-
Pick Obama’s Brain
May 16, 2013 | 61 comments
-
Remembering Herb Romerstein
May 10, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obama’s Planned Parenthood Love Fest
April 29, 2013 | 69 comments
-
Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day
April 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Bill Casey’s Centennial
April 5, 2013 | 69 comments
Political Hay
Smearing Rubio
There are questions only conservative Republicans are asked.
In a recent interview, Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican front-runner for 2016, was asked, “How old do you think the Earth is?”
It’s a ridiculous question of utter irrelevance to the status of the country and whether Marco Rubio would be a good president. Rubio’s answer was excellent: “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.”
To any sensible person, this was a perfect response. Predictably, however, liberals responded right on cue with knee-jerk condemnation. An editor for the New York Times — that flagship of faith and reason — judged Rubio’s response “ludicrous.” A writer at the liberal Slate, who no doubt Googled before crafting his analysis, claimed authoritatively: “Our planet was formed 4.54 billion years ago. If Rubio suggested otherwise, it’s because he’s uninformed or stupid.”
Ah, yes. I’m sure everyone at Slate knows that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
As for myself, I have no idea how old the Earth is, and could care less. If someone asked me that question out of the blue, I couldn’t give an answer. I’ve been a scientist, an agnostic/borderline atheist, a Protestant and a Catholic. I’ve taught Sunday School, Religious Ed, lectured at colleges, collected data at top research labs, and everything in between. I’ve published in scientific and political journals. And I don’t know the answer to that question either. I know that my Catechism gives a different answer than the folks down the street at the big independent evangelical church. I know, as Rubio does, that theologians dispute this.
In fact, anyone with a serious, sincere interest in this question knows this. But, of course, the question wasn’t asked to Rubio out of serious, sincere interest; it never is when posed to a Republican. The liberals blasting Rubio aren’t being serious and sincere.
Marco Rubio needs to understand two things at play here: 1) these types of questions will only get worse; and 2) these are not earnest questions. No, these are political booby-traps set by political partisans who work as journalists. They are used to try to caricature conservatives as extremists.
I recall a painful example with George W. Bush when he first became Texas governor. Bush was known as a committed Christian who had a late-in-life conversion. For the secular liberal media, this meant that Bush was a “fundamentalist,” even though he wasn’t. For the liberal media, it also presented an opportunity.
And so, one journalist asked the governor if Jews get into heaven. Taken by complete surprise, Bush fumbled his answer. Afterward, he thought long and hard about it. He consulted Billy Graham, who was instrumental in Bush turning his life around. The next time Bush got the question he was ready. It was December 1999, when he was running for president, and when his opponent, Al Gore, wasn’t (of course) getting asked any such questions by the liberal media. Bush’s answer was a good one:
It’s really important for somebody in my position to live the word, in this case, but also understand that people communicate with God and reach God in different ways. It just doesn’t have to be my way. And I think it’s really important if you’re trying to unite a nation that is as diverse as ours is to spend more time living the example I’ve learned of Christ as opposed to lecturing. And I really mean that. Obviously there’s the big issue between the Christian and the Jew, the Jewish person. And I am mindful of the rich traditions and history of the Jewish faith.
And I am mindful of what Billy Graham one time told me: for me not to try to figure out — try to pick and choose who gets to go to heaven…. [I]t is very important for people to not be haughty in their religion. And there’s all kinds of admonitions in the Bible; haughtiness, rightfulness is a sin in itself…. Billy Graham said, “Don’t play God.” I don’t get to determine who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. That’s not me. Governors don’t do that.
That’s a really good response: “Governors don’t do that.” They “don’t play God.” They don’t get to decide who goes to heaven.
Marco Rubio wasn’t asked this same question, at least not yet. Nonetheless, his answer might be the same: “Sorry, man, I’m not playing God.”
In fact, here’s a further response Rubio might consider more generally: “Look, Mr. NAME, let’s be honest: We both know what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to trip me up, and I’m not going to fall for the trap. I’m not a theologian. I’m not a minister. I don’t want to be one, and the American public doesn’t want me to be one. Let’s stick to the issues that concern people. And one more thing: Are you asking these same questions to any Democrats? Are you? Answer me. Which ones? Give me one example.”
Say it calmly, gently, and with a smile — but emphatically. Be strong. Be truthful. Be honest.
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (126) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Kengor
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/26/smearing-rubio
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Hannah and Her Friends
- The End of the Castros?
- Inside the Gates of Eden
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
merlin| 11.26.12 @ 7:04AM
The jouralist was really asking "Are you a creationist?"
While it may not be wise for a politician to get into this debate, the evidence that we DID NOT evolve is conclusive. Briefly,
1. The fossil record does not support evolution.
2. OOL seems to be unlikely to the point of impossibility.
3. Mutations never add information or function.
4. Near neutral mutations accumulate because the organism's environment hides them.
5. Of all possible sequences in which amino acids could be arranged, most are non-functioning. Consequently, natural selection is not able to change one enzime into another.
6. There are more.
If you doubt me, see Behe, John Sanford, Dembski, Discovery Institute, Creation-Evolution Headlines, etc.
This is a debate the country needs to have.
Gee, I didn't even mention the Bible's claims about Creation and the Fl**d.
Jack in Wi| 11.26.12 @ 7:38AM
Rubio is no conservative but just another Bush neoconservative plant who, will just divide the party further. We need real conservative opposition not not more of the same. Rubio is a young politican who hasn't shown much abilty to be a real leader of the opposition. Let him get up and lead the next few years and we will see what he stands for.
PJ| 11.26.12 @ 7:54AM
I whole-heartedly agree with you. Rubio is a young turk with no leader experience or any other experience that I can see. Kind of reminds me of someone back in 2008!
Aristocat| 11.26.12 @ 7:57AM
They fear Rubio more than any other Republican.
They have four years to destroy him.
GobBluthe| 11.26.12 @ 11:08AM
The question is will Rubio allow himself to be destroyed
littletime| 11.26.12 @ 5:53PM
well what is there to destroy. He hasn't done anything to destroy. He is just someone's notion a the great ethnic hope allowing republicans to say 'see we are inclusive.'
Jack in Wi| 11.26.12 @ 10:45PM
Rubio does not seem to be too quick on his feet. Do we need yet another candidate like that? He has to show a lot more then he has so far. He also has zero executive experience.
Liberty4x4| 11.26.12 @ 10:28AM
Rubio should have just replied that I don't know how old the earth is. All I know is when I woke up this morning it was still here, thank God. And, as a U.S. Senator, I am diligently working and praying to insure that when I wake up tomorrow it will still be here.
George S| 11.26.12 @ 1:24PM
That's the answer they were looking for: "I Don't Know".
What do you mean you don't know? We know dinosaurs roamed the earth at least 200 million years ago... you DO agree with that, don't you Senator?
And there is the opening to get into a deposition on the Bible and creationism which would affect Rubio's potential voters more than the Democrat nominee. That is, dispirit the evangelical voting bloc thereby guaranteeing a Hillary victory in 2016.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.26.12 @ 10:37AM
merlin, it may be a debate the country needs to have, but it is not a debate that should be conducted by politicians.
As far as the age of the earth, this is just a gotcha question. Republicans should just answer that they do not want to answer "religious" questions, and then say something about the 1st Amendment, etc.
Imbecile media is just trying to subject Republicans to ridicule in the same way they tried to do it to William Jennings Bryan.
If a Republican just HAS to answer the question, they should just say that all the various dating methods, uranium, 14C, whatever, do not really give us dates. They only give us "determinations." Going beyond a determination to a date involves more than purely scientific issues.
Seek| 11.26.12 @ 12:36PM
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute has very little credibility within the scientific communty. Indeed, its sole purpose has been to debunk the theory of evolution, presenting variations on the usual "evolution is merely a theory" line.
Mike in N.C.| 11.26.12 @ 3:57PM
You're wrong and this is a debate funnies may need to have, but the rest of us don't.
Mnestheus| 11.27.12 @ 12:41AM
It takes neither a beam nor a mote in the eye to invoke a doxology of dunces including "Behe, John Sanford, Dembski, Discovery Institute, Creation-Evolution Headlines, etc." .
A frontal lobotomy will often do as well as several years of apologetics courses at a techer's college near you !
Appleby| 11.26.12 @ 7:20AM
My boss, who is Jewish, asked me this same question (we had been talking about the end of the world). I gave essentially the same answer: "It's not up to us to decide who goes to Heaven and who does not. That is for God to decide; all I can do for myself is do the best I can." I think if I had the chance, I'd ask the leftie journo, "In Canada a baby does not become an official human until it is fully exited from its mother and has taken its first breath. At what point do you believe it's no longer okay to murder a baby? Perhaps when it applies to J-School?"
PJ| 11.26.12 @ 7:20AM
It is a shame that journalists have a witch hunt for those whose views are different from their own.
That said I don't see why Rubio can not, "It's been a while since I've taken HS science, but I believe it's at least a couple a billion yrs old. If you don't know what it is, why don't you look it up. Get back to me when you get the answer, not that it has anything to do with the issues at hand."
Politicians ------This is not rocket science. You can't know every scientific fact.
c. j. acworth| 11.26.12 @ 8:38AM
What any conservative who is seriously considering running for high office must do is to form a small committe whose job it is to think up/collect all the stupid questions they can and formulate an answer to each. It's a distraction, but it has to be done.
Von Mises Jr| 11.26.12 @ 9:15AM
It doesn't matter what the answer is and it is not provable anyway. The tactic can be found in Jonah Goldberg's new book "The Tyranny of Clichés."
Liberals do not think. They are taught patterned responses to shut down debate. Think about the stupidity of many of the things they say and then believe they won the argument:
- "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." So George Washington and Gandhi are the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden?
- "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffers." Would you feel that way if those ten guilty murders and rapist lived next door?
- "Violence never solves anything." So what the hell were the NBP and SEIU doing during the election? Mental masturbation?
We must always remember that there are many very stupid people. And most of them are liberals.
Al Adab| 11.26.12 @ 10:02AM
Perhaps we could someday find a "journalist" who would ask our lefty friends, "Are there any issues which government is unable to address?"
Von Mises Jr| 11.26.12 @ 11:01AM
For Statist, the government is omnipotent. It is your god, family, employer, and benefactor, raises your children and steals for you.
This is one of the reasons liberals are so sad and miserable. The State does not care about the individual. It cares about power. To love the State is actually very sick and depraved, besides being sad and futile.
chris p.| 11.26.12 @ 8:04PM
Von Mises Jr. said ,"We must always remember that there are many very stupid people. And most of them are liberals. "
Yeah, we liberals aren't as smart as you Republicans. Everyone knows all the really smart people in this country live in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. The breathtakingly elegant way in which the English language is spoken by the crackers in Mississippi and Alabama is something to truly behold.
Look at the electoral map, moron. You're the party of the former Confederacy, the home of racism, ignorance, and reactionary thinking. We're the party of the Northeast, where the greatest minds in the country live. We have the Ivy League schools. We have Wall Street. If you're a great writer or artist, chances are you'll pass through New York. The same can be said for world-class cities like Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. We have the art and culture, you idiots have the twang, the banjo, the rural-peasant, religious fanaticism. You are the former confederacy and the rest of the civilized world laughs at you.
So please, stop saying liberals are stupid. I'll take Boston, New York, Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco over Tupelo, Jackson, Birmingham, Montgomery, and Selma any time.
TXLeeVee| 11.27.12 @ 6:32PM
Careful Chris, your tolerance is showing. We certainly would not want to overly generalize. Obviously, anything or anyone that doesn't go through LA, Boston, New York or San Fran for approval cannot be cultured or produce "art".
Most "artists" I have known or met have essentially been idiot-savants, supposedly gifted in the arts, but woefully lacking any skills other than "art". As with most things, there are exceptions; but Chris you don't appear to be one.
chris p.| 11.27.12 @ 6:50PM
TXLee Vee,
Maybe you should you actually read what I wrote before presenting your stupid response. I said if you're a great writer or artist "chances are" you'll pass through New York. Sorry, but that's true. I didn't say New York is THE ONLY city for artists and writers, I said most successful writers will have to pass through NYC at some point in their career. This is the truth, sorry the truth bothers you.
Also, you mention generalizing. Sorry to disappoint you. 92 % of whites in Alabama voted for Romney. That's about 7% higher than 2004 even though Bush was far more conservative. The folk of Alabama cannot say it's about Conservative values, it's all about race. I know Republicans don't like numbers, but you can't run from numbers.
By the way, TXLeeVee, did you sign the Texas petition for secession, I heard over 100,000 Texans have already signed? Another sign of Southern intelligence.
Like I said before, look at the electoral college you silly Texan. Look at the states that vote Democrat and the states that vote Republican. It is not generalizing when I say that states like NY, Mass. Conn., Vt., Ill., Cal. have smarter, more educated, successful people than Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas.
The truth hurts.
chris p.| 11.27.12 @ 6:58PM
TXLeeVee,
As for your comment about "tolerance showing", liberals are far more tolerant than Conservatives, and I DO consider myself a liberal. But I cannot tolerate southern, white, hick, sh---kicking, tobacco-chewing, NASCAR loving, Country music listening, Bible-thumping, gun-loving, Jesus fanatics who hate blacks, who have always hated blacks and who have been a pain in the a$$ to this country since 1861. Sorry, my tolerance does not extend to these "people".
FairPorter| 11.26.12 @ 7:39AM
What surprises me is how few people recognize that Democrats control the media and through that control, our elections. This is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently. There is no way America can remain free without a free press.
Joellen| 11.26.12 @ 8:01AM
It really doesnt matter how Senator Rubio replies, to anything. He is perceived as a Conservative Minority, so in the leftist media's view, he must be destroyed. Just look at how they hate Congressman Allen West. He refuses to be led by the likes of Maxine Waters or Charlie Rangle, so he had to be destroyed by his own people. They never once came out in defense for him when his opponent ran those racist political ads. Hypocrits like Purp and Ralphie Novie (or however you spell his name, doesnt matter, like he doesnt); will defend the blantant racist attacks and double standards with absurd liberal logic.
BTW Mr. Kengor, it's not the conservative American who deserts the Conservative Politician, it's your peers, who seems to fall into the trap and jump on the liberal wagon. Just look at the Romney election as the latest proof. Remember Sarah Palin? How about we go back to the late great President Reagan? Remember how all the media treated this man (except of course, Bill Buckley) ? So, if anything, I would ask that you submit your own article to your "conservative" brethen.
Jack London| 11.26.12 @ 8:03AM
It's pretty important that we have politicians who don't believe in voodoo, in my opinion. As for Professor Kengor not caring how old the Earth is, he can be grateful every time he puts gas in his car that there are geologists who do.
Anthony| 11.26.12 @ 9:19AM
Oh, you mean like you morons who insist that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, with $billions spent on this discredited corrupt "science", that kind of voodoo, Jack?
Jack London| 11.26.12 @ 9:41AM
The voodoo comes from the tiny number who deny the contribution of man to global warming. The trouble with you anti-science types is that you engineer conspiracy for everything - it must get tiring.
Anthony| 11.26.12 @ 10:07AM
Which is it Jack? Are we back to "global warming", as opposed to "climate change"? We can't keep track of what political spins you troglodites put on this farce from week to week.
Oh, and speaking of "science", perhaps you can ask "Professor" Michael Mann to release his data and emails, instead of hiding behind lawyers and fighting FOI requests.
What's to hide Professor Mann? Release your data, make fools out of us "anti-science" types once and for all!!! But you can't and won't, cuz you know what a fraud and a fake you and other corrupted "academics" are.
Of course trolls like Jack are completely unaware of the fraudluent "science" that came out of Penn State and East Anglia Univ.
The new Dark Ages brought to you by the new and improved Fascist Democrat Party.
Jack London| 11.26.12 @ 10:35AM
So Anthony - you really think that the position of 99.9% of climate scientists is totally fraudulent? Why would they do that to you?
stmichrick| 11.26.12 @ 10:43AM
The ones you quote are liberals/statists, thats why.
The 99.9% figure is fallacious.
JP| 11.26.12 @ 10:45AM
We're still waiting for Mann's R2 verification statistics. Heck, it's only been 7 years.
Anthony| 11.26.12 @ 10:52AM
Well first of all, your 99.9% statistic is pure bullshit. It may be that 99.9% of all corrupted scientists/academics posit the position for global warming or climate change, but you ignore the many thousands of honest scientists/academics who have discredited this phony science.
But of course, you know nothing about them because the whores in the MSM do not give their opinions any attention. "The science is settled", as Algore has insisted, like any good demigog would insist.
You are a blind fool Jack, like many Obozo worshipping leftists. Truth and reality are complete strangers to you and your ilk. Perhaps "Professor" Mann, when not hiding his false data from review, will enlighten you as to what a fraud he and the rest of the corrupted scientists/ academics truly are.
I suppose it hasn't dawned on you that AGW is a creature of follow the grant money and keep your safe academic job by towing the party line, has it?
Jack London| 11.26.12 @ 11:49AM
"the many thousands of honest scientists/academics who have discredited this phony science."
Er, and who would they be? I asked you why climate scientists would want to perpetrate a giant fraud on you - why would they do this? Do you think it is only to secure research funds? Doesn't the Earth and its systems have more than enough to research in any case?
Anthony| 11.26.12 @ 12:50PM
Not that it matters to a committed troll such as yourself, I have hundreds of articles about what a fraud AGW is.
I'll not waste any more time on you, as I won't on Purp, you're hopeless and not worth any more of my time, but try this; Spiegal Online: The Climategate Chronicle, found at the American Thinker 5/14/10, How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised, by Axel Bojanowski.
It deals with the analysis of Michael Mann's fraudulent data and emails, those that were leaked, and not hidden away by Mann and his cohorts.
What part of being a committed corrupt leftist do you not comprehend about why these frauds would want to pull this monumental hoax on mankind?
Look at you, you're part of this corrupt anti-growth bullshit, as are many on the left. This is your belief system, that's why it's important to you, and why folks like Mann would participate in this bullshit.
Are you really this f'n stupid?
GobBluthe| 11.26.12 @ 11:17AM
One of the problems is this:
Is a warmer planet bad?
Can it even be stopped?
RCV| 11.26.12 @ 3:30PM
Those are valid questions to ask. Ignoring data is not valid.
Occam's Tool| 11.26.12 @ 6:26PM
Yes. That's why ignoring data about the Earth not warming over the last 18 years, or the overwhelming effect of the Sun's waxing and waning energy outputs, or the inappropriate siting of measurement points is important, RCV. Sorry, RCV, but I have an undergrad science degree Magna Cum Laude followed by a Medical Doctorate. You have a Law Degree from Stanford.
The science was poorly constructed. Al Gore has earned almost $100 million from investments in Global Warming theory. Cui bono?
Appleby| 11.26.12 @ 4:52PM
And in 1973 or so y'all were screaming relentlessly about GLOBAL COOLING and claiming that by now we'd all have frozen and starved to death. And before that it was The Population Bomb that was going to exterminate us all by now. Why don't you guys get a hobby that doesn't involve screaming "NO NO!" at the rest of us?
stmichrick| 11.26.12 @ 10:38AM
Jack L; How scientific is it for Al Gore to say; 'the science is settled.'?
I was glad when you brought up the geologists' approach to the age of the earth. You should recognize that those scientists have most often taken exception to the exaggerated 'climate scientist' claims about the effects of increased-but-still-trace element carbon dioxide when compared to solar factors.
Beware of agenda-driven 'science,' Jack London!
Tom Kyba| 11.26.12 @ 10:55AM
And, as always, you help make Anthony's point with another "duh" point defending your pseudo-faith. You little pimps wouldn't know the scientific method if it fell on your pointy heads.
Anthony| 11.26.12 @ 11:20AM
One last point about pseudo-faith, tell us Jack, just how much has all this "human activity" contributed to AGW?
And if indeed there is some minuscule % of AGW, of which I am not convinced, is it worth all phony investments in electric cars, solar, and destroying the world's economy on this farce?Why don't you leftists insist on more nuclear energy if you're so damn concerned???
Do you know the answers Jack? No, of course not, it's sheer conjecture and bull crap from warped hockey stick graphs from intellectually and money corrupted academics.
I wonder how much the sun contributes to global warming and its total effect, as opposed to that of man?
Hey Jack, I hear "Professor" Mann is looking for a stooge to do research for him, interested? It comes with tax payer money, right up your ally.
George S| 11.26.12 @ 1:40PM
Okay, Jack.
What is the ideal climate of the earth, temperature and percent carbon dioxide?
Can you give me where I can find the consensus of scientists who have that answer?
sinz54| 11.26.12 @ 4:02PM
Under historical climatic conditions, humanity built its civilization right up to the coasts of the continents. It's way too late to move further inland. We can't just pick up New York City, Miami, etc., and move them to the interior of the U.S.
Back in the Eocene period, there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there may be by the 22nd century. The polar caps had melted; and this is what the Earth looked like:
http://www.stromboidea.de/bilder/Eocene_50_Ma.jpg
You will notice: Most of Florida, New York City, Long Island, the California coast, Central America, North Africa, the Netherlands, and the Ukraine were all submerged. (Yes, those dikes in Holland wouldn't have been high enough.)
If that should start to happen again by the late 21st century, care to guess how much private property will be destroyed, and how many tens of millions of people will need to be permanently relocated?
chuck| 11.26.12 @ 4:26PM
So, the question is: Did man cause that back in the Eocene period?
ucfengr| 11.26.12 @ 9:42AM
Somehow I doubt that the existence of petroleum is dependent on the beliefs of geologists or politicians.
Jack London| 11.26.12 @ 10:33AM
You'd have a hard time finding it without a geologist. Maybe you could find it through the power of prayer.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.26.12 @ 11:49AM
I suspect a lot of oil geologists do pray while looking for oil.
Jack London| 11.26.12 @ 11:56AM
I see JR Ewing has gone to the great refinery in the sky, or more likely the fiery hell below.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.26.12 @ 2:10PM
Personally, I prefer Jed Clampett as an ensample for the rising generation.
Occam's Tool| 11.26.12 @ 6:22PM
The actor belonged to the Peace and Freedom Party, right up your alley, Jack London. JR Ewing will live on forever---he's a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. Larry Hagman, the actor who portrayed him, is dead. Hagman was a far left libtard.
Liberals having difficulty telling reality from fantasy again.
Mike in N.C.| 11.26.12 @ 6:42PM
A science degree Magna cum Laude and a medical doctorate and you use the term "libtard." Interesting.
KennesawJack| 11.26.12 @ 11:13PM
That's only because OT is too polite and gentlemanly to call them what they really are, f**cking leftist parasites with their heads so far up Obamarx's ass he needs a glass belt buckle so they can see where they're going. Hope that clears it up for you.
Mike in N.C.| 11.27.12 @ 12:09AM
The only thing your post clears up for me is that you are a total idiot.
ucfengr| 11.26.12 @ 5:45PM
They were finding oil before there were geologists. That said, a geologist's ability to find oil is not dependent on his believing the current conventional wisdom about the age of the earth. If, next year it was determined that the earth is really only 2.5b years old, it would have zero impact on a geologists ability to find oil. You atheists really overrate the importance of topics like the age of the earth or evolution. They have very little practical application.
JP| 11.26.12 @ 10:44AM
I didn't know Rubio believed in voodoo. And I don't know of any politicians who know much about carbon dating or radio isotopes (not even the Anointed One).
Funny, for all of thier sophistication, Progressives believe in that absurd monetary theory created by Keynes. And despite borrowing some $5 trillion in 39 months these sophisticates are shocked when the GDP cannot even sustain 1.8% growth.
George S| 11.26.12 @ 1:32PM
So Rubio not knowing the age of the earth is more troubling than a sitting president who does not know the national debt?
It's pretty important we have politicians who know that at least... right?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 11.26.12 @ 8:10AM
Before we allow
political hacksjournalists to serve as debate moderators or ask these types of questions, perhaps we should vet them. Questions about political party affiliation, donations, who was voted for in previous elections to reporters are a start, but when questions such as this are asked, I also want to know how frequently (if at all) this member of the constitutionally protected profession attends which church. How do the personal beliefs and practices of an individual in the press corps conflict with any religion with which they may be facilitated?Once this starts to occur, and the public is exposed to an inventory of the beliefs of those who choose to expose the beliefs of (selected) political figures, perhaps proper context will begin to develop.
Doctor Right| 11.26.12 @ 8:18AM
I propose a "fix" to this idiotic question; Rubio (and other Conservative politicians) should answer this way:
"Religious folks say the earth is around 6-7 thousand years old; others say its around 5 billion years old. So I'll say somewhere between 6 thousand and 5 billion is the likely age of the earth."
Albert Constantine Jr.| 11.26.12 @ 8:33AM
Perhaps the answer these reporters seek is "How old does Gaia say she is?".
CJW| 11.26.12 @ 10:11AM
The answer should be: "I am concerned with the 16 trillion deficit, the 10% unemployment, and our weak national defense,and the coverup of BenghaziGate. How does the age of earth affect any of this?" Or, Who Cares?
Al Adab| 11.26.12 @ 5:51PM
W:
The LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth..."
Job 38
Mike in N.C.| 11.26.12 @ 6:45PM
It is a proxy question for, Do you understand how science works? Do you appreciate what scientific knowledge gives us?
This is so simple.
JD| 11.26.12 @ 6:54PM
Do YOU?
Apparently not, since you think that it's impossible to disagree with the ever-changing "facts" of the atheist community regarding the origin of the universe without being "anti-science."
CJW| 11.26.12 @ 7:23PM
Ok, answer the question. How old is Earth and How did it begin?
Mike in N.C.| 11.27.12 @ 12:12AM
Ok, Ok. It's 6,000 years old and some old guy in the sky did it all in six days. Satisfied?
CJW| 11.27.12 @ 8:02AM
So, you cannot answer, right Mikey?
Drunken Sailor| 11.26.12 @ 12:15PM
Simple.
"I don't know and I don't care, how old does the Democrat canidate think it is?"
sickofit5| 11.26.12 @ 8:40AM
The part of this article that I agree with the most is his last paragraph on the first page where he tells Rubio to challenge the interviewer. None of our politicians seem to do that. They just throw themselves on the sword. Newt was the only one that seemed to want to challenge the stupidity of the press. They all should do it and while doing so they need to question their fairness and integrity.
Tom Kyba| 11.26.12 @ 10:57AM
I have also been waiting seemingly forever for this to happen. I still can't see the apparent downside that causes conservatives to keep getting slimed this way.
Lullabys Legends and Lies| 11.26.12 @ 8:52AM
If I was Senator Rubio, I would’ve answered the “how old is the Earth” question like this: “I believe the Earth is just a little bit older than Nancy Pelosi is”!! And then I’d laugh way too hard, and way too long at my silly joke!! I'd laugh so long, that it would become very uncomfortable for everybody involved!! Then I'd say, "I'm just joking, of course, I love old Nancy"!! If you’re looking for stupid answers, then keep asking stupid question!! If you’re looking for smart answers, than ask some smart questions!! But Rubio better get used to this, because the Media has no intentions of trying to help him look qualified, they’re going to take advantage of him at every turn, to make him look like the fool, and he’ll be a fool to fall into their trap!!
John Navratil| 11.26.12 @ 9:44AM
Lullabys Legends and Lies,
I love it!
Unfortunately, the headline would read "Young Rubio, calls Pelosi old" and the text would be a diatribe against young turks having no experience or maturity.
Others would equate Pelosi with Eve.
mike 3/505| 11.26.12 @ 8:59AM
Ridicule is the answer. When reporters figure out that they will become the target every time they ask such a question, they will eventually quit. if they don't, they look stupid...it's a win-win for us. It's called operant conditioning...bring the dogs to heel, just like Gingrich did.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.26.12 @ 11:52AM
Sounds good. Republicans can ask reporters how old THEY think the earth is, then ask them to prove it.
chuck| 11.26.12 @ 4:32PM
I remember when Gingrich was asked the "Clinton question", boxers or briefs. His answer was along the lines of "you have the Speaker of the House in front of you, and the best question you can come up with is 'boxers or briefs'! Are you kidding me?
Newt needs to tutor some of these damned politicians.
Errol| 11.26.12 @ 9:09AM
Response ought to have been:
"That's a clown question - Anyone else here have a sensible question."
Drunken Sailor| 11.26.12 @ 12:18PM
I like it. I also like the strategy of the canidate just saying nothing and looking at the report like he is a idiot. Keep the uncomfortable silence until the reporter ask if he heard the question and then reply, yes I heard it I was just giving you a chance to redeem yourself with a intelligent question.
Anthony| 11.26.12 @ 9:16AM
Being aggressive is indeed a good move as the leftists are now all in for the destruction of the R party and especially we conservatives.
However, aggression will not in and of itself be successful unless and until we regain some control over the media.
Until then, the Ds will get away with anything and everything with the whores in the media setting the "template".
This Rubio gotcha with the age of the Earth is a pefect example of how Rs and conservatives don't have a chance with a corrupt and scheming media.
davelnaf| 11.26.12 @ 9:37AM
Should conservatives respond to the latest outrage eruption from the media crackheads on the left? I don’t think conservatives, potential presidential candidates, should respond to them at all. O can say anything—and usually did—during his four year misrule, but the propaganda collective/hive mind of the dem party never took him to task for it.
Alright, now that the MSM has made its bed and whored it out to the Democratic Party let’s see if they can avoid intellectually sodomizing each other. To be fair the former’s ratings are so bad they don’t have too many options left; it’s either they do their sugar daddy’s bidding and go National Inquirer on any conservative, be it politician or private citizen, or they could go out of business. That’s one tough pimp they’ve got to keep happy.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 11.26.12 @ 9:56AM
Scene: Poorly lit motel room. Daylight filters barely through the blinds, revealing an unmade bed and furniture in disarray. A woman of the dimension and hair style of Candy Crowley wearing a fedora with a PRESS card in the hat band is wrapped in the king-sized sheet as a jug-eared man of indeterminate racial origin with his back to the camera stands menacingly close. A TV tuned to CNN plays a story how Republicans are about to cave on the fiscal cliff negotiations).
Pimp: Now get out there and bring me my money, Bi#*h!
Bob Grant| 11.26.12 @ 10:05AM
What kind of pimp would rely on an income stream with a whore of Candy Crowley's dimensions?
Oh that's right. A very stupid one with the intellect of our Jug-Eared President.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 11.26.12 @ 10:39AM
I am open to suggestion, but my thoughts on casting for the pimp start with Gary Oldham. He was simultaneously over the top and credible as Drexel Spivey in "True Romance", and I think with some ear prosthetics he might be able to pull it off.
The McCarthy woman from "Bridesmaids" thus far leads for the hooker role/ Candi.
chuck| 11.26.12 @ 4:35PM
The fat chick was great in "Bridesmaids". The scene in the bathroom at the bridal shop was some of the funniest stuff I've seen in a long time!
Bob Grant| 11.26.12 @ 6:10PM
I'm thinking of a rotund actress for the prostitute role ala Shelley Winters and a bumbling, clean/articulate black man with an evil streak, ala OJ Simpson for the pimp role.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 11.26.12 @ 9:04PM
OJ may not be available for a few years, but I believe he has a son who might test for the part.
Though I really like my earlier casting for Candi, if you find me a Shirley Winters body with a Stella Stevens mouth / attitude from when they starred together in "The Poseidon Adventure", I'll test her.
Bob Grant| 11.26.12 @ 9:45AM
This whole debate is pointless because conservatives (G*d bless them) don't understand, and refuse to learn, how the game is played.
The Mainstream Media and Democratic Party feed off the ignorance of the public at large. They are in touch with how utterly ignorant the general public is at a given moment and act accordingly.
Ignorant Masses are like a gigantic sponge, ready to absorb THE FIRST LIQUID it comes in contact with. And that liquid is ALWAYS provided by the mainstream media and the democratic party.
In this case the LIQUID is Marco Rubio's narrative. Once it's absorbed, it's very difficult to remove.
Conservatives. Bless their heart. They complain and attempt to set the record straight but, as always, will be a day late and a dollar short. Henceforth, Rubio is a "dunce" and completely unqualified for higher office...so say the providers of the LIQUID.
Just ask Romney (evil corporate rich guy) how the game is played.
MissButterfly| 11.26.12 @ 9:56AM
I e-mailed Senator Rubio after I read about this to ask him to NOT do interviews with the media other than FOXNews or conservative talk radio. Everyone else only wants to make him look stupid or foolish. I hope he reads his e-mails and this article!
AKraver| 11.26.12 @ 10:13AM
Good Heaven. So this punk is the next Romney, huh? I wonder when the Conservatives will realize that ANYONE the Republicans give assent to is a fraud and a phony.
The trouble with being a liar is that you have to be good at remembering. That's the trouble with being a politician.
It's much easier if you simply say what you believe. That way, you never have to remember what you oughta say.
That being said, the fact that he gave an interview to GQ shows that his sense of pride is a little bit less than it oughta be. In fact it shows that he ain't a conservative, but yet another pandering fool. SHAME on you if you give Rubio a minute of time. Stop getting wet 'twixed the nethers over Republicans. This last election should've shown you that.
GobBluthe| 11.26.12 @ 11:30AM
""I wonder when the Conservatives will realize that ANYONE the Republicans give assent to is a fraud and a phony.""
Sounds like a rather dead end strategy. Should conservatives only support politicians who dont run, like Palin. You sound like someone who wants and deserves to remain in the minority forever.
In order to win a candidate needs 270 EVs. At most 40% of Americans claim to be conservatives. A winning candidate needs to branch out beyond the right win echo chamber.
What this election showed is that the right wing media, talk shows, pollsters and pundits are even more delusional than their countrerparts on the left.
AKraver| 11.26.12 @ 7:19PM
It's people like you who empower politicians to be philosophical Whores. You and your candidates of choice are nearly as responsible for this mess as the Liberals are.
Do you see the Liberals compromising? Not a chance, boy. Do you see the Liberals moderating their own views for votes. Nope.
Strong leaders (even if their policies are bad) will stand unmoved drawing people to them. But people like you kill such leaders in favor of the wishy washy. Thanks for nothing
GobBluthe| 11.26.12 @ 11:35PM
So you want a strong leader who thinks the world is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days. Go for it.
There is nothing wishy washy in thinking the earth is 4-6 billions years old
stmichrick| 11.26.12 @ 10:40AM
I want all prospective candidates for 2014 and beyond to attend the Limbaugh Seminar on how to handle 'questions' from 'journalists.'
SUBVET| 11.26.12 @ 11:33AM
I think Mark Levin's school of answers would be the best.
JP| 11.26.12 @ 10:47AM
The best way to answer the question is to say, "We're still waiting for Sen Kerry's service records (which he promised us in 2004). When makes those records public I will be happy to refer you to Google.com."
GobBluthe| 11.26.12 @ 11:07AM
Only conservatives are asked these types of question because it is only conservatives who give moronic answers. Suggestions for conservatives
1. Say the earth is 4-6 billion years old
2. Roe is bad law and should be overturned. But that abortion should be allowed in the case of rape
If a conservative candidate cant give the above answers either because they dont believe them or are afraid that the base of the GOP will punish them for such answers, then conservatives duly deserve to lose.
There was a time when conservatism was a thoughtful and competent ideology. What has happened thanks to the internet and scum like Rush Limbaugh is that conservatism now is all about ideology and not about competence.
Who Knows?| 11.26.12 @ 11:31AM
The Golden Rule—who owns the gold rules.
Leftist journalists---but I repeat myself---ASSUME they own the golden microphone-television camera, and that their power is expressed by their MOUTH, which gets to attack their opponents with words THEY get to choose, in questions sure to evince foolish responses.
However, it is about time the target realized they ALSO have a “golden microphone”, and to use the “equal time” rule---there is truly NOTHING stopping a Rubio from saying ANYTHING HE WANTS. There’s a reason some politicians are successful, and others are not!
A Rubio should get the talking point memo---you get to TALK about whatever you want to, and answering ANY question is not required. My guess is that high-energy types like Rubio, who’ve come from nowhere, basically, by dint of TALKING with certain words that “turn on” their like-minded humans, have to have become full of themselves, so it’s hard to act humble. Besides, lots of coffee drinkers out there have a difficult time pausing to process the FULL implications of any question.
Someone should put all top GOP leaders through an acting school. Ah, if only they could APPEAR as “dumb” as Reagan, so when an incoming bomb of a question has been launched their way, they could just laugh, and say, “There you go, again.”
And, ONLY THEN, say what they want to, with humor and wit.
Who Knows?| 11.26.12 @ 11:32AM
ALL leftist “journalists” are easy targets, in fact. If only rightists being shot at by them realized this, they could easily dodge their shots.
Petronius| 11.26.12 @ 12:00PM
Dear Conservative Candidates
The best answer to these jackoffists with their mikes and scratch pads is, don't take their excrement. Just yell back, "What's it to ya?"
Zeppo| 11.26.12 @ 12:40PM
This is why the GOP is doomed. Rubio plainly sees the "are you a creationist" trap in front of him, and instead of giving the excellent answer that you suggest, or many others that come readily to mind, he starts dancing around, clumsily trying to avoid taking an "extreme" position while not giving offense to any literal fundamentalists in the audience. He basically accepts the questioner's unstated premise, but is afraid to say so. And he is supposed to be the articulate rising star of the party. Meh.
GobBluthe| 11.26.12 @ 1:01PM
Did you not read the article? The author said Rubio's answer was excellent.
Saying "What is it to you" will result in the media saying the "GOP is Defensive" or "GOP Candidate Loses Cool and is Testy"
Some of you conservatives fall so easily into the leftwing trap. You have so much hatred for the establishment in this country, it causes you to become irrational.
Petronius| 11.26.12 @ 6:44PM
And a polite "why do you ask" is going to gain any credibility with any reporter who wrote the answer before asking the question?
loulou| 11.26.12 @ 12:54PM
Bottom line: Conservatives had better man up and grow some ballz and learn how to deal with these ambush attempts.
GobBluthe| 11.26.12 @ 1:03PM
Here is how to deal with it:
The earth is 4-6 billion years old
Abortion should be allowed in the case of Rape
You dont accept those positions, so you lash out at the media and want to see a candidate tell the media "F-you" and you think that's smart politics
sinz54| 11.26.12 @ 3:54PM
Banning abortion even in cases of rape is a logically and morally defensible position. (We don't allow infanticide in the case of rape, so we?)
It happens to be a politically fringe position though. That's the main thing wrong with it: It doesn't sell well to most voters.
OTOH, the age of the earth is a factual question, and there really is only one place to go for the answer: Science. (There is nothing in Scripture that states a different but equally specific age.)
GobBluthe| 11.26.12 @ 11:36PM
""Banning abortion even in cases of rape is a logically and morally defensible position. ""
And it has about 15% popularity, as you said.
Rick Z| 11.26.12 @ 2:33PM
NJ Governor Chris Christie invariably confronts ambush journalists, teacher union goons and other self-appointed moral elitists. .... ....
As a result of Christie's straight talking, his popularity has soared to over 60 %.
His SNL appearance is emblematic of this.
Drunken Sailor| 11.26.12 @ 2:39PM
He's not exactly a picture of conservatism either. Bad example.
HR| 11.26.12 @ 3:37PM
Ah, Mr. Kengor. I frequently read and usually appreciate your perspectives, and this was no exception. That's probably the reason it was almost painful to see within it the common misuse of an expression: "couldn't care less." I'm sure this must have been an oversight. But please, let's keep our standards high!
sinz54| 11.26.12 @ 3:50PM
When you're asked a question that requires a numerical answer, you should give the correct number, or admit that you don't know it--and that's all.
Rubio fell into the same trap as Akin: He didn't know when to shut up already. Akin kept rambling and riffing, and Rubio did the same thing, talking about how some people disagree and there are multiple points of view and parents should be allowed to do this or that....How did Rubio get all that from a factual question?
Here's the correct way to deal with the question:
Q: "H0w old do you think the earth is?"
A: "Science tells us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old."
And that's it! Had Rubio said that and only that, there would be no controversy, no embarrassment, and nothing for us to discuss.
The only way the questioner could get something embarrassing from that, would be to follow up with another question which would clearly reveal his agenda.
Mike in N.C.| 11.26.12 @ 4:01PM
Huntsman said he agreed with the science concerning climate change. Remember the reaction from the right? Why doesn't Kengor apply his principles to questions asked from the right?
Drunken Sailor| 11.26.12 @ 4:39PM
You're assuming Rubio knew that answer. If he had no idea what is the harm in saying so? I know it's not the current trend but give me a politician that gives a honest answer over a BS artist anyday.
Besides, just how does knowing how old the earth is make him better suited to handle the economic/Political mess we are in?
Mike in N.C.| 11.26.12 @ 3:55PM
There is nothing as amusing as reading a political science professor tutoring potential GOP presidential candidates on how to pander to the ignorant without completely losing the mainstream.
John Novak| 11.26.12 @ 5:47PM
Rid Christians from the democratic process, then the CHURCH will FINALLY stand UP to the goverment rather than next to it!!
Occam's Tool| 11.26.12 @ 6:18PM
Say: "it's not an area I've studied."
Then say: "by the way, were you aware that the Constitution forbids a religious test for holding office? In the last election, you were hounding Romney for being a Mormon. Why?
You see, part of my job is knowing the Constitution, what it allows The Federal Government to do and not do. Also, how Government tax policy will affect the jobless rate.
But this question that you asked was an attempt to trip me up on some religious topic not germane to the job at hand. But I notice that Obama belonging to a viciously antisemitic church didn't bother you in the last two elections. Why is that? And why wasn't Black and Hispanic jobless rates, imprisonment rates, HIV rates, and child illness rates important during the last election? Are you racist, or what?"
The thing to do is to throw their labesls back at them, and hard. And since Liberals like Chris Matthews, who lives in an all white suburb, and George McGovern, who sent his druggie daughter to an all white school, are actually horrible racists, it's an useful thing to do.
Hit them hard about ignoring Black and Hispanic disease rates, shorter life expectancies, crime rates and imprisonment rates, children born out of wedlock rates, abortion rates. Discuss Margaret Sanger's racism. Mention that Chris Matthews lives in a bubble free of Blacks and Hispanics. Ask how many Blacks headline major programs on NPR.
Nad punch.
Mike in N.C.| 11.26.12 @ 6:35PM
For most people, a question about the age of the earth is a straight forward scientific question. Only those on the right try to bootleg religion into the issue. The real test is does a candidate believe in separation of church and state.
JD| 11.26.12 @ 6:51PM
If someone believes that it is possible to separate church (which governs all aspects of a person's life) from state (which tries to control all aspects of people's lives), then he is clearly too stupid to be elected.
Which is, of course, why the founders didn't enact such a ridiculous statute.
Mike in N.C.| 11.26.12 @ 7:56PM
The First Amendment is clear about establishing and prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The short hand is separation of church and state. It seems to me that those who complain abou their religious freedom being curtailed are really complaining about the fact that they cannot get the state to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of society.
Dinnertime| 11.26.12 @ 7:48PM
The author's idea is that the media should be polite enough to allow politicians to hide beliefs which may be embarrassing or not politically advantageous. This is preposterous. The media should do the opposite. And politicians should also be loud and proud about their deeply held beliefs about the age of the earth or rape abortion or whatever.
Mike in N.C.| 11.26.12 @ 7:59PM
This didn't work too well for Akins and Mourdock which is the reason Kengor is trying to mount an argument for why such questions should not be asked. Taking a poli-sci class from this guy would be a real waste of money.
obadiah| 11.26.12 @ 8:19PM
Liberal smears and challenges to Rubui are outrageous. Rubio is excellence personified and should be elevated to high office without any of this potshotting. That's exactly what happened with Obama, so liberals should just cut it out. The smearing is especially obnoxious because of the undeserved respect shown to Obama but nearly all conservative commentators.
obadiah| 11.26.12 @ 8:20PM
oops, should be: "by nearly all conservative commentators."
Todd_S| 11.26.12 @ 8:44PM
In light of the conservative war on science, questions that probe a public figure's view of the scientific method, data, and factual information are relevant. As a scienttist, I care about it.
Asking something like, "Do you believe that the scientific method is a valid way to obtain factual information and look at experimental results as factual until diproven" is likely to get an answer that ducks the issue. That's philiosophy. Asking about a specific example grounds the question in a concrete and practical reality. It asks how the figure applies their philosophy. Further, journalists avoid issues with overwhelming political implications, (eg climate change), to avoid political boilerplate. Talking points are neither interesting nor revealing.
Too bad the senator chose to duck. A straight answer about his view would have been informative. Even wrong facts; 1 million, 1 billion, 1 trillion--any of those would tell me that he finds value in science and is willing to reconcile an understanding of *truth* with empirical *facts*. I don't care much if he knows what's in the textbooks, but I do care that whether he believes the textbooks are informative.
Finally--there are millions of Americans whose living is derived from research, application, innovation, and communication/education around science. Science, and fact, is relevant to our GDP, national security, health policy, and other matters that the senator will cast votes on.
GCC '92
Cuddy| 11.26.12 @ 10:19PM
Right on. I want to know whether Rubio ignores science and the scientific process or whether he is reasonable and contemplative of the solid evidence they produce. I cannot vote for any fellow conservative or democrat who rejects the discovery of truth in favor of revelation (by religious dogma). Rubio should not duck the question and should just tell us where he stands.
Ted R.| 11.26.12 @ 8:45PM
The Stupid Party strikes again.
It's so PAINFULLY obvious that Rubio is your best chance for 2016. That's why everyone is paying attention to everything he says. And even now, after the shellacking that the Con movement has received, even now your best presidential prospects are in thrall to your anti-science ideology. It's beyond pathetic.
There's really only one solution to Con movement stupidity: you guys will gradually shuffle off to your reward, and the people coming up will not pick up the anti-science banners you will have dropped. There's a single word to describe this development: Progress.
Joe D.| 11.27.12 @ 4:24PM
Paul, there is nothing wrong and everything good to say that God makes though decision. However, the Bible which I believe states John 3:16. Does that mean I would disrepect someone else's believe no!!! He may believe I am wrong and that is his preledge in our great country. That is right even if he holds an office in the US thanks to the first amendment.
Joe D.| 11.27.12 @ 4:28PM
And in our great country Todd S(tupid) and Ted R(ediculas) can had wrong scientific oppinions as well. No one knows how old the earth is except God who was the only one there at the beginning. These others can't prove a thing so they name call.