Are you willing to send the message that candidates need to start standing up for science even if it takes votes away from a candidate with a better chance of winning? (ie Nader/Gore/Bush)

Will voting for someone, even if he isn't successful at winning the Presidency, set the tone for future elections?

Libertarian aims of minimalist government almost seem more difficult to achieve than the goal of improving scientific literacy within our society. Since Libertarians are noncommittal on the issue of religion and science, would you be willing to put those ideals aside in favor of the promotion of scientific advancement?

Gravel has exposed the war as based on lies and how much would a swift end to the Iraq War influence your vote? Do you feel that it would be a viable option at this point?

How important is a candidate’s stance on science compared to the rest of their platform?

Do you feel that allocating 50% of our budget to scientific education and research improvements is too much?

Mike Gravel purports to not accept any money or gifts from lobbyists. Is this an important issue and how might it impact his ability to campaign effectively? Do you feel that a citizen driven movement would be sufficient?