McCain More of the Same — Reigniting the Culture War

Filed in National by on September 7, 2008

Joe Klein is not one of my favorite media-types, but he is quite correct here:

Maybe I’m getting old, maybe it’s that I’ve seen this act so often before, maybe it’s that the people I talk to when I go out on the road really are having a harder time paying for things like health care, gasoline and college tuition, but I’m finding the Republican attempts to derail the conversation from the actual state of the country really depressing and disgraceful this year. They practice Orwellian politics of the crudest sort. They are trying to sell a big lie–that the election is about the social issues of the 1960s, or Barack Obama’s patriotism or his eloquence, or the “angry left,” when it’s really about turning toward a more moderate path after the ideological radicalism and malfeasance of the past eight years.

John McCain can’t claim the mantle of change when he is trying to conduct the Bush/Cheney 04 campaign — certainly not an honorable campaign, and like all of the BC04 crap he signed up for, undercuts the honor he so vociferously claims.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (56)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mike w. says:

    Electing Barack Obama is about turning towards a more “moderate” path?

    What the hell is Klein smoking?

  2. We get it, Mike. Obama just isn’t doing it for you. Put all that aside and READ what Klein — hardly a Democrat or a bastion of liberalism — is saying, OK? Republicans are NOT discussing the issues, because they know they’re DOA if they did. They’re playing the same old games they’ve relied on for the past eight years by refocusing the debate on bullshit arguments like questioning Barack Obama’s patriotism or claiming his wife is an Angry Black Woman. Unfortunately, these attacks have worked in the past and it’s likely they could work in the future.

    Meanwhile, another 1,000 lost their healthcare today and another 100,000 people will lose their jobs this week. Where are the Republicans on that?

  3. jason330 says:

    Those games work on the Mike W’s of the world who have to keep telling themselves that the emperor is fully clothed or their heads would implode.

    Whoever saud McCain was running a “base turnout” campaign in order to not get crushed this year, hit the nail in the head.

  4. FSP says:

    The problem is that Obama creates the mirror effect. The extreme left of the Democratic Party, led by an unprepared chief executive, ready to reward the worst characters of the party. It’s Bush all over, but with different recipients.

    It’s tough to argue that McCain and a Dem Congress isn’t the best outcome here.

  5. jason330 says:

    That is far from the best outcome.

    1) John McCain has no business being executive.
    2) John McCain lacks judgement.
    3) John McaCain is too old and picked a nit wit to serve if he is unable to finish his term.
    4) John McaCain is too old has already said that he would only serve one term.
    5) John McCain has become a rightwing zealot and has promised to continue George Bush’s misrule.
    6) John McCain wants to occupy Iraq for 100 years, contrary to the wishes of the Iraqis.
    7) John McCain wants to open a second front in the war on reality in Iran. (see item 2)
    8 ) John McCain admits to not knowing about economics.
    9) John McCain’s top advisors think that the economy is in fine shape and that Americans are whiners.
    10) John McCain thinks Clarance Thomas is a good judge – and wans to appoint ore judges like him.

  6. FSP says:

    “1) John McCain has no business being executive.
    2) John McCain lacks judgement.”

    Jason brings the funny.

  7. cassandra m says:

    Look at Dave’s response to see how this works — they have to make pretend that a fairly moderate candidate is Dennis Kucinich in order to stoke the anxiety and fear of his side. They can’t win on issues (much like the McCain camp has already noted), but all that is left is to try to make him look as though it is an Obama government would benefit the very few and the very rich — government Bush-style.

    More of the same indeed — he who lies the most wins which I guess is first principle in the R playbook now.

  8. FSP says:

    “a fairly moderate candidate”

    You mean the most liberal member of the US Senate, right?

  9. FSP says:

    If Obama wins, the first thing they’ll do is take away a worker’s right to a private ballot in union elections. Bush-Frist-Hastert gave handouts to big business, Obama-Reid-Pelosi will do the same to Big Labor. Same result, different recipients.

  10. cassandra m says:

    Giving people a choice in organizing is not the same as the billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks and wholesale transfers of taxpayer funds facilitated by BushCo.

    That wasn’t even a good try in the false equivilency game.

  11. mike w. says:

    “1) John McCain has no business being executive.
    2) John McCain lacks judgement.”

    I believe exactly the same about Obama. I have serious questions about his judgment.

    And Mike Matthews – Neither side is discussing the issues in depth. They’re both focusing on petty, stupid shit, but that’s politics.

    As far as Michelle Obama as an “angry black woman.” Well she portrayed herself as such with no help from the Republicans. I listened to her speak before Obama’s campaign shut her up. She IS an “angry black woman.”

  12. FSP says:

    “Giving people a choice in organizing”

    Giving people a choice? They have a choice now, and they get to choose in secret.

    The Dem-Labor alliance wants to take away their right to a private choice. By doing so, it will massively swell the currently dwindling rolls of private-sector unions. The dues income will skyrocket.

    Make no mistake, there will be handouts for trial lawyers too. the unions won’t be the only Dem interest group to benefit.

  13. David says:

    Jason makes the perfect case for Palin. She has business and executive experience. She is not old. She is as much about reform as anyone in politics. She transcends most partisan lines. She is a pragmatic politician who remains true to her principles. She wants to secure victory in Iraq and get out. She doesn’t have a nitwit as a running mate. She will be involved for a long time.

    Jason loves Sarah and doesn’t even know it. You have found the perfect candidate. 🙂

  14. jason330 says:

    I really love that fact that she thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and the fact that she wants to ban Huck Finn and Slaughter House Five.

  15. A. Bundy says:

    Maybe he could prove how much he wants change by picking a DC insider like Biden, or by being the MOST CONSERVATIVE member of the Senate. I bet that would prove how much he wants change. Or maybe if he constantly said one thing and then later CHANGED his mind! You know, like about campaign finance, the War, drilling etc. etc. etc. I bet that would get everyone believing he is all about change.

  16. TheRef says:

    Klein is right of course. But, unfortunately, we have proven over and again that we are susceptible to this kind of campaigning. Right now, with every reason in the world to reject the Republicans, the race appears to be neck and neck. Need I say more?

  17. Sharon says:

    Jason, do you have a link to the books Sarah Palin wants banned? The fact is that she asked if books could be withdrawn because they were offensive. This isn’t “banning” in any sense of the word. She didn’t fire the librarian because she wouldn’t remove any books. The librarian was fired because of administrative issues. Yet another wild-eyed liberal rumor set to rest.

    Lots of people don’t believe in any of the explanations for the origin of life that liberals propose. Part of that is because the theories have changed over time and some things we do know don’t work according to the theory of evolution. To say that you’d like evolution curriculum to include the questioning of the theory isn’t flat earth stuff. Evolution is taught approximately 3 days out of every school year. This is just another attempt to portray her as a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather. Oddly, most people like the idea of teaching intelligent design along side evolution. But I guess this is another case where “the people” need to be told what they should think, not allowed to determine what is taught, right?

    But here’s to your question: why on earth would Republicans run on a platform Democrats are using, which is designed for Democrats to win? This is a very silly argument. Democrats don’t like to run on issues like values, the military, foreign policy, etc. because those issues don’t work for them, even in a year with an unpopular president and a war-weary electorate. The question could just as easily be asked why Democrats don’t want to talk about these issues that affect everyone, as well.

    And Democrats shouldn’t really want to spend a lot of time talking about energy. Their plans won’t change the current state of gas prices for a decade, and it doesn’t include the one thing Americans say they want :domestic drilling.

    I also find it amusing that somehow, higher education, has become a right that every American should have, regardless of ability to pay. That simply has never been true of a college education. Democrats lump together things that have never been included in basic provisions (such as health insurance and education) as a way of masking the benefits of a modern life.

    Now, you’ve decided that insurance and education are rights which must be paid for by taxpayers. Unfortunately, there are lots of us who think these things are still choices for which individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions.

    But again, jason, your list is self-serving and deceitful. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has far more experience that qualifies him for POTUS. He has worked in a bipartisan fashion for legislation (unlike The One). He’s led at least one committee in the Senate and that committee actually met (unlike The One). He had a distinguished military career (unlike The One, who has even lied about considering enlisting). No matter how often you distort McCain’s comment about 100 years in Iraq, people know what he meant, particularly when the actual clip is shown (not unlike the “OMG!!! He supports the draft!!!” clip).

    There’s simply no experience that you can point to of Barack Obama’s that makes him better qualified than John McCain. Unless you consider his skin color a qualification.

  18. jason330 says:

    The fact is that she asked if books could be withdrawn because they were offensive. This isn’t “banning” in any sense of the word.

    Yes it is.

    She didn’t fire the librarian because she wouldn’t remove any books.

    She fired her for being disloyal.

    The rest debunked later.

    Nighty night.

  19. Nancy Willing says:

    The list is published on the Delaware Way and can be linked in the blog roll on the left hand column.

  20. Whatsit2ya says:

    Dear Shazzy, You state:
    ” He has worked in a bipartisan fashion for legislation ”
    Let me give you a little love:
    Introduced the Lugar–Obama, which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,
    Its the biparisan nature that proves you wrong. And again:
    the “Coburn–Obama Transparency Act,” which authorized the establishment of http://www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.
    Of course don’t see it as being wrong, think of it as selective ignorance.

  21. The list is a fake as I explained in a comment on my blog. This all occured in 1996. All those Harry Potter books weren’t published until after 1998. The list has been debunked on various blogs.

    And, Sharon, just because you find a book “offensive” doesn’t give the right for a mayor to ask to have it removed.

  22. cassandra_m says:

    Sharon, you really have no business taking anyone to task here for self-serving or deceitful posts. Your entire post is a textbook example of what Joe Klein talks about — when so many Americans think that the country is on the wrong track (80%) the gopers have decided to rerun the BC04 campaign — decidedly NOT talking about the things that many Americans want to talk about — economic security.

    And while John McCain has worked on a few things in a bi-partisan fashion — that still does not account for his 90% voting record with GWB. That record is an utter failure, a record that has no demonstrated any real leadership for another path out of the GWB mess. And frankly, last week’s cult of personality in St. Paul talked about his POW experience. McCain’s party has been in power for the last 8 years, and he did nothing to try to stop them from breaking everything. Now that BushCo can’t come back, McCain has decided to carryon with the same program and the same campaign — because he can’t talk about how he tried to change any of the failed governing decisions of his own party.

  23. Unstable Isotope says:

    Sharon,

    Liberals don’t propose the origins of life, scientists do. Scientists are generally nonpartisan but lean Democrat because Republicans have become the party of anti-intellectuals. Creationism is not science, and should not be taught in science class. Do you think education should be taught by popular demand?

  24. mike w. says:

    “I also find it amusing that somehow, higher education, has become a right that every American should have, regardless of ability to pay.”

    Sharon – Contemporary liberals seem to have a very strange concept of what a “right” is. The adherence to this FDR concept of rights is one of the single biggest issues I have with the Democratic party.

    As far as creationism. It isn’t based in scientific fact. If you want it taught in schools it needs to be as some part of an elective religion class. It is NOT science and should not be taught alongside scientific theory.

  25. mike w. says:

    “I also find it amusing that somehow, higher education, has become a right that every American should have, regardless of ability to pay.”

    Sharon – Contemporary liberals seem to have a very strange concept of what a “right” is. The adherence to this FDR concept of rights is one of the single biggest issues I have with the Democratic party.

    Cassandra – There are many Americans who consider Obama’s far left liberal policies to be an “utter failure,” and in fact many of those policies have been proven failures throughout history.

    Also Cassandra – Economic Security is bullshit. It is NOT the job of the government to provide economic security, nor is it the job of government to provide / guarantee people a “comfortable living.” Also, how do you reconcile “economic security” provided by government with individual liberty?

  26. jason330 says:

    There are many Americans who consider Obama’s far left liberal policies to be an “utter failure,” and in fact many of those policies have been proven failures throughout history.

    Hilarious. I guess you’ve been asleep for the past eight years. I can only imagine what “failure” means to you if you can’t see the huge Bush failure right infront of your nose.

    You, no doubt think that the liberal democracies; Demark, Sweden, Belgium and Canada are huge failures. Never mind that they have the highest standards of living in the world.

  27. cassandra_m says:

    He’s been in his parent’s basement for the past 8 years, so what can he know? Jason, if you were still living with your folks you’d think that the living was pretty damned easy too.

  28. mike w. says:

    “Hilarious. I guess you’ve been asleep for the past eight years. I can only imagine what “failure” means to you if you can’t see the huge Bush failure right infront of your nose.”

    So just because many of Bush’s policies are failures automatically means Obama’s are not? Bush sucks I agree on that, but that doesn’t change the fact that Obama’s liberal policies have been proven failures long before Bush came along.

    And Cass – To use a Pandora reply

    *sigh*

    You again pull out the standard attack my age reply because you’ve got nothing substantive to say. It’s getting old.

  29. how is a guy in Washington that has been touted by the GOP as having no experience and that he also has hardly spent anytime as a senator go about becoming the most liberal member of the US Senate, right?

    seems odd to me that people can judge him the most liberal but then say he is too green to be president….

  30. mike w. says:

    How? By voting with the left pretty much all the time. The man doesn’t have much of a record, but what he does have puts him solidly on the far left.

  31. SaintGenesius says:

    Disturbing news.

    This is the link to the latest Gallop Poll:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx

    Here is the problem, since the beginning of the Gallop Poll, the poll taken about 5 days after the second convention accurately predicted the who would be president in every election except two. In other words, the winner of the Gallop Poll taken shortly after the second convention wound up being President of the United States.

    For those who are political junkies (any of those around here?) the two that were wrong were the Dewey/Truman Race and the Carter/Reagan race.

    (Note: the prediction covers who would eventually occupy the White House. In three elections; Kennedy and both George W. Bush elections, it might be argued that the poll was also innacurate. In those elections there were “irregularities” in the vote counts. In the Kennedy race, Illinois was arguably stolen by the Democrats; in the first Bush race, Florida was clearly stolen by the Republicans, likewise Ohio in the second Bush race.)

    This poll was taken just two days after the GOP convention, but the trending is ominous.

    Now, to be fair, this is a VERY strange political year, with some EXTREMEY odd circumstances. Those include: The first black presidential candidate: the Palin thing; the oldest presidential candidate in US history (with health problems); an incredibly unpopular current president; no incumbent or heir apparent.

    Even the conventions were oddly close together and, if memory serves, sort of late in the season.

    Still, for all that, if Obama wants to win this thing, he better get tougher and find a credible answer to questions about his experience.

    I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but (not to mix a metaphor) I also believe forewarned is forearmed.

  32. Andy says:

    Sharon I don’t think anyone is saying tht a college education is a right however they want to do something about the cost rising 10 times the rate of inflation every year
    And to Dave having workers be subjected to mandatory “Corporate Anti Union Training” taught by the Coporate Thought Police designed to threaten a worker prior to a suposed Democratic Vote while the corporation delays such vote for months at a time through legal roadblocks and Call it a private ballot is Laughable especially after a choice has been made

  33. mike w. says:

    “In the first Bush race, Florida was clearly stolen by the Republicans, likewise Ohio in the second Bush race.)”

    God, you folks are STILL clinging to the whole “Bush stole the election” thing? Get over it already.

  34. mike w. says:

    10) John McCain thinks Clarance Thomas is a good judge – and wants to appoint ore judges like him.

    Sure beats appointing the “living Constitution” judges like Souter & Breyer, the ones who like to, as Judge Kozinski would put it “bury language that is incontrovertibly there.”

  35. Sharon says:

    People asking for books to be removed from a library isn’t banning it. You can still buy the book if you want. If you can’t buy the book and the state has said you can’t see it that’s banning.

    And spin all you want, the librarian wasn’t fired because she wouldn’t remove the book. This is more of the KOS shit that we’ve come to expect from the Left when they can’t win an argument on facts.

    Introduced the Lugar–Obama, which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,
    Its the biparisan nature that proves you wrong. And again:
    the “Coburn–Obama Transparency Act,” which authorized the establishment of http://www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.
    Of course don’t see it as being wrong, think of it as selective ignorance

    That legislation was in the works before Obama was even elected. They slapped his name on it to make him look “bipartisan.” But I’ll give you an easier test: when has Obama ever, in his entire career, voted against the Democrat party line? John McCain has voted numerous times against what the GOP wants. You can’t argue that your candidate is for bipartisanship when he just can’t buck the leadership.

    Sharon, you really have no business taking anyone to task here for self-serving or deceitful posts. Your entire post is a textbook example of what Joe Klein talks about — when so many Americans think that the country is on the wrong track (80%) the gopers have decided to rerun the BC04 campaign — decidedly NOT talking about the things that many Americans want to talk about — economic security.

    That’s untrue. According to the latest polls–the ones that have you guys grabbing the Maalox–Americans think John McCain will be better for the economy. So, let’s talk about those “issues” again. It’s all becoming quite clear.

    Liberals don’t propose the origins of life, scientists do. Scientists are generally nonpartisan but lean Democrat because Republicans have become the party of anti-intellectuals. Creationism is not science, and should not be taught in science class. Do you think education should be taught by popular demand?

    Again, she’s not proposing creationism. She proposed teaching intelligent design or at the very least allowing for evolution to be questioned. Again, this is what the American people want. Why do you guys dislike democracy?

    in the first Bush race, Florida was clearly stolen by the Republicans, likewise Ohio in the second Bush race

    Revving up for the new meme? How many more times can you claim elections get “stolen” when you don’t get what you want?

  36. Arthur Downs says:

    It was the height a (or was in a new low) in polical chutzpah when Daley was sent to Florida to make allegatrions about vote fraud.

    Yet the whining continues. Vote fraud in America is only possible in jurisdictions where one party controls the election machinery. This requires voter registration numbers that favor one party over another by 8-1 or more. Is it mere coincidence that these areas are all under Democrat control? How can Republicans steal elections?

    Claiming that the tabulated results do not match poll numbers may demonstrate why we have privacy in voting booths. Sometimes it is not deemed politically-correct to vote your conscience. This helps to explain the ‘Bradley Effect’ in which the ‘PC’ candidate mired in corruption ‘wins’ the polls but loses the election.

  37. Phantom says:

    Wow Sharon,
    Good lies once again. Bravo.
    Your argument is that because Barack voted with Democrats he is not bipartisan even though a number of those votes included republicans and democrats voting for and against the same measures, ie bi-partisan. Good argument for someone grounded in la la land. So McCain didn’t vote for his party’s legislation but is more than willing to toe the party line and represent the party. Seems to me that says McCain is more partisan. Also, legislation that has both names on the bill is not something that can just be slapped on with no work. And Lugar even complimented Obama on his work on that legislation. Now maybe you have a newfangled evangelical way of defining bipartisanship but in reality it is when objectives are accomplished by working with those who may disagree with your ideas but you still work to compromise to achieve success.
    And now onto the fake polls that show McCain leading Obama on the economy. Please show proof of nonsense before spouting out crap.
    INTELLIGENT DESIGN is a new way to mask teaching creationism. IT IS NOT BASED IN SCIENCE and just b/c you throw fancy words together does not make it objective and subject to scientific scrutiny. It is not FACTUAL and can’t be PROVEN unlike evolution. Just b/c the people want something doesn’t make it right, at least that is how McCain used to act.
    As far as Florida it is quite well known that had the ballots been counted then Gore would have won but that the ballots were not counted due to the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision with 5 republithugs versus 4 democrats. If that is not stealing an election based on partisanship then you have obviously gone senile.

  38. Phantom says:

    Not sure if anyone has caught this yet but this speaks highly of the GOP economic machine creating jobs for us against the democrats. Hard to argue with facts but I’m sure the nutcases will try.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-simple-arithmetic-of_b_124510.html

  39. mike w. says:

    Phantom – I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they continue to cling to the whole “Bush stole the election” BS.

    Why can’t the Dems just get over it?

  40. Phantom says:

    I’m over the issue as it was settled by the Supreme court. I was just pointing out the situation as it occurred and why it can be potentially interpreted as the election being incorrectly decided. However, it is true that by the rule of law the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction and authority to make that decision and it should have been upheld else we would have started down a slippery slope. That said it is brought up b/c of wishful thinking due to the utter malfeasance of the Bush administration and not normally in any sense that there is any need to remain bitter about the situation.

  41. Phantom says:

    Just curious if anyone has noticed that Palin instituted a windfall profits tax on the oil companies in Alaska to profit the citizens of the state. Taken the way conservatives claim a windfall profit tax works then it is reasonable to assume that Palin is responsible for a measure of the higher gas prices we are all paying b/c the oil companies wouldn’t sacrifice thier profits.

  42. mike w. says:

    Yes she did, yes it was a stupid move on her part, yes it wasn’t good for the state of Alaska.

  43. Sharon says:

    Factcheck.org is a wonderful thing.
    -Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

    -She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.

    -Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

    Let the backtracking continue.

  44. jason330 says:

    Sharon,

    Do you feel that “both sides” of the evolution question should be taught?

  45. mike w. says:

    I can’t speak for Sharon, but I sure as hell don’t think “both sides” should be taught. Creationism isn’t science. Period. If you teach it teach it as a part of a religion class.

  46. JohnMcSame says:

    I say “teach the controversy.” But I’ll tell you something non-controversial. Did you know I was a POW?

  47. pandora says:

    Religion class? Should it be taught between Judaism and Wiccan symbols?

  48. JohnnyX says:

    Alright, I admit it, I accidentally posted as sockpuppet McCain. But I wouldn’t be suprised if that were his real response.

    Anyway I was going to say I totally agree with mike w., and he expressed it quite well in comment 45. Teaching “both sides” is a preposterous suggestion. The evidence is such that only one side really exists – that is so long as you are having a scientific and not a religious or philosophical debate.

  49. Sharon says:

    Do you feel that “both sides” of the evolution question should be taught?

    I have no problem with schools teaching both what evolution says and the holes in the theory. That is, what fits the theory and what doesn’t. You don’t have to teach creationism to teach kids that there’s more than one view of this.

  50. Sharon says:

    Now you’ll ask what those holes are, so I’ll give you a couple that I know off the top of my head.

    Francisco Redi discovered that living matter doesn’t spring forth from inanimate objects. How does evolutionary theory cope with the fact that somehow, something that wasn’t alive suddenly came to life?

    Also, even the hundreds of billions of years scientists say the earth has been around just doesn’t seem to be enough to have all the coincidental mutations necessary for higher life forms. Given that we know nearly all mutations are harmful, how were we so lucky to have so many mutations that actually resulted in better and more sophisticated life forms?

    Now, you’ll just call me a knuckle-dragging creationist, but I assure you my knuckles do not drag and there are parts of the evolutionary theory that I can buy (such as successful adaptations). But I’ve also been pregnant and had 3 lovely children, all perfect, all complete, and it truly is impossible for me to look at them an tell myself, “Nope, it’s just a matter of trillions of years of evolutionary oopsies.”

  51. JohnnyX says:

    Whoops, you got there already…

  52. Von Cracker says:

    I can’t wait to tell the story of Zeus in my science classes!

    Has about as much credence as any other mythology, right?

  53. jason330 says:

    Photosynthesis. Fact or fiction?

  54. jason330 says:

    Gravity. I don’t buy that theory. Teach both sides of the debate.

  55. JohnnyX says:

    “How does evolutionary theory cope with the fact that somehow, something that wasn’t alive suddenly came to life?”

    – It doesn’t necessarily – you’re conflating evolutionary theory with theories of abiogenesis (origin of life). They’re two separate things. The wikipedia article on the subject actually does a decent job of explaining some of the major theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life). Certainly there is active debate – although we’re pretty certain some dirt and a rib weren’t involved.

    “Given that we know nearly all mutations are harmful, how were we so lucky to have so many mutations that actually resulted in better and more sophisticated life forms?”

    – Classic misunderstanding of what a mutation is and how they work. They are not necessarily overwhelmingly negative. I’d recommend you read some Dawkins on that – he explains it much better than I possibly could. Just grab one of his more biological works and skip the atheistic rhetoric if you’re not into that sort of thing.

  56. Sharon says:

    Sarah Palin didn’t argue that the Biblical account of creation should be taught in school, which takes out your “dirt and a rib” snark.

    But again, given how many generations of anything it takes to get a mutation that is actually helpful and which can be replicated reliably, even the best scientific estimates on the age of the earth just don’t add up. See, I don’t mind looking critically at a 6-day creation. You guys are really quite scared of anyone questioning that whole Darwinian thing.