As expected, no candidate will attend a debate on scientific issues

[TheSollyLama]

From and email from the people trying to get the candidates to attend a debate on scientific issues and the candidates stance on several key topics.

I bet you don't need me to tell you not a one will go anywhere near anything remotely scientific. And that, ladies and gentlemen, are the people you are actually going to choose in the end? You'd be better off casting a vote for Mayor McCheese.


"Our opening gambit, an April 18 debate in Philadelphia, is looking less and less likely. Obama has declined, Clinton has been non-committal, and McCain has been non-responsive. "

Asked if the group of more than 100 universities, professors, scientists, and other professionals would give up-

"Rather, the candidates' reluctance demonstrates the very reason why our initiative is so important and must continue. These issues will not go away by sticking our heads in the sand, and neither will the candidates' responsibility to tackle them, or the voters' right to assess the candidates on their plans. So like the candidates, we are beginning to focus on the next major primary venue, which is Oregon in May.

To that end, we have formed a working relationship with the venerable PBS television programs NOVA, their science series, and NOW on PBS, their weekly news program, to cosponsor a national debate broadcast. NOW host David Brancaccio will moderate, supported by a panel of internationally recognized scientists agreed upon by our cosponsors. We've proposed not one but three possible dates"

And so you again have a chance to send your candidate of choice an email suggesting they attend this debate. Who gives a shit who can sling the most mud about this issue or that.....

Let's see where these jackals really stand on the things that affect us all and the future of the world.

Although we all know that what'll really happen is none will attend, and the people here shilling for one or another will offer up excuses as to why the person they think should run the country can't even debate serious topics.

Perhaps I just expect too much from a person wanting to be the President...............

[BusaDave]

Cool! I think David Brancaccio would give them fair but stern treatment. The problem is...the majority of the people who need to hear this message don't watch PBS, or WORSE are indifferent to or even hostile to scientific advancement, ESPECIALLY if it involves collective investment (tax money).

[gtramontelli]

I'm interested in following this story. Part of the reason I am fed up with the current administration is its commitment to faith and religion. I would like to see a return to a more evidence-based decision making strategy in the white house. The fact that stem cell research is illegal is disgusting.

[moto44]

The candidates get lots of requests for appearances for debates from various groups. Accepting this debate would be just as foolish as appearing at a debate to discuss morality in politics put on by the religious right.

Get your knickers in a twist if you like. But, candidates are in the business of building concensus, not creating divides.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by moto44

Get your knickers in a twist if you like. But, candidates are in the business of building concensus, not creating divides.

Depends on what side of the divide you happen to be standing.

[baldheadeddork]

Good intentions on the part of the organizers, but they're really tone deaf to how campaigns work. You will not get a debate between Republicans and Democrats before the conventions, not on any issue. I don't know what are the other possible dates, but trying for April 18 - four days before a critically important Democratic primary - makes the organizers look like a joke.

They're going to have a hell of a time getting the Republicans on board in any case. McCain has absolutely nothing to gain from debating science with a panel from Nova and Now. He'll either piss off a huge chunk of the Republican base or look like a fool. That's not the fault of the organizers, but that's what it is.

Finally, if politics matters to scientists and scientific groups - they need to get off their ass , make endorsements and work for candidates who are good on science. Most scientists and scientific groups are loathe to do this because they want to be above politics and because, frankly, they don't want to bet on the wrong horse risk being cut out of funding for four years. I understand that position, but if they want to continue with it, then they don't have a lot to bitch about when we either get another four years of Bush's science policies, or when a friendly president doesn't make their concerns a priority.

[shah269]

Holds breath till he kills enough brain cells to equal that of the average goper.
"Dem dare collage edumicated pointdexters aint be chuched and day aint be loving our baby boy jesus and dus day need to be baptized and hung till day be comming to day sences and realize making sweet love to ya first cousin be perfectly normal and dat day be a serious difference between white churched pepole and all day odda people in da world and dat guns are good fo ya!"

Wow I think my spell check just killed it self.
Look we as individuals are actually kind of smart! Hell I bet individually we are some of the smartest people in the world. Between our universities and our tech industries.
But as a group we are a little dumber than boild carrots.

[SlowGoose]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

Good intentions on the part of the organizers, but they're really tone deaf to how campaigns work. You will not get a debate between Republicans and Democrats before the conventions, not on any issue. I don't know what are the other possible dates, but trying for April 18 - four days before a critically important Democratic primary - makes the organizers look like a joke.

They're going to have a hell of a time getting the Republicans on board in any case. McCain has absolutely nothing to gain from debating science with a panel from Nova and Now. He'll either piss off a huge chunk of the Republican base or look like a fool. That's not the fault of the organizers, but that's what it is.

Finally, if politics matters to scientists and scientific groups - they need to get off their ass , make endorsements and work for candidates who are good on science. Most scientists and scientific groups are loathe to do this because they want to be above politics and because, frankly, they don't want to bet on the wrong horse risk being cut out of funding for four years. I understand that position, but if they want to continue with it, then they don't have a lot to bitch about when we either get another four years of Bush's science policies, or when a friendly president doesn't make their concerns a priority.

Pretty much spot on.

[jim schmidt]

Unfortunately, Solly, this says more about the voters than it does about the candidates.

[TailHook]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

Finally, if politics matters to scientists and scientific groups - they need to get off their ass , make endorsements and work for candidates who are good on science. Most scientists and scientific groups are loathe to do this because they want to be above politics and because, frankly, they don't want to bet on the wrong horse risk being cut out of funding for four years.

This one I can speak from personal experience and if you think for one second scientist are above any standards when it comes to getting grant money or funding you are way off base. I have seen data skewed by scientist which would allow funding. Its all about the almighty dollar

[TheSollyLama]

This is no yokel debate. This is being sponsored by more than 100 Universities, groups such as the National Institute of Science, Institute for Engineering, and the like. The people the administration should be listening to on science affairs to begin with.

So far, both the dems have agreed to the debate concerning Compassion, which is a thin cover for faith based nonsense. Oh they'll happily show up to a debate to claim moral supremacy. They'll debate all the things that matter not to reality, and the things they can't ever be tested over.

But science, the future of the US.......those little things, they ignore.

Simply put, they are total and complete cowards. Absolutely unqualified to run a day care, much less the the free world and make decisions that effect hundreds of millions of people.

They are, as I've said before, unadulterated idiots. Not a one DESERVES your vote, yet how many will run out to cast a vote for the retard least likely to destroy us in their first term.

Science can be funneled in whatever direction the admin wants. Look at the twisting of gun stats the left uses to destroy your 2nd amendment, look at the right trying to push their mythology as reality in science classrooms.
No doubt the admin can abuse the system and they all do.

But science itself will still call bullshit. Because science is real- it is also testable. So no matter how much in the pocket of the politicians a few scientists may be, there are that many more than will call shenanigans. It's what science does.

Once we know they're on the wrong side of science, you can then vote accordingly.

Just that this pack of dipshits knows they are so scientificaly illiterate and worthless that they won't even chance the debate. It's not that they fear their stance on something will cost votes........it's that they don't have the slightest clue as to any of these topics to even form a line of bullshit over.

Hard to come up with a pack of lies to tell when you can't even grasp the most fundamental level of the topic.

[baldheadeddork]

Originally Posted by TailHook

This one I can speak from personal experience and if you think for one second scientist are above any standards when it comes to getting grant money or funding you are way off base. I have seen data skewed by scientist which would allow funding. Its all about the almighty dollar

I think you misunderstood me. I know there are scientists who will skew data to reach a desirable conclusion to get more funding from an ideological or political source.

What I was talking about was the reticence of scientists to participate overtly as political activists and to make clear election endorsements. I think it was four years ago that a group of scientists actually did endorse Kerry over Bush and took out some newspaper ads, which were controversial in the scientific community as I remember. But this is what scientists have to do if they want to be heard. You can not wait for politicians to come to you.

More about the debate: I would love to see this debate, but it's not the only way to get these answers. Most campaigns will be willing to answer position questions from interest groups. If the debate isn't feasible, the organizers should concentrate on building a questionnaire, getting the candidates to answer, and then publicizing the hell out of it, maybe with a combined special on Nova and Now.

[baldheadeddork]

So far, both the dems have agreed to the debate concerning Compassion, which is a thin cover for faith based nonsense. Oh they'll happily show up to a debate to claim moral supremacy. They'll debate all the things that matter not to reality, and the things they can't ever be tested over.

Am I the only one who missed the compassion debate?

[Gaolee]

Nope. This is the first I heard of it. Why do politicians need to debate science, anyway? They will either fund it or continue the idiotic policies we currently have. I expect all three will be a whole lot more realistic and change the government's policies from the current stupidity. There isn't much to debate.

It would be a very short, dull debate with everyone pretty much agreeing with everyone else.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by gtramontelli

I'm interested in following this story. Part of the reason I am fed up with the current administration is its commitment to faith and religion. I would like to see a return to a more evidence-based decision making strategy in the white house. The fact that stem cell research is illegal is disgusting.

+1

Obama has stated clearly he will approve stem cell research, and push for alternative energy... not only to reduce dependency on foriegn oil, but to create jobs and slow global warming.

I'm sure we'll hear plenty of debating on science issues once the nominees are chosen... unless McCain squirms out of it somehow.