It’s easy to tell when a potential Republican Presidential candidate is feared by the media sound machine. They begin to define this person negatively whenever he tries to make his first impression on the public. Unfortunately, for Marco Rubio, this time he is one of the prime targets on the bull’s eye. On the other hand, luckily for Bobby Jindal, these same people have decided that he is easy pickings, so they’re building him up.
From the left’s point of view, I’d guess that the three most problematic candidates for the GOP to nominate for President in 2016 are Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie. For the latter two, it’s not that hard to caricature them. But what do you do with Rubio? He’s a young, attractive, Hispanic from Florida. He’s reliably conservative without being mean-spirited about it. So it’s important that people who are tired of politics after perhaps the goofiest, most-negative election campaign since World War II, be subtly advised that he is ‘different’ from them.
So, when Rubio agreed to be interviewed by GQ, he had to expect some questions that would try to drive a wedge between himself and potential supporters who have little knowledge of him. The interviewer asked a really important question to the Florida Senator: ‘How old is the earth?’ Rubio in his response was reticent to demean the views of fundamentalists, who believe that the age of the earth is calculable from the Bible. He answered,
“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’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.”
So what the media will try to convince us for the next 3 or 4 years is that Rubio is a Know Nothing, eagerly awaiting the onset of the 20th century. Once he is defined like this, it will be very difficult for him to change his image.
On the other hand, look at the media attention given to Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana. Every utterance he makes is treated as if it comes from Olympus. Since the election, he has been uttered a number of statements deriding the Romney campaign which has led to the adulation of the media. Bobby, who spent the last six months campaigning for Mitt, telling the rest of us how Romney was the reincarnation of Reagan, how he was the embodiment of the new breed of severe conservative, has spent most waking hours since Election Day detailing each of Romney’s flaws.
So now we know that Jindal is one of the candidates that the media spin will ‘endorse’, at least until he wins the nomination. Then, the gloves will come off.










November 21st, 2012 at 6:34 am
Jindal gave his opinions of the current GOP, post election. Considering the GOP lost the election, would you expect him to NOT make critical remarks?
As for Rubio, this creationism/science issue required a direct answer. Not something I’d expect to hear from a politician in the 1920’s.
November 21st, 2012 at 6:49 am
Ron,
Here’s what another politician said when asked a similar question:
“What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part.”
– Sen. Barack Obama, quoted by Slate in April 2008, when asked if the Earth was created in six days.
Is this answer so much different than Rubio’s?
November 21st, 2012 at 6:52 am
We all knew the Liberal Media would attack Rubio. Our guys need to really prep better for dealing with the Media. Just avoiding them does not work. Rubio should have given the ‘Obama answer’ when he was asked about when life begins…
“That is above my pay grade…”
November 21st, 2012 at 7:03 am
Arriba – NO. It’s not much different and I’ll take Obama to task for that too. It’s pandering to fundamentalist creationists by both of them, and it’s disgusting.
The only problem I have is when politicians want biblical (religious) belief’s to be taught as science. And that’s typically a conservative position. I can’t think of Democrat arguing for “intelligent design”.
An analogy: Should we teach the “power of prayer” along side physics?
November 21st, 2012 at 7:22 am
Ron,
I re-read Marco’s answer just now; nothing in it suggests an adherence to intelligent design.
I obviously don’t know or care much where you live; if you live in the Deep South and run for office, it’s difficult to demean a high percentage of voters’ religion and expect to win.
I’d guess that it would be just as difficult to run in the Midwest and be confronted with some interesting things about Catholicism. That was the point of the question.
November 21st, 2012 at 7:31 am
Yes, there is a difference. Rubio was advocating that religion and creationism be taught in school as part of SCIENCE. Huge difference than stating one’s personal beliefs.
November 21st, 2012 at 7:37 am
TA,
Where did he advocate that in the statement?
November 21st, 2012 at 7:47 am
Arriba – Rubio said: “…I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all…”
Granted, he didn’t exactly say “teach them all in our schools”, but seeing as that it’s a GIVEN parents can always teach their kids anything they want, it’s a reasonable inference that he was talking about public school education, and “I.D.”.
And I agree, politicians will always pander to their electorate. I just think it’s best when science is taken off the table and not politicized to accommodate regional sensibilities. Should math be taught differently depending on the region?
November 21st, 2012 at 7:56 am
He also didn’t say that they should be taught intelligent design in SCIENCE classes.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:01 am
“There are multiple theories out there”
Suggesting evolution is only a theory?
The statement attempts to put creationism on the same level as science. Please can we stick to teaching science in schools and religion at home and in church / synogogue / temple / mosque?
I was actually taught the basics of all of the world’s major religions, past and current, in grade school and am grateful for it. But we were taught as part of social studies and history, not as part of science and not as a means of explaining how old the earth is or how life began on our planet.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:09 am
TA,
Evolution IS a theory. Where did you learn that it is a law?
Don’t you see a dichotomy between your 2nd paragraph and your 3rd? In my grade school (btw, I think we’re both giving away our age by using that term; young people apparently refer to it as elementary school), which was a parochial school, we learned religion in science, math, history and everything else. I don’t think that that made me inherently stupid. I blame myself for that.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:24 am
Arriba – “He also didn’t say that they should be taught intelligent design in SCIENCE classes.”
So under what class heading would Rubio have intelligent design taught in if not science class?
Religion? Bible studies?
Is Rubio (or you) suggesting religious teachings in public schools then?
(private schools can teach whatever they want, and don’t receive tax dollars so they’re not part of this discussion)
November 21st, 2012 at 8:28 am
Well, Ron, obviously you don’t live here. Private schools get a lot of tax dollars in my state; I assume that private schools get some tax dollars in the rest of the nation. In my grade school, a long, long time ago, the public school system had to provide us with buses.
What’s wrong with a philosophy/ethics class?
November 21st, 2012 at 8:31 am
Arriba – The “theory” of evolution has a scientific basis. Intelligent Design has a non-scientific, religious basis. One relies on observation, and the tested interpretation of empirical data/fact. The other relies on scripture.
I think trying to equate the two as equal “theorem” is misguided at best.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:33 am
When did I equate the two? All I said is that evolution is a theory. Am I wrong?
November 21st, 2012 at 8:38 am
Arriba – I live here. Born here. Private schools may get “some” public money but their curricula are not beholden to government authority/standards like private schools are.
Example: Yeshivas, Catholic Schools……etc. All with religious based instruction at their core, that would NOT be allowed in public schools.
As for where to teach intelligent design?……How about in church? Where it belongs.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:42 am
Arriba – “When did I equate the two? All I said is that evolution is a theory. Am I wrong?”
Then what do you consider intelligent design, if not a theory? The commonly understood semantics is that they are both considered theories. At least I.D. advocates argue for it as a theory on equal footing with the “theory” of evolution.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:43 am
Ron, I’m sorry…by here, I was referring to LA, where I live.
you don’t think kids should learn about different bases of ethics in school? Wouldn’t everyone’s ethical understanding then be dominated/controlled by their own insular religious teachings?
November 21st, 2012 at 8:47 am
Ron,
I think that intelligent design is a basic part of fundamentalist Christianity. It should be taught as part of the make-up of that religion’s belief system. Likewise, I would expect that transubstantiation would be taught as a basic part of my religion in the same classes. I don’t believe that people’s religious beliefs should be demeaned merely because, to non-believers, they seem incoherent or non-scientific.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:53 am
Arriba – No prob…From in NYC. (and not used to having my power out for more than 2 minutes…;)
To be quite honest, I.D. is a recent political/social “thing” or movement that best belongs in a social studies class along with, the civil rights movement environmentalism, feminism, conservatism…..etc. It’s more of a political/current events issue rather than meriting status as science or philosophy. IMHO.
November 21st, 2012 at 9:02 am
Arriba – “I don’t believe that people’s religious beliefs should be demeaned merely because, to non-believers, they seem incoherent or non-scientific.”
Sorry, but religious beliefs are non-scientific by definition.
And why does your (one’s) religious doctrine, belief systems need to be taught in school when they’re houses of worship and religious schools for that purpose.
To people not of your faith this seems like proselytizing. Can you argue that it’s not?
November 21st, 2012 at 9:34 am
“Sorry, but religious beliefs are non-scientific by definition.”
No kidding.
Arriba was not claiming any scientific basis to religious beliefs.
Its simple for anyone to see Arriba was saying that religious beliefs are not respected by leftists because they hold no concrete evidence that science can support.
“And why does your (one’s) religious doctrine, belief systems need to be taught in school when they’re houses of worship and religious schools for that purpose.”
In need not be taught as indoctrination.
It needs to be taught so history makes more sense.
How would you give a course in the Crusades without some religious studys first ?
Studys in humanities, cultures, wars and civics would make no sense if you left out the religious components.
“To people not of your faith this seems like proselytizing. Can you argue that it’s not?”
Theres no argument about it at all.
I know Arriba and would never do any such thing.
Plenty of public institutions offer course in theology which would require studys if religions and evolutionary theories.
November 21st, 2012 at 9:42 am
Arriba, you’re wasting your time.
I read most of these comments by TA and Ron and their running you in circles, asking questions that you’ve already given answers to and putting words in your mouth.
November 21st, 2012 at 9:45 am
Their, they’re, there,
Then thar be my nemesis
November 21st, 2012 at 9:54 am
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. Micky, thanks for the support; I don’t care much about spelling or grammar, lest I be judged.
When I re-read a lot of my threads, I’m constantly disappointed in how illiterate they are and all of the spelling and grammar errors within them by myself. I’m just lucky that the nuns who taught me are probably retired and far away, lest I would have very sore hands from being swatted with rosary beads (a particularly ironic form of punishment that was administered).