Culture Darwinism News

Ron Paul, who announced he didn’t believe in evolution, won’t rule out third party US prez run

Spread the love

Here.

Commentator Kate Hicks offers,

Paul may not be sure, but one thing is: if he does go forth with a third party run, it’s certainly a nightmare for the GOP’s White House prospects.

Assuming that his third party run is much noticed, it could focus attention on his views on evolution: That, in the phrase Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller tried to make infamous, it is “only a theory.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Ron Paul, who announced he didn’t believe in evolution, won’t rule out third party US prez run

  1. 1

    I like Ron Paul. I don’t think he’d at all make a good president, but he has a certain charisma and some of his views make sense to a lot of people, including me.

    President Paul? A disaster. Iran would most definitely get a nuclear weapon under a President Paul, and he wouldn’t really care. Dangerous thinking in dangerous times.

    After watching all 4 of the last Republican debates, Bachmann, Romney and Gingrich are looking a lot better. The rest of them in my view are on their way out. Has anyone been able to pin down Gingrich’s views on evolution? I know that he’s said he’d get rid of activist judges by eliminating their courts, and he’s big on science. What are his views though? All I know is that he’s a staunch Reagan Republican with a very detailed and defined platform: “21st Century Contract with America.”

    BTW, Gingrich is now on top according to the latest polls, so we’d better get a handle on just what his views are on certain issues. He’s effectively taken on the press already in the debates (particularly Fox News, which is a surprise), and he’s a fighter. Now would be the time to start educating him on these issues if he isn’t educated already.

    Forget about Paul. He’s unelectable.

    Regarding Fox – seems they’ve taken on a more “centrist” position now that they need to do the opposite of what they accuse the liberal press of doing with Obama. They’re getting rather nasty with the Republican candidates, and Gingrich and others are calling them on their “gotcha” questions. I guess it’s to be expected. I thought MSNBC was actually more balanced in their debate questions.

    Nobody’s attacking Paul much for his views though, which shows that they’re not really taking him seriously.

  2. 2

    BTW, Paul’s interest (as with all of the Republican candidates) is in getting rid of Obama. If he were to be a 3rd party candidate, Obama would win. He would draw votes away from the Republican nominee more than from Obama.

    A lot of Democrats like him, but not enough to defeat Obama. If he backs the Republican nominee, then Obama will be out by a landslide provided that the Republicans are able to convince Americans that Obama pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan for purely political reasons and not for American interests. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan are the only accomplishments that Obama has going for him that Democrats will pay attention to. They are more likely to be concerned about his failures on the economy. That’s why he’ll be out.

    Paul sides with Obama on that issue, but according to his own words, he prefers going slow on reforms rather than over night. That might be an indication on how he would deal with bringing the troops home.

    There’s a whole lot at stake in this next election. Focusing on a candidate’s views on evolution I think is rather short sighted, but it is nice to know where they stand. We should really be focused on the candidates who have a chance of getting us out of this mess.

  3. 3
    material.infantacy says:

    “Focusing on a candidate’s views on evolution I think is rather short sighted, but it is nice to know where they stand.”

    I agree. I’d be more interested in their views about science and education, than whatever they happen to believe about evolution at the moment, although I don’t think it’s a non-issue either.

    “There’s a whole lot at stake in this next election….We should really be focused on the candidates who have a chance of getting us out of this mess.”

    Again, agreed. Caution is warranted here. The bar has been set pretty low. Any opposition candidate would putatively be better than Obama. However we need a good candidate, not just a better one.

  4. 4
    News says:

    We cover this stuff because it could play a role in influencing voters or shaping policy. For example, in 2004 (?) Rick Santorum added a teach-both-sides amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. Someone else may do something similar in either direction in 2012. If Paul runs as an independent, he won’t win but – as you say – he could influence the breakout. Some people may owe him. We just keep an eye on it – when something specific happens.

Leave a Reply