bobby Jindal. Both are relatively new, young, Republican governors who have been/should be effective in their states. The party needs these people to both burnish their brand and work against the image of the GOP being all old white men. Palin's selection strikes me as eating their seed corn.
Second, interesting and non-conventional as parts of her governing strategy have been, Palin has advocated teaching Creationism in schools - she doesn't even use the Intelligent Design dodge. I don't have to agree with politicans on everything - especially not on thorny emotional issues like abortion - but I have to back my friend Steve F. on this one: our president should at least be someone who understands evolution.
It's science, people. I don't care what you want to teach in church, but science doesn't care whether you like it or not, and if you undercut the scientific method you're undercutting the foundations of the 21st century.
Two comments here:
First, while this selection might have a lot of symbolism to it and might be a good tactical move for the next 3 months (in the hopes of both rallying the evangelical base and drawing disaffected Clintonites) I don't think it's a good Strategic move. I would have felt the same way about Bobby Jindal. Both are relatively new, young, Republican governors who have been/should be effective in their states. The party needs these people to both burnish their brand and work against the image of the GOP being all old white men. Palin's selection strikes me as eating their seed corn.
Second, interesting and non-conventional as parts of her governing strategy have been, Palin has advocated teaching Creationism in schools - she doesn't even use the Intelligent Design dodge. I don't have to agree with politicans on everything - especially not on thorny emotional issues like abortion - but I have to back my friend Steve F. on this one: our president should at least be someone who understands evolution.
It's science, people. I don't care what you want to teach in church, but science doesn't care whether you like it or not, and if you undercut the scientific method you're undercutting the foundations of the 21st century.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-08-30 08:17 pm (UTC)(link)JLC
no subject
Perhaps I should have been more clear here.
no subject
check out this (fairly old) here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613131932.htm)
But the whole denial thing really is the pertinent point.
What I truly have to say I like about Barak Obama, even though he was not my first pick, is that whether he understands evolution or not, he is smart enough to hire someone that does before he opens his mouth on the subject.
Rock on, cuz.