Scientists Invite Kerry And Bush To Chat Online

Buzz Skyline writes "Several groups representing the nation's scientists, engineers, and doctors are inviting presidential candidates Kerry and Bush to participate in a "Virtual Town Hall" meeting, according to an Associated Press article that appeared in USA Today. Planned topics include stem cell research policy and technical research funding. More information is available at HiTechTownHall.org. Kerry's people say he is eager to take part, but Bush has yet to respond."

Comments

Likely outcome

[Oriumpor]

If it does happen, which I doubt, I would take the entire conversation with a grain of salt. Hopefully the entire thing is videotaped on both ends. Otherwise, that wonderful anonymity we all enjoy could let Professor DNC or Doctor GOP do the talking for either candidate.

Bush = Anti-Science

[redfcat76]

Hey I am not Bashing Bush here. But he is not a scientific president. He silently lets people resign, then reassigns right-wing christian anti-science people in there. This is one of my beefs about Bush. I cannot talk about Science and Bush without the person talking assuming I am speaking about Cloning or Stem Cell Research. Nope. Bush just hates science all alround. And what is really pathetic is this isn't why I vote or not vote. Bush has done nothing to further the cause of legal marijuana. So I vote against him.

Quentin

disingenuous

[BigChigger]

It's not quite fair to say Kerry's "people" have agreed, but Bush himself has not. You've already displayed that this apparently is not a discourse about issues, but an ambush (pardon the pun ;-) to attack GWB. If I were GWB, I would not participate either. Besides, unlike most of the yahoos reading this board, GWB has a job.

BC

Re:disingenuous

[gantzm]

And if GWB didn't have the job, most of the yahoos reading this board would be employeed by now.

This crap is really amazing. I don't particulary like Bush or Kerry, but to put the entire blame of your misfortunes on a sitting president is stupid. It's takes more than one person to create the situation we have, including, but not limited to: Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, Counsel Members, Governors, etc.

Many problems can be blamed on individual states ramping up their budgets when "times were good", and living the high life. When things started going south nobody wanted to give up the gravy train.

So, next time you're farting around without a job, spend some time at the local library and actually learn how the country works. You might be surprised to learn how little power the president really has.

Maybe IHBT, but sometimes it's hard to tell with AC's. You have to wonder if they can really be that poorly informed.

Re:disingenuous

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Many problems can be blamed on individual states ramping up their budgets when "times were good", and living the high life.

Living the high life? I'm sorry I thought that was investment in infrastructure that had been ignored since the 60's. Tax cuts for the rich seems to be much more aligned with "living the high life" than fixing crumbling schools and environments.

As for entire blame on a President, you are correct. However, it wasn't Madeline Albright in India this spring telling the Indian business community that the President wouldn't do anything about outsourcing of jobs, it was Colin Powell. Even if you ignore the economic problems we've had since the good days, Bush has consistently supported policies that have exacerbated the situation for middle class Americans. The original poster's comment, while heavily oversimplified, was not without basis.

The President is also expected to lead the nation, to a degree. The President's complete lack of leadership, not to be confused with his arrogant stubbornness, is another reason people don't have jobs. How many people voted for Bush very cynically, believing he could get something done because of his connections and the people around him? What has he accomplished in the last 3.5 years? Higher levels of mercury in our nation's fresh water. Worst job creation record since Hoover. An economy that, at best, has some of the characteristics back that were lost during his Administration. Over extending our military, leaving us exposed to new dangers and old. No leadership on intelligence reform, even after report after report urging solutions. A record-breaking Federal budget deficit. Support for pork-barrel projects like Star Wars. Rolling back of environmental and labor protections.

W may not be personally responsible for a lot of the despair people are feeling these days, but he sure ain't doin shit to help.

Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[js7a]

The whitehouse.gov webbaster has stated that the only person who has ever typed his own replies to "Ask The White House" questions is Treasury Secretary Snow. (Remember, the guy who "staked his reputation on job growth by Christmas" a year ago?) Everyone else has dictated answers to an assistant.

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[arrow]

Neither will Kerry.

99.99% of all online chat sessions with stars, canidates, axe murderers, etc. are done with transcriptionists (people who get paid to type faster than most people can speak) present.

No one wants to wait around 6 minutes for person XYZ to type out a response to a question. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't spend their days in front of keyboards.

Badnarik??? Nader???

[mshiltonj]

Did they invite Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik? Why not? He will be on the ballot in 49 or 50 states, plus DC. He's polling 4-5% in some states.

Re:bush?

[daeley]

Something like: "I'm a firm supporter of science and science funding for science. I mean, how else are we going to find the oil and build better weapons?" ;)

Re:bush?

[linzeal]

I hardly think he is capable of that level of abstraction after hearing his state of the union addresses and comparing them to more off the cuff interviews the man is obviously of substandard intelligence. He has granted what 3 whole interviews since taking office? I believe all of them having to have their answers pre-screened.

Re:bush?

[Experiment 626]

Certainly a lot more than Kerry. Look for science related articles on both of their campaign sites. Kerry's says nothing at all of substance. The first point he talks about is how he would use tax breaks to "create a business environment that encourages investment". Imagine how wild the anti-business trolls would go if Bush lead off that way. Kerry's science and technology platforms highlight how he would bring broadband to "every corner of America". Like I use my 1.5mbps for conducting scientific experiments. Then you have the total fluff like "invest in the breakthroughs of tomorrow" and "create the industries and jobs of the future" without providing any ideas about what Kerry thinks those might be.

Then look at Bush's site. He actually talks about his record, with facts and numbers. Contrast this to how quiet Kerry is about his record in the Senate. Bush's site points out how the administration has raised federal funding for research and development by 44 percent to the highest percentage of discretionary spending since Apollo. And unlike Kerry, Bush mentions specific areas: space exploration, nanotechnology, hydrogen power, fusion, etc.

Please correct me if you have counterexamples, but it seems to me Kerry's entire science platform is insubstantial fluff, plus the "I'm going to support stem cell research to win points with the pro-abortion crowd" plank.

Re:How it might go

[ravenspear]

I'm a Conservative

I'm a Conservative also. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is not. He stands for expanded government regulation, fiscal irresponsibility, nation building, and special interests. All non-conservative positions.

Re:Fun afterwards

[0x0d0a]

Just like the hemp advocates are a front for the drug legalization crowd, fetal stem cell advocates are a front for pro-abortionists.

Isn't this just a slippery slope fallacy on your part?