The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Harry Tic]

I would ask this question of those who think Rubio should know how old the earth is and to those who think you need to believe in divine creation.

What the hell do either of these things matter when it comes to running the country. Will the press and of course politicians ever focus on what is important?

I don't know. I guess I do see it as kind of interesting, and not just in a rubbernecking-at-a-disaster kind of way. It's the kind of question that is designed to test how a potential candidate might position themselves vis-a-vis their base. Are they going to give the secret sign that tells the hard right base that he's one of them? Or is he going to signal to the more moderate types that he's one of them? It's not just a dumb question. It's an attempt to measure the iceberg. Or something.

And, just for the record, the question itself--inane as it may sound--may actually give us a clue as to a candidate's approach to a host of other nontrivial issues that concern science and technology policy. At least, if we were to take his answer at face value (an admittedly dicey proposition, given what I said above).

[Pelado]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...se.single.html

I've no doubt that these critiques of Rubio are sound. But I'm hesitant to let the crown prince of the Tea Party be singled out for blame. His shameless dodge and pander on the matter of the Earth's creation don't mark him as a radical, nor even as a soldier in the war on science. They mark him only as a mainstream politician.

Beware, for thou that judgest doest the same things: Members of both parties have had to squiggle through elections by appealing to a hazy sense of geo-history. In fact, the Antichrist himself—Barack Obama—has had a tendency to get a little soft with science. Let's compare Rubio's offending quote to one that came out of Obama's mouth four years ago, when he first campaigned for president.

Here's Rubio, in his interview for the December 2012 issue of GQ:

Q: How old do you think the Earth is?

A: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

And here's then-Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.

How do these quotes stack up? It seems to me that they're exactly in agreement on four crucial and dismaying points:

1) Both senators refuse to give an honest answer to the question. Neither deigns to mention that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

2) They both go so far as to disqualify themselves from even pronouncing an opinion. I'm not a scientist, says Rubio. I don’t presume to know, says Obama.

3) That's because they both agree that the question is a tough one, and subject to vigorous debate. I think there are multiple theories out there on how this universe was created, says Rubio. I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part, says Obama.

4) Finally they both profess confusion over whether the Bible should be taken literally. Maybe the "days" in Genesis were actual eras, says Rubio. They might not have been standard 24-hour days, says Obama.

In light of these concordances, to call Rubio a liar or a fool would be to call our nation's president the same, along with every other politician who might like to occupy the Oval Office. If a reporter asks a candidate to name the age of Earth, there's only one acceptable response: Well, you know, that's a complicated issue … and who am I to say?

[Harry Tic]

Good find. And of course it's almost a truism to say that they're both liars. You don't get to where they are by being anything but. It is worth noting that Obama gave his answer at a religious college--a blatant attempt at pandering, no doubt about it (although one wonders what he thought he would stand to gain by being cagey in a setting like that).

Of course either nobody knew about this exchange or or everyone forgot about it. I suspect that this is not necessarily a case of mainstream media bias--and legitimate cases of such bias are of course not hard to come by--but the exchange was rightly seen as insignificant because nobody thought there was any chance that Obama would be in the back pocket of the religious right. Of course Rubio doesn't have that luxury.

[All-American]

Rahm Emmanuel is putting his toe in the water.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...501_story.html

[All-American]

The ten GOP candidates, per the Fix:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...dential-field/

[calicoug]

Paul Ryan would lose in a rout. He doesn't even bring anything in his home state. He's a younger, more boring version of Romney.

Worst VP pick ever for Romney.

Depends on which side you were cheering for! I was roundly mocked on here for noting he was a terrible pick.

[calicoug]

Maybe Booker won't be a candidate in 2016:

http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/20...urbance_c.html

It will be interesting to see if he challenges Christie if Christie runs again.

I think he already said he won't challenge Christie but is considering a Senate run (which may be a precursor for a presidential bid). But if Clinton wants it, she will win it. Everyone else is waiting for her to decide and posturing for #2.

[All-American]

Rand Paul's stunt propels him to the front of the pack-- which probably says more about the state of the party than about Rand Paul.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z2

[YOhio]

So two years after calling for ending birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, Rand Paul tries to seize on immigration in a speech yesterday to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Not to stop most immigrants from coming-we welcome them and in fact should seek to increase legal immigration.

The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.

Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.

Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.

In order to bring conservatives to this cause however, those who work for reform must understand that a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure.

But we also must treat those who are already here with understanding and compassion.

[Moliere]

I never noticed this, but looks like the odds are already out on the 2016 election.

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politi...grp_ids=791149

Clinton at 7/2 odds followed by Ryan, Rubio, Bush & Christie. Rand Paul is at 66/1, which is probably about right.

[YOhio]

I never noticed this, but looks like the odds are already out on the 2016 election.

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politi...grp_ids=791149

Clinton at 7/2 odds followed by Ryan, Rubio, Bush & Christie. Rand Paul is at 66/1, which is probably about right.

I think Clinton is riding way too high. She looked unbeatable five years ago and is similarly positioned now.

[il Padrino Ute]

So two years after calling for ending birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, Rand Paul tries to seize on immigration in a speech yesterday to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

A politician that will say what he has to say to get elected? No way!

[All-American]

Hillary blamed for Benghazi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z3

Also, Hills looks horrid:

[Uncle Ted]

Hillary blamed for Benghazi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z3

Well, at least Hillary will have an airport named after her and Billy...

The new Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, Ark., will hold a dedication ceremony May 3 featuring the former President and his wife and ex- Secretary of State — but there’s just one problem for the snazzy new airport. “Locals are calling it the Hillbilly Airport,” one insider tells Confidenti@l. “And project managers certainly don’t want an airport named after our President called Hillbilly. In the South. How does that look to the world?”

[dabrockster]

Looks like Rand Paul and Chris Christie are already gearing up already.. However, in my mind. This just goes to how separated the GOP is and lessens the chance of winning. But, there is still lots of time before then. But the infighting still remains..

Paul responding to Christie blasting him about surveillance on US citizens..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...k-more-real-a/