Daily Dose
I knew I would get some strong negative reactions to Tuesday's item about the negative campaign on behalf of intelligent design, titled "How Science Gets Swiftboated." But there was a political twist I didn't fully anticipate: that some folks might consider the kind of campaigning known as "swiftboating" to be a good thing.
Transterrestrial Musing's Rand Simberg stands up for the Swift Boat Veterans in a posting headlined "Et Tu, Alan?" I'll put the partisan politics aside, as is usually my preference, and concede his underlying point: that the issue of how evolutionary theory is presented should transcend the nitty-gritty of Republican vs. Democrat. After all, the judge who delivered the decisive decision against intelligent design was a Bush II appointee. If bringing in the Swift Boats turns off some folks who are on board with solid biology, that wasn't my intent.
At the same time, I'm not on board with negative campaigning, whether the targets are biologists or politicians. Unfortunately, such ads seem to work ... or do they really?
Speaking of politics, here's a pop quiz on science-related political issues:
Update for 7:30 p.m. May 1: Rand sends along this follow-up on the Swift Boat Vets:
"I've updated my post to respond to your follow up, but I think you still missed my point. It's not that I think that "swiftboating" per se (as Democrats misleadingly define it - telling lies about their candidate) is a good thing. But I do think that what the Swift Boat Vets actually did (making the public aware of facts about John Kerry that they would have otherwise not known) was a good thing. There is nothing wrong with negative campaigning, per se, as long as it's honest. In fact, it's essential in a debate to provide people with all of the facts, both positive and 'negative.'"
