re: #479 Sharmuta

You’re confusing me again. You agree completely with Charles or it doesn’t matter because the president doesn’t really deal with this issue?

I agree with Charles that the GOP ought not to nominate a creationist, because the Dems will use that issue to embarrass the nominee and make him or her look anti-science (and rightfully so), thereby losing a lot of votes from the GOP column.

Where we “disagree” on this one issue is that I think we bloggers have very little influence on how the GOP party nomination process works; Charles is optimistic that we can influence the GOP against nominating a creationist, I conversely am rather pessimistic on this topic, and from the looks of things, it seems quite likely that a creationist will be the GOP candidate, whether we here at LGF like it or not.

We also “disagree,” but in a rather minor and vague way apparently, about whether or not a creationist president would have much real influence when it comes to school curricula. I suspect that MANY of 20th-century presidents were creationists, and probably MOST of 19th-century presidents — and yet not a single one has ever really pressed the issue.