YOUR Curmudgeon has been one of the few Republican voices on the science side of The Controversy between evolution and creationism. And we’ve been consistent in our opposition to the Noah’s Ark, Missionary Position wing of the GOP. See our Open Letter to the Republican Party.
Therefore, as Scott Brown (that’s a link to his campaign website) appears to be winning the vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts, we’ve been frantically searching for any hint that he may be in that Republican faction we consider an embarrassment.
If he’s on the creationist side, it will signal to party leaders that the anti-science and theocratic beliefs we find so deplorable are the key to victory. But if he’s one of the rational Republicans, it will be an outstanding victory for sanity in national politics.
So we’ve been Googling like crazy to see what we could find. And we’ve found nothing. Nothing reliable, that is. We did find this, by Jonah Goldberg, at the website of National Review Online: The Corner: 16 January 2010. It says:
Unless Bob Kerrey’s working from some information I’m unaware of, this is a pretty slimy thing for him to do. From the New York Times:
[Quoting Kerry in the Times:] The risks to the White House are both immediate and long-term. A victory by Mr. Brown would mean losing the 60th vote Democrats need to stave off a filibuster in the Senate.
“If he’s running against 60 votes and wins, that is not good,” said Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska. “It says that in Massachusetts, they are willing to elect a guy who doesn’t believe in evolution just to keep the Democrats from having 60 votes.”
Really, Scott Brown doesn’t believe in evolution? I checked Nexis-Lexis and did some quick Googling. Anyone know what he’s talking about? Maybe the Times could have clarified the charge?
Then we found this, also at National Review Online. It’s dated the next day, 17 January, and it refutes Kerry’s wild charge:
Brown spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom comments to NRO: “Scott Brown believes in evolution but in the case of Bob Kerrey he’s willing to make an exception.”
So what does this mean? First, since that’s all we’ve been able to turn up, it means that Brown isn’t a creationist. More importantly, we think it means that the future of the Republican party lies with candidates who can run on the party’s traditional values, without making fools of themselves over Noah’s Ark and all the carnal issues that seem to obsess so many, but which repel the moderates whose votes usually hold the key to electoral victory.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.