I'm not so sure you are correct about the elected Republicans at the national level. We've seen time and again that they put some of the most loudly anti-science folks in places of leadership, especially on science and technology committees. An individual representative might say that they aren't anti-science, but if they are supporting a leadership structure that regularly puts anti-science folks in charge of science committees, it seems like those protestations ring hollow. Those actions would seem to indicate a broad-based anti-science attitude.
This obviously doesn't apply to rank-and-file Republicans but then I start wondering why rank-and-file Republicans would keep electing anti-science representatives. I suppose that the answer is probably just that it doesn't matter as much as other criteria, which is a shame. Cheers, Judah On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't feel a majority of Republicans are truly anti-science, etc. > > However, I also do not feel that a majority of Republicans (elected and > part of constituency) do an adequate job of shutting down the (very) vocal > minority that are. By not standing up to the nut jobs and remaining silent, > it give the perception of approval. > > Not to mention, I think a lot of elected Republicans cater to the whims of > the (very) vocal minority to keep favor with 'the party' and campaign > contributors. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365586 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
