Interesting: candidate stands on sci/tech...

[kj]

>>people chose someone they felt they could "have a beer with" and then later regretted it.

I don't see it as an insult. I think people thought he was a "regular guy", and mistakenly thought he would bring some "common sense" to the office. He didn't, but I can see where people would have hoped.

Fwiw, I also don't see his terms as faith-based. I think at the very least one could expect a person of faith to put others' interests before their own, and he clearly didn't. Well, unless Cheney counts as "others'".

As far as a candidate's stand on sci/tech, I think people place it lower on the priority list in general, than a sci/tech person would. Nothing wrong with that. kj.

[spearmint]

First time I have ever heard Sci-Tech brought up in any kind of election except in Silicon Valley when it hit bottom and candidates were promising revival. How is a candidate going to respond? I am anti-progress? Of course they can promise anything but Congress is the one that can bring these things about.

Of course government controlled and/or funded research scares the heck out of me. Other than Al Gore's inventing the internet I think private companies themselves and their funding of university programs do the real innovation.

I sincerely believe this is just a bunch of campaign promises that cannot be fufilled nor are the candidates that serious about. Just fishing for votes in.

[RgrF]

How about government interference in research? Stem cell research is not the only time polotics has interfered with science.

[Spock]

[quote RgrF]How about government interference in research? Stem cell research is not the only time polotics has interfered with science.

Try reading "Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen" by Mark Bowen.

[RgrF]

'polotics'? sheeesh now I'm starting to type like Minty reads.