Looking at this video of GOP members running away (in one case literally) from questions about Birtherism it struck me that rather than looking at the vast majority of GOP types who consistently trade in delusion, it would be more interesting to see if there is even one prominent GOP figure certifiably sane. By “certifiably sane”, I mean someone who has clearly and publicly rejected all the main forms of delusion propounded by the majority of Repugs. These include:
AGW delusionism (an explicit statement of support for mainstream science is required)
Birtherism
Creationism (must reject both creationism /ID and “teach the controversy’)
9/11 Trutherism (not, in most cases, the “Bush knew” version, but the “Saddam organised it, via meetings in Prague” version)
Crank medical theories: on passive smoking, the Terri Schiavo case, abortion-breast cancer link, AIDS reappraisal, claims about stem cells (to make it easy, getting any of these right will suffice)
Rejection of plate tectonics: According to the same poll that found most Republicans to be Birthers/sceptics, the majority also deny or doubt that America and Africa were once part of the same continent (brand new, so I’ll take absence of evidence on this one).
Bonus points if we can find one who’s not from Maine.
John Quiggin 
This is much more fun. Does McCain fit the bill?
Sadly, no
Ron Paul mostly fits your shopping list. Here he is on global warming in 2007:-
“Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance.”
The one spot where he might fail your list is not in advocating the teaching of creationism but in advocating free choice in education. However if you take that line most Republicans probably fail and a lot of Democrats also.
Hey if your going to reject contenders how about giving reasons?
Oops missed your link. Here is the one I used.
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/mccain_and_crea.php
I suspect that all Republicans are guilty of appealing to their constituents.
Incoherent, vaguely threatening rant deleted. Take a week off, and try and come back with something sensible, Philip
I do recall Ron Paul was opposed to the repeal of Glass Steagall. (“I agree with deregulation…….just not this regulation”)
Do we have an Australian equivalent?
Given the way he is viewed in the US, it would certainly be amusing if Ron Paul proved to be the only sane Republican.
@jquiggin
Judging solely from this article i would say that McCain may still be sain but not willing to show said sanity so as to make sure Republicans would turn out and vote for him.
AGW illusionism (an explicit fact that any evidence of AGW in the material world is an illusion)
Any rational person who investigates any of the Global Warming evidence put forward by the ‘esoteric AGW cult’.(excepting the increase in atmospheric carbon) will find it wanting. By definition AGW proponents are illusionists
I suspect this dalliance with the occult reflects their political irrelevance (and racism) and maybe the lack of a rational class based working class party in the US to attract working people to a materialist reality.
Fred – yes – there were some conservatives who railed against JHs mandatory detention policies for asylum seekers – I just cant remember who right now. Certainly Fraser was active in this area although retired. John Vale also retired, railed against the Iraq war. Ron Paul was also against signing any free trade agreements (NAFTA) and against the Iraq war.
Does Colin Powell count?
Is this one of those “fool the apprentice” by sending on a hunt for a “right handed wing nut” type exercises?
What about Dick Lugar (R-Indiana)? He definitely believes in climate change at any rate http://www.lugar.senate.gov/energy/security/index.cfm and appears to be sound on AIDS — to the extent of supporting a gay man as “AIDS tsar” in the previous administration.
oops meant to include a link for that last claim http://www.lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=259980&&year=2006&
Vermont has a reasonably sane Republican governor (Jim Douglas). He’s too conservative for me but he’s not one of the loonies you think of when you think of the GOP nowadays.
He’s OK on climate change (http://www.vtclimatechange.us/). The rest of your issues pretty much never come up here (there’s no significant anti-science sentiment in the state). I seriously doubt he’s a birther but again, nobody has asked him about this (242 of Vermont’s 246 towns voted for Obama). He did try to stop same-sex marriage but was overruled by the legislature. Aside from that, he pretty much just runs on economic issues.
Maybe the governor of a very small rural state doesn’t count as a “prominent GOP figure”. Or maybe you should expand your “Maine exception” to include the rest of northern New England.
Going from very small states to very big ones, does Schwarzenegger promote any of the delusions you list? He might be your best bet for a prominent yet sane Republican.
How about George H. W.? I still can’t stand him however.
Sadly, there used to be quite a few Republicans who would fit your criteria for sanity. One of the distinctive features of the contemporary Republican Party is the way in which many of these individuals were driven out of the party or marginalized. The now retired Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York is a good example. He was the Chair of the relevant House Science Committee during part of the Bush administration and appropriately sane about AGW. But was he the person led House Republican policy formation on AGW? No, it was the insane (by your criteria) Joe Barton. This story repeats itself over and over again.
I don’t think a majority of Republicans are Birthers. I think its a strong plurality, though it might be a majority in the South.
Finally, I enjoy your often insightful posts.
Michael Bloomberg?
Olympia Snowe?
For a contrary analysis of the continental drift poll, see this dailykos article.
I second J’s vote for Schwarzenegger: the Governator should qualify as sane.
Schwarzenegger may be sane, but his shock doctrine polices are devastating California’s safety net. He’s probably the governor who is doing the most harm to their state right now.
I think Jodi Rell of CT might be sane, but like Douglas she has not really been pressured to opine on many of the issues listed above.
Given the enormity of the spontaneous grass roots campaign that sprang up around Ron Paul’s presidential campaign and the number of Democrat voters that changed party affiliation so they could vote for him in the primaries I think he is viewed pretty favourably. The old media gave him a bit of a bum wrap but who cares what the old media thinks. In any case even the old media seems to have changed it’s tune towards him of late.
Crikey John, given the above results it seems that there are more looney-tune birther extremists than sane GOP.
1) To find moderate/sane Republicans, look for ones attacked as RINO*, say:
*Republican In Name Only
Google:
rino schwarzenegger
rino olympia snowe
rino colin powell [Benjamin: yes, I think he counts,big time]
rino arlen specter [well, he switched :-)]
People offer top-10 lists of RINOs, so this saves time looking.
2)Regardless of what Arnold is doing right now, the real issue is a tangled web of structural issues in the politics, laws, and funding in California, exacerbated by the boom-and-bust economic cycles that have been here since 1849. It will likely have to get *really* bad before some of these things get fixed, although there are glimmers. Governors may be better or worse, but the constraints on them are really quite difficult.
On the political side, the <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788607"structural political moderation of Washington state seems a useful example. Otherwise, CA’s state electoral districts are mostly allocated to one party or the other, with few competitive ones, and some of that is inherent, not just gerrymandering. it makes life hard for centrist moderates.
3) Silicon Valley has some pretty sane Republicans, like Tom Campbell and Steve Poizner, and I liked Ed Zschau when he was in politics.
4) In a two-party democracy, it is *not* a healthy thing, for anybody, for one party to do what the GOP(the party of Lincoln…) is doing. I’m ecstatic when Republicans actually run someone good locally, which actually happens occasionally. Of course, those tend to be RINOs…
While not necessarily well-known, one might take a look at Republicans for Environmental Protection, REP, whose logo is a green elephant.
Now in an astro-turf era of entities whose names and functions might arguably not coincide, like:
Accuracy in Media
Citizen Alliance for Responsible Energy
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
etc,etc
One might worry that REP is like that, but from my reading, I don’t think so. Take look at their website and see what they say.
I’m not sure if Charlie Crist (Fla. Governor) counts. Although he is pro-gun, pro-capital punishment, anti-gay rights, anti-abortion … the usual suspects he has favoured action on climate change and the environment more generally, favours giving ex-cons civil rights, rejected McCain’s insinuations about ACORN during the presidential campaign as ‘exaggerated’ (and actually funded ACORN), extended voting hours to allow more hispanics and blacks to vote even though this wouldn’t help him, accepted an inviotation to speak publicly to the NAACP, has supported the stimulus package and favoured working with Obama etc …
So although he is clearly a conservative (with many of the odious positions one expects) he is arguably not a complete nutbag.
Pr Q says:
Rudy Guiliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger are “prominent GOP figures” and both pass Pr Q’s test of Republican “sanity” in being publicly opposed to delusionism, creationism and birthers. Obviously I dont regard these issues as adequate tests of “sanity”, although they are tests of intellectual ingenuity. Most Republicans are sane enough, they are just being dishonest because it suits their political interests.
Rudy has publicly affirmed his belief in global warming, Darwinian theory of evolution and Pres Obama’s US citizenship. I think we can take it as read that he has no time for “truthers”.
I would put Arnie in Rudy’s boat on these issues.
Both have been strong supporters of stem cell research.
The US-based American Conservative magazine has been a haven for honest and decent conservative Republicans and ex-Republicans through out the long national nightmare of the Bush admin. Although Pat Buchanan fails Pr Q’s “sanity” test he has been an oasis of common sense on crucial matters such as the Bush’s admins obsessive compulsive disorder to invade-invite-indebt the world. More to the point he did so at great personal and professional cost.
AmCon acknowledges Global Warming and opposes Intelligent Design.
It also John Derbyshire, who is probably the most scientifically literate and mathematically numerate writer on the Right. Very funny and nice fellow, I know from first hand, having met him on my travels.
test
The threat posed by humans to the natural environment is nothing compared to the threat to humans posed by global environmental policy.
Jack, the words “Pat Buchanan” and “sane” should never be used in the same sentence. He has the remarkable ability to take the most stupid ideas from across the political spectrum and try to put them all together.
Jack Strocchi, here is a simple test for you. Obama has been accused of poisoning his grandmother. True or False.
Sukrit – this is the sanity test conducted by the local socialist mad house. Stop expecting it all to make sense. It’ll do your head in.
Michael,
That is true. He has been accused of poisoning his grandmother.
“The threat posed by humans to the natural environment is nothing compared to the threat to humans posed by global environmental policy.”
Who’s supposed to be alarmist again?
It’s sad that even comparatively sensible supporters of free market policies, such as Sukrit and Terje, feel the need to defend the GOP or at least to bite back at criticism of this pro-war, pro-torture, anti-freedom, anti-science organization. Don’t you think you would be better off breaking your alliance (and that’s what it is) with these people.
John – I’m playing sport here, not casting a vote. If I was being defensive I wouldn’t have joined this game. Yes the republicans are a pack of socialist control freak flat earth religious nutters. However in rhetorical terms they defend several principles I believe in. Political support generally orbits around policies, principles and personalities. The fact that the republicans have better principles than the alternative mob but still suck on policy and personalities makes them the lesser evil. Still evil though and quite notably so.
p.s. However I do like Ron Paul. He isn’t a socialist control freak.
p.s. Ron Paul voted against war. Loads of Democrats vote for war including the current US secretary of state. Historically the republicans are not the pro-war party. The fact that they are a bit lost of late is sad. I hope the insanity is temporary and they make a rapid recovery.
One needs only to peruse the thread at this point to see what lies at the heart of the GOP’s apparent insanity.
It’s about tribal identity, and for that you need not reason or evidence but shibboleths. Terje postures as sensible much of the time, but press his buttons and suddenly the world is in the grip of ‘socialist control freaks’ and he’s making nice with someone who thinks global environmental policy is a threat to humanity.
Sometimes you can’t but laugh at the unintentional irony.
TerjeP (say tay-a), here is a simple test for you. Ron Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. True or False.
Yes he suggester a bounty on the head of Osama which privateers could collect on. A good idea. Better than an open ended taxpayer funded war on a nation unrelated to the incident.
Fran – nobody needs to press my buttons in order for me to share the observation that the world is in the grip of socialist control freaks. It was not a light hearted remark. Nearly every way we might measure the size and impact of governments they are getting bigger and bigger.
Tell me TerjeP (say tay-a), are you suggesting bounty hunters can do a better job than the US military in combating terrorism?
I would suggest that Kermit the Frog could do a better job than the US military in combating terrorism.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
You libertarians of varying shades which are unfathomable to me… do our heads in too. I also thought Halliburton and others were bounty hunters…who got away with US taxes and made a whopping big deficit on Iraq. Terje – I thought you didnt like budget deficits – yet Bush’s private war bounty hunter firms employed to do teh job on Iraq actually helped create that nasty US budget deficit didnt they?.
It does seem there is a bit of difficulty finding a sane one…needle in a haystack?
Now you have done it Alice, telling the likes of TerjeP (say tay-a) what they didn’t want to hear ‘the truth and nothing but the truth’.
Alice – the US should not have invaded Iraq let alone funded it’s reconstruction. And US libertarians that supported the invasion are very, very, very few and far between. Also lets not forget the large number of members from that other major US political party that voted for the Iraq invasion. Idiots on both sides.
Michael – there is a bounty on the head of Osama. So far neither the US government nor the bounty hunters have caught him. However the bounty hunters have cost the US taxpayers nothings so I think it’s been a good deal. Also lets not forget how privateers were engaged to good effect in fighting both piracy and the slave trade in the 1800s. Would you really suggest the bounty for Osama should be lowered to nothing?