Creationists on the Ballot: November 2010

ELECTION day is 02 November, seven weeks away. The purpose of this post is to collect in one place some links to our past articles about political campaigns which have a flaming creationist on the ballot. This time around we’ll only mention races for Congress or state Governor. We’re ignoring elections for minor positions like school board, mayor, and state legislature because there are literally thousands of those races — far too many to keep track of.

You will notice that most (perhaps all) of the creationists mentioned here are Republicans. There are creationist Democrats too, loads of them (e.g. the Louisiana legislature), but we rarely pay attention to creationist Democrats. Their creationism is the least of our objections to such people.

Creationists’ presence in the GOP indicates the growing schism in that party between fiscal and social conservatives. We’ve sometimes referred to those factions as the traditional “I like Ike” Republicans and the relatively new “theocratic, creationist, missionary position” wing of the party that joined up because of Nixon’s Southern strategy.

Dems being what they are these days, when the Republican opponent is a creationist, the voters face an unhappy choice between a de facto socialist, who promises to thrust his hands into the citizens’ pockets, or a creationist theocrat, who jams his hands into the citizens’ pants. It’s increasingly rare to find a candidate who promises to keep his hands to himself.

Anyway, here’s what we’ve got for you, state by state, in alphabetical order:

Colorado

Scott Tipton, Republican creationist and social conservative, is running for Congress against incumbent John Salazar. See Colorado Creationist Congressional Candidate.

Florida

Marco Rubio, creationist, is the GOP candidate for the US Senate. See Marco Rubio: Creationist Theocrat for Senator?

Illinois

Bill Brady is the creationist in this one. See Illinois Governor’s Race: A Nightmare Choice.

Maine

Watch out for the GOP candidate for Governor. See Paul LePage’s Creationist Train Wreck in Maine.

New York

The Republicans have a primary election tomorrow (14 September) to see who will run for US Senate against Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat. One of the GOP hopefuls is Bruce Blakeman, a creationist. See: Creationist US Senate Candidate from New York?

Texas

The Governor, seeking re-election, is a flaming creationist. See Is Texas Governor Rick Perry Insane?

We wrote about several other races last month (Creationists on the Ballot: August 2010). The Kansas primary went as well as it could (the worse creationist lost), the creationist running for Governor in Oklahoma lost, and the same thing happened in Wyoming. So the news from the primary races isn’t all that bad.

We don’t imagine that we’ve found all the creationists (and we haven’t mentioned Tennessee which doesn’t matter because all the candidates for Governor are crazy), but what we’ve listed here is what we’ve come across in our usual news sweeps. If you’re aware of others running for Governor or Congress, let us know.

Update: See Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell: Creationist (US Senate candidate).

Update: See Good Lord! Alaska’s Joe Miller Is a Creationist.

Update: Post-Election Wrap-up: Creationism’s Impact.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Creationists on the Ballot: November 2010

  1. I donno, Eric. I’d prefer actual press stories. I usually don’t rely on information from blogs where I don’t know the people.

  2. comradebillyboy

    Curmy, you wite
    “We’ve sometimes referred to those factions as the traditional “I like Ike” Republicans and the relatively new “theocratic, creationist, missionary position” wing of the party that joined up because of Nixon’s Southern strategy.”

    There are no ‘I like Ike’ republicans any more. Ike would be rejected out of hand by the modern republican party. I an old enough to remember president Eisenhower and he was positively moderate and rational. Obama by comparison is slightly to Ike’s left and a bit right of Clinton (either Bill or Hillary).

  3. comradebillyboy says:

    Obama by comparison is slightly to Ike’s left and a bit right of Clinton (either Bill or Hillary).

    Uh, well, I guess opinions vary on that. That’s okay.

  4. The Republican Party doesn’t mean anything without the social conservatives. Many of the so-called moderates are people who put no higher priority on anything other than keeping and holding office–remember Scott Brown’s primary opponent who endorsed the Democrat? (And Brown isn’t even conservative!). Remember Arlen Specter? This is why Lincoln Chafee is running as an independent against a Republican that beat Chafee–even though Chafee received millions from the national GOP in the primary! Of course the consequence will be to split the vote and elect a Democrat. So much for moderation.

    Of course a party, in our two-party system, needs moderates as well. I’m not trying to say that moderates are bad people. You need moderates to win elections and to get cold feet when ideologues try to do something crazy. But “moderation” like anything else, is good as a means to an end. It is not good as an end to itself.

    The number of libertarians in the country can be written with six digits. Social conservatives are the only voting bloc of any size that has any sympathy with free-market principles. They are the least worst alternative.

    If creationists get in, so what? In the worst case scenario, you get a few more states with laws like Louisiana’s that fail in court. The Democratic Congress has been making laws and budgets since 2006–I don’t have to tell you what they’ve done, and will continue to do.

    You have a choice, to hold your nose and vote, or contemplate your ideological purity while filling out a couple of thousand 1099 forms for the IRS over the next few years.

  5. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703897204575488272691514074.html

    “Meanwhile, small businesses are staring in horror toward 2013, when the 1099 mandate will hit more than 30 million of them. Currently businesses only have to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase from vendors and the like. Under the new rules, they’ll have to report the value of goods and merchandise they purchase as well, adding vast accounting and paperwork costs.

    Think about a midsized trucking company. The back office would have to collect hundreds of thousands of receipts from every gas station where its drivers filled up and figure out where it spent more than $600 that year. Then it would also need to match those payments to the stations’ corporate parents.

    Most Democrats now claim they were blindsided and didn’t understand the implications of the 1099 provision—which is typical of the slapdash, destructive way the bill was written and passed. As the critics claimed, most Members had no idea what they were voting on. Some 239 House Democrats voted to dump the 1099 provision in August, and the repeal would have passed except Speaker Pelosi rigged the vote procedurally so it needed a two-thirds majority. She thus gave Democrats the cover of a repeal vote without actually repealing it.”

    Wasn’t creationists who did that.

  6. Gabriel Hanna says:

    Social conservatives are the only voting bloc of any size that has any sympathy with free-market principles. They are the least worst alternative.

    If they’re also fiscal conservatives, then they’re better than the socialists, I agree. It’s wretched to have to choose between those two alternatives, but that’s what it’s coming to.

  7. It’s wretched to have to choose between those two alternatives, but that’s what it’s coming to.

    I don’t really think it’s that hard at all. Are you less free if a school district somewhere teaches creationism in science class, or if you have to report hundreds of minor transactions to the government every year?

  8. Pardon the broken record:

    We can’t trust the media to ask politicians the right questions about evolution and creationism/ID. Either they are sympathetic and ask “softball” questions, or evade the issue altogether, or they “take the bait” by keeping the discussion mostly about God and/or “weaknesses” of evolution). Either way it drives most undecideds into the anti-science camp.

    My recommendation is to flood their websites with specific questions about their particular alternate “theory”, and to circulate all replies, however evasive. And please use designer-neutral “what happened when” questions that they must support on their own merits, not on long-refuted misrepresentations of evolution. From the Curmudgeon’s examples above I noted that one candidate accidentally backpedaled into admitting common descent. I bet that many more would be forced to do that, or at least admit old Earth and old life, if we would only put them on the spot more often. At least the public would see the massive confusion between different “kinds” of Biblical literalists, and the many (increasing?) new-agey non-literalists that either admit common descent or play “don’t ask, don’t tell, but nevertheless think students ought to be misled about evolution.

    While it may help some candidates to remind them that peddling religion-based pseudoscience in public schools will bring them expensive lawsuits, that is being done already. We don’t need more of that. But we do need more of “What exactly would you teach, and how has that earned the right to be taught, through decades of peer-reviewed research?” Most anti-evolution politicians, all but the most hopelessly clueless, are smart enough to know that they can’t answer that question, and that they are demanding an advantage that is unfair by any measure.

  9. eric (but not Eric)

    Creationists’ presence in the GOP indicates the growing schism in that party between fiscal and social conservatives. We’ve sometimes referred to those factions as the traditional “I like Ike” Republicans and the relatively new “theocratic, creationist, missionary position” wing of the party that joined up because of Nixon’s Southern strategy.

    Relatively new? I beg to differ. The founding issue of the Republican party was getting rid of slavery now, with no compromise. It had nothing to do with spending or taxes directly. Indirectly, if it can be thought to be fiscal at all, it was a profoundly liberal fiscal position because the Republicans were advocating for a new, strong federal control to be imposed on businesses. I.e. Federal regulation over the use of slave labor.

    The social/missionary position was first, the fiscal conservatism was tacked on in the early 20th century.

  10. Michele Bachmann is a creationist – running for Minnesota’s 6th District.

    http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/thebachmannrecoc.html

  11. Eva Young says: “Michele Bachmann is a creationist”

    Right. Already known. I didn’t think to add her to the list.