You will find several here, here, and here. They do not read like Fundamentalist tracts against evolution.
My son-in-law is in law school in NJ, and Christie came to speak to the law school class. It seems that most of the students would say that his grip on reality is pretty tenuous, and creationism has nothing to do with it.
We can only generalize to the entire party by noting that he is being bruited about as a candidate - but since Michelle Bachman is also, that train has long since left the station.
So this man’s idea on a topic he will never have to legislate on is more important than what he thinks about topics he will have to legislate on?
So if a liberal thinks that gun control lowers violence despite mountains of evidence to the contrary it is okay because he believes he knows exactly what happened millions of years ago?
If a liberal believes that high taxes and onerous regulation don’t hurt a state’s business climate despite reams of evidence, it is okay because he believes he knows exactly what happened millions of years ago?
If a liberal believes that the only thing wrong with education is not enough money despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, it is okay because he believes he knows exactly what happened millions of years ago?
I don’t care if a politician thinks the moon is made of green cheese, if he implements sound policy based on the best evidence available. We are not electing eighth grade science teachers, we are electing people to implement policy.
I agree it’s a stupid answer, my point is that people hold sacred values and often prefer ignorance to facts that interfere with those values or beliefs (the Steven Pinker link on the Blank Slate gives particular examples of ev-psch info about human nature that offends marxists and conservatives). That affects politicians of all stripes.
If he’s that out of touch with reality, he’s not qualified to be President.
I read that Slate article this weekend and enjoyed it, though it didn’t go too in depth as others have pointed out. One thing it didn’t really mention is the REpublicans seem to preach fear as part of their campaigns. Since Pawlenty is going to be on the primary ballot (and he looks like a new favorite), how much will his original pick, Cheri Yecke, to head an education plan for Minnesota effect his outlook? Does he really believe that sharing teaches socialist implications?
Does he really believe what this woman says? Will his future picks in a Pawlenty administration be conservative activists like her?
I’m sure that a lot of voters may love the idea of an entire history class built around Ronald Reagan instead of the Constitution, I’ll bet there are plenty who would’ve backed Huckabee’s “everyone should be a christian” rhetoric. Hell, I bet there’s thousands who are hoping (and praying) for a Sarah Palin presidential run. But I partially agree with the article.
Republicans use a fear tactic in fear of losing votes from the fearful. It all becomes a Sunday sermon.
I’m still really wondering why people care so much about “believing” in evolution as a voting factor. If they say they don’t support it being taught in schools, I can only hope they say this to get the votes of the deluded. They’re educated, aren’t they?
Since I’ve told Chen019 and New Deal Democrat that this topic is off limits, you need to stop posting about it here. They can’t respond without being warned and it’s not relevant to the topic.
A politician who believes something that is pretty obviously not true reveals poor judgment and a lack of general knowledge.
Nonsense, Andrew Jackson thought the Earth was flat.
Andrew Jackson had a lot of faults, but there’s no evidence he thought the earth was flat. See this previous thread on the subject.
What about a politician who cheats on his wife and lies about it?
For that matter, what about a politician who supports gay marriage or abortion rights? Are politicians who are economically conservative but socially liberal acceptable in the Republican party?
The issue with Christie is not that he didn’t give the right answer when asked about what happened millions of years ago, it’s that he is afraid to give the right answer, and therefore the issue is the masses of people that he’s afraid of.
So if a politician leads the country into a disastrous war, runs up a disastrous deficit, and leads us into a disastrous recession, that’s okay because he believes in the Bible?
You ridiculously simplify the course of the Bush administration and at any rate Bush had one of the lowest approval ratings when he got out of office.
Sorry, what simplification are you talking about? Seems to be a pretty fair summation.
Exactly what I thought. The fearful will lead the fearful through fear, though they may claim to have faith in the faithful.
On the contrary, Bush, McCain, and others have all said they subscribe to evolution, yet they have gotten little if no flak for that.
I think the early results of Republican Fantasy Island dwelling have already manifested themselves: the House voted to kill Medicare, and the electorate, left, right and center, is literally slavering for Republican blood as a result. If it lasts into 2012 despite the massive backpedaling by the Republicans that has already started, expect a Republican bloodbath in the House and possibly the Senate as well. And Obama reelected easily.
Believe that at your peril. The real movers and shakers in the Republican party are the top 10 percent. They include the extremely wealth and powerful people who own TV and radio networks. They sponsor think tanks. They pay for the Tea baggers and set their agenda.
They have some very smart people working for them. They know how to keep the gun lovers, anti abortion and other single issue voters in line.
And they have no interest in being fair and honest. They just want to win. It means billions of dollars to them.
Correct, but we gave it a hearing, anyway. Given the tenor of the responses, I think this will be quite comfortable in The BBQ Pit.
[ /Modding ]
Well… you make a point about ‘people’ (I’m assuming in general) and then kind of overlay that with ‘politicians’.
I expect people in general to have all kinds of faults and foibles. Politicians, OTOH, are seeking to represent us all. Therefore I expect them to reflect the best, and not the worst, nor most ignorant, nor most irrationally fearful, nor most bigoted, nor most greedy, or most cruel, nor most manipulative, nor most callous, nor most unconstitutional &etc. aspects of the population.
The anti-evolution issue and all the divisive, destructive, and moronic sub-issues it drags with it ought to be publicly confronted by a politician. It has a relevant current history, doncha think? If they are truly going to make decisions from a POV of religious fundamentalism, or else on the behalf of people with that POV, then I am sorry but they are playing fast and loose with the 1st Amendment’s separation of Church and State and can take a frickin’ hike AFAIAC. The national situation is becoming far too serious to continue humoring steaming piles of abject bullshit.
Not that Christie is physically capable of taking a hike, but you know what I mean.
At the risk of offending the mod’s ban on evolution talk, Chen019- check out Guns, Germs and Steel. In a nutshell, it makes the case that geography, not genetic differences, explains the apparent historical differences in the fortunes of the various ‘races’.
Watch all 3 episodes and I’ll devote an equivalent amount of time to the source of your choice. Deal?