Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: GOP Reform, Politics, conservative reform — Rick Moran @ 10:00 am

Some trenchant analysis in Politico this morning on the problems facing Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in running for president in 2012:

One other similarity between the two: a charmed political existence so far. Jindal’s first year in office brought historic ethics reforms, deep tax cuts and major funding for workforce training and highway projects. State tax coffers bulged with oil industry revenues from $4-a-gallon gas.

So, along with his counterpart in Alaska, the Louisiana governor became the undisputed hot ticket for the GOP’s circuit of Lincoln and Reagan Day party fundraisers, traditionally a testing ground for presidential aspirants. And unlike Sarah Palin, Jindal is also quickly becoming the toast of Republican elites, the class of elected officials, donors, and consultants who are much sought after well before the first primary votes are cast.

Now some political reality is setting in.

For one thing, Jindal is facing what nearly every one of his counterparts is in capitals across the country: a gaping budget deficit.

With the price of oil plummeting, energy-rich Louisiana has lost a significant chunk of anticipated revenue and is projected to have a $2 billion deficit next year.

“He’s had a rocket ride,” said Maginnis, the Louisiana political analyst. “Nobody has had a first year in office like his. But next year is going to be a lot rockier.”

In addition to the deficit, the political calendar is working against him. It would be extremely difficult for Jindal to run for both re-election as governor in 2011 and the Republican nomination in 2012. The first primaries are going to be, at best, 10 weeks from election day in Louisiana - hardly enough time to shift gears and concentrate on running for president after spending the previous year campaigning in Louisiana.

Can he do both? It would be unprecedented and there are a couple of scenarios where it might work out, specifically a run against a weak Democratic gubanatorial candidate in what would shape up to be a Republican year. What the good people of Louisiana might think about someone running for both offices is a big unknown. And raising money for both races would almost seem to be a waste.

A more likely scenario is that Jindal skips 2012 and takes his shot in 2016. He will only be 41 years old in 2012 which would still make him younger than Obama if he were to wait for four years.

And speaking of the president-elect, Republicans are already referring to Jindal as “our Obama” - a gruesome thing with which to saddle anyone. It is a superficial recognition of his Indian heritage - a “man of color” - that shows how desperate the GOP truly is. One would think that other, more important factors, should recommend Jindal to national voters and no doubt, some will emerge. But the blatant race-based politics that can proclaim Jindal a serious candidate based at least partly - or mostly - on the color of his skin has no place in any party to which I want to belong. Turn the Obama question on Jindal - “If his name was Smith and he was white, would he be taken as serious fodder for the presidency?” - and you are left with an emphatic “no” for an answer.

Sizing up Jindal at this point is probably an exercise in futility since he will no doubt grow and change as his term in office continues. But what we know of him now is not very encouraging to me. I could never vote for someone who believes that creationism/intelligent design should be taught in schools - even if it is done in concert with the teaching of evolution with the goal of “letting the kids decide” which “theory” they wish to believe.

This kind of anti-intellectualism that promotes ID as science on a par with Darwinism is just plain loony. Imagine in Cosmology if we taught the “Steady State” theory of the origins of the Universe alongside the “Big Bang” and expansion theories, allowing students to decide which theory is “true.” The question answers itself. One theory is clearly wrong and the other is clearly correct.

If parents want to home school their kids and teach them ID or send them to private religious schools where Darwin is a dirty word, fine. They will grow up sweeping the floors of Japanese, Swedish, or Chinese bio-tech factories rather than owning them. You can deny the efficacy of evolution all you want but since modern biology is based on it (and not on ID/creationism) it stands to reason that the coming revolution in bio-technology will proceed without your children being involved. This nonsense has already affected the numbers of students entering graduate level life sciences which a recent Rand study showed will necessitate US bio-tech firms looking overseas for engineers and biologists within the next decade.

But this debate is only a symptom of what ails the GOP. Much of the base appears to be battling modernity itself. Declaring categorically - and without even a scintilla of the requisite knowledge to do so - that Climate Change is a “hoax” bespeaks an ignorance that causes most voters to blanche in horror at the prospect of electing a Republican. Scientists who advocate the theory of catastrophic climate change may indeed be wrong. They may be close minded and not open to opposing views. But “hoaxers?”

This is not the first time that eminent scientists have gotten it wrong and refused to consider evidence the the contrary. The theory of plate tectonics - the continents sitting on plates, floating on magma, that rub against each other and migrate great distances over time - was belittled for a 100 years. But no one accused proponents of the Continental Drift theory of perpetrating a scientific hoax to advance that theory at the expense of plate tectonics.

The evidence for Climate Change is hardly in dispute due simply to the fact that the earth’s climate is always changing. The question is how much humans have had to do with any change in climate and whether cutting emissions will do any good. To simply pass off these enormously complex questions as a “hoax” reveals the deep strain of anti-intellectualism in the GOP that raises its ugly head from time to time. I like the great physicist Freeman Dyson’s explanation for the disinterest of warming advocates in acknowledging that there is still a debate about the causes and especially the projections of scientists regarding the earth heating up. Dyson says that “When science gets rich it becomes political.”

In his comments at both the Nassau Club and Labyrinth, he decried the use of computer modeling to make “tremendously dogmatic” predictions about worldwide trends, without acknowledging the “messy, muddy real world” and the non-climatic effects of increased carbon dioxide. “There is no substitute for widely-conducted field operations over a long time,” he told the Nassau Club audience, citing the “enormous gaps in knowledge and sparseness of observation” that characterize the work of global warming experts.

Instead of engaging in debate on the scientific merits of the Climate Change proponents, many are apt to simply dismiss the findings of eminent scientists as a “hoax.” Dyson has exactly the right attitude; plead for additional research before implementing draconian solutions that may not even address the problem. And please note he says nothing about scientists trying to pull off a “hoax.”

Jindal may not believe in theories of Climate Change and wish to see ID/creationism taught in schools. Should this disqualify him from successfully running for president? Perhaps not. But it certainly portrays the Louisiana governor as someone without the intellectual curiosity that we in the GOP should have in our candidates. Believing in ID/creationism flies in the face of the facts. Do we really want a president who does that?


  1. Jindal may not believe in theories of Climate Change and wish to see ID/creationism taught in schools. Should this disqualify him from successfully running for president?

    Yes, it absolutely should.

    Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/26/2008 @ 10:55 am

  2. Modern biology - at least the science and not philosophy, is not based on evolutionary theory. When looking at the structure of the cell or the molecular structure of proteins, one doesn’t need to posit anything about how these complex structures “must” have the potential to change into completely different structures “just because”.

    Darwinian theory adds nothing to the table when it comes to studying life right now. For that matter, neither does ID or “creationism” except for one theoretical little detail: the PRESUMPTION that an Intelligent desiger/God would “of course” create intelligible things, i.e. “scienceable” things rather than ultimately incomprehensible things completely open to change based on pure chance.

    Comment by John — 12/26/2008 @ 10:59 am

  3. Some people apparently have no clue what evolution is. Evolution is genetic change over time, obviously influenced by environmental factors. You can test that hypothesis in a test tube over two weeks: just take any bacterium (let’s say E. coli) and sequence it’s genome before the experiment and then sequence the genome of some of the progeny after two weeks of exposing them to let’s say elevated temperature. You’ll see two things: they will be able to grow better at elevated temperatures and YES there will be genetic changes. In addition, I don’t want to go into the obvious case of increased antibiotic resistance due to medical use.
    Be that as it may, I also look at practical solutions. Whether climate change is rapidly happening or not, conserving energy and making our existence more sustainable have always made sense to me. It’s even in the word conserve-conservative (smile).
    Now to the political side of this. I have to agree that the Republican party should not be seen as hostile to science. I mean science is not politics, you can propose any theory you want but if it doesn’t hold up under scientific scrutiny then it just doesn’t hold up. Curiously, both people on the left and the right believe in some sort of scientific conspiracy making sure that their theories are suppressed. However, science doesn’t work that way; just because you want something to be true doesn’t mean it is.

    Comment by funny man — 12/26/2008 @ 11:29 am

  4. The answer is to create a new political party based on pricnaples, not corporate interests taking advantage of gullible religious people.
    The republican party of 1980 - 2008 is dead.
    Time to create a new one called the conservative party or something and start anew.

    Comment by Thomas Paine — 12/26/2008 @ 11:36 am

  5. “They may be close minded and not open to opposing views.”

    It sounds like you need to look in the mirror. You disqualify Jindal on ONE point in which you obviously disagree vehemently, dismissing the so-called absurdity of ID. (And I am not defending Jindal, but disqualifying a candidate on one minor issue as this is ridiculous.) Yet, you contradict yourself later in your diatribe. ID/Creationism cannot be taught alongside of Darwinism, but the various views on Global Warming can??? Nice consistency.

    This post isn’t really about Jindal, but about your staunch belief against ID and the anti-intellectuals who embrace such a position. Perhaps you should rethink your title.

    A “minor” issue? It is a litmus test that reveals whether one is a rational, thinking human being or an idiot.

    I don’t want an idiot for a president.


    Comment by sas — 12/26/2008 @ 11:43 am

  6. You write Jindal off at great expense to your credibilty….

    Read the damn post. I didn’t say that Jindal couldn’t win. I said I would never vote for him.


    Comment by Timaay — 12/26/2008 @ 11:48 am

  7. I assume Jindal is just pandering to his yahoo constituency. He seems like a smart guy, quick on his feet, moderately charismatic. But of course Haley Barbour’s all those things too and no one talks about him being the Republican Obama. Of course it’s about Jindal’s race. Yes, the GOP is that out-of-touch.

    I have a prediction. Within the next two years you, Rick, will cease to call yourself a Republican. I don’t think your party is going to do the right thing and lean libertarian. I think it’s going to lean Huckabee/Palin and I think faced with a choice between the party of Huckabee and the party of Obama you’ll hold your nose and realize you have a better chance of accomplishing something useful in the Democratic party.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 12/26/2008 @ 12:08 pm

  8. Once again, take the liberal/left narrative and run with it. What is it that worries you about Gov. Jindal? His views on creationism vs. evolution? Or some made up left-wing narrative that suggests people who have strong faith are against science? Please, stop! Here is a clue as a person of faith and a conservative feels about the subject. There is a possibility that there is BOTH! Let’s face it, we are talking about God’s creation. How he did it all is amazing and possibly by both creating and letting it evolve. Too me, these are nonissues as to whether or not any candidate should or not be considerd to be an elected leader. They are important, but have to be taken in context of overall ideas. Your most salient point is that the political calendar is against Gov. Jindal. And, let us see how he rides out the economic situation. That is the real test of leadership.

    Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — 12/26/2008 @ 12:47 pm

  9. Who the heck doesn’t “believe” in climate change? The Earth’s climate has been changing since…well, since the “Big Bang”, or since God created it, or since well, uh,whatever…

    There’s no there, there, one might say. The question(s), is man causing the earth to warm or cool, is that bad, can we do anything about it anyway? The politicization comes from using limited and dubious data (shit in,shit out) to create models, then making judgements (dis good, dat bad), and most egregious of all, determining that the only solution to these judgements based on dubious models is, of course, to BLAME THE U.S.A., tax us until we bleed, and of course give the fruits of our industriousness to those who haven’t done a damn thing for themselves.

    It’s exactly at this point that I say, “Whoaa, horsey, sometum smells like a rotten fish here”, let’s slow down and look at this a little more closely. Why is there only one cause and only one solution? Doesn’t sound real scientific to me. Does it to you?


    Creationism does not nullify biology whether you discuss it in school, in church, or on the toilet.
    Bobby Jindal would probably be the ONLY one of 58 (Ha,Ha) Govenors if his state didn’t have financial problems over the next couple of years, with the exception perhaps of Sarah Palin.

    Comment by cdor — 12/26/2008 @ 12:53 pm

  10. Funnyman:

    Animal and plant Husbandry are also examples of evolution, albeit coaxed by farmers and ranchers.

    Does that mean that nature or man ‘taking advantage’ of random changes is the only way that species change? Can there be a built in guidance system that facilitates adaptation and tries out valid gene codes?

    I have to admit I dont actually know what ID is so I don’t know if that is the meaning of ID or not.

    Comment by john — 12/26/2008 @ 12:54 pm

  11. Too me, these are nonissues as to whether or not any candidate should or should not be considerd to be an elected leader.

    Non Issues!? These issues should be an intellectual litmus test for a candidate, no matter the party or affiliation.

    Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/26/2008 @ 1:18 pm

  12. Although I see no inherent conflict between belief in God and The Big Bang (He certainly could have created it) I do agree that ID should not be in a science class. As to global warming, well, sorry, but it’s not (warming, that is). There is an excellent monograph on this subject written by Dr. James Paden at Middlebury College in VT. It’s a little heavy on physics and chemistry but it’s explained well. The bottom line is that global warming is almost certainly a load of crap that is entirely based on computer models, cooked up by Dr. Michael Mann and taken downfield by Al Gore, et al.

    Comment by Dr. Fred in PA — 12/26/2008 @ 1:52 pm

  13. I think that the “hoaxers” consist of two subsets of the population: scientifically illiterate folks who couldn’t understand the for/against arguments if they tried (which they wouldn’t), and another group that is tired of the liberals being so sanctimonious on this issue regardless of countervailing facts that they go to the opposite end of the spectrum in reaction, and use “hoax” as shorthand for “Gore’s film was filled with factual misstatements and holes yet it is touted as proof of global warming (or is it now “climate change”)and as I shovel my driveway in New Orleans or Las Vegas I think WTF! Gore is making millions of dollars on this thing and the usual liberal suspects (Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, et al) are all over it. Is this just another in a long string of issues pushed as agenda items by the left because it gives them leverage and power?”

    When AGW advocates ignore prior climate cycles, or exclude solar radiation and cloud effects from computer models, or global warming on Mars, or faulty data (NASA is regularly restating data found to be questionable by amateur investigators) and shout down anyone holding an opposing opinion isn’t there room to be skeptical?

    Look, twenty-five years ago it was all about global cooling and the new ice age (Time and Newsweek cover stories), for the past 5 years it had been about AGW, now it is about a 15 year cooling period brought on by global warming. While I believe that climate change happens and is happening I get a little worried when it becomes an article of faith by AGW advocates and more so when it becomes an article faith by our government. Why are scientists who raise reasonable questions about the models, correlations, data, changes in temperature recording sites and theories being essentially blacklisted and their careers being threatened if the case for man made climate change is air tight?

    To your point about the issue being the role of man on the climate, shouldn’t the government be interested in hearing all sides before launching into an economy changing series of edicts that risk our economic status and personal lifestyles and might be effectively irrelevant to what happens with the climate?

    I reject the claim that there is a wave of anti-intellectualism among conservatives based upon this issue. In fact, I would argue that liberals are now more faith-based on this issue than conservatives.

    Comment by in_awe — 12/26/2008 @ 2:02 pm

  14. John,
    I’m not dismissing that their is God. It is only you can’t prove it, it’s faith (or lack thereof). In science you can only look at data that you can observe e.g. genetic change over time (look at all the sequenced genomes) and then try to come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. That is also happening in climate science. However, the reason some conservatives don’t agree with the many data supporting global warming has nothing to do with science. It is because they don’t want to be associated with ‘California treehuggers’. “I’d rather be a truck driving, Limbaugh listening, real American than..’. In my opinion this has more to do with identity politics than some obscure scientist at Middlebury College refuting the science mafia.

    Comment by funny man — 12/26/2008 @ 3:39 pm

  15. Jindal is great. Palin is greater. The fact that the big wigs in the Republican party might prefer him is not helpful. Climate change covers a lot of ground. The hoax is faith based man made global warming. Science says the sun rules our climate and may be already into a possible 11 year cycle of low sun spot activity which brings us at least a spell if not an era of global cooling. We can’t predict next month’s weather, we are mere fleas compared to the mighty elephant of the sun’s effect on our weather. Palin has the best record in the country and a genuine charisma that can’t be manufactured or denied. Palin for campaign speaker in 2010, Palin for Prez in 2012.

    Comment by Gary Ogletree — 12/26/2008 @ 3:43 pm

  16. The left successfully stifles debate on issues close to their hearts. Some want Global Warming denial to be a crime. Homosexuality is another. Most experts would be publicly flogged if they said Homosexuality was abnormal or a mental disease etc.

    There are no “experts” who say homosexuality is abnormal or a mental disease. Anyone who says that is, by definition, not taken seriously in the psychiatric community and therefore, not an expert.


    Comment by Dennis D — 12/26/2008 @ 4:44 pm

  17. There is an excellent monograph on this subject written by Dr. James Paden at Middlebury College in VT.
    Can you provide a link please? (Couldn’t find it in a brief search.)

    I also suggest these two teaching pieces at realclimate.org, one a little mathy, one more mathy.
    First link:
    Learning From a Simple Model
    Second link:
    The CO2 Problem In 6 Easy Steps
    The takeaway - a doubling of CO2 levels would have an approximately 3 degree centigrade forcing effect. (Positive and negative feedback effects in response to forcing effects not included, effect of aerosols not included, etc. And professional climate modelers work with models orders of magnitude more complex. Note: changes in solar output would also be a forcing effect.)

    Comment by Bill Arnold — 12/26/2008 @ 4:44 pm

  18. Gary Ogletree said:

    Palin has the best record in the country…

    Best record for what?

    Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/26/2008 @ 5:19 pm

  19. The reason we don’t buy the garbage of MGW is that not one of you that swallows the garbage can tell us what the perfect temperature is, and explain the previous “climate change” events. The Climate has always changed. Who is to declare it has to be warmer or cooler.

    I swear this blog grows ever more unbelievable. It used to be good.

    To use such things as litmus is as stupid as if I were to decide that someone couldn’t hold office because they were baptist etc.

    Of course then, I am a Mormon…. the world thinks we shouldn’t be anywhere thinking anything about anything.

    What part of this didn’t you get, nitwit?

    The evidence for Climate Change is hardly in dispute due simply to the fact that the earth’s climate is always changing. The question is how much humans have had to do with any change in climate and whether cutting emissions will do any good.”

    And if someone is dumb enough to believe in creationism, they have no business within 500 miles of the oval office.


    Comment by Noelie — 12/26/2008 @ 5:28 pm

  20. How does the left stifle debate on evolution and global warming? That has nothing to do with politics, pleez! If you look at the current data, that is the most likely hypothesis. Why is it more likely that we have over six billion people on the planet burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented pace and nothing happens. For those on the sidelines: why not be on the safe side and try to optimize energy consumption and increasingly rely on renewable energy. Why in the world is that not “conservative”? I would call it smart.
    In addition, I’d prefer winning in 2012, so it is a NO for Palin by me. What an intellectually stimulating prospect but I guess some people are just happy to loose and blame it on the media.

    Comment by funny man — 12/26/2008 @ 6:39 pm

  21. I can’t argue with what you write here, which is a first for me!

    But I sure could argue with some of your commenters. Whew, they are a dim lot. My condolences.

    For example John(in #2)wrote: Modern biology – at least the science and not philosophy, is not based on evolutionary theory.

    That statement is just flat out wrong. Natural selection requires a means of modifying/transmitting “traits”; DNA is that means. Modern biology and evolution are inextricably linked.

    Comment by Hyperion — 12/26/2008 @ 6:40 pm

  22. C’mon Rick,

    You are being highly disingenuous with your readers. It seems you are trying to paint Jindal as some Bible thumpin’, backwoods, revivalist who is content on waging war with intellectualism.

    I am going to let Jindal’s educational background speak for itself.

    From Wiki entry,

    “Following high school, Jindal attended Brown University, graduating with honors in BIOLOGY and public policy. Although he had thought of a career in medicine or law and was accepted by Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, he chose to pursue a political career. He received a master’s degree in political science from New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar.”

    Yup, sounds like a superstitious, voodoo witch-doctor to me. Tell you what, when he acts on making legislation the requires ID being taught in public school then I will worry. Until then, its just his opine and I highly doubt he will do anything with it.

    One last question, did him and Palin burn any books together at the Governor’s conference? Why no they didn’t, nor have they ever. Start thinking for yourselves.

    Why do you insist on being an idiot and exaggerate my critique of Jindal by setting up towering strawmen? The reason is you are not bright enough to argue the merits and therefore feel compelled to ascribe motives to my critique that are clearly not there as well as putting words in my mouth that I never wrote.

    One of his biology professors from Brown wrote him a letter begging him not to sign the LA law that allowed school districts to ask the state to teach ID. Is he not “thinking for himself?” The fact is no respectable journal will publish creationist bullshit which is why the scientific community is so dead set against ID being taught in any way to school children - except in religion class.


    Comment by Mike — 12/26/2008 @ 6:52 pm

  23. “Instead of engaging in debate on the scientific merits of the Climate Change proponents, many are apt to simply dismiss the findings of eminent scientists as a “hoax.””

    Apparently you are not aware of such things as “Piltdown Man” and a myriad of other scientific hoaxes. When something is fraudulent, such as the “global warming” hysteria or it’s 1970s predecessor the “global cooling” panic, it would anti-intellectual and dishonest to _not_ point out the fraud. Call it what you will out of politcal correctness, but a hoax by any other name is still a hoax.

    A hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive. And yes, I’ve heard of Piltdown man - an elaborate hoax that could never happen today due to the much more sophisticated analysis used on archeological finds. Same holds true for your “myriad of other” hoaxes - most of which occurred in the 19th century. (Please don’t list modern hoaxes for me. There are exceptions to every rule.)

    As I say above, simply because scientists are wrong headed and stubbornly refuse to examine alternative evidence makes them bad scientists - not hoaxers.


    Comment by Richard Emworth — 12/26/2008 @ 6:55 pm

  24. I don’t want a 41 year old President. That’s RIDICULOUS. Also, where does he stand on abortion and other conservative issues?

    I need someone older than 41, thanks. I’ll say it again. Ridiculous. Ridiculous.

    Comment by anon — 12/26/2008 @ 6:56 pm

  25. Homosexuality was listed as mental illness for years. It’s perversion, unnatural, self-seeking, and IS a mental illness. Give me a microphone. I’ll tell the truth. Political winds can change…. quickly.

    The only reason homosexuality ISN’T listed as the mental disorder nature proves it to be… is due to political winds changing.

    It’s still true. And those winds are going to change. The homo movement got violent with churches.

    Kiss that tolerance… b-bye.

    Comment by anon — 12/26/2008 @ 6:59 pm

  26. On Global Warming… this ices it… for me:

    Thursday, December 11, 2008
    The Scare Mongers Have Reason To Fear

    As posted on Moonbattery.com and from Scott Thong’s blog:

    The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

    A few highlights from the minority report:

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    “Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    [EagleEye: I find it hard to believe what Gore and my biology lab assistants were saying concerning the fact that 99% of scientists agree... these 650 fellows and ladies are a small part of the 33,000 who have expressed their skepticism.]


    Comment by anon — 12/26/2008 @ 7:08 pm

  27. Rick,

    I don’t know where you get YOUR facts… but there are plenty of facts supporting Creationism. What you may not realize is that in Russia as the plotters sought to advance socialism/communism… they launched a very pointed attack on Creationism to gain power over the people to break their faith in God… so they could launch the “Red Revolution”.

    What?? You really think there is no God?? Well, no wonder this nation is going the way of Russia into communism.

    I guess you aren’t really thinking if you don’t realize that breaking faith in God in Creation is the #1 Goal of communist/socialist overthrow of our Constitution and bill of rights and DOI.

    What are you talking about?? And what are you thinking?

    I don’t know that I can read blogs once I hear that you have ZERO respect for God and creation.

    Anyone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old belongs in a mental institution. Anyone who thinks men walked the earth with dinosaurs ditto. And if you didn’t know I was an atheist by now then I question your reading comprehension as well.


    Comment by anon — 12/26/2008 @ 7:13 pm


    Rick, HOW DARE YOU!! How DARE YOU relegate thinking conservatives to mindless jobs like we are IDIOTS!!!


    Mutiny on your hands… because how dare you blatantly run a Communist Russian line on this conservative?? How dare you do communist propaganda on ME… as I read your blog??

    How dare you presume to question the intelligence of your very readers who believe in God??

    How dare you??

    I think you better think again before going there again.

    I think you better back that train up… FAST.

    Comment by anon — 12/26/2008 @ 7:17 pm

  29. A LOT of folks don’t really care whether or not he believes in ID or evolution or what is taught of either of these competing theories in public school classrooms.

    Then again, a LOT of folks (myself included) actually believe in creationism and have no problems with ID’s being taught in the classroom.

    That leaves the hoity-toitier folks like Mr Moran, who feel a deep need to wring their hands endlessly over this non-issue, which is okay, provided they understand that they hardly speak for the majority.

    Comment by man_in_tx — 12/26/2008 @ 8:13 pm

  30. I’m a Luddite and I can’t link. So: Google Middlebury College AGW- Fact or Hoax and it’ll be on the first page.

    Comment by Dr. Fred in PA — 12/26/2008 @ 8:14 pm

  31. The most that Bobby Jindal can be the answer for is the State of Louisiana. (From what I understand he is doing a decent job down there, as a man’s personal beliefs have nothing to do with cleaning up a corrupt political establishment.) I’m in agreement that creationists and global-warming deniers have no place near the Oval Office, putting Jindal on the national stage would only serve to weaken the conservative cause.

    PS - Good luck keeping the GOP factions together these next few years; judging from the nutcase comments so far, I’d say you’re screwed. Which reminds me, what ever happened to that series of articles you were writing on conservatism? Sounds like that would be very relevant now…

    Comment by Surabaya Stew — 12/26/2008 @ 8:43 pm

  32. If you are foolish enough to believe in Darwinian evolution, that is fine with me, but I would not publicly advertise my ignorance.

    If you had studied the issue you would find that nothing, yes nothing, is know for certain about evolution, except of course that it happened. The emperor is wearing no clothes but almost no one is willing to stand up and point out that fact.

    ID may not be popular with the folks who control the grants and hold the power positions in academia, but at least is is a theory that makes logical sense and conforms with the evidence.

    Comment by Gary Harbaugh — 12/26/2008 @ 8:53 pm

  33. Rick, I don’t know where Anon is really coming from. I think he’s jackin’ with you. He is pretty damn funny, though.

    On the other hand, you are ripe for pluckin’, bein as your talkin’ like such a jack.

    I gotta hand it to you though, Rick. It takes a lot of FAITH to be an atheist.

    Comment by cdor — 12/26/2008 @ 9:01 pm

  34. As far as I have read this blog, Rick never said there was no God. A claim you can neither prove nor disprove. We are talking about the Earth being 6000 years old. That assumption is not tenable just as saying the Earth is flat (although there are still some holdouts I hear). What does that claim have to do with communism is beyond me. Are you saying that any conservative that takes science seriously (knowing it’s limits) is at heart a communist. Well I guess, count me in.

    Comment by funny man — 12/26/2008 @ 10:17 pm

  35. Why do you insist on being an idiot and exaggerate my critique of Jindal by setting up towering strawmen? The reason is you are not bright enough to argue the merits and therefore feel compelled to ascribe motives to my critique that are clearly not there as well as putting words in my mouth that I never wrote.

    I’m not bright enough eh? Well Rickster, let’s check your own wording and see if I am making use of your ambiguity to make strawmen references.

    “I could never vote for someone who believes that creationism/intelligent design should be taught in schools – even if it is done in concert with the teaching of evolution with the goal of “letting the kids decide” which “theory” they wish to believe.”"This kind of anti-intellectualism that promotes ID as science on a par with Darwinism is just plain LOONY.”

    Excuse me, I do stand corrected on one fact. You didn’t paint him as a zealot, you painted him as crazy I do apologize.

    One of his biology professors from Brown wrote him a letter begging him not to sign the LA law that allowed school districts to ask the state to teach ID. Is he not “thinking for himself?” The fact is no respectable journal will publish creationist bullshit which is why the scientific community is so dead set against ID being taught in any way to school children – except in religion class.

    Obviously you are ignorant to the legislation. So let’s explore the it, shall we?

    From R.S. 17:285.1, relative to curriculum and instruction; to provide relative to the teaching of scientific subjects in public elementary and secondary schools; to promote students’ critical thinking skills and open discussion of scientific theories; to provide relative to support and guidance for teachers; to provide relative to textbooks and instructional materials; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for effectiveness; and to provide for related matters.”

    D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.


    Not one GD mention of ID or any other creationist crap. Yup I am an idiot you got me. (Sarcasm off)

    Anyways, I am glad you finally decided to come out of your cave. It’s nice to see you engaging your readers even if it is with insults. Keep up the great work.

    Comment by Mike — 12/26/2008 @ 10:18 pm

  36. There is a strong possibility that 100 or 200 years from now, people will be laughing at the climate doomsdayers, amazed that supposedly sophisticated people could have believed in the prognostic ability of such people - many of whom obviously have ulterior motives.

    But then again, billions of people have, and continue to believe in countless other man-made religions… Part hoax, part conformism, part true-believers - much intellectual arrogance.

    Comment by MlR — 12/26/2008 @ 10:45 pm

  37. Okay, before you decide to turn off comments again, may I point out that as little as three stiff drinks can help to create a condition very similar to calm?

    Why stop at three? Better to be insensate than calm anyway.


    Comment by michael reynolds — 12/27/2008 @ 1:48 am

  38. This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 12/26/2008, at The Unreligious Right

    Comment by UNRR — 12/27/2008 @ 8:30 am

  39. Color me confused. If God did not create the heavens and earth, then is there a God? Is religion a hoax? Is “church” just a social event? Is the United States on the cusp of becoming Europe where religion is for old ladies and morality is relative to what is relevant?

    Has science finally explained God away and only fools and children are left babbling prayers and examining scripture? Is Pope Benedict a great thinker or a shaman who has found his way to head witch doctor?

    I am not quite ready to sweep religion out of the Republican club house. Nor am I ready to say that “creationists” are “nitwits.” I will agree that any candidate who gets bogged down in defending creationism/ID or making abortion his primary theme is a sure fire loser for election.

    As to climate change, I marvel at how many “scientists” have jumped on a political bandwagon and turned on those fellow scientists who disagree. The same can be said of the Darwinists who spread the theory to social institutions and niche adaptation. Evolution is, like climate, a process of change. We struggle to understand it well enough to predict the change. We are in the infancy of creating the computer models which will help us understand what may be coming. And then the solar irradiance shifts and the computer models are yesterday’s junk.

    There seems to be a lot of conceit in all of this talk of religion, evolution, climate change, Creationism, and political party strategy. Only a Tammany organization can herd cats like these. Are we not on the verge of being too clever by half when we start throwing people out of the tent?

    Comment by David — 12/27/2008 @ 10:29 am

  40. TO: Republican spinners, flacks, and concern trolls
    FR: Jed Lewison

    Real Time With Bill Maher is currently on hiatus until February, so I hope it’s okay that I borrow his “new rules” concept for a brief second. Here goes:

    New rule. If you’re a Republican media operative, and you want to see the Obama administration fail, don’t say while you think that Obama had nothing to do with Blago’s corruption, that you think it’s “unfortunate” that Obama will be tainted nonetheless.

    First of all, you’re wrong. Obama won’t be tainted. People have seen your stupid GOP tricks before, and they won’t fall for them again. While you were busy talking about how “unfortunate” it is that the Blago mess drags on and on, President-elect Obama was busy dealing with the nation’s real problems — and racking up an 82% approval rating for having done so.

    While you were disengenously prattling forth about transparency in the wake of the most secretive administration in American history, Barack Obama was putting all the cards on the table, holding nothing back.

    While you were dreaming of another Whitewater, Obama was becoming the most admired man in America. (And by the way, Hillary Clinton — not Sarah Palin — is the most admired woman in America.)

    And most importantly of all, while you were busy doing everything possible to avoid discussing the fundamental economic challenges that we face, Barack Obama and his administration were busy working on a plan to start the recovery from the Bush Recession.

    If you learned one thing from the last election — and you apparently haven’t — it’s that people are sick and tired of the typical partisan Republican games and distractions, especially when we’re facing such enormous problems.

    This is a big moment in our nation’s history. You have an opportunity to do the right thing and get on board and help us fix the disaster that eight years of highly ideological conservative governance have brought to the United States of America.

    Or you can cement your irrelevancy by standing on the sidelines and throwing partisan potshots and imagining fires where there isn’t even any smoke.

    It’s your choice. Choose wisely.

    Comment by retire07 — 12/27/2008 @ 10:43 am

  41. Ok, to all the smarties who believe in creationism or ID versus evolution. Could you propose right here and now a proper experiment to test your claim. I didn’t think so. As for evolution see for example my above post (easy to do in two weeks). If you could design proper experiments you would get money from NIH, there is no conspiracy!

    Comment by funny man — 12/27/2008 @ 2:47 pm

  42. Rick Moran said:

    “If parents want to home school their kids and teach them ID or send them to private religious schools where Darwin is a dirty word, fine. They will grow up sweeping the floors of Japanese, Swedish, or Chinese bio-tech factories rather than owning them.”

    Wow. It seems we are already doing enough with our public education system to guarantee that our children will be floor sweepers. What part of the nascent “ID” movement is responsible for this??

    My son (6th grade) sees the logic behind ID as opposed to the pop culture myth of Darwinism. He can out-think and out-reason any of the children in his class. He discovered syphoning when he was four years old; I didn’t believe it was anything but a magic trick until I was in seventh grade. He stands out because he THINKS FOR HIMSELF! Most of our kids don’t; they simply regurgitate what they are “programmed” with in their classrooms.

    You are way off base with this statement. Darwinism plays a very small role in modern science. Simple analysis of the mathmatics involved in random mutations that result in changes beneficial to an organism show the virtual impossibility of the theory.

    I have been a firm believer in ID since my late teens and still managed to get straight A’s in my college biology, physics and environment classes. It is entirely possible to learn a flawed theory without believing it to be a valid argument. THAT is the reality of science, not some lemming-like pursuit of a theory that has morphed from being an attempt to explain speciation to a humanistic construct that seeks to explain all existence.

    Comment by Michael Schmidtman — 12/27/2008 @ 5:36 pm

  43. #42 wrote:
    My son (6th grade) sees the logic behind ID as opposed to the pop culture myth of Darwinism.

    If your son is as smart as you think, pretty soon he’s gonna figure out you’re a moron. Thinking ID is about logic and referring to Darwinism as a pop culture myth all point to this conclusion.

    The stupid, it burns!

    Comment by Hyperion — 12/27/2008 @ 6:38 pm

  44. Michael,
    we now know that horizontal gene transfer for example also plays a role in evolution. So this mathematical modeling based on mutation rates is just BS. I suggest a contemporary textbook on evolution not debunking a 19th century scientist.

    Comment by funny man — 12/27/2008 @ 7:22 pm

  45. I utterly abhor most republicans’ attitudes towards science and ID. Thank you for coming out so strongly as a person of reason. That is why I read this blog, even though I don’t agree with you much of the time.

    Comment by Russell Miller — 12/27/2008 @ 8:10 pm

  46. Forget about it Michael Scmidtman, you can’t convince Rick. He’s a man of faith.

    Comment by cdor — 12/27/2008 @ 9:09 pm

  47. Michael Schmidtman:

    Your sixth grader is brainwashed. Shame on you.

    Comment by Russell Miller — 12/27/2008 @ 9:55 pm

  48. Phony intellectualism on the left, anti intellectualism on the right. There is an easy solution to all this, medical companies will state the scientific method they use to manufacture products or deliver care, evolution or I.D. People can sign up for what they want for both their medical and classroom needs. If I.D. is a real science there should be no problem with this since a real science will deliver many wonderful cures for every affliction known to mankind. On the other hand, if the I.D. people are wrong then we will get a lesson on evolution after the first flu season. But seriously, this discussion is a perfect example of why the conservative movement needs to dump the religious right and go their separate ways.

    Comment by grognard — 12/28/2008 @ 11:19 am

  49. I think its a bit premature at this point to conclude whether or not Jindal is or is not the answer. There is stil alot of time to thoroughly examine all of the candidates within the Republican and Democratic parties and they will all be thoroughly studied. The questions are which people are best able to improve America’s economy and which ones are best able to provide for America’s national defense. This may or may not be Jindal. Its to early to know at this point.

    I see no problem with teaching ID/Creationism along side evolutionary theory or how ever the school system wishes to do it. We allow any number of other theories to be taught. Why not teach ID/Creationism? If the ideas are without merit, the market place will eliminate them much as it eliminated the flat earth theory or the earth as the center of the universe theory. Being afraid of ID/Creationsim as many seem to be appears to be irrational.

    The theory of human caused global warming may or may not be a hoax. People who question the theory have been viciously attacked in numerous ways. In labeling the theory a hoax, we are seeing the people who have been viciously attacked by the man caused global warming proponents and their allies in the media. The proponents of the theory should not be afraid to have an open and honest debate on the subject.

    I think we can should have a debate on ID/Creationsim and we should have a thorough debate on whether or not humans are responsible for global warming. The proponents of the theory of human caused global warming and their allies in the media seem to be afraid to have this debate. They should not be.

    What is clear is that the belief in human caused global warming has severly harmed our economy and our national security interests. It has left us more dependent than we need to be on others who do not like us very much to meet our energy needs and it has strengthened these enemies. Also, if we are not developing more or our own resources, this decreases the supply which raises the price that Americans must pay for gasoline and other oil based products. This has harmed us in many ways. Before we destroy our economy further and make ourselves even more vunerable to our enemies we should want to be sure we really have a problem here and that we can actually control it.

    I have my own theory about man caused global warming but am willing to concede that it might not be correct. Humans are but one species on earth out of millions. We are simply not significant enough to be capable of altering the climate on a global scale. To believe that we are capable of such a thing is the height of hubris, however, I’m willing to concede I’m wrong. The supporters of global warming should also be willing to concede that they might be wrong.

    We should not be afraid to debate ID/Creationsim or global warming. Finally, the Republican leadership should not be afraid to consider Bobby Jindal. Maybe he’s the answer. Maybe he is not. He and whatever views he has should be given fair consideration.

    Comment by B.Poster — 12/28/2008 @ 2:39 pm

  50. Sure ID and creationism can be taught in school, just don’t pass them off as science. I could name you quite a lot of experiments of how to determine the age of the Earth none of which says 6000 years. If you can do that, try to publish that in a serious journal. Maybe then we can start talking about admitting this into the science curriculum. What should be taught is ’scientific methodology’ not just facts. Can you verify or falsify a theory (according to Popper you can’t verify only falsify; nevertheless that gives you a better and better idea of what is going on). With ID you can’t do neither because it is experimentally not verifiable. Would you thus propose we should teach reincarnation in the science curriculum? Same problem there. Again, how you design experiments to test a hypothesis is what science is all about. That would probably help this discussion too.

    Comment by funny man — 12/28/2008 @ 5:23 pm

  51. B.Paster: The marketplace has *already* eliminated those ideas, and the debate has already happened. The creationists *lost*. Manufacturing another debate where there isn’t one through force of law is dishonest. The only debate (regarding ID) is from those who are ignorant about science, and who have an ideological axe to grind. The evolutionists may or may not be wrong, but the IDers aren’t even wrong - there’s no way to prove they are or aren’t one way or another. It simply *is not science*.

    I think global warming is a little hazier. Are humans the cause? Dunno. Are humans *a* cause? Almost certainly. It seems to me that complaining about global warming harming our economy or national security is a little shortsighted - if it plays out like some are thinging, there won’t be an economy to destroy or a nation to secure. Have the debate, sure, but I think the odds are pretty hgih that at the very least we have a responsibility to stop polluting and stuff, even if it’s not causing things to warm up. It’s just good for all of our health. And that’s beyond debate.

    Comment by Russell Miller — 12/28/2008 @ 9:42 pm

  52. I have a simple way to test the theory of evolution: those of you who don’t believe in evolution, when you get a bacterial disease (strep, staph) should insist on the dose of antibiotics that was effective when antibiotics were first discovered.

    Those of us who believe in evolution will insist on the dose deemed effective against the current, mutated bacteria.

    If we’re right there will soon be a lot fewer of you people.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 12/29/2008 @ 12:12 am

  53. It does seem clear that species do adapt and change genetically over time, however, do we get new species from spontaneous genetic mutations. Maybe or maybe not.

    I think it does seem clear that the earth is over 6,000 years old. That has pretty much been refuted along with the flat earth theory. I don’t think it is relevant to a discussion of ID. Intellegent Design may or may not refer to the God of the Christian Bible, Allah, or any other one of the other religons.

    I’m not sure when the marketplace rejected the the theory of ID. It’s not been given a fair debate. I’m not aware that anyone is using force of law to get this discussed, however, force of law does seem to be being used to squelch debate. Maybe ID is right. Maybe its wrong. I think it should be properly debated. We debate any number of strange things. There is no reason for any one to fear ID or to be uncomfortable discussing it.

    The beginning of wisdom is to admit that one does not know. I don’t know all of the answers. It seems unwise not to explore all possibilities.

    Comment by B.Poster — 12/29/2008 @ 10:01 am

  54. Fine, then, B. Paster. Have the debate. But not in school. That’s not the place for it. School is a place for scientifically tested facts and theories, which, like it or not, evolution is one. ID/Creationism is not, and likely never will be.

    Comment by Russell Miller — 12/29/2008 @ 10:31 am

  55. I agree that we should not pollute. All reasonable people will agree to that. This is not the issue. The issue is are the actions of humans causing the global tempature to rise? I don’t know. If so, maybe we really do need to destroy our economy and place our national security in even graver peril than it already is. It does seem clear that if the problem really is as big as the alarmists would have us believe that American actions along will not solve the problem. China, Russia, and other major powers will have to be on board. Right now they aren’t and with the global economy struggling, for better or worse, alot of people including leaders of nations are saying “to hel! with global warming, our economy and our people are hurting.”

    Realizng that our obession with global warming is hurting our economy and our national security interests is not short sighted at all. It the government’s primary duty to work for the defense of the nation and to try and ensure that the country is not placed at a competitive disadvantage. Our obsession with global warming has badly hurt our national security and it has placed American business interests at a competitive disadvantage. It is only prudent to recognize this.

    I propose the following: 1.)Secure the borders. 2.) Place a moratorium on immigration from Muslim lands. This moratorium may need to be extended to all immigration until we can fix our immigration system. 3.)Develop all of our own oil and gas reserves. 4.)Build more refineries. 5.) Maintain our nuclear detterence. This will mean expanding and upgrading the nuclear arsenal. With a resurgent Russia and expansionist China this of paramount importance. Doing these five things will give us greater marginal utility for our national security interests than invading Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other middle eastern country ever could have or ever would have.

    While doing this we should continue to study global climate changes. If it turns out that humans are a major factor, we can make changes but before we destroy our economy and place our national security in an even graver position than it already is we need to be absolutely certain. Simply declaring the “debate over” arbitrarily and sliming skeptics of human caused global warming does not cut it.

    Comment by B.Poster — 12/29/2008 @ 10:55 am

  56. I find it humorous that Rick seems to think that if Republicans (i.e. conservatives) don’t buy into the global warming scare (now reduced to “climate change” because the jury is still out on man’s contribution and the cause of the “climate change”) and think that ID is a valid belief that can be taught along with the “theory” of evolution (yes, Rick, it is still a theory) are somehow simple minded primates that are dragging down the Republican party, or at least his view of what the Republican party should be. Hence, his argument against Jindal.

    I guess we can back Rick’s argument up by the fact that the majority of Americans who voted for Barack Obama had “climate change” and ID as their primary concerns for voting for Obama. (yes, sarcasim intended)

    Jindal has proven himself to be an able and qualifed leader in a state that equaled Illinois in corruption as a way of life. And I see no indication that Jindal, who probably does accept ID, has forced it down the throats of his constituants that are of the mindset of Rick.

    What Rick has done is argue the “big tent” philosophy much like Democrats. If you are not with us, then you don’t belong. Think like we do or get out. Yeah, that should do a lot to rebuild a party that has been taking body blows for two election cycles now. If you don’t accept “climate change”, if you don’t accept Darwinism, you have no place at the table. That should really build conservative numbers.

    Rick, like many non-believers, seem to think that the jury is no longer out on all science of “climate change”. But now, as has been pointed out, there is dissention among scientific ranks as to the global warming fear mongering and it is not settled. You know that the bar has been reset when people now refer to GW as “climate change”. When your theory is being questioned, change the terminology. There, that takes care of that.

    Were the citizens of Louisiana concerned about Jindal’s personal thoughts on Darwinism vs. ID when they elected him? No. They were concerned about the same thing that all citizens are concerned about; their wallets. And in that aspect, Jindal has stepped up to the plate.

    There is a place in the Republican party for the deep thinkers like Rick who seem to feel that GW and ID are priority issues. But there is also a place for those who could not care less and are worried that they will have a job next week or that their kids are getting a decent education not hampered by the Teacher’s Union that can’t seem to police it’s own.

    Jindal is a rising star, as are a number of Republicans. 2012 may not be their year, but I can promise you, 2016 will be a different story. And you don’t regain control/power by becoming Democrat Lite. That was proven on Nov. 4 2006 and 2008.

    Yes, Louisiana, as all coastal states, is feeling the pinch coming from falling oil prices. But I didn’t notice Jindal bellying up to the federal coffers trough demanding a bail out like Jennifer Granholm of Michigan or The Governator of California. Perhaps he feels a financial shortfall is the responsibility of his state, and his state alone, and not the citizens of Iowa, Nebraska or New Mexico. Texas, another state that benefits from oil revenue, has already come out and said that it is against the “bail outs” for states that have driven themselves into bankruptcy.

    Why do I feel Rick is relishing in the demise of the GOP? Could it be that he is planning his “coming out” party where he announces he can no longer relate to the “conservatives” of the nation and has now switched parties?

    You read minds just like a liberal. And since I’m not a Republican, it would be pretty tough to “switch” anything.


    Comment by retire05 — 12/29/2008 @ 10:58 am

  57. The main issue of the thread is that Bobby Jindal is not the answer. I meant to address that in the previous post but forgot to do so. Maybe he is. Maybe he is not. It is to early to tell. The next presidential elections are four years from now. All candidates including Mr. Jindal should be thoroughly examined. It is premature at this point to make judgements as to whether he or any one else will be good for the party’s prospects in the next election cycle.

    Comment by B.Poster — 12/29/2008 @ 11:03 am

  58. I happened to stumble upon your blog, and as a strong proponent of science, critical thinking, and as someone who has consistently voted Democratic, I found this post pleasantly surprising. Your discussion of Jindal is quite right, and its nice to see that there are prominent conservatives that aren’t playing the religious right’s game anymore.

    Just one quibble:
    “Believing in ID/creationism flies in the face of the facts. Do we really want a president who does that?”

    You (the big You) elected one twice.

    Comment by andrew — 12/30/2008 @ 7:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress