Don't let facts get in the way....

....of a good campaign meme.


(SBOE candidates address old themes Debate ranges from dinosaurs to sex education, Gary Scharrer, ChronBlog)

The social conservatives already lost one of their leaders — Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, in a GOP primary election earlier this year. McLeroy calls himself a "young Earth creationist," who believes dinosaurs coexisted with humans.

"No, I don't believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. That's outrageous," Jennings said during the debate. "This is what our state board of education has become — an object of ridicule.

"If you want to teach creationism, you can teach it in church; you can teach it in a philosophy class. You can teach it in a world religion class, but it has no place in science," she said.

Farney, also rejecting any possibility of dinosaurs and humans sharing the planet, said parents should be responsible for teaching faith and values.

By inserting McLeroy into the narrative it allows Jennings to continue to parrot her campaign talking points that "those evil Christians are out to make Texas Children dumb". She can now do this despite the fact that Farney is advocating no such position.

Is this plan working?

You tell me...

(Endorsement watch: Mistakes are made, Charles Kuffner, Off the Kuff)

That’s a lovely thought if Farney really were a moderate, but there’s considerable evidence that she’s not.

And what is that "considerable evidence"? Two blog posts from Marsha at Musings, one about Farney attending a Tea Party rally and one about OTHER Republican moderates siding with conservatives in a past vote. That's only "considerable evidence" in the bizarro-world of Texas amateur political blogging. As a matter of fact, there's nothing on her Campaign site to suggest such radicalism. Neither is there much radicalism on Jennings website, other than calling fundamentalist Christians religious radicals*.


It appears to me that you have two candidates for this position that are equally qualified and not too far apart on the core issues. The main difference (and where the crux of the argument lies) is between the two candidates political party affiliation. Since there's nothing emperical by which to seperate the two candidates supporters are forced to rely on the emotional.

Ignore the narrative, a vote for either of these two candidates is not the end of the world. It's probably going to come down to party preference.



*Some would argue that the "push" by Democrats against fundamentalist Christians is radical in and of itself. I don't see it that way however. Since most fundamentalist Christians are Republican, it's simply a matter of politics and NOT some grand conspiracy to wipe Christians from the face of the Earth.