One reason that Delaware’s best-known GOP candidate will have such a mountain to climb in the general election is the emergence of fresh embarrassments like these comments (via New York magazine today) from a 1996 debate on whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution:
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL, Concerned Women for America: Well, as the senator from Tennessee mentioned, evolution is a theory and it’s exactly that. There is not enough evidence, consistent evidence to make it as fact, and I say that because for theory to become a fact, it needs to consistently have the same results after it goes through a series of tests. The tests that they put — that they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it’s merely a theory.
Yes, but…Oh, never mind. Well, how about creationism, then?
CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.
Okey dokey.
You can bet your bottom taxpayer dollar that O’Donnell’s Democratic opponent will do everything that he can to keep voters focussed on the Republican candidate’s more exotic, uh, issues. After all, it sure beats talking about government bloat, rising taxation, a faltering recovery and all the rest of those topics that the Democrats would much rather avoid.
And we can also be sure that O’Donnell’s triumph has made it easier to portray Republicans elsehere in a similar light.
As I said, DeMint’s choice.
Well O’Donnell might be a moron but Castle fit the bill of political insider just a bit too well. If you are left to choose between disappointing GOP career politicians and simple “folks” like that, you’re kinda screwed. People are mad at the Democrats but they don’t trust the same GOP that just got kicked out of office either, hence you end up with clowns like O’Donnell.
I don’t know if “ideological purity” was really the key here as much as not trusting the GOP.
I guess the question is will these sorts of statements matter to the electorate, or will issues such as taxes and government intrusion matter more?
It’s a crying shame that (potential) government frugality and respect for individual liberty often comes with a Pandora’s box of superstitious nonsense.
BUT — I can live with a politician who is ignorant of the wonderful scientific treasures given to us by Darwin; the downside is not too steep. What I can’t live with is a politician who understands economics and the constitution the way that William Jennings Bryan understood evolution.
And that’s Obama and his ilk: doing for economics what Pat Robertson does for science.
Hold your nose and pull the lever. Then go teach your kids about great people like Charles Darwin (and Ben Franklin, Copernicus, etc.).
DeMint said yesterday: “I’d rather lose fighting for the right cause.”
DeMint said yesterday: “I’d rather lose fighting for the right cause.”
I agree with DeMint here. Castle had all the hallmarks of another Specter. I’m not thrilled with, O’Donnell, mind you, and I expect her to lose, but maybe the GOP leadership could focus on providing a better alternative next time around.
Don,
There’s a lot of misconceptions about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan understood evolution quite well. He was not the caricature portrayed in Inherit the Wind. He not only had read On the Origin of Species, but Darwin’s other available works, including his autobiography.
The sum of his argument was that teaching that man (not necessarily animals) was a product of evolution would promote atheism, that you can’t be a theistic evolutionist. And since it promoted atheism, it constituted a religious establishment. I don’t agree with the last link in the line of reasoning, but his point about Darwinian evolution and western theism being incompatible belief systems is dead on right.
Here’s a link to Bryan’s closing statement that Darrow preempted by tossing in a guilty plea for Scopes:
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/wjb-last/wjb-last.htm
from what i have read bryans’ own views ‘evolved’ over time, and, he wouldn’t be a dogmatic young earth creationist even today.
I would have held my nose and voted for Castle on this one. Castle voted against Obamacare and bailouts, and is about as conservative as you are going to get from Delaware.
O’Donnell’s views on evolution are annoying, but I would still support her if she had a decent chance of winning.
Castle’s problem was arrogance. His feeling was “How dare anyone run against me in the primary! Don’t they know I’m the pragmatic choice?” If he had actually campaigned hard, he probably could have squeaked out a win.
Still, I actually don’t mind not getting the Senate back. Unlike the House, a slight majority in the Senate doesn’t do you much good, and the GOP will have the best of both worlds: They can blame Obama and the Democratic Senate for anything that goes wrong, but can block anything substantive in the House. Sometimes, it’s fun being a cynic.
Let’s fact it, a Ayn Rand type of Republican is still far and few. Most social liberal Repubs are like their Dem counterparts on ecnomonics. But there are some young Repubs changing their mind and not putting the Ayn Rand types down versus Religous conservatives. What cause this that the old Southern Dems that thought like Mike Huckabee, liberal on ecnominics and conservaitve on social issues were chase out of the Dem party to make way for the New Left types that Obama comes from. O’Donnell is more of a libertarian type of social conservative wants to do drugs at the state level.
Well, Bryant was a leftist not a right winger. He is similar to Jim Wallis who wants to use old testement bans against lending at interest among christians, and Wallis belief that debts should be cancel every 7 years, and propety going back to the oringial owner. Bryant was the evangelical of the first years of the 20th century that tended to support bigger government and beleive it or not, by 2020 more evangelicals may go this way, since the yougner ones are getting into elimanting global poverty by government means and globial warming. The emergating church is big among the evangelicals under 40 and the religous right may be by 2020 reduce a lot since they tend to be over 50. Evangelicals are not always right wing. The best evangelical was the old classical liberal William Gladstone. Lord Acton is the best among Catholics.
Well, now it’s looking like Murkowski is going to run in Alaska as a write-in candidate, and Castle refuses to endorse O’Donnell, Crist is running against Rubio after losing in the primary, Specter switched parties so he wouldn’t have to face Toomey…
Is it just me, or are a disproportionate number of moderate Republicans total assholes?
Oh, my. Powerline just reported that Bill Maher has a tape of Christine O’Donnell discussing her involvement with witchcraft. On her first date with a witch, they had a midnight picnic on a Satanic altar that had a bit of blood on it, but not, according to O’Donnell, a sufficient amount to put her off her food. Or off whatever. Her campaign staff has canceled her two talk show dates for tomorrow.
Apparently the Maher tapes were made in the late 1990s, which if I recall correctly was around the time she was inveighing against masturbation.
I have to say that if I was in Delaware, I’d be voting for the democrat.
Creationism is something that I can never endorse with my vote.
As far as I can tell, the main objective of the Tea Party movement is to assassinate moderate and liberal republicans in purple states.