Wednesday, December 05, 2007
A President who doesn’t believe in evolution?
Polls have been showing consistently that Mike Huckabee is leading in Iowa. Watching him talk, it’s easy to see why. “Authenticity” is the first word that comes to mind when talking about the baptist minister turned governor turned presidential candidate, and the American people have made no secret of the fact that being president is all about being genuine.
It is certainly a refreshing change to see a candidate who is not running on the advantage of boatloads of money doing well this late in the race. Hence bumping off the flip-flopping inauthentic, politically opportunistic Mitt Romney might seem like a good thing at first blush. But focusing on Huckabee, does he actually have any credentials besides being the social conservative in this race? Last night he admitted to not having any knowledge of the NIE report. He has never been seriously questioned on foreign policy issues or the Iraq war because he was not really taken seriously until this point. But could it be possible that now that he is peaking so close to the Iowa caucuses he might just get a free pass all the way to the primaries?
I hope not, because even Romney's political opportunism seems like an antidote to Huckabee's blind religious faith. At least we know that Romney has been pro-gay rights and pro-choice at some sane point in his past as opposed to Huckabee who snootily raised his hand to negate the possibility of evolution in a previous debate. Despite the fact that critics worry about the current US lull in the sciences, the best scientific and medical research still comes out of this country; a president that doesn't believe in evolution is not exactly going to foster great strides in the area.
At least Romney gives a perfunctory nod to the Darwinian theory before launching into a speech on Mormonism. And nobody really believes that he is actually socially conservative - his actions speak louder than his words. That just makes matters worse, because are you going to vote for someone based on what he might be despite what he is telling you he is? Can we get over with Iowa and New Hampshire quickly so we can focus on the one sane Republican in the race, who on his better days is known as Rudolph Giulani? ¶ 9:23 PM
It is certainly a refreshing change to see a candidate who is not running on the advantage of boatloads of money doing well this late in the race. Hence bumping off the flip-flopping inauthentic, politically opportunistic Mitt Romney might seem like a good thing at first blush. But focusing on Huckabee, does he actually have any credentials besides being the social conservative in this race? Last night he admitted to not having any knowledge of the NIE report. He has never been seriously questioned on foreign policy issues or the Iraq war because he was not really taken seriously until this point. But could it be possible that now that he is peaking so close to the Iowa caucuses he might just get a free pass all the way to the primaries?
I hope not, because even Romney's political opportunism seems like an antidote to Huckabee's blind religious faith. At least we know that Romney has been pro-gay rights and pro-choice at some sane point in his past as opposed to Huckabee who snootily raised his hand to negate the possibility of evolution in a previous debate. Despite the fact that critics worry about the current US lull in the sciences, the best scientific and medical research still comes out of this country; a president that doesn't believe in evolution is not exactly going to foster great strides in the area.
At least Romney gives a perfunctory nod to the Darwinian theory before launching into a speech on Mormonism. And nobody really believes that he is actually socially conservative - his actions speak louder than his words. That just makes matters worse, because are you going to vote for someone based on what he might be despite what he is telling you he is? Can we get over with Iowa and New Hampshire quickly so we can focus on the one sane Republican in the race, who on his better days is known as Rudolph Giulani? ¶ 9:23 PM
