perhaps it's just me, but didn't this story seem a bit sensationalized and without enough sourcing on it?

Though this article tells the story of the Republican candidates' interpretation of science, like the candidates themselves, there is actually no real reference to the actual science that is being done. These guys aren't scientists, and there are likely all kinds of economic and political agendas behind their interpretation of the science that has nothing to do with the science itself. Unfortunately, a reader of the article that isn't familiar with the science and the debates in the scientific community might actually *mistakenly* think that Perry or Romney were the experts, the scientists.

I think that this article is interesting because it coolly and without judgement gets into the head of the perpetrator of the attacks and gives us a sense of his motivations for his actions. As heinous as the suspect's thinking may be, particularly to someone living in a liberal, tolerant democracy, and as criminal as his actions are, it is important to expose this kind of thinking, which is likely more common and pervasive in our societies on a smaller scale, to demonstrate the potential danger and destruction it can bring to our democracy when it is brought to scale.

Whereas the larger political stories either focus on Republican/Democrat divides, or on the debate going on within the Republican Party with its Tea Party Caucus, there is little discussion about discussion and debate within the Democratic Party, and how the President's compromises with the Republican Party leaves some of his own party behind.