Rick Perry’s obfuscation

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?

Strawman.

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?

Strawman.

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.

Strawman.

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.

6 thoughts on “Rick Perry’s obfuscation

  1. Perry's been my Governor now for going on 12(?) years- since W went to DeeCee.
    He has some tunnel vision in his policies, but over all he's done good for Texas.

    Texas has a weak governor system, so he's had to do what he can through the Lege.
    He was wrong on Gardasil (even though there was an opt-out provision MICHELE) and accepted his citizens slapdown.
    He tried to get the Trans Texas Corridor through, but was shut down- along with his love of toll roads (for badly needed highways).

    He also has kept our budget withing reason and we still have a billion dollars in 'rainy day' funds. No matter what the TEA union says.

    Our kids are testing at the average level (or above in racial rankings) despite the lack of the teachers union stranglehold of tax dollars.

    I know that the RINO Romney has had some hits on him, but Perry was a dem (before he saw the light), and knows how to fight them.

  2. You make some good points.

    None of which, however, address my misgivings.

    I'm not questioning whether he's done some good things or not. Of course he has. That's not the point.

    The whole "opt out" debate is minutia and a distraction. What makes the Gardasil thing an issue is Perry's insistence that he did the right thing. He now claims that he went about it the wrong way, but is that because HE believes it, or because he believes the majority of US do?

    The bottom line is that he still insists that the ends justifies the means. That government mandates, whether through executive fiat, or the legislative process, are perfectly fine with him as long as the goal is to "always err on the side of life".

    Using that criteria, I'm assuming he'd be perfectly fine with the government mandating that we all eat our vegetables and take flintstone vitamins with breakfast.

    I'm sorry, but that flies in the face of the entire concept of freedom. The proper answer is to always err on the side of individual liberty (and, in this case, parental rights).

    He's flat wrong on this one and his inability to see that is worrisome to me.

    Add the disingenuous evasion of the issues on the illegal immigrant tuition thing and that's pretty much the ball game.

    Either he's being dishonest with us, or he actually believes that those policies are the correct ones (in spite of the fact that he can't make a fact based, logical argument as to why). Either option is unacceptable to me.

  3. Perry's approach to illegal immigration is one of the few areas that turn me off to him. Don't know if it will be enough to deny him my vote or not, though.

    I hate that I have to look at the big picture when it comes to Primary voting, but I do. If it were just two people running for the nomination I could easily just pick the candidate that was closest to my heart/mind. I have to consider, though, who else in the field is running and what their chances are.

    I DO NOT want Romney to be the GOP Nominee. – Period. (though I would vote for him in the general elec. against any lib opponent). That being said I have to consider whether my vote for Bachman or Cain might result indeed in Perry loosing the nomination but also in Romney winning. Some percentage of conservative voters will bail on Perry and cast their votes elsewhere over this issue. I don't really see most of those folks turning around and voting for Romney. They'll cast their votes instead for Bachman or Cain.

    I suppose if it were a huge shift, there's a chance that one of those candidates might garner enough juice to win the nomination. However, I think its far more likely that Perry's numbers would go down a bit. Bachman/Cain numbers up a bit. And Romney reaps the benefit of Perry's split numbers.

    I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face and wake up to Romney as "my guy". Sucks that elections work that way, but it is what it is.

  4. I often wonder why so many people allow other people to decide who they're going to vote for.

    Why is it that Cain and Bachmann have no chance and if you vote for them, you're "throwing your vote away" or "helping Romney win?"

    Is it because the media tells us so? Because everyone knows how trustworthy and unbiased they are right?

    Because of the polls? You know…the things used to tell us that 75% of NRA members support gun bans and outlawing private transfers of personally owned goods?

    Sorry, but the only opinion that matters to me is mine, and the only poll that matters is the one that's taken at the ballot box.

    If you choose to allow others to dictate to you who you're allowed to vote for, that's fine. May your chains rest lightly. As for me: my voting options are limited only by my own personal beliefs and choices…not by someone else's declaration of who is a legitimate candidate or who has the best opportunity to win.

  5. I'm still p1ssed about the last election because by the time we (in Texas and the other 50% of states) got to vote in the primaries, Thompson had quit and all we had the rest.

    I will NOT vote for someone who lost to John McCain.

  6. I will NOT vote for someone who lost to John McCain.

    Now that you mention it, having lost to John McCain in the Republican Primary isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of your Republican creds, is it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.