One of the first things I learned about politics, sitting in Mr Rupnow's current events class during my sophomore year of high school at Kettle Moraine, is that America historically elects only w.a.s.p's for president.

We just elected the first African-American President of the United States of America, I said, as I held my wife's hand watching Senator Obama's acceptance speech.

Amazing!

Yet, during the night as I watched the returns, I held my breath until enough states went blue and Obama could take a commanding electoral lead. I could not forget the Kerry defeat of 2004. For the first 90 minutes, McCain lead with one southern state after another capitulating red, beginning with Kentucky. Electorally, that was no problem if Obama could eat into some of the states which have voted republican in the past, like Ohio and Florida - which he did seemingly without effort.

When Charlie Gibson called the election quietly and almost non-nonchalantly for Obama, there was a moment of silence until my wife and I realized what he just said.

My wife and I promptly celebrated with a $4.99 bottle of champagne.

While its fantastic that Obama did indeed win – by an electoral landslide no less, and McCain conceded as honorably as he did, there is still much work that liberals need to do in raising social consciousness of how we should regulate social policy administrated by our government..

On that note, one the most evocative moments last night was watching the interview with Congressmen Jim Sensensbrenner at the Ryan campaign – who was re-elected over the less crazier choice of Constitution Party candidate... what's his name... Raymond? To the interviewer, Sensenbrenner stated something to the effect, that in order for Republicans to once again lead, they had to return to a party of low taxes and fiscal responsibly, good governance, and true social conservative values.

I wonder what Sensensbrenner meant by "true social conservative values." If "true social conservative values" is legislating policy predicated upon a religious worldview - then I'm afraid I won't be voting Republican anytime soon.

Presently, the Republican party is largely a party of social conservatives. The culture wars that social conservatives purposely engage in, like the banning of gay marriage or civil unions, creationism versus evolution, threatening a woman's health where abortion is concerned, religion over science, drug policy, are really just a whole host of quasi-religious or outright religious principles.

Republicans actively crusade for these principles at the behest of churches or religious right advocacy groups – forever negating the concept of small government by legislating these religious values and imposing them onto our collective freedom of conscious.

I do agree with the opinions of other pundits who state that this country is center-right, if not in economics and regulation, at least in the sphere of the social values I listed above. The banning of gay marriage in Arizona, Florida, and at time of writing this as returns trend, California – illustrates that liberals have much work to do in achieving equality for a class of citizens and restraining government off our bodies and in the choices that we make in our relationships, and the beliefs we wish to, or not, ascribe to.

This is why I admired McCain when he stridently stood up to the religious right, a key base of the GOP as the "agents of intolerance." If our democracy is to survive, it must not function as camouflage for one religion over another - even if that religion is one idiosyncratic variety of a larger whole.

That is why liberals, in this regard, are functionally libertarians – that is, more like true social conservatives then social conservatives are. Liberals are more prone to maintain and fight for the boundaries between religion and secularity.

Personally, my libertarianism expresses my social liberalism which in turn is informed by Humanism and the secular nature of our Constitution. Science, for me, illuminates reality, where religion only substitutes superstition and unfounded and untestable notions on reality.

Where will the Republican party go after this? Where will the Democratic party go after this?

I do not know, but I do have hope.

But it is clear to me, that both parties have a long way to go on these social issues.

Democrats are closer, while Republicans are far from it.

In government, the role of science holds an advisory position informing the President and as to how public policy should be directed.

During Bush's presidency, climate science and health science became politicized. Bush simply did not like the conclusions of these scientific investigations because of his prior political and religious commitments. There are well documented cases and hearings by the Committee of Oversight and Government demonstrating how science was bent or ignored and scientific integrity damaged.

With McCain we can rest assured that he will continue down the path that Bush has taken in regards to global climate change and health education, even though he would take – as Colin Powell describes a "maverick approach."

Barack Obama understands the importance of scientific integrity and the role of science in relation to good governance. Stating that he would "restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees" in a questionairre to the SEA – Scientists and Engineers of America.

Ed Lazowska, chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Chair of Computer Science at the University of Washington, a member of the academy of engineering explains why he endorses Senator Barack Obama over John McCain.




_____

It's also an understatement to say just how important the internet is in for all our lives. Vint Cerf, a computer scientist, and the "person most often called 'the father of the Internet," who holds honorary degrees and awards from include the National Medal of Technology, the Turing Award, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, explains why net neutrality is import and why Obama receives his vote.



_____

Marty Chaife, this year's nobel prize winner (along with 60 others) in chemisty explains why he endorses Obama.

In order for the president to lead, he must make good decisions.

It's not a maverick we need at this time, but a president who is willing to listen and then wise enough to implement the advice he receives. McCain will only stay the course.

This is why that many prominent conservatives (here and here) judge Barack Obama as a man of good character and a man more qualified to direct policy and lead the United States over John McCain.

It is an understatement to say how important science is in our daily lives. Science is the best and only method of inquiry which we have to confront the challenges that we face and plan for the future.

Barack Obama gets it.