Pictured: a Republican, therefore most likely a creationist

Pictured: a Republican, therefore most likely a creationist

Yesterday, Bob Kerrey got off a pretty good zinger about Scott Brown.

“It says that in Massachusetts, they are willing to elect a guy who doesn’t believe in evolution just to keep the Democrats from having 60 votes.”

Heh. But this rather banal observation inexplicably made Pantload very angry.

Unless Bob Kerrey’s working from some information I’m unaware of, this is a pretty slimy thing for him to do.

Pantload later characterized the charge as “sleazy.”

And K-Lo wasn’t pleased either.

They seem to be using the kitchen-sink strategy about now. Lies and all.

Slimy sleazy kitchen-sink lies!!!

Now why would Kerrey assume Scott Brown rejects the scientific evidence for evolution?

I don’t know, maybe it’s because…

Republicans saying they don’t believe in evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey.

Or because

There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

So, since Scott Brown is a Republican, it’s statistically a very safe bet that he’s also a flat-earther. I thought conservatives approved of profiling.

But anyway, why is the National Review so ashamed of the Republican rank and file? I mean, what’s good enough for Sarah Palin…