Texas Academy of Science statement on Pianka

It's interesting that Dembski's now offering to bet that Pianka's popularity will soon decline. Not that Pianka will be charged with anything. Not that he'll be judged by the FBI as any kind of a threat. But that his public image will become tarnished.

There's only one reason I can see for making this wager in this particular fashion. It's because Pianka's public image is something that Dembski et al. can affect. As with the attempt to re-assign blame for the cost of Dover's attorney's fees to the post-decision board, Dembski knows that repeating hysterical charges will rally his base and hurt his enemies, regardless of the truth. I see Dembski's wager as a statement, in effect, that he intends to see Pianka's public image demolished.

The smearing of Eric Pianka is evidence that Dembski and the DI have abandoned any pretense of even wanting to contribute to the scientific discourse. It's all about the culture war.

This is the start of a long campaign, folks.

This is the start of a long campaign, folks.

Well, the idiocy started long ago. But they've only recently ramped up the Rovian tactics.

I actually think that Dover has been such a monumental crisis for them that the DI is switching over to a kind of scorched earth policy. Whereas they until recently have portrayed themselves as members of the scientific academy -- dissidents, but still scientists -- it looks to me now like they are abandoning that stance.

The Wedge no longer applies: the entire ID game-plan has degenerated to "Swift-boat any scientist you can".

That's pretty new.

Marsh's statement looks pretty solid. I approve.

Dembski, on the other hand, is a pathetic little prick. Reporting someone to the Department of Homeland Security based on hearsay is a disgusting tactic.

My theory on Dembski is that he basically sold his soul for notoriety's sake. Sure, he could have been a reasonably successful mathematics or philosophy professor at a second-tier university, but how much more satisfying to be the darling of the anti-science set! You get to travel frequently and speak before adoring audiences!

I also suspect that he's gotten far beyond actually believing in his own crap. It's just that he's ridden this pony far too long to get off now.

There's only one reason I can see for making this wager in this particular fashion. It's because Pianka's public image is something that Dembski et al. can affect. As with the attempt to re-assign blame for the cost of Dover's attorney's fees to the post-decision board, Dembski knows that repeating hysterical charges will rally his base and hurt his enemies, regardless of the truth. I see Dembski's wager as a statement, in effect, that he intends to see Pianka's public image demolished.

— Matt

the entire ID game-plan has degenerated to "Swift-boat any scientist you can".

Well the fundies are the experts at swift-boating and have been ... forever.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that this is part of the "ID" game-plan. It's just fundies being fundies. Remember when the fundies put out "The Clinton Chronicles" where they accused Clinton of murder? I hope so. That was not too long ago. Remember whose cable station carried ads for the "The Clinton Chronicles" long after the bogusness of "The Clinton Chronicles" was well-documented (as if that was necessary)? It was Jerry Falwell's cable station. What is Falwell up to now? Among other things, he is fund raising for Liberty University, where revisionist history and revisionist science scripts are memorized by little fundie morons. Is Liberty University taken seriously by anyone?

Ask Republican Senator and presidential candidate John McCain.

Meh, McCain's not really a fundie, he's just too stupid to realize the collateral damage he causes, like most neocons, when they placate the religious right to garner a larger political base.

on that note, since he is a likely candidate for the next election, I would encourage all to write him and show him how damaging placating these idiots has been and will continue to be to the US economy.

I believe the McCain reference was due to the "turn on him like a pack of dogs" maneuver the far right is doing since his AFL-CIO talk.

I've never understood - what actually does "swift-boating" mean? It's the name of a PR company, right?

I've never understood - what actually does "swift-boating" mean? It's the name of a PR company, right?

The "Swift-boat Vets for Truth" was the astroturf organization that dedicated itself to portraying John Kerry as a coward and a war-criminal, and so to divert attention from George Bush's mediocre (to say the least) career in the Texas National Guard.

The PR firm that help coordinate the attacks also represents the Discovery Institute.

"Swift-boating" is more or less the destruction of someone's reputation in order to deflect attention from one's own failings.

"Swift-boating" now refers to a deliberate campaign of misinformation promulgated to tarnish the reputation, and thereby credibility, of someone. Such tactics have been around for a long time, and are not limited to Republicans by any stretch of the imagination. However, in the past US presidential election, a group of conservative veterans ran a propaganda campaign against John Kerry disparaging his credentials as a war hero, specifically claiming that his medals received for wounds were undeserved, and his commendations for bravery in combat were based on fraudulent claims. Kerry served on a "Swift Boat" in Vietnam -- a small river patrol boat. The claims of the veterans were largely shown to be fraudulent or dubious at best, yet the unremitting propaganda clearly damaged Kerry's campaign. The relentless, aggressive savagery of the smear campaign was such that the name stuck for the practice.

All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans. The verb 'to Bork' never existed; no one ever went digging though Clarence Thomas' video rentals.

Yes, it's disgusting, and we should discuss issues, not personalities. But let's not pretend one side is blameless. In the last 20 years, both sides have done it, and dozens of people, left, right and center, have been smeared.

All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans. The verb 'to Bork' never existed; no one ever went digging though Clarence Thomas' video rentals. Yes, it's disgusting, and we should discuss issues, not personalities. But let's not pretend one side is blameless. In the last 20 years, both sides have done it, and dozens of people, left, right and center, have been smeared.

Although I've never had much time for Dembski I am suprised at the how low this individual has sunk. Reporting someone to DHS on heresay evidence and, in particular, gloating over it is the action of a mean-spirited and probably mentally ill individual. It is certainly unchristian in any conventional sense.

Further, not only is this an abuse of the DHS it is a waste of taxes - isn't there some law against making frivolous charges?

How about some of the high profile academics who frequent this site develop an online petition that condemns Dembski's actions, publicize it to get as many signatures as possible from scientists, and then send it to Dembski's School president, to the National Academy and the media, If anyone takes this up I suggest that it be (i) apolitical and (ii) not an attack on ID.

I've only been following this from the corner of my eye, so to speak. Is this stuff about Dembski and the DHS real? Is there are link or reference?

that is, "a link or reference?"

[damn cold medication!]

Here is what Bork wrote in National Review just last December:

"Liberty in America can be enhanced by reinstating, legislatively, restraints upon the direction of our culture and morality," writes the former appeals court judge, now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Censorship as an enhancement of liberty may seem paradoxical. Yet it should be obvious, to all but dogmatic First Amendment absolutists, that people forced to live in an increasingly brutalized culture are, in a very real sense, not wholly free." Bork goes on to complain that "relations between the sexes are debased by pornography"; that "large parts of television are unwatchable"; that "motion pictures rely upon sex, gore, and pyrotechnics for the edification of the target audience of 14-year-olds"; and that "popular music hardly deserves the name of music."

The man has the instincts of an Iranian mullah. Democrats were entirely right to keep him from taking a seat on the Supreme Court.

Most of the regulars here have seen this, but check out this post on UD to ascertain Dembski's attitude towards human suffering after natural disasters.

Being a political junky.

'To Bork' is significantly different than 'To swiftboat'

All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans. The verb 'to Bork' never existed; no one ever went digging though Clarence Thomas' video rentals. Yes, it's disgusting, and we should discuss issues, not personalities. But let's not pretend one side is blameless. In the last 20 years, both sides have done it, and dozens of people, left, right and center, have been smeared.

I was making a serious point. If you disagree, then explain why you do. Don't revert to some kind of mindless "but the Democrats did this too" response. It shows a lack of ability to think on your own.

— Matt

All the way back to the eighties. LOL! How old are you?

What's the objection to calling this the "Swift-boating" of Pianka? How does your referring to Bork do anything other than attempt to divert attention from the very real parallels between the Kerry smearing and the Pianka smearing?

Gerard Harbison,

Don't forget while the documents were fake, the information they contained was never disputed (the White House even acknowledged the information as accurate).

Fake but accurate! LOL!

There is really a world of difference between borking and swift-boating, the key difference being that borking involves the use of accurate writings from the victim, who then sinks himself with explanations making it clear that his real views are wilder than the wacky stuff in print. Swift-boating requires the wholesale fabrication of a case that a hero who gave blood to defend his country, didn't really do it. John Kerry's case gave the tactic its name, but the worst case was in Georgia, where quadra-amputee U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, who lost some or all use of all four of his limbs in service to his nation in Vietnam and then bravely defended veterans benefits and rights as Secretary for Veterans Affairs, was called a 'coward' and 'soft on military issues.'

Bork really wrote the stuff he was accused of writing; Kerry and Cleland actually served and were wounded by enemy fire, not in a lawn-mowing incident.

In short, swift-boating is done by dishonest right-wingers; borking exposes dishonest or dangerous right wingers. One is done under cover of darkness (swift-boating) to avoid detection of the truth; the other exposes truth to the light.

(No, my bias isn't showing -- yet.)

"All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans. The verb 'to Bork' never existed; no one ever went digging though Clarence Thomas' video rentals.

Yes, it's disgusting, and we should discuss issues, not personalities. But let's not pretend one side is blameless. In the last 20 years, both sides have done it, and dozens of people, left, right and center, have been smeared."

And please lets not forget Bush and the Theoncon smear campaign against John McCain Here ins SC in 2000.

Fake but accurate! LOL!

Kerry made his own service an issue.

Having done that, it was legitimate to question the details of his service.

All the way back to the eighties. LOL! How old are you?

Russell, the link to Dembski proudly tattling on Pianka based solely on hearsay:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/984

As a registered Republican, allow me to be the first to say that an increasing majority of my party disgusts me to no end. I'm very much for a balanced budget, running surpluses, and keeping the government out of people's lives (by, say, forcing them to be taught another persons religion, for example...).

Increasingly, none of those things are what Republicans claim to stand for. We have huge deficits, porked out budges, and the government intruding in clearly abusive ways in people's lives (Schiavo, anyone?). Worse, I see people making rationalizations for PR tactics that, at best, can be described as despicably idiotic and at worst are quite possibly criminal.

Bork probably got shafted to a point, but he brought much of it on himself with his extreme views. Clarence Thomas remains wholly unimpressive to me as a SCOTUS member, likewise. I don't recall the democrats raising serious issues about Roberts, however, and he's quite conservative but qualified. Kerry, though, was unjustifiably screwed. Does anyone here seriously believe that he lied to get his medals, or that he was a coward in vietnam?

Slandering war veterans bothers me deeply. That is downright shameful conduct, and I will be the first to say the Republicans have done far too much of it. If the DI and Karl Rove remain in power, I'm quite likely to become an independent in the future and stay that way regardless of future changes in the party. Here's to hoping people like McCain win out (and, as mentioned, he's been swift boated as well).

Seriously, have any examples of Republican martyrdom that aren't a load of shit?

So Ed's point is, it's impossible to be 'soft on military issues', if you've blown yourself up, possibly with your own grenade (accounts differ) while serving your country? Because Max Cleland was maimed in a horrible accident, his record on national security should not have been questioned?

In other words, we shouldn't criticize X's stand on issues, because of who X is? Isn't that just the flip side of criticizing candidates rather than issues?

Look, in any case, this is not the place to argue this. I just wish that the undoubted majority of political liberals/Democrats/progressives on this forum would realize that turning this into a partisan battle won't further the cause of science. Those of us who consider ourselves pro-evolution conservatives are quite well aware of, and are disgusted by, the influence of the religious right on the GOP. We agree with you about Pianka; we agree with you about Dover. That, surely, is what's relevant to Panda's Thumb. Reminding us of why we disagree with you on a bunch of other issues isn't.

So Ed's point is, it's impossible to be 'soft on military issues', if you've blown yourself up, possibly with your own grenade (accounts differ) while serving your country? Because Max Cleland was maimed in a horrible accident, his record on national security should not have been questioned?

One thing I haven't seen discussed (and this seems an approporiate venue) is the lack of understanding the whole "cull the humans with disease" idea. Diseases are only good at removing a sizeable fraction of a population when the population is pretty much trapped in large numbers together. In a "free range" population (which most humans are), diseases quickly evolve reduced virulence - those variants that harm the host the least, keeping them up and moving about, are preferentially spread; the more benign the symptoms, the more successful the strain. SARS spread mostly in hospitals; Spanish flu probably needed the trenches of world war one to stay virulent for a while; HIV is a rare instance of a virus that can kill the host but doesn't for a long contagious while. Ebola in its current form would never affect enough hosts to be a major problem, and the world would have to get generally much nastier to be susceptible to a real pandemic. You can even see this in how avian flu is affecting domestic flocks very differently than wild flocks (it's even debatable whether what's in the wild birds is even what's affecting the domestics anymore).

Gerard,

I agree with you 100% - pandasthumb isn't the place to argue Dem vs Rep politics. Such pure political discussions here will only end up getting evolution labelled a "liberal" position (even more than it currently is by the ID people).

Bob

The Wedge no longer applies: the entire ID game-plan has degenerated to "Swift-boat* any scientist you can" *But note that what was done to Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork 20 years ago was just as bad as what the swift boat vets did.

Is it so difficult to see why I drew the parallel with the Swift Boat Vets and not with Robert Bork?

the papers were faked, the information in them was not.

Because the original Texas National Guard reports in the archives "somehow" disappeared...

Accusing anyone who was in the military and serving in combat of either cowardice, ineptitude, or something similar without legitimate document evidence is insulting to all veterans in this nation. And yes, "accounts differ" sounds a lot like the DI speak for "Well, some people believe evolution is scientifically false"...

Interesting how if we ask Harbison to answer questions, he says "this is not the place to argue this", but this restriction somehow doesn't seem to apply to him.

Interesting how if we ask Harbison to answer questions, he says "this is not the place to argue this", but this restriction somehow doesn't seem to apply to him.

Judge fails to get confirmed since people don't like his views. Simple as that. I do hope you dont honestly think that's the same as a 'smear campaign'.

So how was publishing a list of his video rentals part of the process of examining his writings?

All right, Arlen,

I was going to let it drop,

but since you seem to object to that, I won't. You claim Judge fails to get confirmed since people don't like his views. Simple as that. I do hope you dont honestly think that's the same as a 'smear campaign'. So how was publishing a list of his video rentals part of the process of examining his writings?

I would tend to agree that it's ordinarily none of anybody else's business what videos some judge-to-be has elected to watch in the privacy of his living or bedroom.

I don't remember what the specifics of the video-rental list showed, or why they were claimed to be relevant.

But specific kinds of relevance that might trump the general rule stated above might readily be thunk:

For instance: Judicial candidate has given off every kind of straight-arrow, goody-two-shoes, anti-obscenity, anti-sex crime, anti-homosexuality, pro-family values kind of vibe, but the video list is heavily weighted toward porn, including rough trade, male-male, snuff, etc. porn.

I still don't care what the dork watches, really, in and of itself, though most of this sounds pretty ookey, but I may well care--and be persuaded that there's some relevance--if there's a distinct hypocritical disjunct between outwardly-proffessed and privately-expressed values.

Especially in the case of a life appointment to the highest court.

Interesting that neither side of this incipient, and completely off-topic, row appears to be able to resist the urge to lay into the other.

— Corkscrew

As long as this no longer has anything to do with the OP, I would like to make my stand against "40-minute" drycleaners that take three days to clean clothes.

Anyone who is against me is a poopyhead.

Perhaps some people are seeing the same tactics used in this discussion that we see from the IDC crowd? Our dishonesty is the same as your using our writings/actions against us?

Well, just to make things clear regarding Max Cleland, it's true that he lost his limbs in an accident involving a hand grenade.

However, prior to that he was awarded a Silver and Bronze star, and had been wounded in combat. He fought at Khe Sanh. He had volunteered to return to the battle at Khe Sanh when things got dodgy, and was enroute when the accident that disabled him took place.

Somehow the word "coward" doesn't seem to fit.

I thought this was the Panda's Thumb, not defend your favorite political persuasion. Doh!!! silly me.
Gentlemen please let's discuss about Dumbsky et. al. and their complete disregard for truth and honesty. For partisan politics there are plenty of other outlets.

And by "you" you mean who, precisely? If you're thinking I'm a republican*, you're wrong - I vote Lib Dem, which is about as left-wing as you can get in the UK. I have no idea who's right about the political issues. I'm just freaked out that a factual question has blossomed into a minor flamewar.

— Corkscrew

Actually, I was talking about BORK,

Look, in any case, this is not the place to argue this. I just wish that the undoubted majority of political liberals/Democrats/progressives on this forum would realize that turning this into a partisan battle won't further the cause of science.

Democan, Republicrat ----- (shrug)

Those of us who consider ourselves pro-evolution conservatives are quite well aware of, and are disgusted by, the influence of the religious right on the GOP.

All good liberals know that the politics of personal destruction began with the Swift Boat veterans. The verb 'to Bork' never existed; no one ever went digging though Clarence Thomas' video rentals. Yes, it's disgusting, and we should discuss issues, not personalities. But let's not pretend one side is blameless. In the last 20 years, both sides have done it, and dozens of people, left, right and center, have been smeared.

you went all Republican partisan scumbag on us, so spare us the hypocritical lecture, j**k*ss.

Let's keep the name-calling to the climical level, folks.

The SwiftBoating of John Kerry was primarily an example of what people can do to a political opponent given enough money, access to mass media, and willingness to employ slander and libel as tactics. It's also much easier to spread a damaging story, spurious or otherwise, than it is to take it back. Given the popularity of ants-in-a-jar "news" TV, it's very, very easy to get a few hundred thousand people yammering in rage about a perceived threat, insult, or slight that has little or no basis in fact -- and to keep at it even after the story has been thoroughly debunked.

I sincerely doubt that any political party has a monopoly on the willingness to manipulate public opinion. And, yes, I am a politically liberal voter.

I think this is getting too harsh

Uh, there's a huge gap between "willingness to employ slander and libel as tactics" and "willingness to manipulate public opinion". Of course both parties share the latter.

It's also much easier to spread a damaging story, spurious or otherwise, than it is to take it back.

Only slightly. The issue was swift-boating, and what happened here is a good example of how criticism of the swift-boating gets deflected and reflected back at those offering the criticism. "teach the controversy" and "both parties do it" aren't that far apart, really.

Thus the entire Creationist/ID quagmire, which is what we've been sidetracked off of.

Look, in any case, this is not the place to argue this. I just wish that the undoubted majority of political liberals/Democrats/progressives

on this forum would realize that turning this into a partisan battle won't further the cause of science. Those of us who consider ourselves pro-evolution conservatives are quite well aware of, and are disgusted by, the influence of the religious right on the GOP. We agree with you about Pianka; we agree with you about Dover. That, surely, is what's relevant to Panda's Thumb. Reminding us of why we disagree with you on a bunch of other issues isn't.

ADMIN NOTE

This has gotten way off topic. Do we really need fifty posts about Kerry, Cleland, McCain, Thomas, and Bork on a thread about Pianka?

Lenny, does that make you a free radical?

Lenny, does that make you a free radical?

McCain is our best chance to remove the fundies from their position of dominance.

I suggest we take it.

Hahahahhaahaahh.

Lenny, you must be joking.

If not, then this is surely the silliest thing you've ever said.

And one other thing: it seems to me it's only the "registered Republican" types around here who threaten to take their little green footballs and go home whenever their political allegiances are questioned.

I think George Bush is the worst president in the history of this country and anyone who voted him for was clueless or deluded. Just my opinion.

Now, you can boo hoo hoo hoo about that or you can stop for a second and realize that half the country agrees with me and the an overwhelming majority of the country thinks the guy stinnks.

And then you can look at the Republican party as a whole and ask yourself why it is that so many prominent Republican leaders -- including "straight talk" John McCain -- recite the Discovery Institute script and play up to the fundies.

So why vote Republican? If you're wealthy and want to get wealthier, then it all makes sense to me. Otherwise, you're a sucker. Just my opinion. But don't imagine that I can't back up my opinion with reams of facts.

A guy named Chris Mooney wrote a book about Republicans and the War on Science. Was Chris lying to us? I haven't seen much indication that Chris was lying.

The Swift Boaters accused John Kerry of war crimes, of intentionally shooting kids in the back, of shooting himself to earn a purple heart. And Republican apologists and fundies recited the script up and down the blogosphere and right to the faces of Americans watching TV. All this is documented. Pretending this didn't happen or diminishing what happened by comparing it to the confirmation hearings of Bork or Thomas is a sign of stupidity or mental illness.

To address Lenny's point about the "dangers" of pointing out facts which make Republicans and religious people uncomfortable I can only say: deal with it.

Republicans and religious people need to deal with the events of the last 6 years.

I'm never going to forget what happened in the last 6 years, and I'm never going to stop reminding people of what happened.

Someone wrote this laughable comment:

Those of us who consider ourselves pro-evolution conservatives are quite well aware of, and are disgusted by, the influence of the religious right on the GOP.

What the hell is a "pro-evolution conservative"? You mean you aren't a reality-denying moron?

The GOP in 2006 is virtually synonymous with the "religious right." If your conservative and disgusted by the fundies then you're a typical DEMOCRAT.

And please let's not try to parse what's happening to Pianka out of the bigger picture.

Is Mims a Republican do you suppose? Does he have any political connections?

Connect the frigging dots.

actaully, I tend to agree with those who point out Mims' vendetta against many folks at his univeristy, Pianka included, as being sufficient motivation on his end.

However the gross overpublication of Mims mischaracterizations was entirely due to the religious-right PR machine, and THAT is a good place to start connecting dots.

I'd say it's worthwhile to show over and over how this has backfired on them.

Rely on the testimony of the insane and what do you get?

This always seems to happen eventually, as one or the other of these idiots pulls some lamebrain stunt like Mims just did.

Now if only the Republican majority would use times like this to further distance themselves from the fundies, maybe they could finally break the ties the neocons have so carefully and ubiquitously cultured since the neocons started utilizing fundies as a powerbase in the late 70's/early 80's.

Based on McCaine's recent actions, I doubt it tho.

However small the chance, Lenny does have a point. McCaine HAS been rather wishy washy in his support of the far right. If you are a republican, this is your best chance to promote the dissolution of this political right-wing lovefest.

I think that has about as much a chance of happening as Hillary being elected president, which is to say very small, but still possible.

Now if only the Republican majority would use times like this to further distance themselves from the fundies, maybe they could finally break the ties the neocons have so carefully and ubiquitously cultured since the neocons started utilizing fundies as a powerbase in the late 70's/early 80's.

I think that Sir T. has very nicely summarized the rise of the fundamentalist bloc in the United States. I don't buy for a minute that the political power of fundamentalists comes from some kind of critical mass of religious fervor. Rather, religious fervor has been very carefully cultivated, bottled, and marketed for political ends.

Tangential but not irrelevant: Here's a wonderful quote from actor Stephen Fry.

"Family life, family values, decent normal family, family fun, family shopping, family leisure. The word is used these days much as the word 'Aryan' was used in Germany during the 1930s."

I think George Bush is the worst president in the history of this country and anyone who voted him for was clueless or deluded. Just my opinion.

Now, you can boo hoo hoo hoo about that or you can stop for a second and realize that half the country agrees with me and the an overwhelming majority of the country thinks the guy stinnks.

The GOP in 2006 is virtually synonymous with the "religious right."

If your conservative and disgusted by the fundies then you're a typical DEMOCRAT.

However small the chance, Lenny does have a point. McCaine HAS been rather wishy washy in his support of the far right. If you are a republican, this is your best chance to promote the dissolution of this political right-wing lovefest. I think that has about as much a chance of happening as Hillary being elected president, which is to say very small, but still possible.

Lenny - I agree with almost everything you write on PT, BUT I just don't see McCain as the answer.

Anyone that speaks at Jerry Falwell's Liberty U, as McCain will do for their 2006 commencement, is NOT OKAY in my book. Yes, I saw him dissembling on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, and the reason, or excuse given by McCain, that he "will say the same thing he says at all commencements" so it's okay, strikes a sour note with me.

So I think McCain, is not the answer, but sadly no, I do not have a better answer. Do you have anyone else besides McCain that MIGHT "lead us out of this wilderness"? Obama? Franken?

"Alas, nobody being offered by the Democans is electable --- least of all Hillary Clinton. Quite aside from the fact that the Democans have done virtually nothing to distinguish themselves from the Republicrats."

Bullshit. How about Mark Warner, the very popular Virginia governor who has that nice mix of being a popular Southern Democrat, telegenic and a self-made businessman. He also has that glow of being a "moderate," much in the Bill Clinton mold.

Beyond that, you've got some heavy-hitters like Biden and Bayh (another popular Democrat from a "red state"). And I don't think Hillary is quite the inevitable loser people make her out to be. She has trounced such notions before, remember. I personally don't like her very much, but if it's a choice between her and, say, Rick Santorum, I would put my money on her.

It's pretty darn stupid to be dismissing any of the candidates as "unelectable" in 2006. Would people have seen Bill Clinton as "electable" in 1990? Probably not.

Honestly, this notion that McCain is going to get the GOP nod is silly. I'm not saying he won't, but it sure isn't inevitable. Given that the party apparatus is STILL doing everything it can to smear him in public (just follow Drudge and his hard on for dissing McCain), I think his chances of getting the nomination aren't so hot.

I also wouldn't count out Feingold, although I see him much more as VP material for the eventual nominee. Still, he's got a spotless record and is one of the few Senators who has been consistent in his stances and is full of integrity.

The future of the Republicans is going to be partially determined by how well the Democrats do in these midterm elections.

If the Dems are able to take back The House and/or The Senate, there is a high probabity (IMHO) that the Repubs would turn away from the fundies.

If the Dems lose ground, then it is going to be a long marriage with the fundies for the GOP and there is no one out there that has the politcal capital (or fortitude) to try and break it up.

If the Dems lose ground there is absolutely no way McCain or Guiliani (sp?) will be the nominee in '08. Both are pro-choice (McCain less so) and against the Federal Marriage Amendment (again McCain less so). The '08 nominee will be a Sanatorum/Frist type.

/back to your regularly scheduled science talk

So I think McCain, is not the answer, but sadly no, I do not have a better answer.

Honestly, this notion that McCain is going to get the GOP nod is silly. I'm not saying he won't, but it sure isn't inevitable. Given that the party apparatus is STILL doing everything it can to smear him in public (just follow Drudge and his hard on for dissing McCain), I think his chances of getting the nomination aren't so hot.

So I think McCain, is not the answer, but sadly no, I do not have a better answer.

The answer is no Republican at all.

Yet, when some brave soul introduced a measure into Congres to censure Bush for it --- not impeach him, not arrest him, just CENSURE him, just say "he shouldn't have done that" ---- no one, absolutely no one at all, Democan or Republicrat, had the balls to say so out loud.