Article

Richardson: God Scheduling Primaries

Richardson: God Scheduling Primaries

Sioux City, Ia. – God’s will is for Iowa to have the first-in-the-nation caucus, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson told a crowd here Monday.

“Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary,” Richardson, New Mexico’s governor, said at the Northwest Iowa Labor Council Picnic. “And I want you to know who was the first candidate to sign a pledge not to campaign anywhere if they got ahead of Iowa. It was Bill Richardson.”

Several people in the crowd snickered after Richardson made the comment.

“That was a little weird,” said Sioux City resident Joe Shufro. “I don’t know what God had to do with choosing Iowa among other states. I found that a little strange.”

Other states have been jockeying to beat Iowa to hold the first presidential caucus. Many Democratic candidates have promised to skip campaigning in states that try to position themselves before Iowa.

Sioux City resident Jan Hodge agreed that Richardson’s statement was odd.

[Story corrected.]

Absolutely unbelievable. Even the Iowans aren’t buying it anymore. Folks, this is in addition to the three men who raised their hands in the presidential debate when asked if they disbelieved in evolution. Now this, we have 4 presidential candidates who are absolutely looney-tunes, bat-shit crazy. No one who is talking to god (whether or not there is a hair-dryer* involved), or who thinks the world, humans and animals were created as-is, should sit in the oval office of the United States.
___________________________________________________________
*“George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.” – Sam Harris


Comments (5 comments)

OhioAtheist / September 4th, 2007, 11:57 am / #1

A plausible case could be made that that was the most ridiculous thing said by a presidential candidate this cycle, and given the competition that is saying something.

YAAB / September 4th, 2007, 5:01 pm / #2

I thought the evolution question was posed at a Republican debate and the three disbelieving men were Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo. Was there a Democratic version of this? If so, I can find no reference to it on the internet

Richardson’s statement is patently foolish, so it would be a shame to dilute the quality of your observations here with a factual inaccuracy.

BlackSun / September 4th, 2007, 5:40 pm / #3

YAAB, you are correct. I can’t be right every time, I guess. I was confusing him with Huckabee who just came on the Bill Maher show. Also a governor. Wrong party though! Doh! Here’s the segment on Huckabee where he confirms his denial of evolution but waffles a little bit by talking about that 6,000 years could mean 6,000,000 or 60,000,000 years.

YAAB / September 5th, 2007, 12:42 pm / #4

Thanks for clarifying. I saw this clip on Maher’s show last week, and I was disappointed that he didn’t pursue his main argument a bit more aggressively. Although he didn’t state it directly, Maher’s key point seemed to be that if you reject evolution, then doesn’t this say something about your ability to critically evaluate evidence, and isn’t this important when choosing a President?

For example–just talking theoretically here–if you had a President who did a really poor job of evaluating intelligence, who didn’t look skeptically at the nature and the source of the information, who didn’t consider how biased parties may have distorted the message….. well, maybe–in theory–this President could lead us into something as extreme as attacking another country based upon faulty information!

And if this President happened to be a religious fundamentalist of some sort, people may wish to make a connection between his inability to critically evaluate the evidence that contradicts his belief system and his inability to critically evaluate other types of evidence.

Scarey possibilities! Good thing this could never happen in America!

valhar2000 / September 6th, 2007, 8:48 am / #5

Well, I don’t think it says as much about the ability to critically analyze evidence as one might suppose: after all, no-one who is not employed as a scientist can evaluate all the evidence for Evolution.

I think that it does impugn his ability to analyze evidence, but more than anything else it impungs his ability to know who to go to when asking for advice. And given that a president asks as a hub for expertise more than anything else, that particular failing is what woudl make him a really bad choice for the White House.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.