Update: Amusingly, as soon as I posted this, there were 5 or 6 questions in a row that were answered directly.

It seems that, for the most part, when a question is asked that can be easily answered with a candidate’s prepared and rehearsed talking points, the question gets answered. If it’s not, the question is avoided and/or ignored.

There are some good points being made by most,if not all, of the candidates at one time or another.

Update Again: No surprise, but Gingrich is really confirming the impression that he’s a petty little blowhard.

Said Bachmann…

You don’t need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be influence-peddling.

Gingrich comes off as very Clinton’esque when he makes his “I didn’t lobby” claims.

Of course, at another point during the debate, Bachmann headed back to her comfortable but loopy world of sunshine and rainbows.

I think it’s just outrageous to continue to say over and over throughout the debates that I don’t have my facts right, when it as a matter of fact, I do. I’m a serious candidate for president of the United States, and my facts are accurate.

Ummmm…

That sounds very much like, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFB6LQ1-WKU

I’m also amused at the first comment.

It’s more coherent than she usually is.

When it comes to science, Republicans seem to have no problem with things like atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, physics, chemistry, etc. The problem is just when it comes to science that reaches conclusions that don’t mesh well with their ideology (or the ideology of their base). The obvious mentions are evolution and climate change, both of which are supported by an astounding amount of evidence, yet both of which cause Republicans some discomfort; one on political note and one on a theological note. But rather than acting responsibly and dealing with the reality the science represents, they attack the science or the scientists or the data or (more often) the make-believe stories conjured up as easily-attackable straw men.

Sadly, Huntsman is way behind in the polls, so that leaves either the outright anti-science group or Romney, who has, in a politically stereotypical move, hedged his bets on science in an attempt to placate the Republican base. That leaves the party with pretty lame options. As Krugman says in his editorial…

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

Phil Plait, on his Bad Astronomy blog, follows up on Krugman’s piece with a few more details on some of the candidates, and with this thought…

[Huntsman] recently said he thinks both evolution and global warming are real. This makes me sad, and scared. Why? Because this statement is considered bold.

How can it be bold to accept reality, to not deny the overwhelming evidence, and to agree with the vast, vast majority of scientists studying the very topics of discussion?

Huntsman wants his party not to be "the antiscience party". But that shouldn’t be bold. That should be common sense.

It should be common sense. Sadly, for most of the Republican presidential candidates, it seems to be neither common nor sensible.

Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.

Woodrow Wilson
Letter to Winterton C. Curtis (29 August 1922)

Update: Sadly, it seems Romney is hedging on the science, presumably to pander to the science deniers that tend to inhabit the Republican base and the Tea Party. He said, ”Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.”

As I’ve said before, if you want to argue policy, that’s fine, but do it honestly. Don’t try to discredit the science just because you don’t like related policy suggestions.

However, just the fact that there are 4,823 people, in Iowa alone, who are willing to vote for this woman (whether it cost them $30 or not) is what I find disheartening. This is the woman who has touted theocratic views, anti-equality views, anti-scientific views, and just general nonsense (including revisionist (read "false") history) on a regular basis for years, putting her ignorance and bigotry on display for all to see… and people still want to vote for her.

That someone like this is given even passing consideration for political office is a sad statement about our country.

Other than the awesome news that gay couples will now have the same rights as straight couples, that also means that there are still 29 people in the New York senate that are probably theocratic bigots.

Says the CNN article…

The new law, which will allow same-sex couples in New York to marry within 30 days, drew a sharp rebuke from opponents, who spent millions to try to defeat the measure.

Because, you know… those damn gays!

But the Catholic Church stepped up in support! Oh wait. No they didn’t.

“We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization,” the state’s Catholic bishops said in a joint statement released late Friday. It was signed by Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan and seven other bishops.

It’s an absurd argument. Marriage isn’t undermined by omg-teh-gheys!!!. It’s undermined (if it is at all) by drunken Vegas weddings, marriages of convenience, sex scandals and infidelity, hypocrisy, televised marriage contests, marrying for money, serial marrying, arranged marriages, and a myriad of other things, none of which have anything to do with two people of the same sex loving each other.

And to show how loving and considerate the opponents of same-sex marriage are…

Opponents of the marriage equality law have vowed to take political action against any Republican who voted for the bill.

Because presumably, standing up for equal rights is just wrong and should be punished!

Fortunately, there were enough rational politicians to get this measure passed. It’s sad that it needs to be passed at all. You’d think in a country that prides itself on freedom and human rights, this would be a complete non-issue, but the religious right can’t help but try to impose their twisted moral values on the rest of us.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets it, though.

“In recent weeks, I have had many conversations with our state Senators. I emphasized that not only is marriage equality consistent with bedrock American principles, but it is also consistent with bedrock Republican Party principles of liberty and freedom — and the Republicans who stood up today for those principles will long be remembered for their courage, foresight, and wisdom. In fact, 10 or 20 or 30 years from now, I believe they will look back at this vote as one of their finest, proudest moments,” Bloomberg said in a statement released shortly after the vote.

So three cheers for New York. Kudos to those Republicans who had the wisdom and courage to stand up to their party’s archaic stance on the matter.

And congratulations to all those who are waiting to be married and now are able.

This same group, however, wants to defund the programs (Planned Parenthood and Title X) that are best equipped to provide education, contraception, and reproductive health services for women who have the highest risk of unintentional pregnancies.

Well over 60% of abortions are performed on women under the age of 30. Roughly half are performed on women with an annual household income less than $30,000. Planned Parenthood and Title X are huge providers of reproductive health services for this demographic, including cancer screenings, pregnancy tests, STD treatments, menopause treatments, tubal ligations, and low-cost contraceptives.

The reason the Tea Party wants to defund these programs, presumably, is because these programs can potentially present information about (and, in the case of Planned Parenthood, perform) abortions. Title X cannot perform abortions or recommend abortions. Roughly 2% to 3% of Planned Parenthood visits involve abortions. That leaves a whopping 100% of Title X services and 97% of Planned Parenthood services dedicated to other reproductive health care services… services that have a direct impact on whether young, low-income women get unintentionally pregnant.

Even setting aside the incendiary issue of whether abortion is a medical procedure or an abomination, defunding Planned Parenthood and Title X is a completely absurd position to take for a group that, to its core, opposes the very existence of the abortion procedure.

The reason it’s absurd? Opposing the programs that provide low-cost contraceptives and sexual health services is effectively promoting increased unintentional pregnancies, thereby increasing the demand for abortion services.

The best way to lower the rate of abortions isn’t to outlaw abortions. That would just make them dangerous. The best way is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. That can be accomplished, in part, by providing affordable contraceptives and sexual health education to the women who have the highest risk… which is exactly what Planned Parenthood and Title X do. Defunding these programs is simply a big “thumbs up” for abortions and a big “thumbs down” for women’s health.

…and that would be an abomination.

“The new Republican majority in the House has a lot of power to write our nation’s laws, but they do not have the power to rewrite the laws of nature,” Mr. Waxman said. “Republicans in Congress can’t cure cancer by passing a bill that declares smoking safe. And they can’t stop climate change by declaring it a hoax.”

They can’t… but they continue to try.