Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Newsweek has an interview with Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a prospective candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. He had lots of dumb things to say:
Let me ask you about social issues your party has been dealing with. In her book, Palin claims that McCain's handlers wanted her to be silent about her belief in creationism. How would you describe your view?I can tell you how we handle it in Minnesota. We leave it to the local school districts. We don't mandate a curriculum or an approach. We allow for something called "intelligent design" to be discussed as a comparative theory. It doesn't have to be in science class.
No, you don't do it that way in Minnesota, it just isn't discussed in the state standards at all. You may not do anything to prevent local school districts from teaching ID, but local school districts are constrained by court precedent that forbids the teaching of ID. And of course, ID is not a "comparative theory" because it isn't a theory at all.
Where are you personally?Well, you know I'm an evangelical Christian. I believe that God created everything and that he is who he says he was. The Bible says that he created man and woman; it doesn't say that he created an amoeba and then they evolved into man and woman.
What the Bible says about the natural history of life on earth is no more relevant to what should be taught in schools than what the Bhagavad Gita has to say about it. Or the Quran. Or the Book of Mormon. We do not determine curriculum based on what the Bible says.
Politics
Comments
The question is, does the governor really believe this crap or is this just playing to to base of born-again retards?
Posted by: SLC | December 26, 2009 9:20 AM
I don't know if there is much distinction to be drawn in the political arena between an idiot and a panderer. Both are equally, stupidly dangerous.
Posted by: Graham Shevlin | December 26, 2009 9:31 AM
Hah! Clearly delusional. ...because "the gays" aren't real people.... ...especially if they involve dual outies or dual innies... ...luckily, there are no gay couples raising kids. That would be ludicrous. A robot and two nuts.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 26, 2009 10:20 AM
From the way these Republicans talk, you'd think that the Revolution was fought because the British were refusing to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples. I guess I missed the part of the Federalist papers where Hamilton lays out the social benefits of opposite-sex only marriage laws, and the necessity of enshrining that in our Constitution.
Posted by: Julian | December 26, 2009 10:33 AM
I'd say you're the delusional one, if you think the GOP are going to experience anything other than enormous gains in November 2010. I won't be surprised at all if they regain both the House and the Senate.
Posted by: peter | December 26, 2009 10:46 AM
Wait, you're calling Modusoperandi delusional???
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 26, 2009 11:03 AM
Odd, I don't remember saying that they wouldn't get some seats back.
*Progressive disillusionment with Obama being more of a centrist than the picture of him in their head was isn't the Republican Party improving.
*Progressive disillusionment with the general, and unsurprising, level of political spinelessness and opportunism of the Democratic Party isn't the Republican Party improving.
*Progressive disillusionment with the inability of the Democratic Party to all march in the same direction isn't the Republican Party improving.
*Progressive disillusionment with the inability of the Democratic Party to set the agenda, instead constantly and stupidly following the GOP's own bullet points, no matter how reality-averse they are (via the GOP's mouths or other douches, like Limbaugh and crew), isn't the Republican Party improving.
*Nor is GOP obstructionism, no matter the price to the American people the Republican Party improving.
*Nor is the continued sidelining from the Republican Party, if not running out on rails, of anybody that fails to live up to the current state of rightwing nuttery the Republican Party improving.
That their obstructionism, lies and attempt to maintain the status quo no matter how many people get hurt won't win them some seats doesn't mean that they're improving, it merely means that a disturbing percentage of the population are idiots.
I know of no metric by which, objectively, the GOP is getting better. I see it getting more extreme, more petty, less intelligent and consistently more, um, douchy, but I don't see it changing in any way that benefits the USA.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 26, 2009 11:18 AM
Peter @ 5 - Modus might be noting that the competence of the Republican party in terms of its ability to govern is obviously not improving and making such a statement is either dishonest or delusional.
You are relating Pawlenty's remark to its future electability odds, which is a distinctly different matter from its ability to govern. While oddsmakers are seeing opportunities for the GOP to increase its share in both the House and the Senate in 2010, I've seen zero analyses that make a case for the GOP to have a feasible chance to regain the majority in either chamber. Do you have a citation supporting your assertion and I quote you:
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 26, 2009 11:19 AM
Oh. I should note that I've started calling the modern Right/Christian Right/economic Libertarians-Objectivists/etc "douches". One syllable is a real time saver, plus it also works with their attitude ("douchey"), demeanor ("douchness") and actions ("douchery").
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 26, 2009 11:23 AM
Small nitpick:
The Bhagavad Gita is a book about a philosophical quandary. The Upanishads is the one you're looking for.
Yeesh. I love that dishonesty of ignoring the court decision >.
Posted by: Rutee | December 26, 2009 12:15 PM
Has anyone else seen anything about the John Birch Society being a cosponsor of CPAC in '10? I wonder how many rank and file republicans/conservatives would call that progress. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 12:24 PM
Yes, but the one that's setting the cat amongst the pigeons for the far right is the GOProud sponsorship. The owner of the Free Republic site is calling for a boycott of CPAC because of that one co-sponsor amongst 70-odd.
Posted by: tacitus | December 26, 2009 1:12 PM
tacitus, Wow would love to have been a fly on the wall when that backrrom deal was made. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 26, 2009 1:17 PM
The sad part is that Pawlenty is intelligent and could of been a great governor. But every time anything remotely religious or gay comes in front of him - his brain stops working. Thankfully he is not running (not that he would win again - he barely won last time) and we can get Minnesota back on track as a pragmatic state.
Posted by: yoshi | December 26, 2009 2:11 PM
"Early on we decided as a country and as a state that there was value in a man and a woman being married in terms of impact on children and the like, and we want to encourage that."
Early on we decided as a country that Africans may be kept as slaves, women may not vote, and only men of property were fit to direct the affairs of the Republic.....We got better.
Posted by: NJ Osprey | December 26, 2009 2:11 PM
Modusoperandi:
Yes, because classifying a whole range of different people who disagree with you with one word sure cuts down on the need to actually think about anything, doesn't it?
For one thing, on the issue of Intelligent Design, a significant number of libertarians and all Objectivists would hold the same opinion you do. Do bear in mind that Rand was a "strong" atheist who considered religious belief a cognitive defect.
This libertarian considers the republican party bereft of ideas or integrity, and if it makes gains in 2010 it will only be because the democrats aren't really much better. After all, Obama seems willing to sacrifice anything to get that monstrosity he insists on calling health care reform through the legislature.
Posted by: James K | December 26, 2009 3:51 PM
What James K said @16.
I made me really sad when I saw Glenn Beck worship Rand and Atlas Shrugged.
Posted by: Alex R | December 26, 2009 4:44 PM
What the Bible says about the natural history of life on earth is no more relevant to what should be taught in schools than what the Bhagavad Gita has to say about it. Or the Quran. Or the Book of Mormon. We do not determine curriculum based on what the Bible says.
True enough, but in fairness, that isn't what he was asked.
Posted by: Nobody Important | December 26, 2009 5:27 PM
James K "Yes, because classifying a whole range of different people who disagree with you with one word sure cuts down on the need to actually think about anything, doesn't it?"
Perhaps I should've been more specific in my wordy and entirely not-off-the-cuff admission:
"I am now doing the kind of thing I called 'treason' when others did it (or tried to do it, or talked about it, or thought about it) just a couple of years ago" Teabaggers: Douches.
"Mine mine mine!"-style Libertarians: Douches.
Mild case of sociopathy Objectivists: Douches.
"Compassionate Conservatives"/"Fiscally-responsible Conservatives" (ie: "Cut social programs"/"Deficit shmeficit!"): Douches.
"Ewww! A gay almost touched me!"/"Other people want the same rights that I enjoy!"/ Christian Right: Douches.
"For one thing, on the issue of Intelligent Design, a significant number of libertarians and all Objectivists would hold the same opinion you do. Do bear in mind that Rand was a "strong" atheist who considered religious belief a cognitive defect."
That we agree with some things doesn't make their stances on other things any less douchey.
"This libertarian considers the republican party bereft of ideas or integrity...
Yup. I pretty much said that earlier.
"...and if it makes gains in 2010 it will only be because the democrats aren't really much better."
They are good at not getting along. That's something, I guess. They remind me of family, and why I generally try to avoid same.
"After all, Obama seems willing to sacrifice anything to get that monstrosity he insists on calling health care reform through the legislature."
Obama doesn't appear to be the "lead from the front"-kind of leader (it doesn't help that a lot of people thought he was more than he was. I thought he was both "not Bush" and "better than McCain and what's-her-name". By my metric he's doing okay).
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 26, 2009 7:30 PM
I can tell you how we handle it in Minnesota.
Well, I can tell you how we handled creationist Cherie Yecke in Minnesota. We'll fix Tim's little red wagon as well, I hope very soon.
Posted by: Kristine | December 26, 2009 7:56 PM
Modusoperandi:
OK, your clarification makes things better. A lot of libertarians had an adverse reaction to the teabaggers actually. Something along the lines of "Oh, so now you care about limited government, where were you for the last 8 years?". And everyone who only gets fiscally hawkish when taxes are discussed should be dismissed as intellectual lightweights, as Milton Friedman put it all government spending is taxes.
As for Obama, he's failed to meet my low expectations (no action on gay rights or torture), but I would still have him over McCain since he'd have happily sacrificed every limited-government part of the Republican platform to get congress to support him bombing Iran. And the thought of his over 70 year old heart being the only thing between Sarah Palin and the oval office is too scary for words.
Posted by: James K | December 27, 2009 1:32 AM
I need some advice, guys.
My mom is dragging me to see her brother and his family of fundie creotard idiots; I need ways to anger the fundies.
Posted by: Katharine | December 27, 2009 8:37 AM
Katharine: You can't pick who is related to you. Try to remember that.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 27, 2009 9:02 AM
Katharine-
My advice: Grow up. Seriously. The fact that you disagree with fundamentalism (as do I, obviously) does not mean that you should seek out ways to cause problems in family situations involving them. That's childish, petty and utterly pointless. I come from a deeply divided family religiously and just spent Christmas day with parents who are, respectively, atheist and pentecostal. If I went out of my way to anger the pentecostal parent every time I went home for a holiday, what on earth would it gain? Are you really so fanatical about these things that you can't spend a single day with a family member who disagrees with you without causing discord? If so, I strongly suggest therapy. And no, I'm not kidding.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 27, 2009 9:31 AM
Katharine:
Tell her you want to bring your black, Santariist Marxist girlfriend AND announce your engagement to her?
I was at my mom's 80th B'day party chatting with some folks and one of my mom's brothers-in-law (a diehard conspiracy theorist about the evil, commie Tri-lateral commission--among other firmly held delusions) started in about me being a Massachusetts DEMOCRAT and having John Kerry's back. This was in summer of 2000, so I'm not sure that Kerry was even on the radar. Regardless, several of my mom's "Lace curtain Irish" sibs--staunch Bushites, all--started to chime in. I said, to my original inquisitor:
"Fritz, I think all politicians are scum. I'm an Independent, not a democrat. However, that fucking idiot that you people elected is destroying this country."
It became wonderfully quiet.
Posted by: democommie | December 27, 2009 9:40 AM
Whoa, sounds like a veritable wacko this governor...in Canada our Prime Minister probably has similar beliefs to Pawlenty, but fortunately he would lose any chance of swinging a majority government next election if he brought it up in public. I don't know why Americans seem so intent on broadcasting their religion to the world (not all of them of course, but enough to make people in other countries aware of the phenomenon at least). Whatever the reason, it seems that people are so familiar with the supposed tenets of Christianity that they don't remember the weird, violent passages (see the 2 Kings video on PZ's site for a laugh) and they don't actually learn about the questionable provenance of the source material. If twisting the message and omitting the whole truth is necessary to promulgate the faith, any educated person who looks at the religion with a skeptical eye will see just how empty the faith is. There's a very good reason why they like to get 'em while they're young (insert priest joke here).
I wonder what the main factors are in determining which zealous believers, indoctrinated before they developed critical thinking skills, will be the ones to start asking questions and scaring the pastor with their heretical suppositions.
Katharine is wrong to want to anger her fundie family-members, but having been in similar positions, I know that you want to do something. Perhaps there are catalysts to skepticism, ideas that can be planted in the right brain (mustard seed anyone?) and take root there. Debating with people, conversing with them, sharing and showing that you're not the devil incarnate and that thinking your own thoughts isn't sinful...that is far more productive than stirring up trouble.
Posted by: VolcanoMan | December 28, 2009 9:41 AM
Take your pick of snarky responses:
"Because every decision made in the 18th century is completely and 100% appropriate for modern society, and none of it should be revisited. Ever."
or
"Early on we decided as a country and as a state that there was value in slavery in terms of impact on hard-working Americans and the like, and we want to encourage that."
Posted by: dcsohl | December 29, 2009 4:39 PM