Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum flailed against each other through most of the Republican presidential primary in Mesa, Arizona on Wednesday night, but both assailed President Obama for not taking a more aggressive stance towards Iran.

Romney called Obama’s policy towards Iran, “his biggest failure,” and said the Iranian threat to stop the flow of oil to the west and drive up gas prices “pales in comparison” to the threat of the Iranian regime getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

The United States should have intervened during the Green Revolution in 2009 when protesters rose up against the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Romney added. When the Iranian regime pressed ahead with efforts to produce nuclear fuel, the US should have put in place “crippling sanctions,” he said.

Santorum agreed that Obama hasn’t supported sanctions and is too timid to stand up to the Iranians. “We need a new president or we will have a cataclysmic situation,” said Santorum. He agreed that Obama should have come to the aid of the pro-democracy movement in Iran, but stumbled a bit during his tirade, calling Iran “the world’s most most prolific proliferator of terrorism.”

Both men agreed that the United States should do more to help the pro-democracy movement in Syria, although they stopped short of calling for direct military intervention. Santorum called Syria “a puppet for Iran” in the Middle East and Romney said the turmoil in Syria presented a critical time for the United States to change the balance of power in the Middle East. He said the US should consider turning to Turkey or other allies in the region to help overthrow the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Santorum stumbled again when he said that Obama had not demanded that Assad leave office. In a statement to the United Nations on February 4, Obama said Assad should step down, stop the killing of his own people, and allow the pro-democracy movement to run its course. It was the latest of many similar statements Obama has made since the protests in Syria began last year.

Newt Gingrich joined the chorus of tough talk, but added that if the United States got rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and eased restrictions on oil exploration, the country would produce so much gasoline that it could ignore Iran’s threats to stop oil shipments to the west.

Gingrich said he wouldn’t necessarily oppose a preemptive strike against Iran by the Israelis. “If you think a madman is about to get nuclear weapons and you think he is going to use those nuclear weapons, then you have an absolute moral obligation to defend the lives of your people by eliminating the capacity to get nuclear weapons,” said Gingrich. Ron Paul struck his usual contrarian pose on foreign policy, saying that the US has already overextended and nearly bankrupted itself with militarily intervention.

“There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon,” said Paul, to a chorus of cheers and jeers from the audience. And even if Iran did acquire a weapon, he continued, that’s not an excuse for immediate military action. Paul said the Soviet Union had over 30 thousand nuclear weapons, “but we still talked to them.” Eventually the Soviet Union collapsed, he continued. “It was because they bankrupted themselves.”

Paul said that al-Qaeda’s intention was to “bog down” the United States with military intervention in the Middle East, and so far, they’ve succeeded. “We’ve spent more than $4 trillion dollars over the last ten years in the Middle East,” said Paul, suggesting that if those who favor military intervention against Iran won’t listen to constitutional or moral arguments, perhaps they will listen to a financial one.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Republican Candidates Talk Tough on Iran appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In 1988 the scientific community established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a forum for sharing their concerns about documented – and disturbing – changes in global weather patterns. By 1997 the evidence of climate change was so convincing that 191 nations signed the Kyoto Protocols, aimed at slowing the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Fast forward to 2012. NASA has produced clear evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been in 400,000 years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency in charge of the National Weather Service, states that there is no longer any doubt that human activity is changing the chemical characteristics of the Earth’s atmosphere. The national science academies of the world’s leading economies, including the U.S., Germany, Russia, and China, have declared that climate change is real and urged their governments to take immediate, aggressive action.

And then there’s Rick Santorum.

Along the campaign trail in Colorado, Ohio, and Michigan Santorum has declared climate change to be a hoax cooked up by the Obama administration to scare people about oil exploration. Spending less money on oil exploration means more money for the federal government, Santorum said, which means more government control over peoples’ lives.

He doesn’t explain how the government would make money by allowing less oil exploration, or how any of that would equate to more control over peoples’ lives. Nor is it important that concerns about global warming began long before Obama entered politics, or that America’s most prestigious scientific institutions are urging immediate action to reduce carbon emissions. Somehow it’s all connected, and in the alternative reality of Tea Party politics, the more elaborate and mysterious the conspiracy, the more plausible it becomes.

Romney and Gingrich have also questioned climate change, but it’s clear they are just pandering to conservative audiences. Both have acknowledged the problem during their political careers and will likely do so again when the primaries are over. And neither man has accused the country’s scientific establishment of being involved in a vast conspiracy to deprive the American people of their freedom.

Not Rick Santorum. His strident rejection of any scientific evidence that conflicts with his religious or social views has helped make him the new champion of the far right, which is why he is surging in the polls. But if he wins the nomination based on his anti-science agenda, he’ll be in no position to back down during the presidential campaign.

Intellectual curiosity is not a quality that American voters prize in their leaders, as the election of George Bush clearly demonstrated. But they do expect them to respect and support America’s scientific establishment, not label them as political enemies. Questioning the severity and timing of climate change is one thing; but where’s Santorum’s evidence that it’s a hoax?

Right now, Santorum is preaching to the Tea Party choir, and they’re cheering him on. But in a presidential campaign, the national media won’t be so kind. Republicans should be deeply concerned.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Santorum’s Anti-Science Agenda Should Concern Republicans appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

With about ten days to go before the next primaries in the Republican race for the nomination, all four remaining Republicans are losing to President Obama by between 8 and 17 points. As the race narrows down to the final candidate, just half of Americans (51%) say they are satisfied with the choices available to them for President while more than two in five (44%) are not satisfied.

Independents are the most dissatisfied with over half (55%) saying they are not satisfied with the choices while two-thirds of Democrats (68%) are satisfied. Republicans are more split as half are satisfied (52%) and 44% are not satisfied. But the Republican satisfaction is soft with just 13% very satisfied and 39% saying they are only somewhat satisfied. These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,056 adults surveyed online between February 6 and 13, 2012 by Harris Interactive 

Head to head match-ups

If the presidential election were held today, 46% of Americans would vote for President Obama, 37% would vote for Mitt Romney and 17% are not at all sure. Last month, two in five U.S. adults (43%) said they would vote for President Obama while 39% said they would vote for Mitt Romney.

Among Independents, it’s a slightly closer race with 43% voting for the President and 37% voting for the former governor and 46% of adults in the 2012 Swing States (Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) would vote for President Obama and 39% would vote for Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul may not be in the fight for front-runner, but he actually makes it a slightly tighter race as 45% of Americans would vote for President Obama and 37% would vote for the Congressman while 18% are not at all sure. Among Independents, Paul is ahead 42% to the President’s 40% but in the 2012 Swing States the President is ahead 45% to 41% for Paul.

He may be jockeying for front-runner status but the former Senator from Pennsylvania is more than ten points behind the President. Almost half of Americans would vote for President Obama (47%) while 35% would vote for Rick Santorum and 18% are not at all sure. Among Independents, 44% would vote for President Obama and 35% for Santorum with 20% not at all sure. In the 2012 Swing states, 46% would vote for the President while 40% would vote for Santorum.

Finally, if the election was held today, half of Americans (50%) would vote for President Obama and one-third for Newt Gingrich (33%) with 18% not at all sure. Among Independents, President Obama leads Newt Gingrich 47% to 32% with 20% not at all sure and among people in the 2012 Swing states President Obama leads Newt Gingrich 48% to 36% with 16% not at all sure.

So What?

The Republican primary continues to be a road full of twists and turns and the main benefactor to these constant changing stories is President Obama. In each of these four races the President has expanded his lead. The question is what happens when the primary race is over and the Republicans have decided on a candidate. If that happens quickly, he will have time to make the race close, but the longer the primary goes, the shorter the general election timeframe becomes.

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between January 25 and 27, 2012 among 2,099 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments.

Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

Image Courtesy of   Jose Gil / Shutterstock.com

The article Republicans Are So Far Losing to President Obama appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

With his near-win in Iowa and his recent rise in the polls, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is facing new scrutiny about his views on intelligent design and evolution. Reporters and others have expressed particular interest in the so-called “Santorum Amendment” authored by Senator Santorum, which was adopted in revised form in the Conference Report of the landmark No Child Left Behind Act.

The Santorum Amendment won overwhelming bipartisan support in the United States Senate. In fact, Sen. Ted Kennedy enthusiastically endorsed the Amendment on the Senate floor. Others voting in favor of the Amendment included Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Sam Brownback.

The Santorum Amendment did not mandate teaching intelligent design, nor did it encourage teaching creationism or religion in the classroom. Instead, it encouraged open discussion and inquiry by teachers and students of the evidence both for and against controversial scientific theories such as Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The approach advocated in the Santorum Amendment is favored by the vast majority of Americans, no matter what their race, gender, or political party. According to a nationwide Zogby poll in 2009, 80 percent of likely voters “agree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory.”

“Allowing discussions of all the scientific evidence about evolution in the classroom is good for students and good for science. It’s the mainstream approach supported by most Americans,” says Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Those who are trying to put a gag order on teachers and students to insulate Darwin’s theory from critical inquiry are the real extremists.”

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Santorum Amendment Supported by Most Americans appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.