I’m just sayin’.
Actually, I’ll be more explicit: whatever your thoughts are on what happened Tuesday here in the States, a lot of anti-science people are gone. I’m especially happy (though not at all surprised) to see Rick Santorum go. He tried to ram Intelligent Design legislation into the No Child Left Behind Act. It failed, but was still used as a template for local legislators to push that garbage into the curriculum for kids. To me, that’s child abuse, and I don’t think that’s an exaggeration.
But he’s gone, as are so many of his ilk. Now let’s see how these new Democrats do as far as science is concerned.
I’ll be watching.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
child abuse it is. i cant imagine anyone calling us free if they dont tell them the truth about our own existence.
pittiness, and a new day for a new direction. but surprisingly, lots of anti science folk are still there..
and thats worrisome. a little.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Congrats from Europe. Sanity may still have a fighting chance.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Yes! And it was President Kennedy and President Johnson who ACTUALLY pushed NASA to the lunar surface. We shall return….:*)
November 8th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Keep on rockin’ in the free world.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Hooray, but was science an issue at all for people who voted against him?
Thanks must go to Dan Savage, the gay advice columnist who coined the noun ’santorum’ to mean… well it’s NSFW, but the brave can look here…
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/
Now I want to see George ‘Macaca’ Allen concede.
To be honest- even if Santorum was pro-science I would have loved to have seen him gone. He’s a bigot.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Grrr… Congratulations.
November 8th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Congrats sir!
I realize it is important to follow all decisions made by congress representative to point them when they are being dogmatic or if they defend anti scientific positions, being of the party they could come. In México we will have to wait 3 more years to change them.
Best regards
November 8th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Haha, George ‘Macaca’ Allen concedes!
So, he called an American of Indian descent a monkey.
How stupid do you have to be to not know that all humans are apes and not monkeys?
November 8th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Hey, I voted to re-elect my congressman (Rush Holt) in NJ. His campaign stickers say “My congressman IS a rocket scientist”. He has his Ph.D. in physics and worked at Princeton’s Plasma lab. So there’s at least one scientifically literate congressman out there.
November 8th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Besides saying good riddance to Santorum, the guy that wanted to gut the Endangered Species Act, Richard Pombo also got the boot.
November 8th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Ah yes, but humans are HAIRLESS apes, which means we can get really cold,,,which is why it’s so nice to snuggle,,,
We need to get the percentage of politicians who understand science beyond the 2% mark. I am surprised we’ve made as much progress as we have, given the low level of science background in our “leaders”.
Well, a new generation dawns. Lets keep hoping for the best and keeping an eye out for the worst,,,
GAry 7
November 8th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
It will interesting to see what will happen over the next two years down there in there well besides Rumsfield stepping within 24 hrs of the elections.
November 8th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
sorry it was suppose be
.. rumsfeld steeping down within 24 hrs of the election.
November 8th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Personally, I’ll wait to see how they do. I don’t really hold out much hope of science being treated any better under new leadership, but then I don’t trust any politicians.
November 8th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Correction, George ‘Macaca’ Allen has not conceded, but it’s agreed by the media that Jim Webb has won.
According to Jared Diamond- we’re not only apes, we’re also chimpanzees. I for one am proud to be a member of the chimp family.
November 8th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
It is my understanding that a number of chimps have taken great offence at this idea. I believe there argument involves something about not wanting to have their genetic heritage sullied like this.
DK
November 8th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
[...] Our friend Keith Cowling at NASAWatch has a nice rundown of the expected changes in committee appointments. Another friend, Phil Plait the “Bad Astronomer”, gives a different nice rundown of what this means in the evolution/creationsim debate. [...]
November 8th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
You know, I’ve noticed how in politics people can’t make up their minds.
Democrats in office for 6 years people get tired of them and vote Republican in 2 years. People get tired of Republicans after 6 years and vote Democrat. It’s just a huge cycle, nothing so special about it in my opinion.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Personally, I’m more proud of our relation to Bonobos than to Chimpanzees; they’re a lot nicer overall.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:53 am
History shows, when limited to just the big picture, as a whole, the USA moves forward and there simply tends to be an overall positive feeling in citizens, no matter how much turmoil we face; when the Democrats are in the majority.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:18 am
Majority Rules, OK?
Ok, as we say in Australia, “Let’s keep the bastards honest”!
Anyway congrats for changing to a different majority. But it still means you need to keep an eye on things, otherwise you will have to do it all again next time.
I’m pleased. We now have to really work on our lot to ensure a change as well.
Ivan.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:45 am
Welcome back, America, we’ve missed you!
November 9th, 2006 at 4:58 am
^^ What Simon said. Welcome back, the US are a great, great nation, and the world needs you.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:51 am
Confuddled said:
“Democrats in office for 6 years people get tired of them and vote Republican in 2 years. People get tired of Republicans after 6 years and vote Democrat. It’s just a huge cycle, nothing so special about it in my opinion.”
Very true, but the creo nuts were voted out this time because they were stupid, pushing ID and all. Now there’s more science friendly dudes around. Anti-science will always be around and we always have to keep our eye on it no matter which party our polititians belong to.
But right now, I think we deserve to pull a few tongues at our creationist ape cousins.
November 9th, 2006 at 6:21 am
=====
Personally, I’m more proud of our relation to Bonobos than to Chimpanzees; they’re a lot nicer overall.
=====
Not to mention, they have been known to engage in a little same sex foolin’ around without their neighbors calling down the wrath of [deity] on them!
November 9th, 2006 at 6:44 am
Haha! As John says!
BA, you might also have signed with: “I’ll be watching. Grrr!”
hehehe
November 9th, 2006 at 8:33 am
And in Michigan, the voters have gotten rid of affirmative action by the state by a 3 to 2 margin. You can hear the wailing from Ann Arbor all the way in Des Moines.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:51 am
I actually got a bit teared up when I heard from my family in Pennsylvania that Santorum was gone. That was enough for me. But TWO houses of Congress? Impressive. Rumor has it that Denny Hastert is poised to resign entirely from Congress soon: http://www.turningleft.net
November 9th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Amazing – science and politics do mix! And sometimes science even can teach the politicans a thing or two. Keep up the good work!
November 9th, 2006 at 9:35 am
I am a republican and have voted republican in every election I could since I was 18 (now 54) EXCEPT this one. I held my nose and voted democrat for the very reasons expressed above. I detest the bending of science to political ends. In the future I will be looking at that aspect of a politicians position when I decide how to vote.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:28 am
I got to vote against Rick Santorum this election – it felt so much better than voting while I was in Mississippi, since I felt I actually could make a difference.
DrE
November 9th, 2006 at 11:17 am
And all despite the power of prayer!
November 9th, 2006 at 11:22 am
As a Pennsylvania voter, I also enjoyed helping get rid of Santorum. I am not sure his replacement is that much better, but he can’t be worse. Maybe in 6 years we can find a more reasonable candidate.
Flipping through the channels, I saw Bill Bennett talking about Santorum and saying that he might be drafted as a presidential candidate. And all these years I thought Bennett was a humourless Puritan. At least he can be funny, whether he knows it or not. Maybe the whole nation can crush him the next time.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Science be praised! Hope science can save you when the Dems surrended to the terrorists and the Caliphate is installed. You think these religious nuts are bad? Wait until the mad mullahs are in charge. Start practicing your dhimmitude now. First tip, end everything with PBUH.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Science be praised! Hope science can save you when the Dems surrended to the terrorists and the Caliphate is installed. You think these religious nuts are bad? Wait until the mad mullahs are in charge. Start practicing your dhimmitude now. First tip, end everything with PBUH.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
“Welcome back, the US are a great, great nation, and the world needs you.”
So long as we do what you say and elect who you want, right?
November 9th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
The title of this post reminded me of this…
And a new day will dawn
for those who stand long
and the forests will echo with laughter
Strangely appropriate, I think.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Yeah, Cindy. I have heard good things about Rush Holt and I am sure having a hard science background helps him stay away from some of the extremist nonsense not backed up by evidence since he is a used to dealing with evidence
Hastert is a big supporter of Fermilab in his district (he visited a couple of times when I worked there) and if he does resign, I hope his successor is a big a proponent of particle physics as Hastert.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
I see Ehlers pretty much cleaned up again, too. Former physics prof at and graduate of my alma mater; I was always happy to have him as my rep.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
So, DSkinner or GeoTiller, which sock puppet are you going to stick with?
November 9th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I don’t think science is *necessarily* the province of one party. Never forget that Walter Mondale tried to kill the space program and Al Gore tried to outlaw genetic engineering.
But the anti-science Right has been a huge thorn for the last few years. It’s wonderful to see the *conservatives* rejecting them. Did you see that the Kansas School Board got tossed out as well?
November 9th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Yeah, the Democrats got handed a huge opportunity. Let’s see what they do with it.
Unfortunately, my vote apparently didn’t make much difference in my races. I still have Kay Bailey Hutchison and Rick Perry.
The only thing that I seem to agree with Hutchison on is NASA. For every other topic I send a letter to her office, I get a politely worded response at how proud she is of her position in opposition to mine.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
As a resident of Pennsylvania who had the pleasure of gently stroking a touchscreen and helping make Rick Santorum go away, I have this to say:
You’re welcome!
November 9th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
“So, DSkinner or GeoTiller, which sock puppet are you going to stick with?”
What does it say about this person, when he/she can’t think of something at least a little bit different for each sock puppet to say?
And is it just me, or are just about all scientists (I mean real ones, not IDiots) Democrats? I haven’t read a single boo-hoo from a real scientist anywhere.
BTW, one of those footprints on Santorum’s butt is mine. BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!
November 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Actually, I know several conservative scientists. Some space-based people (astronauts and such) lean that way, in fact. That may be a holdover from the days when Republicans were staunch supportes of manned space, and Democrats attacked it. Times have changed. Things are more complicated now!
November 9th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
The progression of time can be meassured in the increase of complexity. Everything started in dence cloud of high energy electrons. And today we have bureaucracy and politics. Clearly, chaos is moving to higher levels of self-abstraction.
Luckily, the stochastic nature of politics is so apparent that no one will believe it was intelligently designed.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
The ball is in your court now and you are not only in charge of sceince but the safety of all Americans. Please do a great job.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
science
November 9th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Just remember: the price of freedom really IS eternal vigilence. Keep the eyes open and critical BA.
GAry 7
November 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
It’s going to be a long two years.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
And is it just me, or are just about all scientists (I mean real ones, not IDiots) Democrats?
Indeed, there are.
However, in the US (and Canada, but for different reasons), there is a problem if you are fiscally conservative, and socially moderate or even slightly conservative – particularly if you are not a religious fanatic…
That problem is that political parties that happen to be fiscally conservative also tend to be religious and socially hyperconservative.
So if you’re an atheist with a slight conservative bent and strong fiscal conservative tendencies, do you vote liberal and have your taxes jacked and possibly some social changes forced on you that you don’t believe your country is ready for… or do you vote for fiscal conservatism and risk some religious yahoo will start infringing on common sense and reality.
It’s a tough call.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Santorum is gone. The Republican Congress is gone. A more science-friendly goups is now in charge.
Wow.
I thought it might never happen.
Here’s hoping for more inprovements in ‘08!
November 9th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
anyway, I think that it is a fallacy that the Republicans are any better at dealing with any terrorist threat better than the Democrats.
Republicans just know how to beat their chests harder.
November 10th, 2006 at 1:46 am
Astroprof Says:
… I don’t really hold out much hope of science being treated any better under new leadership,
Unfortunately, I agree. While I am relieved to see the public waking up and voting in some oversight of the worst government we’ve seen in a long time as evidenced by: the war, legalizing torture, spying on Americans, voiding habeas corpus, the attack on the Constitution, the corruption, and the anti-science, I don’t think the Democratic Party is a whole lot more evidence based than the Republican Party.
The Democrats just have different anti-science issues. Instead of the anti-science supported by Evangelicals and big business we may just see more pseudoscience and exaggerated corporate conspiracy theories like those the anti-vaxers believe.
I’m afraid the misunderstandings about science cut across all walks of America and are therefore probably evenly distributed among the Republicans and the Democrats. Phil gets the Evangelicals out of NASA’s cosmology research and the Teri Schiavos can die in peace, but the attacks on the CDC’s vaccine advisory committees by the autism crusaders don’t go away and the opinions of the scientists and the scientific evidence do not replace the opinions of the unqualified but dedicated believers with no real evidence campaigning for attention to the latest toxic mold or chemical sensitivity.
Only when the general public understands an evidence based world will we have a government that does as well.
But regardless, I thank the good voters for giving us a little hope we can keep the country free and the world in one piece long enough to promote a little more science for that public.
November 10th, 2006 at 1:57 am
About all this safety nonsense, like the Republicans were actually making things safer! That has to be one of the most obviously false images among the many false images the Republicans promote.
The other most obviously false images: Republicans spend less, and Republicans want less government intrusion in your private life.
If we’re lucky we’ll see better port security, better border security, and real cooperation between agencies like the CIA and the FBI.
November 10th, 2006 at 6:49 am
YYYYYEEESSSS!!!!!
Great news. Well done & congratulations to the Americans who voted Democrat. To those who voted Republican .. please think better of it next time!
This is progress – now America has a moderate right wing party in office intsead of a monster raving loony far right-wing party. Roomfor improvemnetand furtherbalance toget back where youwerebefroe McCartysm and jointherestof theWestern nations that have aleftwing party inpolitics too but still its a positive step and like the majority of the world – & all the sane people, I’ll say “Well done and about time too!”
Lets have sanity prevail!
Peace Be Upon Us All – not just Mohammad. (PBUH = Peace Be Upon Him – used in some quotes by Muslim authors & scholars re: the rather sour reference some Islamophobe made here earlier.) Islam ain’t ever going to take over America – as every halfway intelligent person could tell you. All “they*” really want is what you take for granted -freedom from oppression and overseas interference.
* Yes I know OBL rants about destroying the West .. but he’s about as representative as Jerry Falwell and he’ll soon be dead if he ain’t already. The threat he posed was always exaggerated & giving him “warrior” stature rather than just criminal was one of Bush’es worst mistakes. Cut off his oxygen supply by calling a halt to the so-called “terrorism war”, get out of SW-Asia and his power will decline terminally. That’s the reasonable assessment you mob should’ve been told from the start but weren’t.
Incidentally, the Republican party was the best ally Osama ever had – he gave them all they wanted in a bogeyman & set of excuses & they returned the favour.
Amercia and the world is much safer now with Rumsfeld gone, Neo-conservatism finally heading for a well deserved place in history’s dustbin & Bush on the way out.
Heres’ hoping that happens sooner rather than later & the Democrats have the spine to start presidential impeachment proceedings soon. After what the Republican mouth-frothers did against Clinton & with the comparative magnitude of Bush’es disasterous policies eg. invading Iraq, nothing less is necessary!
November 10th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Sorry, I didn’t read all of the posts, so some could argue that this is not a fully informed opinion, but too many people, including some posting here, seem to make the incorrect connection that Republican = anti-science.
That is not true. I am a Republican and am pro-science, trusting in the proven theories of Darwin, Copernicus, and all the other good stuff. Also as a former school teacher, having seeing the bureaucracy of a school district first hand, one of things that distress me is the continual reducing role of science in the class room early in elementary education. This leaves many of our kids ill prepared for high school and college level subject matter. What do we do to compensate for that? We reduce kids exposure to scientific subject matter even further, so their risk of failure goes down. God forbid children should actually fail once or twice in their lives. This is an old pet peeve of mine that I’ve got with education, a topic I have posted about once or twice on this site in the past. I digress.
What some people have failed to notice is the majority of republicans who lost were moderate republicans, not the extreme right. In other words, most of the republicans that lost, mostly in congress, were pro science, or at least were not anti-science. They were not pushing an anti-science agenda. If they were, don’t you think it would have gotten through, since they had the majority for 12 years? These are the same republicans who are the ones who work with the fellow democrats, and they were removed.
I remember hearing during the election that this was about President Bush, and I kept saying to myself, no its not. While people voted out the republicans to express their anger at Bush, when Wednesday came, Bush was still the President. Nothing done on Tuesday was going to change that. Will he be able to pursue any policy or agenda he wishes? Of course not, but don’t forget, he didn’t get everything he wanted even when his party did have the majority. But, he is still the President, with all the power that goes with it. This is not gloating, as I am not happy with his performance either. It is just a statement of fact, a fact that will not change until January 2009.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Tony,
Of course most Republicans and many Republican politicians are not anti-science. I am pro-science and currently a member of that same party. Unfortunately, anti-science extremists like Rick Santorum chose to try to take over control of the party. This makes the Democratic party the less anti-science in general. By giving Democrats control of Congress, we have restored some measure of checks & balances as Bush will need to compromise more than he would with one-party rule.
I am sure we threw out some good Republicans along with the trash, but collateral damage is unavoidable to switch control of Congress.
On the whole, I think we are better able to force some reevaluating of how to resolve the Iraq war as well as fight anti-science.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Wayne, I just hate it when I see labels being applied to an overall group, such as Republicans = anti-science, since broad labels are almost always incorrect. And when I as a individual get mislabeled as a result, I guess I take it a little too personally.
My post, lengthy as it was, was still too general to adequately break down the complexities of all the issues which drove the results on Tuesday.
You are right that Democrats are the more pro-science party, but as I have seen mentioned on this page several times, and as you just referenced, it was Iraq, and not the administration’s stance on science which drove the day. I have concerns that some scientific fields are not going to benefit from this change.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:50 am
Regardless of the silent majority if that’s what you want to call most Republicans, it certainly isn’t the Democrats who are trying to turn America into a theocracy. Running for school boards just so you can make teaching ID in science classes a requirement, appointing PR staff to NASA to censor anything that contradicts the Bible and blocking stem cell research as well as calling homosexuality a sin when the science indicates it isn’t a ‘chosen’ behavior…..None of those anti-science positions are voiced by the Democratic Party and not many Republicans are objecting very openly to the fact those anti-science positions are voiced by leaders in the Republican Party.
November 11th, 2006 at 9:58 am
So, you are saying that if the leader of a group says something, the whole group is at fault? Sorry, don’t think so. The political system is too complex to follow that rule. There are too many issues, and I seriously doubt that any person in this country is represented by someone at any level of government who agrees with everything single opinion on each issue. So, as a result, people are elected who are the best fit, which means when each one of us votes for a candidate, I can 99.999% guarantee the voter does not agree with the candidate on everything. So, as voters, we compromise, and if we do not like the result, we have the chance to change it during the next election.
Skeptigirl, you may want to check your facts before absolving all of the democrats from your list of sins. I know for a fact at least one recently elected democrat who shares many of the same opinions as republicans; Bob Casey Jr., Senator Elect from Pennsylvania. Casey, like his father, is a strong conservative democrat. About the only way Casey could have looked as the liberal choice was running against Rick Santorum, whom he defeated.
I do not know, nor do I think, he supports Intelligent Design, but I do know he is Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, and Pro-NRA, which puts him on the opposite side of the fence with many democrats. In other words, just like saying all republicans are anti-science is wrong, so is saying all democrats are pro-science.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Perhaps someday we can have someone run for office on an evidence based, science oriented platform. I, for one, like guns. They’re great fun for blowing up boulders,,,actually did that at a hippy concert (with a 44 magnum)in the desert near BArstow, Calif., back in 1994 but using them to kill people really goes against my grain.
I am very pro-evidence oriented, but a less political critter you’ll likely never meet. Neither am I oriented toward the acquisition of gobs of wealth. Too bad but that’s one reason we have so few hard science oriented politicians. We’re much more interested in persuing knowledge for its own sake than in the persuit of power. Perhaps we should consider drafting our leaders, as we did with Tom Jefferson. He had to be practically dragged into the presidency. Something to consider,,,
Gary 7
November 11th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
No, Tony, I’m saying if the membership doesn’t speak up when the leaders are speaking but not representing the views of the membership, if the members put those leaders into those leadership positions, then those members shouldn’t be surprised when the criticism is directed to the whole group.
As a Progressive Democrat, a large number of us have been speaking out loudly we want the Party to go in a different direction. Whether or not we effect that change, our position has been declared in the public forum. Is there an equivalent group in the Republican Party that speaks out against the Evangelical base? Because if there is I haven’t heard them.
November 12th, 2006 at 7:12 am
[...] One of our favoirite astronomers summed it up short and sweet. whatever your thoughts are on what happened Tuesday here in the States, a lot of anti-science people are gone. Phil Plait, Bad Astronomer [...]
November 12th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Online poker got banned. Thats why the republicans lost. LOL
November 13th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
The Bad Astronomer said:
>So, DSkinner or GeoTiller, which sock puppet are you going to stick with?
anomalous4 said:
>What does it say about this person, when he/she can’t think of something at least a little bit different for each sock puppet to say?
Now, now, to be fair, DSkinner/GeoTiller was probably hit by the same posting bug that the rest of us are experiencing. Ergo, he/she probably hit post, got the error message, so re-entered the text manually and posted a second time. Why he/she changed usernames I don’t know, but if the person isn’t a regular and the first try doesn’t go through, would we care about the name we saw? Maybe he/she thought the email account used was part of the problem and switched from a geocities to a yahoo account (or whatever).
Evolving Squid said:
>That problem is that political parties that happen to be fiscally conservative also tend to be religious and socially hyperconservative.
>So if you’re an atheist with a slight conservative bent and strong fiscal conservative tendencies, do you vote liberal and have your taxes jacked and possibly some social changes forced on you that you don’t believe your country is ready for… or do you vote for fiscal conservatism and risk some religious yahoo will start infringing on common sense and reality.
I know a few atheist engineers who are Republicans because they are fiscally conservative, and Republicans are the party of the dollar sign rather than the Democratic party of the Godless. (To throw out two pointless stereotypes aimed in different directions.)
Our 2 party system is nonsensical, casting 1 dividing line across a spectrum of issues and assuming that one label effectively sorts all issues fairly.
Tony said:
>While people voted out the republicans to express their anger at Bush, when Wednesday came, Bush was still the President. Nothing done on Tuesday was going to change that. Will he be able to pursue any policy or agenda he wishes? Of course not, but don’t forget, he didn’t get everything he wanted even when his party did have the majority. But, he is still the President, with all the power that goes with it.
You are correct that he’s still President, and still has a lot of power. However, a lot of his power came from having a Congress that was politically stanted to back his position. And while he may not have gotten everything he wished, it will be a lot harder for him to get his wishes against an oppositional party lead Congress. This is still something that will affect his ability to push his agenda, and conceivably some efforts can be put into addressing prior actions of his that got support at the time through partisanship. You are correct that ultimately the real change is 2008. If only the Democrats can find somebody to run that has enthusiasm and leadership while not coming off like an idiot.
>I know for a fact at least one recently elected democrat who shares many of the same opinions as republicans; Bob Casey Jr., Senator Elect from Pennsylvania. Casey, like his father, is a strong conservative democrat. About the only way Casey could have looked as the liberal choice was running against Rick Santorum, whom he defeated.
>I do not know, nor do I think, he supports Intelligent Design, but I do know he is Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, and Pro-NRA, which puts him on the opposite side of the fence with many democrats.
This is an important point. Many of the winners were conservative, just not as conservative as the Republicans they replaced. That’s one reason I have reservations about how the Democrats will turn out. How much improvement did we really get? It remains to be seen.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
online poker got banned…
How am i supposed to make my millions now?