Video: Pawlenty’s first presidential campaign ad

posted at 7:21 pm on July 29, 2010 by Allahpundit

He’ll deny that that’s what this is, of course, but … that’s what it is. He’s been pushing the idea of “Sam’s Club Republicans” for fully eight years now, so no surprise at the thrust of his message here: Blue-collar all the way, a guy who understands the plight of middle-class Americans in a way that certain “country club elitists”ahem — never will. All of which is fine, although it feels like a message geared more towards a general election than to the Republican primary, where, I think, any overt class appeal will be viewed as suspiciously left-ish. (Huckabee went that route for awhile in the last primary and he remains a whipping boy for HA commenters to this day, albeit not for that reason alone, natch.) One obvious problem for T-Paw: How’s he going to position himself as the “authenticity” candidate among base voters if Palin and/or Huck are in the race? In fact, I’m not sure he’d necessarily be seen as more authentic than Thune or Daniels either, both of whom also come from working-class midwestern backgrounds. But then, no need to overthink this; his problem at the moment is getting people to find out who he is, so here’s step one on the path.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM

You may want to actually read some of what I wrote, such as:

Economics 101 and Health Care “Reform”

prior to lobbing the “Marxist” talk around.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM

who is that ignorant about science for any public office.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 7:57 PM

And you have a doctorate degree in what science? Or are you just as clueless as the next guy.

Jimmy Carter: He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a bachelor of science degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946… Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, …he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics…

Glad you place such a high price on science, I can see how well you would choose a leader…

right2bright on July 29, 2010 at 8:56 PM

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM

If you read more closely, you’ll note that I said “lapsed.”

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:57 PM

By what scientific process is Darwinian evolution substantiated?

Please, pick up any book on biology or medicine or archaeology or any of a dozen other disciplines. Any at all and you will see that the evolutionary explanation is unavoidable.

So a very religious President wouldn’t have any more problem advancing science than they did historically when they believed in a sense many today do not.
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 8:53 PM

A very religious President may very well be able to perform admirably. A President who cannot distinguish between his religious beliefs and science, however intelligent or however religious could not.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:00 PM

P. Monk on July 29, 2010 at 9:03 PM

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Way wrong…Try North Carolina.

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Please, pick up any book on biology or medicine or archaeology or any of a dozen other disciplines. Any at all and you will see that the evolutionary explanation is unavoidable.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:00 PM

I have read many of them and remain unimpressed. That evolution took place seems obvious to me, but the mechanism in my opinion remains unknown. You claim that it has been substantiated by some scientific process.

Do tell, what process?

sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 9:04 PM

right2bright on July 29, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Please learn about the terms “necessary” and “sufficient.” A basic understanding of science (in particular an understanding of the scientific process) is a necessary quality to hold, but it it is not sufficient.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Way wrong…Try North Carolina.

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Really? Born and raised, huh?

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Okay, I don’t know how to do links. :)

Check this: Pawlenty on climate change:

P. Monk on July 29, 2010 at 9:06 PM

I have read many of them and remain unimpressed. That evolution took place seems obvious to me, but the mechanism in my opinion remains unknown. You claim that it has been substantiated by some scientific process.

Do tell, what process?

sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 9:04 PM

The evolutionary process is descent with modification (random mutation). That’s the entire process. I find it’s simplicity to be beautiful, but that’s just my own aesthetic opinion :-)

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Really? Born and raised, huh?

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Not me!

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Really great job derailing an entire thread about Tpaw into one person’s worldview. A boring one at that.

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:07 PM

In other words you have no bloody idea!

Thanks for playing Mr Science.

sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM

“I find it’s simplicity to be beautiful”
Not to nitpick, but the possessive form is “its” with no apostrophe. You mistakenly used the contraction of “it is,”, which is “it’s.” Since you are so offended by the imprecise, I just knew that you would rather know than languish is ignorance. You’re welcome!

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 9:09 PM

In other words you have no bloody idea!

Thanks for playing Mr Science.

sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Holy non sequitur Batman! What more would you like to know?

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Not me!

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:07 PM

I presumed you were referring to MJBrutus, which I assume is an amalgam of his two Rottweilers’ names: MJ and Brutus.

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM

The evolutionary process is descent with modification (random mutation). That’s the entire process. I find it’s simplicity to be beautiful, but that’s just my own aesthetic opinion :-)

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:07 PM

It’s an unsubstantiated theory and nothing else.
You can no more prove evolution than I can prove a creator.

thomasaur on July 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Thank you, nice correction there :-)

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Really great job derailing an entire thread about Tpaw into one person’s worldview. A boring one at that.

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Sigh…I know but the dissection of Tim Pawlenty’s worthiness was kind of played out anyway, don’t you think?

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Is there not enough time after this year’s elections to ‘introduce himself’?

Republicans need to get a grip and keep their eye on the ball: 2010 is do or die.

ajacksonian on July 29, 2010 at 9:11 PM

thomasaur on July 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Which entirely misses the point, of course. The question is not whether evolution is true or creationism is true. The question is what is science and what is not. A person who cannot make such distinctions cannot be trusted with holding office.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Sigh…I know but the dissection of Tim Pawlenty’s worthiness was kind of played out anyway, don’t you think?

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 9:11 PM

It was played out immediately after the headline.

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Which entirely misses the point, of course. The question is not whether evolution is true or creationism is true. The question is what is science and what is not. A person who cannot make such distinctions cannot be trusted with holding office.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Might want to take that up with Obama.

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:15 PM

A person who cannot make such distinctions cannot be trusted with holding office.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Well thanks for playing along Professor. Tell Gilligan and the Skipper I said “hey”.

thomasaur on July 29, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Well, I guess this is goodbye, Pawlenty thread. I can’t say that it’s not been a magic carpet ride of intellectual stimulation. I can’t say that, because I had to have oral surgery earlier in the day and my mouth is still swollen too much….

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Tell Gilligan and the Skipper I said “hey”.

thomasaur on July 29, 2010 at 9:15 PM

I’ll let Marianne and Ginger you said Hi!

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Might want to take that up with Obama.

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Here, here! The man is a complete ignoramus on science. In fact he is a complete ignoramus on just about any subject that doesn’t have to do with pandering to his favorite “victims.”

We need to nominate a candidate who is not simply better than the louse in office. That bar is way too low. We need a candidate who is far more knowledgeable in so many areas such as the military, science, economics, world affairs and just about every other subject that government has a role in!

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:21 PM

thomasaur on July 29, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Good one!

See? No passive aggressive retort from me. What’s his name will be so happy :-)

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:24 PM

lol creationism debate <3

Remember when Sarah Palin WAS AGAINST RAPE KITS FOR BEING A RELIGIOUS CRAZYWOMAN?!

Or how about when Sarah Palin THOUGHT THAT THE IRAQ WAR WAS A MISSION FROM GOD?!

Or how about when Sarah Palin WAS TOTALLY AGAINST CONTRACEPTIVES OMG OMG OMG~!!!!

Or how about when Sarah Palin BANNED THE EVIL BOOKS OF THAT PUBLIC LIBRARY LIKE THE REPIGLICAN SHE IS~!

I do. And they were all lies. And they’re all lies parroted until this day.

Those arguing the — ahem — “nuance” of a Creationist belief in Gov. Pawlenty are clearly denying the ability of the liberal smear machine to work its “magic” despite your nuanced debates on the merits of said belief. The above examples are just a small look into how any and everything can be twisted.

Palin has waded through them, charged on, and continued with strong messages and gained support.

Pawlenty has no record of withstanding the media machine, or fighting against a hostile media. And he will be taken down vis-a-vis these beliefs, justified or not.

I stand with candidates that are proven to fight back.

lansing quaker on July 29, 2010 at 9:25 PM

lansing quaker on July 29, 2010 at 9:25 PM

’nuff said

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Psst.. Tim? Com’ere.

We’re not going to let the MSM pick a soggy cucumber and mayo sammich as the next GOP nominee. You’re doing a great job where you are. Stay there.

Key West Reader on July 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:21 PM

My problem is not with politicians not knowing science…that takes a back seat to real personal characteristics like: integrity, honesty, and sincerity. Someone who is shares those characteristics is less likely to use science and their position of power to an end. This person might be a creationist or a secular humanist.

I fundamentally disagree that secular humanism is going to ‘take this country back’ (Sorry Michael Medved).

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM

’nuff said

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Point being? Please — extrapolate.

lansing quaker on July 29, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM

I can respect what you’re saying here.

Just to be clear about my own position, I am not saying that the candidate needs to be an expert in science. I am saying that I think it important that he knows what science is and what it is not so that he can evaluate information he gets. For example, a President who is taken in by the global warming scare clearly does not know what science can and cannot say about climate.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Point being? Please — extrapolate.

lansing quaker on July 29, 2010 at 9:31 PM

That calling TP a creationist who cannot distinguish his religious beliefs from science is no lie or stretch. It is straight from the horse’s mouth:

GOV. PAWLENTY: I saw her comments on it yesterday, and I thought they were appropriate, which is, you know, let’s — if there are competing theories, and they are credible, her view of it was, according to the comments in the newspaper, allow them all to be presented or allow them both to be presented so students could be exposed to both or more and have a chance to be exposed to the various theories and make up their own minds.

MR. BROKAW: In the vast scientific community, do you think that Creationism has the same weight as evolution, and at a time in American education when we are in a crisis when it comes to science, that there ought to be parallel tracks for Creationism versus evolution in the teaching?

GOV. PAWLENTY: In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed — not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated, but in terms of the curriculum in the schools in Minnesota, we’ve taken the approach that that’s a local decision. I know Senator Palin — or Governor Palin — has said intelligent design is something that she thinks should be taught along with evolution in the schools, and I think that’s appropriate. My personal view is that’s a local decision –

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:37 PM

… I see what you did there.

lansing quaker on July 29, 2010 at 9:38 PM

The man is a creationist. Sorry folks, but that’s a firm deal-breaker. There is simply no way, no how that I would support somebody who is that ignorant about science for any public office.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 7:57 PM

As long as he’s not creating new federal programs and agencies (or both) like ObamaCare, I don’t have a problem with him.

Those of us who believe in creationism aren’t “ignorant about science;” we just choose to believe a different theory about how we got here.
Evolution has never been proven, no matter what you may assert, MJB, and thus it remains a theory and not a law.

Your “deal-breaker” attitude about creationism comes very, very close to being a “religious test,” BTW.
It sounds like you won’t vote for anyone who’s a Christian or a Jew.

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Calm down, Jen. Stop worrying about social battles.

The true argument is that Pawlenty is a milquetoast “good guy” and would fold like a deckchair under the left’s smear machine.

lansing quaker on July 29, 2010 at 9:42 PM

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:35 PM

I can respect what you are saying here.

Your original bomb was

The man is a creationist. Sorry folks, but that’s a firm deal-breaker. There is simply no way, no how that I would support somebody who is that ignorant about science for any public office.

You have the right to offend and I have the right to be offended. I don’t want to shut you up.

I am a God fearing, Bible believing, Creationist, and…..wait for it….scientist.

I hope that people that are as authoritative as you are regarding christians and creationsist never take power in this country. It will go thru a fundamental transformation into something none of us will recognize and in which the rights of the individual are attenuated in favor of the ruling class.

Oh wait, that is where we are now.

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Those of us who believe in creationism aren’t “ignorant about science;” we just choose to believe a different theory about how we got here.

Some are and some aren’t. The ignorant ones are those who think that creationism is a scientific theory.

Evolution has never been proven, no matter what you may assert, MJB, and thus it remains a theory and not a law.

I like Stephen J. Gould’s statement that while in theory all scientific knowledge is conditional, it is perverse to withhold one’s provisional acceptance when the evidence is sufficiently great.

BTW.
It sounds like you won’t vote for anyone who’s a Christian or a Jew.

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Completely wrong. I would consider anyone who could tell the difference between religion and science. That would be most people, but not Pawlenty, Huckabee or Palin to anme the ones talked about in this thread.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:42 PM

If it helps any, I would amend my original statement to say that I wouldn’t vote for anyone who thinks creationism is science. I would consider a creationist who recognizes that creationism is a religious belief but knows that it is not science.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:50 PM

If it helps any, I would amend my original statement to say that I wouldn’t vote for anyone who thinks creationism is science. I would consider a creationist who recognizes that creationism is a religious belief but knows that it is not science.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Sounds good to me MJBrutus.

I wouldn’t want to sully something as beautiful as creation with science. :)

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Completely wrong. I would consider anyone who could tell the difference between religion and science. That would be most people, but not Pawlenty, Huckabee or Palin to anme the ones talked about in this thread.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 9:47 PM

You’re still drawing an arbitrary line that separates out people of faith solely for their faith–this is a religious test.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Pawlenty, Huck and Palin all know very well the difference between religion and science.
Sarah’s father is, after all, a science teacher.
You, however, have made Science a Religion, which has far less merit than people who believe the Bible as we found out with ClimateGate and its bevy of AGW believers like Algore.

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

First off, individuals may apply any test they like, religious, racial whatever. For example, there is not a snowball’s chance in your notion of hell that an atheist could get elected because the individuals who vote would apply their own religious tests. Nothing wrong with that.

In my case, all three of those candidates have expressed support for teaching creationism in science classes as alternative scientific theories to evolution. So, no, there is no doubt that they LACK an understanding of the the difference between religion and science.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 10:08 PM

In my case, all three of those candidates have expressed support for teaching creationism in science classes as alternative scientific theories to evolution. So, no, there is no doubt that they LACK an understanding of the the difference between religion and science.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 10:08 PM

I don’t see what’s wrong with that, as long as neither theory has been proven to be a conclusive theory for the origin of Life, both are equally valid.
Darwinian Evolution is not more scientific than creationism as its adherents have never been able to prove its existence despite 150 years of trying.
To present it to young students as THE scientific “explanation” of life’s origins is erroneous and false.
Furthermore, the idea of a being created by a loving Creator is infinitely preferable to Darwin’s posited mechanism of “natural selection.”

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Where were all these creationist baiters when Bush was running? I’m pretty sure he never said he doubted the truth of the Bible. Would you have voted for Al Gore or John Kerry if he did?

Speedwagon82 on July 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Darwinian Evolution is not more scientific than creationism as its adherents have never been able to prove its existence despite 150 years of trying.
To present it to young students as THE scientific “explanation” of life’s origins is erroneous and false.
Furthermore, the idea of a being created by a loving Creator is infinitely preferable to Darwin’s posited mechanism of “natural selection.”

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Your post simply informs me that I (and most other Americans) would not vote for you :-)

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Your post simply informs me that I (and most other Americans) would not vote for you :-)

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 10:18 PM

So, don’t vote for me…and vote for atheists only. (I hear Oz has one right now…), but you can’t deny that I’m right.
No one’s proved evolutionary theory to be true and brother, have they tried.
As a corollary, they haven’t disproven creationism, either.

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Your post simply informs me that I (and most other Americans) would not vote for you :-)

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Then vote for Obama Skippy. He sounds like more your speed.

sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Simple. Plain. Effective.

THE CHOSEN ONE on July 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Pawlenty’s 2012 campaign reminds me a lot of Lamar Alexander’s 1996 presidential campaign:

- Nice guys, but boring as hell
- Ridiculous attempts to appeal to average people (Alexander wore a dumb plaid shirt in the campaign)
- Never got any traction in polls (Alexander never broke double digits, Pawlenty is currently at 1%)

Pawlenty is welcome to run, but anyone can see that he will never be president.

Norwegian on July 29, 2010 at 10:35 PM

I like milk and I like toast but, not milquetoast…

Gohawgs on July 29, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Laughable that a longtime clergy like Romney could be a country-club elitist.

PrezHussein on July 29, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Then vote for Obama Skippy. He sounds like more your speed.

sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Nominate a religious whack-job who can’t tell the difference between the Flintstones and science and it won’t matter. We’ll have guaranteed four more years of Obama Skippy ruin.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 11:23 PM

I’m not sure he’d necessarily be seen as more authentic than Thune or Daniels either

I am no Pawlenty fan, but that’s an unfair characterization of Pawlenty.

Thune has beem in in Washington since the Reagan administration. And Mitch Daniels is more elitist
T. Coddington Van Vorhees III, with his Ivy League and DC Bureaucrat background.

Norwegian on July 29, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Nominate a religious whack-job who can’t tell the difference between the Flintstones and science and it won’t matter. We’ll have guaranteed four more years of Obama Skippy ruin.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Do you call all Christians and Jews “religious whack jobs?”
And all Creationists, according to you, are fans of the Flintstones???
A cartoon about cavemen?

Your problem is with those who believe in the Bible, not politicians.

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Yet you advocate natural selection in regards to interracial kids… bit of a contradiction.

Creationism has no basis in fact and teaching it without the scientific theories makes no more sense than sticking strictly to science and not acknowledging the creation theories of most religions. As in most religions believe humans were divinely created. Of course these are based in faith and not on the science.
See you can shoehorn religion into a classroom with scientific theories. You want to have specific religious doctrines in place of science.

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 7:30 AM

No one’s proved evolutionary theory to be true and brother, have they tried.
As a corollary, they haven’t disproven creationism, either.

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM

This is a perfect example of your disingenuousness. Evolution must be proven but creationism must be disproved.

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 7:32 AM

Has anybody ever seen a candidate be successful with a platform that consisted of their belief in the simplicity and beauty of evolution?

No? That’s probably because everybody thinks those people are annoying.

John Deaux on July 30, 2010 at 8:32 AM

This is a perfect example of your disingenuousness. Evolution must be proven but creationism must be disproved.

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 7:32 AM

No.
Evolution must be proven to more than just theory to be truly “Science,” otherwise other theories that are equally valid–particularly creationism–should also be taught alongside it.
Evolution has been virtually disproved because its advocates cannot find evidence that it actually is at work in the natural world.

Jenfidel on July 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Huckabee might be authentic, but he’s still undesirable. He just seems creepy to me.

Palin may have the authenticity, but it’s not enough. The reason Tina Fey’s skewering (I know about foreign policy because I can see Russia from my house . . .) worked is that it rings true. I like Palin, but can anybody honestly say we want her as Commander in Chief? I hate to admit this, but at least Hillary got herself on the Senate Armed Services Comm, and is Sec State. (She’s not a good one, but still.)

My attorney lives in Minneapolis, is independent minded, and thinks T-Paw is an empty suit. Thinks his budget success is just tricks, smoke and mirrors. Maybe, but I think he has a bit of that Tony Blair mojo. I think it will play well. And, if he doesn’t step on his macaca in the meantime, I think he’s our guy!

Pablo Snooze on July 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Yet you advocate natural selection in regards to interracial kids… bit of a contradiction.

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 7:30 AM

No, I’ve never, EVER made that argument at HA or anywhere else.

Jenfidel on July 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM

No, I’ve never, EVER made that argument at HA or anywhere else.

Jenfidel on July 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM

I stand corrected you used the term natural law…

When you look at what results from interracial marriages like the Precedent, Tiger Woods and the murder of Nicole by O.J. Simpson, I have to wonder if those “natural law” advocates didn’t have a point.

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 11:02 AM

The question is whether you believe that the Universe, and by extension life on Earth, “just happened” or not. Darwinism requires a belief in a purposeless Universe. It is a faith-based worldview, not science. Science deals only with the natural, physical world, and cannot answer the question, “Why does the Universe exist?”

Intellectually honest scientists recognize that their tools are of no value answering that question.

Others believe that if science can’t answer the question, then it’s not worth asking. That is a foolish and blind belief IMO.

However, there is a very large body of evidence to suggest that this Universe did not “just happen.” From the symmetry of subatomic particles to the apparent fine-tuning of various constants in quantum physics, it is increasingly clear that the existence of the Universe as we know it requires a large number of highly improbable coincidences. It’s a perfectly rational and logical position to state that the Universe is not an accident.

Depending on which worldview you have, you will interpret the evidence a different way. The problem is that current science instruction only presents one worldview, and actively and viciously squashes any attempt to even acknowledge the other as intellectually valid.

skydaddy on July 30, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Jenfidel, sorry, you’re wrong. Evolution – variation and natural selection – has been demonstrated “in the wild” as it were, many times.

What’s not demonstrated clearly is whether that process is sufficient to account for the variation above the family level (recognizing that the biological taxonomy is somewhat arbitrary).

IOW, I have no problem in recognizing that mutation and natural selection are a good explanation for the difference between wolves and coyotes. But I’m not convinced that the same process (plus a couple of billion years) also explains the difference between roses and jellyfish.

And there are many, many blank spaces in the record. Evolutionary biologists are still puzzled by the Cambrian Explosion, for example. When the fossil record disproved Darwin’s original idea of slow steady change, Stephen Jay Gould came up with Punctuated Equilibrium. But now that’s seen as having problems.

The simple fact is that they don’t know how it all happened, but the approved textbooks claim that they do.

Pawlenty and Palin’s suggestion that teachers be able to admit that seems sensible to me. No, it’s not science. It’s philosophy of science. It’s examination of one’s worldview. Critical thinking, even.

Seems to me that’d be a good thing.

skydaddy on July 30, 2010 at 2:46 PM

I’ve never, EVER made that argument at HA or anywhere else.
Jenfidel

You know that you’ve scored a direct hit when someone tries an odd tangential cry of “Racist!!!”.

whatcat on July 30, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Yuck– this trendy film effects editing is tacky and dated. I like Pawlenty, but I hope this isn’t the look he’s going for.

leftnomore on July 30, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Pawlenty is “ok” but he has the charisma of a 1985 Chevette.

crosspatch on July 30, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Pawlenty is “ok” but he has the charisma of a 1985 Chevette.

crosspatch on July 30, 2010 at 7:13 PM

And the energy policies Pawlenty championed for many years would have you driving a 2010 Chevette. Gee, that sounds exactly like Obama and his brand new Chevy Volt.

Just like California, also Pawlenty signed into law that Minnesota energy companies must buy increasing percentages of expensive “green” energy thereby sticking us with an increasing energy tax for years to come.

RJL on July 30, 2010 at 9:22 PM

Huckabee is my first choice-he has the most executive experience as a governor 10 1/2 years. But if he does not run, then Pawlenty would be a good alternative.

We don’t need another charismatic leader like Obama. We need someone who can get the job done.

texasconserv on July 29, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Were are you REALLY from?

Can’t be Texas, and you AIN’T no conservative.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM

My take on Pawlenty is he is a decent man. A fine man. But as an office holder, not so much.

Remember, THIS is the guy who was looking to set up some sort of regional cap and tax system. If this guy thinks global warming is real, he has absolutely no business in office.

He also stood by and let Al Franken steal the election and did absolutely nothing.

Sorry, that is not a man of action. The guy is not a leader, and most certainly is not a fighter.

Again, I am sure he is a decent guy, a good guy, but he is not qualified for the job of POTUS. Especially not at this time in history.

We need an absolute warrior who LOVES the sting of battle. Someone who thrives on it. Someone who loves America to her very core, and would rather die than see it destroyed.

There isn’t but one of those kind of leaders, and we all know who She is.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 2:08 AM

Huckabee might be authentic, but he’s still undesirable. He just seems creepy to me.

Palin may have the authenticity, but it’s not enough. The reason Tina Fey’s skewering (I know about foreign policy because I can see Russia from my house . . .) worked is that it rings true. I like Palin, but can anybody honestly say we want her as Commander in Chief? I hate to admit this, but at least Hillary got herself on the Senate Armed Services Comm, and is Sec State. (She’s not a good one, but still.)

My attorney lives in Minneapolis, is independent minded, and thinks T-Paw is an empty suit. Thinks his budget success is just tricks, smoke and mirrors. Maybe, but I think he has a bit of that Tony Blair mojo. I think it will play well. And, if he doesn’t step on his macaca in the meantime, I think he’s our guy!

Pablo Snooze on July 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Palin has ALREADY been Commander-In-Chief nimrod. She was both the C-I-C of the Alaska National Guard and the Alaska Defense Force. Neither are ceremonial positions.

As for as Foreign policy, her dissection of Obama foreign and national security policy, on Facebook, no less, has been called the finest ever written.

Pretty much EVERYONE who supports Sarah Palin can see her as Commander-In-Chief. More so than any other possible candidate.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 2:24 AM

Palin has ALREADY been Commander-In-Chief nimrod. She was both the C-I-C of the Alaska National Guard and the Alaska Defense Force. Neither are ceremonial positions.

As for as Foreign policy, her dissection of Obama foreign and national security policy, on Facebook, no less, has been called the finest ever written.

Pretty much EVERYONE who supports Sarah Palin can see her as Commander-In-Chief. More so than any other possible candidate.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 2:24 AM

Oh Gary give it a rest. See first quote below about her CIC role for this 4200 member org.And the ADF? come on. At some point you are going to need to acknowledge that you cheapen her value with the leaps in logic. Ready to be CIC from day one because of what you said? And as it turns out the ANG claim is not true.
Praise her for those things that she really has but for heavens sakes quit making everything little aspect seem to be tracked directly to POTUS level responsibilities.

On August 31, 2008, Major General Craig Campbell of the Alaskan National Guard said in an interview that Palin has no command or say over the military entity: “The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations

The mission of the Alaska State Defense Force is to maintain an organized, trained military force capable of timely and effective response to state emergencies, or, on other occasions deemed appropriate by the Governor, to provide military assistance to civil and military authorities in the preservation of life, property, and public safety.[1]

Alaska’s constitution declares every able-bodied man from age 18 to 70 to be a member of the state militia. The ASDF is constituted as a cadre of experienced officers and enlisted personnel which is ready to organize the entire population, if need be.

They are currently made up largely of military police units. The units operate with mostly state certified constables under the Alaska Police Standards Council. By statute, the Alaska State Defense Force must be made up of no less than 75 percent former military personnel.

Bradky on July 31, 2010 at 9:20 AM

This comment is about Pawlenty, and is on topic unlike the bed-wetting commenters above.

Inanemergencydial on July 31, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2