2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[kurai]

Janet Napolitano studied at one of the top schools for economics in the world. She has an advanced law degree. She also has experience in the political executive. Rick Perry is not equivalent. An executive is not an advisor - that does not even make sense, their role is to select from the advice given. The relative merits of experience in that selection process are up for debate, but not relevant to the discussion at hand (and certainly not in favor of Perry).

-

The chance of succession is rather inconsequential to the principle of the matter. The legitimacy of the whole process relies on vigilance in selecting one's representatives - this can not be avoided.

Certainly, you can feel free to point out anyone in the public sphere who sees fit to discard the human rights of a group of people at a whim. Why wouldn't you? I will criticize them, in turn.

If this applies to Nancy Pelosi (or any politician, political advisor, public commentator...), it is worth criticizing. Feel free to list and document the instances which I have overlooked.

[Roy Karrde]

Janet Napolitano studied at one of the top schools for economics in the world. She has an advanced law degree. She also has experience in the political executive. Rick Perry is not equivalent. An executive is not an advisor - that does not even make sense, their role is to select from the advice given. The relative merits of experience in that selection process are up for debate, but not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Which was the reason why she was selected, a popular border governor who had supported Obama. Do you honestly believe she was selected because of her law degree? One that would be relatively useless running Homeland Security, or because she studied at a economic school? No of course not that would be stupid. Her experience was because she was a Governor.

The chance of succession is rather inconsequential to the principle of the matter. The legitimacy of the whole process relies on vigilance in selecting one's representatives - this can not be avoided.

The legitimacy relies on the ability of the Cabinet holder to provide the best possible advice to the President. They are not a set of people who are supposed to sit around waiting for the people ahead of them to die.

Certainly, you can feel free to point out anyone in the public sphere who sees fit to discard the human rights of a group of people at a whim. Why wouldn't you? I will criticize them, in turn.

If this applies to Nancy Pelosi (or any politician, political advisor, public commentator...), it is worth criticizing. Feel free to list and document the instances which I have overlooked.

OHHH So it is only human rights that matters to you. Nothing else could be considered Anti American? Say support of Socialist or Communist policies? Or the belief that 9/11 was a inside job?