About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Kristol falsely claimed of Clinton and Obama: "She hasn't passed any legislation. He hasn't either."

July 12, 2007 3:12 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

102 Comments

On the July 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor William Kristol falsely claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "hasn't passed any legislation" and added that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "hasn't either." In fact, Clinton and Obama have both been instrumental in the passage of legislation during the time they have served in the Senate, including legislation on which they were the lead sponsors.

For example, on his presidential campaign website, Obama describes the legislation he "wrote and passed" to promote stability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo following the country's competitive national elections there in 2006. From Obama's website:

Ending the Conflict in Congo

An estimated 3.9 million people have died from war-related causes since the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo began. Nearly 80 percent of Congo's 56 million people live in extreme poverty and more than 70 percent are undernourished. The United Nations has its largest peacekeeping force in the world in the Congo, and in the summer of 2006, the country held competitive national elections for the first time in more than 40 years.

Senator Obama wrote and passed legislation to build on this historic election and promote stability in the country. Senator Obama revamped U.S. policy in the Congo to include a commitment to help rebuild the country, develop lasting political structures, hold accountable destabilizing foreign governments, crack down on corrupt politicians, and professionalize the military. The bill also authorizes $52 million in U.S. assistance for the Congo, calls for a Special U.S. Envoy to resolve ongoing violence, and urges the administration to strengthen the U.N. peacekeeping force.

"It was a source of considerable encouragement to learn that the Congo Bill which (Senator Obama) graciously initiated and sponsored was recently passed and signed into law (S.2125). This is an important and most welcome development for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) at this critical juncture of its history."

- William Lacy Swing, U.N. Special Representative in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Indeed, Obama was the primary sponsor of this legislation (S.2125) that passed Congress on December 8, 2006, and became law on December 22, 2006. In a June 25 column for The New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof wrote that Obama was "among the few prominent American politicians who have focused on the war here [in the Congo]."

Among the legislative accomplishments listed on Clinton's presidential campaign website is "her work to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act" -- a reference to her work on the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (S. 650), which, according to her Senate website, "gives the FDA the authority to ensure that drugs marketed to pediatric populations have first been tested on children." The legislation became law on December 3, 2003.

Upon the bill's passage, The Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York, published an editorial titled "Clinton helps remedy a threat to sick children." From the November 24, 2003, editorial:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has won a victory for children with passage of a bill that will ensure that drugs are safe and effective for kids to take.

Incredibly, it took an act of Congress to guarantee that drugs widely used by children will be studied, tested and labeled for safety and efficacy. The Pediatric Research Equity Act passed the House last week after previously winning approval in the Senate.

When Clinton's husband was president, the Food and Drug Administration adopted a "Pediatric Rule" in 1998 that required drug manufacturers to provide guidelines for the safe use of their products by children. The FDA in March 2002 announced it would suspend enforcement of the rule. The agency later reversed its decision, but a court blocked the rule in October 2002 because Congress had not authorized the FDA to enforce it.

So Senator Clinton and other advocates for childrens' health introduced legislation this year that should give parents the peace of mind they deserve.

The Post-Standard reported on December 18, 2003, that "[Dr. Richard] Gordon [chair of the Committee on Drugs for the American Academy of Pediatrics] praised the bipartisan effort in Congress, and Clinton's work in particular, for moving quickly to pass the bill after the court set aside the regulation."

In a July 23, 2003, floor statement, then-Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), who was the lead sponsor on the bill, said: "I would like to thank [then-]Majority Leader [Bill] Frist [R-TN] and Senators Clinton, [Chris] Dodd [D-CT], [Judd] Gregg [R-NH], [Edward M.] Kennedy [D-MA], and [Patty] Murray [D-WA] for their leadership on this issue. Without their support, this bill would not be a reality."

In her July 23 floor statement, Clinton said: "Senators DeWine and Dodd and I now have worked on pediatric research for many years, and we will continue to be around to work on behalf of children, who, without dedicated advocates like Senators DeWine and Dodd, would not have a political voice."

Clinton continued: "This bill was the product of compromise. We all worked hard and made concessions on all sides to craft the language the Senate was able to pass today. Some of us would have preferred a strong, permanent assurance for children, and not a sunset of these crucial protections in 2007. Indeed, because the purpose of this legislation was to address the uncertainty caused by the court-triggered lapse of pediatric studies, not codify such a lapse into statute, I cannot support the sunset provision."

On March 27, 2007, Clinton introduced legislation that would make permanent the "Pediatric Rule."

Since Clinton took office in 2001, she has sponsored two bills that have become law and co-sponsored 49 bills that have become law, according to the THOMAS database. According to the same database, Obama, who took office in 2005, has sponsored one bill that has become law and co-sponsored 13 bills that have become law.

From the July 8 edition of Fox's Fox News Sunday:

FRED BARNES (executive editor of The Weekly Standard): You know, when you look back over the presidential elections of the last 50 years or so, you realize how little the voters care about experience. I mean, they elected George Bush. I mean, his idea of -- he said he was a foreign -- experienced in foreign policy because Texas had a relationship with Mexico. I don't think that convinced anybody.

And Bill Clinton -- was he experienced? Was Ronald Reagan -- was he experienced in foreign policy and national politics? Was Jimmy Carter? No, people don't care much.

I think this -- the notion that people are going to vote in the Democratic primaries for Hillary over Obama on the basis of experience -- it's just not empirically provable.

MARA LIASSON (NPR national political correspondent): Well, first of all, I do think experience is a big factor. And I think since 9-11, things have changed.

BRIT HUME (Fox News Washington bureau managing editor and host of Special Report): In primary voting?

LIASSON: I think so. I mean, they -- well, they want somebody who can win. If they think that because she's experienced, she has a better chance of win -- of prevailing in the general election, that could help her. I do think, though, that after 9-11, experience in foreign policy became more important. I don't know if George W. Bush could have been elected after 9-11.

KRISTOL: And what exactly is her extensive experience in foreign policy or in anything? She's been a senator for six years. Obama's been a senator for two years. So, I mean, big deal.

She hasn't passed any legislation. He hasn't either. She sat in the White House while her husband was president.

JUAN WILLIAMS (NPR senior correspondent): Literally. She was in the White House.

KRISTOL: Well, big deal.

WILLIAMS: All right.

KRISTOL: Let's nominate Laura Bush. I mean, it's ridiculous.

WILLIAMS: Well, no, no. It's different. She's run and won a Senate seat from a huge state -- New York state.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 12, 2007 3:17 pm ET)
         

      If Kristol is right about something, anything, ever, can I safely assume that the Apocalypse is at hand?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 12, 2007 3:22 pm ET)
           

        FRED BARNES:"I think this -- the notion that people are going to vote in the Democratic primaries for Hillary over Obama on the basis of experience -- it's just not empirically provable."

        Good ol' Fred, one of my favorite dolts.No, Fred, it would be pretty difficult to "empirically prove" a prediction.Get the man a dictionary.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (July 12, 2007 3:38 pm ET)
           

        If Kristol being right about something is the true indicator of the end of life as we know it, then we're good to go for a looooong time.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (July 13, 2007 1:26 am ET)
             

          You're right. I think we are pretty safe from the Apocalypse.

          I was just doing the math.  The odds that Kristol would be right about something approaches 1:1 considering a timespan of...let's say a million years.  Assuming evil does indeed die and/or Kristol is indeed human, he only has a few decades left, which would seem to be a remarkably insufficient period of time to achieve that goal.  Of course, he could always get lucky and we will all die.

          ; )

          Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (July 12, 2007 3:25 pm ET)
         

      What has Kristol Meth passed besides bad gas and cheap drugs?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by monknj80 (July 12, 2007 3:31 pm ET)
         

      Kristol wrong again. At least he's consistant. I wonder how he's feeling about the the latest Iraq progress reports. Man I wish I could remember some of his previous predictions and statements...oh wait....

       

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 12, 2007 3:33 pm ET)
         

      Somewhere on planet wingnut, its all true all the time.

      I'd like to see a program to trade a right wing pundit for an illegal alien. This could be a win-win thing.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (July 12, 2007 3:35 pm ET)
           

        You're talking about from Mars or Pluto, right?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 12, 2007 3:48 pm ET)
             

          I was goofin' with Orbiter last night and saw something labeled Kristol in the Constellation Urine.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (July 12, 2007 4:17 pm ET)
               

            I thought William Kristol came from Uranus.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 12, 2007 4:17 pm ET)
               

            The constellation I'm in?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 13, 2007 10:30 am ET)
                 

              No no ... it's an early space program joke, with urine pronounced with a long "i".  Have you never seen the movie Apollo 13?

              Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 12, 2007 3:48 pm ET)
         

      I'm thinking more, Planet Goofy.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by cann0nba11 (July 12, 2007 4:08 pm ET)
         

      The point is that they've not been productive. Whether itz zero, or few, they are not focused on legislation. They are focused on getting re-elected.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 12, 2007 5:02 pm ET)
           

        That doesn't change the fact that Kristol is dishing out B.S., which is the point of this post. 

        The productivity of members of Congress is an important issue, but it is something that neither side can brag about.

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (July 12, 2007 5:02 pm ET)
           

        Cannonball shoots... himself in the foot 

        The point is Kristol said there was none.  He was wrong.  The point is not whether they did a lot or a little.

        Is that clear enough, Cannonball, or do you need some pictures?

        By the way, for the vast majority of Mrs. Clinton's time in the senate, she was of the minority party, so her opportunity to get anything passed was quite an accomplishment.  Or have you conveniently forgotten that?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 12, 2007 7:04 pm ET)
           

        Kind of like Mitt flip flopping his position on abortion, gun control and gay marriage. Kind of like McCain against the confederate flag, but for it or against the tax cuts but now for it. I get it!    It's election time for all!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (July 12, 2007 4:30 pm ET)
         

      It looks to me like pretty slim pickins when trying to find legislation these two have taken the lead. 

      Granted, whatever it is that Obama did for the Congo is great and so is prescription help for children by Hillary, but in terms of the major issues of the day, these are off the screen.

      Lets see what bills Hillary sponsored in the 109th that became laws... 

      A bill to designate certain National Forest System land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

      A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the "Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building".

      A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the "Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building"

      A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building".

      A bill to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept the donation of a bust depicting Sojourner Truth and to display the bust in a suitable location in the Capitol.

      Damn she's good!  ;-)  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by monknj80 (July 12, 2007 5:02 pm ET)
           

        "It looks to me like pretty slim pickins when trying to find legislation these two have taken the lead. 

        Granted, whatever it is that Obama did for the Congo is great and so is prescription help for children by Hillary, but in terms of the major issues of the day, these are off the screen."

         

        No sarcasm intended, but opposed to who else who is running for president?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (July 12, 2007 5:30 pm ET)
             

          Well, take a look at any of them. Compare their record of getting stuff done with everyone else. 

          Not that I've made up my mind who I'm for, but in the Senate you'll find McCain has loads of legislation passed. His major Republican opponents have track records as governors and mayors. Their records will have to be thrown into the mix. 

          Off hand, I cannot think of all the Dems still running except for Biden and Edwards. I don't know what their records include off hand as I am not going to vote in the Democratic primary. Feel free to fill us in. 

          You have to decide if your candidate has the qualities it takes to be our leader. (No surprise there.) Maybe you feel that a record of accomplishment other than getting elected to Senate is not that important. If so, please feel free to pick either Obama or Hillary.  ;-)

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by monknj80 (July 12, 2007 6:31 pm ET)
               

            At the moment all I have to go by is how much other candidates have failed and what they've been wrong about. On the Rep. side you have a field hell bent on believing Iraq was the right move (ecept Paul), don't believe in evolution, fail to see the hypocrisy and wrong doing in their own party (Dems have their issues too), pretend to be Americas mayor, Flip flopping, crony apologist etc etc. I can't even say I agree with over half of any of their platforms (Except for Paul).

             

            As far as the dems it come down to who I believe in and as it stands they aren't that. They all can at least admit that this war is a nightmare and the administration has flubbed it at every corner.  At least I can say I agree with a lot of the things all of the candidates are saying.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by RINO Hunter (July 12, 2007 8:08 pm ET)
                 

              "don't believe in evolution"

              The majority of the American people don't believe in evolution either. The Republicans are in the mainstream on this issue. Most people reject the evolution propaganda that is being forced on our kids in the government run schools.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by therick (July 12, 2007 8:12 pm ET)
                   

                You really are nuts, aren't you?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by RINO Hunter (July 12, 2007 9:59 pm ET)
                     

                  Nope. I'm in the mainstream of political thought. You're on the far left fringe where nobody should be.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by open_mind (July 12, 2007 11:00 pm ET)
                       

                    Considering the very first (USA Today/Gallop) poll I saw on your polling link below, I don't think you can say belief in evolution is "on the far left fringe".  A majority of people believe that evolution is "definitely true" or "probably true" and the same is true with creationism.

                    Not that it really matters.  Something isn't true or false simply because a majority of people believe in it or not.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jscott (July 12, 2007 11:08 pm ET)
                         

                      There was once a "majority" that thought the world was flat.

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by RINO Hunter (July 13, 2007 12:05 am ET)
                         

                      You're probably right. I just said that as a response to The Rick calling me "nuts." I didn't mean to imply that everyone who believes in evolution is on the far left. It was just the best comeback I could think of against that poster. I just answered his ridiculous post with an equally ridiculous post.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by open_mind (July 13, 2007 1:35 am ET)
                           

                        I respect your belief in Creationism, I also share it, but in probably a more metaphorical sense. 

                        That said, I think the issue has room for compromise.  I do not object to children learning about Creationism in an elective comparative religion class.  I just don't want it taught as science, because religion and science aren't the same thing.  They both have their place.  Conflating the two diminishes them both.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (July 14, 2007 3:46 pm ET)
                           

                        Maybe he wasnt calling you nuts because you dont believe in evolution but rather because you called evolution propaganda foisted on children by the government. THAT is nuts.

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 13, 2007 12:11 am ET)
                       

                    But, Rino, you are not in the mainstream on the War in Iraq and what we should do next, nor are you in the mainstream in evolution where 53% said evolution was definitely or probably true: http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

                    Or abortion where 76% of people think abortion should be either generally available or available with stricter limits:

                    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

                    I am not sure of your position on stem cells and the government's funding:

                    http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm#Stem\

                     

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RINO Hunter (July 13, 2007 12:17 am ET)
                         

                      You're probably right. There's some issues that I'm in the minority on and some issues that you're in the minority on. The post above was simply a response to a particular poster calling me "nuts." It was just a comeback to that ridiculous insult. I said something that was equally ridiculous.

                      On a side note, when it comes to abortion it seems like most people take a middle position. They don't want abortion to be banned outright, but they believe that there should be more restrictions than there are now. They don't really agree with either the Democrats or the Republicans on that particular issue.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mefirst (July 13, 2007 7:16 am ET)
                           

                        as someone else pointed out, belief in something that a majority believes in, does not make it correct.   there is no scientific basis for creationism.  none, in spite of all the claims of "creation science".  you can believe in a supreme being, but the old testament is absurd on the face of it. 

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (July 14, 2007 3:36 pm ET)
                       

                    There was a time when the mainstream believed that the Earth was flat and that there were no such thing as meteorites because rocks couldnt fall from the sky. Good job keeping the tradition of anti intellectualism alive

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by jscott (July 12, 2007 10:04 pm ET)
                   

                Well, if you are so sure of that, then you won't have any trouble providing some sort of documentation to back up your ASSertation.  We'll be waiting...

                Report Abuse
                • Author by RINO Hunter (July 12, 2007 10:10 pm ET)
                     

                  I've posted this link at least five times on these threads:

                  http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

                  I'll give you a couple of polls are somewhat more favorable to evolution. But the vast majority of the polls show that the majority of people don't believe in evolution.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 12, 2007 10:19 pm ET)
                       

                    Boy, am I glad that I'm on the far left fringe where nobody should be.

                    If this poll is accurate, I guess I can quit wondering how Bush got elected twice, and why Paris Hilton is famous.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RINO Hunter (July 12, 2007 10:55 pm ET)
                         

                      You know you live in a conservative country when an unimpressive candidate like Bush can win twice.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by conleytgwinn (July 12, 2007 11:14 pm ET)
                           

                        I'm still doubtful that Bungle has ever won - although I will concede that I lack spreadsheets on the alleged Texas victories.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 12, 2007 11:40 pm ET)
                           

                        Rino

                        Selected one, elected once.

                         

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by open_mind (July 13, 2007 12:04 am ET)
                             

                          Actually in 2000, Bush got 55.5555...% and Gore received 44.44444...% of the vote.  Considering there were really only nine "votes" (that mattered), it was the lowest turnout in election history.

                          backup link:

                          supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RINO Hunter (July 13, 2007 12:10 am ET)
                               

                            I guess the Supreme Court was supposed to let the insanity continue for another few months. They could've let the state count the votes 20 more times. And by the way, all of the independent recounts that took place after the Supreme Court decision actually showed that Bush gained votes as a result of the recount.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by open_mind (July 13, 2007 2:14 am ET)
                                 

                              That is simply a myth.  Not all of the recount scenarios favored Bush:

                              The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited -- the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or a more restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.

                              Backup link:

                              www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 13, 2007 4:01 am ET)
                                 

                              Rino you are a decent guy and I almost never agree with you and on this I definitely don’t agrees with you. He was SELECTED!! And you still a decent guy J

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (July 13, 2007 6:16 am ET)
                                 

                              They could have just done a revote in Palm Beach County, where the most obvious problems were.  That wouldn't have been too difficult.

                              Remember also that the entire process was delayed by Republican staffers physicaly disrupting the recount.  That was insane.  Also, Scalia's rationale that the recount would cause "irreparable harm ... by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election'' is also completely crazy, since refusing to figure out the actual results is the best way to insure that the outcome has no legitimacy.

                              Really, Clinton wins with less than a majority because there's a third party candidate taking 20% of the popular vote, and that supposedly makes him illegitimate.  But Bush gets a decision handed to him because all the right-wingers are too chicken to actually have the voices of voters heard, and that's all fine and dandy.  The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by solon (July 14, 2007 3:41 pm ET)
                                 

                              Yeah BOTH sides added votes since they were counting the uncounted votes so that  is the most meaningless statement I have ever read. However the RELEVANT point is that when all votes were counted if ALL valid votes were counted GORE won by ANY counting standard According to NORC.

                              Report Abuse
                      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 13, 2007 11:03 am ET)
                           

                        Rino, I don't think that's fair. Bush isn't really conservative, and to imply that all conservatives are stupid  not only shows self-loathing on your part, but is a ridiculous generalization.

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by jscott (July 12, 2007 10:57 pm ET)
                       

                    WOW!  What a load of bunk.  The very first question shows that 53% think it "definitely or probably" true that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.  The VERY NEXT QUESTION shows 66% saying it is "definitely or probably" true that God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.   Any contradiction there?

                    One question asks if you favor or oppose teaching creationism instead of evolution in public schools.  57% opposed it while only 37% were in favor.

                    48% said the scientific theory of evolution is well supported by evidence while only 39% said it is not.

                    67% said it is possible to believe in God AND evolution.

                    And finally, when asked whether a candidates fiews are a legitinate indicator of qualification for president, 70% said it is not relevant.

                    It seems to me that your little poll amalgamation has something for everyone.  Just bring your cherry pickin' basket and jump right in.  Or you can just take the right-wing position, and believe only that which you want to believe, regardless of the evidence.  

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jscott (July 12, 2007 11:04 pm ET)
                         

                      "fiews" should be views.

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by RINO Hunter (July 13, 2007 12:02 am ET)
                         

                      At the very least it shows that those of us who don't believe in evolution aren't extremists like you make us out to be.

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 13, 2007 12:13 am ET)
                       

                    That poll says that 53% either think evolution is probably or definitely true.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RINO Hunter (July 13, 2007 12:21 am ET)
                         

                      There's also a poll that shows that 58% of the American people believe that creationism should be taught in the public schools. That's an even more conservative position than I would take. I believe that intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but not outright creationism.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by open_mind (July 13, 2007 1:39 am ET)
                           

                        I don't object to Creationism being taught in schools as an elective non-science credit class.  I think that would be a decent compromise.  Of course, it would hold that opens the door to other groups that deserve their own electives or to combine their views into an ecumenical comparative religion course.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by jscott (July 13, 2007 8:14 am ET)
                           

                        Intelligent Design is just another name for creationism.  It's an insidious attempt to force religion into our public schools, where it DOES NOT BELONG.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by H-Man (July 13, 2007 4:57 pm ET)
                           

                        Sorry Rino,

                         

                        ID should not be taught in science class until the proponents go through the peer review process. Then and only then should it be allowed to be taught in science class.  

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (July 14, 2007 3:50 pm ET)
                           

                        NO, neither can be taught by the scientific method NOTHING that cannot be taught by the scientific method belongs in Science class. Now if you want it taught in a class on comparative religion fine. NOT science class it just flat out isnt science.

                        Report Abuse
                • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 12, 2007 10:12 pm ET)
                     

                  Hang on, JScott, he's going to get his Bible, a Bill O'Reilly chart ,and a survey from Regent University. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jscott (July 12, 2007 11:01 pm ET)
                       

                    But then he came back with a bunch of self-contradicting polling mish-mash that does nothing to back up his claim that the majority of Americans don't want evolution taught in public schools.  Maybe he could just rent "Inherit The Wind".

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RINO Hunter (July 12, 2007 11:58 pm ET)
                         

                      I never said that evolution shouldn't be taught in public schools. I simply believe that there should be a balance. Children should get the chance to hear both sides of the issue. They should be taught both evolution and intelligent design. And according to the polls that I cited, the vast majority of the American people agree with me.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by OmegaHunter (July 13, 2007 4:00 am ET)
                           

                        Except "intelligent design" is not science and never will be and thus shouldn't be taught as if it is. It's simply a belief based on ancient writings unsupported by any evidence. It doesn't matter how many creationists think they're right; evolution is science and creationism is religion.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (July 13, 2007 7:49 am ET)
                           

                        So, when there are political issues that are being discussed, it's wrong to have the Fairness Doctrine to provide balance, to give people both sides of the story.  But when we're talking about science classes, where there really is no valid debate between evolution and creationism/intelligent design, then we should have balance.  That's brilliant.

                        Most people believe in a higher power, does that mean that we should have forced school prayer?  How about mandatory Bible classes?  You're such a big fan of the slippery slope, doesn't it occur to you that teaching a matter of faith in what's supposed to be a purely objective field like science could lead to those things?  I'm not sure it would happen, but by your own logical standards you must think it will.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by RINO Hunter (July 13, 2007 9:57 am ET)
                             

                          Public schools are run by the government, and the government has an obligation to ensure that students get to hear both sides of a particular issue. PRIVATE radio stations that are run by PRIVATE citizens shouldn't be forced to run certain programming mandated by the government. Your comparison isn't valid because in one case your talking about government run schools and in another case you're talking about private radio stations.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Brabantio (July 13, 2007 10:34 am ET)
                               

                            Nonsense, the government regulates radio broadcasts.  That's not an overriding distinction by any stretch of the imagination.

                            As a matter of principle, your objection is moot anyway.  Clearly it's wrong to teach religious principles as science in public schools, but that obvious concern doesn't seem to bother you because of the overwhelming need for "balance".  Why is the distinction between government-run and government-regulated such a brick wall in the interest of people getting "both sides of the story" then?  Violating the separation of church and state, no problem, that's not as important as balancing scientific theory and religious teaching for the children.  But balancing opinion on the radio is out of the question not because of any constitutional issue, but simply because stations are privately owned.

                            Nice set of self-serving priorities you have there.

                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by H-Man (July 13, 2007 5:02 pm ET)
                               

                            Rino,

                             

                            That is where you are wrong. Science does not have two sides to their issues. If there are competing theories they will be researched using scientific methods. Unfortunately, the proponents of ID don't want to go through the hassle. That is why it could be taught in a social studies course but not a science course.  

                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by jscott (July 13, 2007 8:29 am ET)
                           

                        What you said was, "Most people reject the evolution propaganda that is being forced on our kids in the government run schools".  That is simply not true.  BTW, there is plenty of room for balance.  Science is to be taught in schools, and religion is to be taught in church.  That is the type of balance the founders had in mind.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by jscott (July 13, 2007 8:32 am ET)
                             

                          Also, at one time, the vast majority of Americans believed that slavery was just peachy keen.

                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by leatherhelmet (July 12, 2007 11:38 pm ET)
                       

                    Most surveys show more people believe a supreme being created man than man coming from fish or frogs or apes.  That is a fact and you can google it until the cows come home.

                    Evolution cannot prove where man originated from so it scores pretty low in opinion polls.

                    Evolution exists, but where it fails miserably is in the origin of man.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by neondesert (July 13, 2007 12:30 am ET)
                         

                      ...whereas the bible, on the other hand, has narrowed down the origin of woman to only two possibilities, as stated in its first two chapters.

                      Beats the heck out of all that high-fallootin' research mumbojumbo, don't it?

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by OmegaHunter (July 13, 2007 4:19 am ET)
                         

                      Too bad the Theory of Evolution doesn't say that man evolved from "fish or frogs or apes." It says that man and modern primates evolved from a common ancestor. And there are mountains of evidence to support that despite what your pastor might have told you.

                      And let's look at a popular religious origin story, Genesis. A story in which night and day on Earth are created and exist prior to the creation of the sun and stars (Gen 1:3-14), the order in which man and animal are created reverses (Gen 1:26, 2:19), man and woman are created together then separately (Gen 1:27, Gen 2:18-24) and man is made from dirt (Gen 2:7).

                      I think we should let science and evidence determine what is taught in school as opposed to what "most people think" based off a story that can't go one chapter without contradicting itself.

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 13, 2007 11:13 am ET)
                         

                      Evolution cannot prove where man originated from so it scores pretty low in opinion polls. - leatherhelmet

                      So, other "theories" with much less to support them score higher?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by open_mind (July 13, 2007 12:09 pm ET)
                           

                        You obviously have not considered the scientific value of magic.

                        Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (July 12, 2007 11:02 pm ET)
                   

                Fortunately, your religious beliefs are irrelevant.  It would be both idiotic and unconstitutional to teach religious theory in science class, so the evolution "propaganda" is pretty much what you're going to get.

                Electing people who believe faith over science may make you happy, but policies based on that will make our educational system the laughingstock of the world.  Perhaps you should think about what's good for everyone, instead of your own selfish ideological fantasies.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (July 12, 2007 11:27 pm ET)
                   

                From the NYTimes:

                By GARDINER HARRIS

                Published: July 11, 2007

                ##WASHINGTON, July 10 — Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

                The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

                Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

                And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” (read the article to see who the family is --OM) that he refused to name.##

                Backup link: [link to www.nytimes.com] have the nerve to call evolution propaganda?  This from a huge Bush supporter like yourself?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by leatherhelmet (July 12, 2007 11:35 pm ET)
                     

                  In all seriousness, when the right is in charge, they try to push their agenda. When the left is in charge they push their agenda.  Promotion of public health is not always just science, it is promotion of an attitude or agenda.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by open_mind (July 12, 2007 11:48 pm ET)
                       

                    Not true. President Bush's administration is by far worse than the others:

                    "In his testimony, Dr. Carmona said that at first he was so politically naïve that he had little idea how inappropriate the administration’s actions were. He eventually consulted six previous surgeons general, Republican and Democratic, and all agreed, he said, that he faced more political interference than they had."

                    Here is the link again.  I don't know why it wouldn't work above:

                    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html

                    backup:

                    www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by open_mind (July 13, 2007 1:57 am ET)
                       

                    And as far as Republican and Democratic presidential administrations equally suppressing the science, according to the surgeons general that testified the other day (see my link above):

                    "Each complained about political interference and the declining status of the office. Dr. Satcher said that the Clinton administration discouraged him from issuing a report showing that needle-exchange programs were effective in reducing disease. He released the report anyway.

                    "Dr. Koop, said he had been discouraged by top officials in the Reagan administration from discussing the AIDS crisis. He did so anyway.

                    Although, according to that testimony, both the Reagan and Clinton Administrations attempted to use political pressure to influence the Surgeon General's office (if only in one instance each), what all of the examples (including Carmona's) have in common is that the liberal position is the one that is invariably attempted to be suppressed, even though the science appears to back it up.

                    This is not a case of "balance".  Even the Democrat Bill Clinton tried to supress  scientific conclusions that might be seen as "too liberal".

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by RINO Hunter (July 13, 2007 12:28 am ET)
                     

                  I'm not a huge Bush supporter. I have my disagreements with him on various issues such as spending and immigration. But I'm just not one of these people claiming that he's the worst President of all time. So if my refusal to call Bush the worst president of all time makes me a huge Bush supporter in your eyes, then so be it.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 13, 2007 11:31 am ET)
                       

                    I'm not a huge Bush supporter. I have my disagreements with him on various issues such as spending and immigration.- RINO Hunter

                    You forgot Harriet Meyers and Dubai Ports.Please stick to the script.

                    Report Abuse
          • Author by therick (July 12, 2007 8:11 pm ET)
               

            "You have to decide if your candidate has the qualities it takes to be our leader..."--AnotherAmerican

            If the last 7 years are any indication of what it takes to be our countries leader, I would probably vote for you.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by ChessGuy (July 12, 2007 5:05 pm ET)
           

        To answer you and numbnuts above, if you actually do a search you'll find Obama was the main sponser on 67 pieces of legislation, no more nor less "frivilous" than any other senator regardless of party, and HRC was the main sponsor on 85.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 12, 2007 5:12 pm ET)
           

        Oh no he didn't!!!

        Throwing stones about what Democrats got done during the 109th Congress?  The 109th????

        Who was in the majority during the 109th?

        Who was it that set the agenda for the 109th?

        Who decided that 103 session days out of 365 was sufficient to get the Nation's business done? 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (July 12, 2007 5:20 pm ET)
             

          Pete,

          I only took the latest I could find from Hillary's website. They list by Congressional sessions. Please feel free to go find more Post Offices that Hillary has taken the lead on renaming.  That's serious legislation!  I am impressed.

          I just find it a bit curious that MMFA doesn't do it's usual thorough job and list all the bills Hillary and Obama have taken the lead on and passed into law.

          If anyone can provide the full list, I'll buy them a beer. :-)  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (July 12, 2007 7:24 pm ET)
               

            how about a list of all the bad bills passed by the republicans?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 12, 2007 7:05 pm ET)
           

        AA, the people of New York think so.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by kbelx1029 (July 12, 2007 4:49 pm ET)
         

      hey media matters, is this all you could find for both clinton and obama? what has obama done for america, not the congo? hey hillary, as if you were the leader in making meds safer for children. she just ran her big mouth and by no means did it come from her leadership or ideas. once again media matters panders to nothing for nothings but rather for political party and the leftest aggenda. what else have these two done to make them qualified for president of the US-NOTHING! keep on misleading folks!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 13, 2007 11:34 am ET)
           

        the leftest aggenda? There's got to be lefter aggendas than this!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by MiddleLeft (July 12, 2007 5:16 pm ET)
         

      Kristol sticks to a pattern of simply making things up as he goes along if it supports his contention.  Sadly neither Mara or Juan have any desire or willingness to challenge, and besides it's a paycheck  This shows the weakness of the  one-way medium that is television. Crap can go out to millions uncorrected.  Claims such as this don't fly on the media were are using here.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Harlequin (July 12, 2007 5:21 pm ET)
         

      William Kristol is the head of the Dept of Slum Maintance.

      He has turned a livable country such as Iraq into a living hell hole via his PNAC manifesto.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Timmee (July 12, 2007 6:43 pm ET)
         

      Kristol lies all the time from his safe little perch at Faux.

      If you ever come upon him in person, make sure to spit in his face.

      Parents, if you don't teach your children that people that lie for money are scum of the earth then who will?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tweakthetroll (July 12, 2007 6:53 pm ET)
         

      What the hey........52 million......52 million.......there are 56 million starving Congons' if Obama himself went down there and handed out the money what are they going to get for a buck?

      I remember a 60 minutes story that congress authorized 25 million to make the citizens of Hermiston Oregon safe from the removal of chemical bombs stored near them. By the time the government set up offices and hired staff to disperse funds, run studys to determine what was needed and do all the research necessary to spend the 25 million most was gone. The good news.....there was enough cash left over for 5 hard hats, 3 gas masks, 6 fir extinguishers, a set of ear plugs and a shovel. I am all for helping the poor people in the Congo but Obama should have put much more effort into the bill....it should have been a major piece of legislation....something on the order of 100 billion.  I think a person in the Congo should receive from ME the same amount as the Iraqi people do.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by daganium4595 (July 12, 2007 7:05 pm ET)
         

      Kristol is a far right radical who deems truth weakness & mendacity a strength.

      If Kristol ever says anything "fair & balanced" or reality-based  his  demonic "think tank" will  unceremoniously  toss him to the street.  

      Report Abuse
    • Author by the crapture (July 12, 2007 7:08 pm ET)
         

      Sweet Jeebus! It must be nice to be Bill Kristol... Since those of us in the real world who must actually work for a living must actually strive for some degree of accuracy and quality in our work, if i was as wrong about as many things as often as old William the Bloodthirsty Chickenhawk, i'd be one thoroughly unemployed (and rightfully unemployable) MF'er...I mean, seriously...stopped clocks are right more often than Kristol and i have never once in my 35 years met anyone who reads the Weekly (sub)Standard

      Report Abuse
    • Author by gg (July 12, 2007 9:12 pm ET)
         

      Liasson: "I don't know if George W. Bush could have been elected after 9-11." Seems to me it was the only time he truly elected.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mizonglohong (July 13, 2007 5:01 am ET)
         

      This is just another example of irresponsible jouralism (if you can call it journalism) on the part of fox. I think they just pay puppet to read a script, and because they get paid, they do it. The day they sign their contracts with fox is the day they sell their souls.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by silenttype (July 13, 2007 12:04 pm ET)
         

      Wow 52 million to the Congo.  That will change the course of human events.

      Hilary passed a law to keep a law active!  Wow, another barn burner. 

      I wrote my city councilman a letter asking to repaint the street numbers in front of my house, that ranks up there with these guys. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 13, 2007 12:46 pm ET)
         

      An actual look at the rate of work in the house shows its working twice as hard as the previous congress. They also have a reasonable majority. A one vote advantage in the senate limits options. I'd be pleased to see some figures here. Granted evidence as shown here doses not seem real impressive. I'm disinclined to accuse of mopery with intent to creep.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by rjpetteys5218 (July 13, 2007 3:22 pm ET)
         

      Once again Kristol is right on.

      I sure don't think of that as (real) legislation, rather just another example of how the "left" legislates ways to waste taxpayers money.

      rj La Conner

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 13, 2007 3:50 pm ET)
           

        If Kristol was "right on", why did you need to add a word in parentheses ?

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.