I just left the below as a comment on another blog. Rather than write the same thing in a slightly different way over here, I’m just going to copy and paste it.
The comment was in response to this:
I do not totally agree with Governor Perry’s stand on In-State tuition, but at least he never prescribed this policy at a National level; nor did he disavow his opinion – he defended it. That I can respect.
What I can’t respect…and I’ve been meaning to blog about this since I heard him being interviewed by Hannity on the radio on the way home from work but haven’t had time…is his continual use of meretricious arguments to defend this action.
“You don’t have a heart” is not a defensible position.
Appeal to emotion.
He keeps insisting that if they deny in-state tuition that these poor illegal aliens will become a drain on society.
So he’s saying that no one without a college education (like…say…me for example) is a contributing member of society? Or even that a large number aren’t?
He implies that if they don’t go to college and inevitably end up on the public dole, they will be a drain on society. Um…they’re illegal aliens…how could they get on the public dole in the first place?
He keeps saying that they are in the state through no fault of their own, so they shouldn’t be punished by their parents choices.
So a kid who’s parents live in Kentucky has a choice about it?
A kid who’s parent is in the military, stationed in Texas, but still an official resident of another state, isn’t deserving of the same consideration? The military brat is at fault but the illegal alien kid isn’t?
Double bonus points for combining a strawman with an appeal to emotion.
His insistence that this is a “state issue” and has no bearing on national politics would be true…if he weren’t running for President. It’s not a question of whether this law and decision were legal or not, it’s a question of whether the decision was RIGHT or not. It speaks to his judgement and, therefore, absolutely IS relevant to his Presidential bid.
We’re all just meanies who don’t want to accept people with last names that sound a certain way.
argumentum ad hominem.
I COULD have respected him even though I disagree with the decision he made IF he had addressed this issue in one of two ways: Either explain his reasoning for the decision in logical, clear terms without resorting to such transparently disingenuous rationalizations, OR if he can’t logically defend the decision, admit that it was a mistake.
He’s done neither and simply tries to evade it through underhanded and deceitful debate tactics.
Nope…no respect here. He’s lost my vote in the primary on that alone.
By the way…as an addendum to that comment: I’d already pretty much ruled out Perry as a result of his insistence that he sees no problem at all with legislating by fiat and undermining individual liberty as long as he can rationalize it as “erring on the side of life”. This issue just pretty much underscored it for me.
And for the record, yes I realize Romney’s doing the same thing vis a vis “Romneycare” and, had he not already lost my vote due to his history of supporting gun control and just being a RINO in general, he would have over that as well.
For me, the field is narrowing. I’m actually disappointed that I can’t support Perry. He’s reportedly great on one of my primary issues, but I’m not a single issue voter.
It’s basically down to Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann.
I have to admit that I’m leaning toward Cain. I’m still concerned about his lack of experience…and apparent lack of an articulable platform…on foreign policy, but I think he has the economic and business background we need on the domestic front and I believe he has the acumen to surround himself with people who can guide him in the areas he’s lacking.
Bachmann is still a viable candidate in my mind…I haven’t written her off by any means, but considering that her only job experience before running for congress was as an IRS agent…I’m skeptical that she has the background needed for a cohesive and effective economic policy.
Again, as with past posts on the subject, I’m willing to discuss it.