The Republican Debate

[joseftu]

Did anyone watch all of it? I know I didn't, but that's to be expected. I couldn't listen to that many Republicans for that long even if they looked like a Cal Pole Women's Pole Vaulter ;).

But I did watch some of it, and I did skim the transcript this morning, and I did watch the highlights on the NewsHour.

Any great moments? or awful ones? Anything revealing that I might have missed?

I did catch this exchange, and if there was ever any chance that I would support Brownback, Huckabee, or Tancredo, that possibility was completely removed by this exchange.
MR. VANDEHEI: Senator McCain, this comes from a Politico.com reader and was among the top vote-getters in our early rounds. They want a yes or on. Do you believe in evolution? SEN. MCCAIN: Yes.
MR. VANDEHEI: I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree -- believe in evolution?
(Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee, Representative Tancredo raise their hands.)I've got plenty of litmus tests, and those three fail almost all of them--but that was a final nail in their coffins. They all three demonstrated unequivocally that they are not intellectually capable to serve as president of this country.

But were there other moments I should have caught?

[Arc]

The evolution question as asked was an incredibly stupid question. It was neither probative, revealing, or informative in the answers it elicited.

And, of course, one might foolishly ask what does the answer to that question or what does that question itself have to do with running for president? Not a thing naturally. So the question also was irrelevant. In fact no matter how you phrased that question it almost certainly would still be irrelevant.

Then there was the cost of the question. The cost being the time wasted in asking and answering it could have been productively spent asking a relevant and properly phrased question to ellicit an informative relevant answer!

(The question actually made think of the hypothetical example of the following question: Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?)

[joseftu]

I'll stand by my judgment, Archangel. It's not a great question, but it is at least a bit probative--three people raised their hands and said "no, I don't believe in/accept evolution."

It's relevant to me--I would never accept a president who is so ignorant of science, so willing to reject empirically-demonstrated reality, as to make such an idiotic statement. Part of the job of the president is to be a role model. And intelligence is a crucial qualification.

I should add that McCain made a follow-up remark--to the effect that although he knows evolution is a fact, when he looks at the Grand Canyon, he sees the hand of God. Nothing at all wrong with that--and most scientists would certainly say the same thing.

[ravital]

I'll stand by my judgment, Archangel. It's not a great question, but it is at least a bit probative--three people raised their hands and said "no, I don't believe in/accept evolution."

Was that all of it for this particular question, or just the part you read? You said you only skimmed the transcripts, so it's a valid question.

This is why I will not watch another debate again. These stupid gotcha yes/no designed to do absolutely nothing but make the moderator look good, an artificial impression that someone's feet are held to the fire. Depending on how any question is formulated, I might agree with something and yet have serious reservations. Did anyone bother asking the other three to elaborate?

Binary logic is not how human judgment works.

[ditch]

I wonder how many hands would have been raised if the questions was "Do you believe in Creationism?" Yes or no.

[ShinyTop]

I learned in 2004 to not predict too early who I will not vote for!:)

But I would find that a disbelief in evolution to be a big, big, against mark.

[joseftu]

Was that all of it for this particular question, or just the part you read? You said you only skimmed the transcripts, so it's a valid question.
That was it for that particular question (except that, as I said, McCain added another statement to his answer). There was no other discussion of this particular issue. But for me there's no elaboration or excuse that would modify or alter this one. Those three candidates said unequivocally that they do not "believe in evolution." By raising their hands to say NO, they are saying that they do not believe in a basic scientific principle--a fact of nature. That's ignorance enough for me. If they thought the question was too limiting, or they had something intelligent to add, they were free to do so, as McCain did.

If they really do have more complex things to say about this subject, but were just raising their hands to say "NO" in order to cater to the lowest common denominator of their supporters, then that's just as bad.

If they were asked "how many here do not believe in gravity?" or "how many here do not believe in atoms?" I would be similarly disgusted if anyone raised their hands--as I would hope any thinking voter would be, too.

[Lovehound]

The evolution question as asked was an incredibly stupid question. It was neither probative, revealing, or informative in the answers it elicited.

And, of course, one might foolishly ask what does the answer to that question or what does that question itself have to do with running for president? Not a thing naturally. So the question also was irrelevant. In fact no matter how you phrased that question it almost certainly would still be irrelevant.
I'm surprised at your position! (You and I usually agree.) I think the question is entirely probative. Anybody who says they disbelieve the evolutionary theory is either (a) stupid, or (b) lying to curry favor with religious voters. I'd almost prefer to believe the latter, since I can't imagine taking seriously anybody who has crackpot ideas like creationism. The question is entirely revealing about the candidates' state of mind.

I wouldn't take any of the hand raisers seriously, but there's not a real serious chance I'd vote Republican anyway, not after 8 Bush years.

[jfcjrus]

I love these debates in May 2007.
By the time we actually get near to voting in November 2008, ALL of the current candidates will have been exposed as totally unsuitable to be our President, and I can thus hardly wait to see what the ballot will finally look like!

Why the HELL are they doing all this a year and a half ahead of time!
Talk to me sometime around next September for Party nominations, and next October to poll who folks are going to vote for in November.
Anything this early is utter nonsense!

Just my opinion, of course.
Regards,

[drntdrtydg]

I wonder how many hands would have been raised if the questions was "Do you believe in Creationism?" Yes or no.:rofl:


i really can't fathom why it is so hard to understand Gennesis in a FIGURATIVE SENSE. I want to smack with a dunce cap.

[drntdrtydg]

The evolution question as asked was an incredibly stupid question. It was neither probative, revealing, or informative in the answers it elicited.

And, of course, one might foolishly ask what does the answer to that question or what does that question itself have to do with running for president? Not a thing naturally. So the question also was irrelevant. In fact no matter how you phrased that question it almost certainly would still be irrelevant.

Then there was the cost of the question. The cost being the time wasted in asking and answering it could have been productively spent asking a relevant and properly phrased question to ellicit an informative relevant answer!

(The question actually made think of the hypothetical example of the following question: Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?):whistle: Not only all that, but on the issue-why can't they wrap their arms around it? Year after year they can't conceptualize geologic time with divine nature and to me its seems more Godlike than not.

I mean, put it this way: Which is a more Godlike span of time, Six days, or Six BILLION YEARRRRS? WTF?

It's like they're stuck in Sunday School or something.

[ravital]

If they were asked "how many here do not believe in gravity?" or "how many here do not believe in atoms?" I would be similarly disgusted if anyone raised their hands--as I would hope any thinking voter would be, too.

What Ditch said - What if the question had been "do you believe in the story of Creation?" and a candidate you supported raised his hand?

The question was about Belief - a term even the person who asked it probably doesn't understand. There are plenty of Bona Fide scientists who also practice their religions, and believe the world was created in six days, and have no conflict between their belief and their work, because they understand the difference between faith and reality. The three candidates in question may have been responding to a question they understood as a question about their faith, and if that is the case, they showed considerable courage in this day and age, to answer that honestly on national TV.

Show me a candidate who will tell me what principles are going to guide him/her in office, what they would actually do, if that passes my test, they'll get my vote even if they declared they believed the world was flat.

[joseftu]

Those three candidates have had every opportunity, for days now, to amplify or modify their responses. They could easily have done so right on the spot, during the debate, as McCain did.

Governor Thompson, who during the debate said that private businesses should have the right to fire someone for being gay, has now said that his hearing aid malfunctioned, so he misunderstood the question, and that what he really thinks and should have said is that discrimination in employment is illegal and wrong.

Any of those three candidates could have explained their response at any time (with or without a hearing aid malfunction), if there was anything to explain. But there is not. They don't accept, don't agree with (that word "agree" was also used in the question, Ravital), don't believe in, one of the most central and crucially important and well-established scientific facts there is.

(Huckabee (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/NEWS/70504015/1001/NEWS) made this very clear--his "elaboration" just made his response even worse:
Huckabee was also one of a few candidates who signaled he didn’t believe in evolution. He said today he wished time had been set aside Thursday to elaborate on his position.

“If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, that’s fine. I’ll accept that,” he said today. “I just don’t happen to think that I did.” )

This has implications about their intelligence, their education, and their support for science and science education--all of which are crucial for the job of president.

If they have some interesting distinctions to make between faith and reality, if they understand the principle of non-overlapping magisteria, then they have had (and will have) plenty of opportunity to make that clear. If they don't, then (in my opinion) they don't deserve the vote of anyone who respects and values science, education, learning and intelligence.

[tke711]

I think it's also important to remember that many candidates may believe something personally, but wouldn't necessarily legislate on that personal belief. It is possible for people to separate for their job.

A good example is Tommy Thompson. He sure like to talk the tough conservative game, but as Governor of Wisconsin for years, he was far from your far right wing Republican. In fact, he was incredibly centrist. So much so that many so-called conservatives would get mad at him.

My point is that this far out, I don't take anything, any of these candidates say as gospel. Being as far out as we are, they are simply pandering to niche groups to shore up their support. Which sucks too...don't get me wrong.

[ravital]

don't believe in, one of the most central and crucially important and well-established scientific facts there is.


I agree it is a well-established scientific fact, and completely disagree that it is in any way "The MOST" central or important. Gregg nailed it in his response: the problem is the assumption that because they believe in A instead of B they would legislate or set an agenda that harms education (which I'm sure you know has much greater problems than evolution vs. creation to begin with - and as long as this canard continues to monopolize the attention, very conveniently, no one is ever going to ask a candidate how they would fix it). THAT has much more serious implications relevant to what is being done to education than the whole evolution/creation lousy imitation of a debate.

It has also no implications regarding their intelligence - a familiar tactic of the left is to deride the mental capacities of the opposition, particularly when it comes to religious beliefs, and I'm sorry, I'm not falling for it. To paraphrase Huckabee, you're free to beleive their intelligence is lacking because of their religious beliefs, I don't.

To wit:
If they don't, then (in my opinion) they don't deserve the vote of anyone who respects and values science, education, learning and intelligence.

They're dumb, and so's anyone who votes for them. We've all heard this before, but thanks for reminding us.

[joseftu]

I agree it is a well-established scientific fact, and completely disagree that it is in any way "The MOST" central or important.
I said "one of the most," not "The MOST." But if you want to completely disagree with something that I'm not claiming, well, it's your time to waste!

It has also no implications regarding their intelligence - a familiar tactic of the left is to deride the mental capacities of the opposition, particularly when it comes to religious beliefs, and I'm sorry, I'm not falling for it. To paraphrase Huckabee, you're free to beleive their intelligence is lacking because of their religious beliefs, I don't.
Oh, blahblabla. "A familiar tactic" of my left toenail.

I won't claim that misquoting, or at least mischaracterizing, is a "familiar tactic" of anyone, but I will point out that it's not their religious beliefs that make me question their mental capacities, it's their denial of established scientific fact--and the absence of any hint that they understand the difference between faith and fact (which I know you do understand). And that's all I've said, all I think, no matter how many times you want to spin my arguments otherwise.

They're dumb, and so's anyone who votes for them. We've all heard this before, but thanks for reminding us.
We've all heard something before...and we've all heard it from somewhere!

Familiar tactics indeed.

[joseftu]

I think it's also important to remember that many candidates may believe something personally, but wouldn't necessarily legislate on that personal belief. It is possible for people to separate for their job.
A good point--but I think that when (and if) that's the case, as it seems to be for many candidates on abortion, for example, the candidate really should say so, and clearly.

A good example is Tommy Thompson. He sure like to talk the tough conservative game, but as Governor of Wisconsin for years, he was far from your far right wing Republican. In fact, he was incredibly centrist. So much so that many so-called conservatives would get mad at him.
Well, maybe he just needs a new hearing aid! ;)

[tke711]

He's going to need a lot more then that if he thinks he can win the big house. :)

Don't get me wrong, he's a hell of a good guy and actually pretty middle of the road, so I like the guy. He just doesn't have anywhere near the charisma or TV presence required to win the White House.

[ravital]

I said "one of the most," not "The MOST." But if you want to completely disagree with something that I'm not claiming, well, it's your time to waste!


OK, I don't believe it's even "ONE OF" the most important. There, fixed. That was not intentional, and I expected you to understand that, but from now on I'll make sure to quote everey comma you type when I want to respod. Is that better?


Oh, blahblabla. "A familiar tactic" of my left toenail.


Well, you can "oh blahblabla" your bellybutton all day, but you've still got it :)

Hey, you said it, black upon white, right up there. Your time to waste.


...I will point out that it's not their religious beliefs that make me question their mental capacities, it's their denial of established scientific fact--and the absence of any hint that they understand the difference between faith and fact (which I know you do understand). And that's all I've said, all I think, no matter how many times you want to spin my arguments otherwise.


Spin? Really? "Let's go to the videotape:"

By raising their hands to say NO, they are saying that they do not believe in a basic scientific principle--a fact of nature. That's ignorance enough for me.

1. That can easily be understood, without any interpretation, favorable or unfavorable, intentional or not, as passing judgment on their intelligence based NOT on the fact that they don't believe a scientific fact, but that they DO believe something that contradicts it.

2. Guess what, I don't believe in evolution either, because "TO BELIEVE" means to accept something as true despite the lack of evidence, not because of it. Scientific facts are never believed, they are observed and proven by a preponderance of evidence and logical reasoning. So to state "I don't believe in evolution" is quite logically correct (though I would take care to complete it with "I know it to be true").

Bottom line, everyone is entitled to their judgment, and so are you. And so am I. And I believe - no, scratch that, I know, because you've provided evidence, that in this case, judgment has been passed on the intelligence of candidates and those who vote for them, based on a disagreement about science vs. faith. Please note, that initially, I said it was a well-known "tactic of the LEFT," or pseudo-Left if you prefer, not of Joseftu, and I know you to be above such tactics, but I will not stand in anyone's way who wishes to join them.

[joseftu]

EDIT--
not worth it. It never really was, clearly. Apologies to the forum.

[ravital]

But those candidates, as I've said so many times, have had every opportunity to clarify that their understanding of believe is the same as yours, if it is. They have not done so. And I'll say again, that if you read the transcript, the word agree was also used. The meaning of the question was clear, wiggling and squirming after the fact aside (and they haven't done that wiggling or squirming themselves--it's astounding how anxious you are to do it for them--or maybe not so astounding at all!).

I know, you've said several times that they had every opportunity to correct or amplify. And then you show your hand with "Wiggling or squirming." That says it all, exactly as I had anticipated. You are anxious for them to take the opportunity to "amplify" precisely so you can pounce on them with "wiggling and squirming." They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

And now that everyone's intentions have been made clear (thank you for providing the evidence to that), now the show can end. :)

[P.S. I have an idea: Why don't you simply preface every response to me with "joe&ravshow" whenever you don't have coherent arguments, to make it easier for you to dismiss every effort I make to communicate intelligently? Don't matter to me, the fact that I'm addressing you at all is because I've stopped giving a damn, but it might be helpful to you.]

[joseftu]

See above.

[Steve]

[P.S. I have an idea: Why don't you simply preface every response to me with "joe&ravshow" ]
I have a better one.

Why don't you read Joe's signature a couple of times......

[ethics]

And even better one. You two don't like each other, so stop responding to one another. Why is it so hard for two adults to ignore each other and stop wasting everyone else's time following debates that are soon edited.

What's with the venom, Rav?

Or take it to UiF where this stuff belongs and stop fooling yourselves that you are participating in a debate?

[ravital]

What's with the venom, Rav?

Or take it to UiF where this stuff belongs and stop fooling yourselves that you are participating in a debate?

Ethics,

I have swallowed a lot in the past few months in order to let most of the animosity go, and with more than just one person using me as their bathroom tissue. Venom? I disagreed, and pointed out fallacies in arguments. Everybody does that, I'm just less willing to give anyone a free pass, especially when I know they're capable of better than they're doing.

Wasting your time? Don't read the exchanges, that will save you time.

I apologize for anything that might have seemed like venom, I didn't mean it that way, except in response to the same. Either way, I really, really don't give a damn anymore, about the personal ad-hom reactions, and I really, really do care about the strength or validity of an argument. But if that's venom (and I suppose disqualifying the first response one doesn't like as "the show" is not), then I'll make everyone happy and make my posts as bland and boring as elevator music.

Move or delete, I don't care.

[ravital]

I have a better one.

Why don't you read Joe's signature a couple of times......
A useful suggestion, thanks.

[ethics]

To get this thread back on track...

The evolution question as asked was an incredibly stupid question. It was neither probative, revealing, or informative in the answers it elicited.



And here's why Arc nailed it above. Liberal press view: These guys (who don't believe evolution) are nuts.

Cynical press view: So is the public (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501039.html)!

more than 80 percent of Americans said they either attend church "weekly" (45 percent) or "occasionally" (38 percent).

And that's how most of the Reps Candidates answered:

The reality is that many Americans see themselves as believers both in a higher power and in science. In a Time poll conducted last fall, 49 percent said it is possible to believe in both evolution and "divine creation by God," whereas 41 percent said the two ideas are incompatible.

Sure, some believe exclusively in God and don't believe in Evolution. But the question posed, let me repeat was, incredibly stupid question.

Politically, that questioned HELPED Republicans, more than it was meant to harm them.

[ravital]

Liberal press view: These guys (who don't believe evolution) are nuts.

Cynical press view: So is the public (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501039.html)!


Which means, the press is interested only in fanning the flames of a "controversial issue" for profit, and candidates are only too happy to assist because it spares them from having to give any serious answers to any questions about anything real. That, is why we are always limited to the lesser of two evils and the evil of two lessers. Not the two-party system, not lobbies, nog campaign contributions. The media is not a watchdog, it's a business. The concept of "non-overlapping magisteria," as valid and important as it is, will never ever get any exposure, not in this media. The solution to the problem is not in new laws or new systems or new election procedures, the solution is in us, and in the demands we make on our press. If we made demands for serious, honest reporting, for intelligent questions in debates, Chris Matthews would be selling hot-dogs on the street, which is where he belongs. We get the media we ask for, and therefore the government we deserve.

[ethics]

Which means, the press is interested only in fanning the flames of a "controversial issue" for profit, and candidates are only too happy to assist because it spares them from having to give any serious answers to any questions about anything real.

Absolutely. I am actually surprised at SOME of the Liberals (many agreed it was bs questions, fluff, and HELPED Republicans) thought that this was important.

We get the media we ask for, and therefore the government we deserve.


Without a doubt and well said.

[drntdrtydg]

Evolution is not incompatable with a creator; the Bible says quite clearly that "a day to the Lord is as a thousand years" as a thousand years (as being not literally a thousand year-but like it, a really long time) is quite in fitting with the understanding capable of bronze age people the text was originally presented to. The description of the creation sequence is actually quite along the lines with the evolutionary record of simpler to high life forms. Even the bing bang is described (let there be light!) and the earth being formless (coagulating early solar system) etc. If anything the science has mirrored to a large degree the processes described in Genesis with only the time frames being different. Why, after all this time, can't people get a grip and understand that a supernatural divinity wouldn't create a whole universe with laws and processes and then just skip-toodle-oo ignore they very processes he devised. More likely, when explaining all this to his bronze age audience he might explain it in terms they could get a grip on. We no longer have an excuse to not understand the metaphors as we've had the benefit of thousands of years of science and shouldn't create stumbling blocks in peoples minds against the notion of divinity by failing to comprehend the situation-these Christians are just being bullheaded.

[jfcjrus]

EDIT--
not worth it. It never really was, clearly. Apologies to the forum.
I dont think any apologies are necessary from any participant in this thread.
I've always concidered this <i>Internet Outpost</i> a place for lively (and sometimes a bit heated ;)) debate.

I know it's wrong, but I do love it when personalities conflict.
THAT'S when the rubber of a debate really hits the road!
(I know taking snipes at each other is totally against the rules, but it sure breaks the monotony, eh?)
So, we stand by our beliefs.
We try to keep it civil.
That's all we can do.

To me, it's been worth reading and trying to follow the thoughts of all the posters to this thread.
I've already said that I think it's silly to debate the merits of wannabe canditates a yearandahalf before the event, but it IS entertaining. :)

And if anyone gets pissed THIS EARLY in the game, I can hardly wait for the posts on this subject this time next year! ;)

Regards,