2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[mattbcl]

It's worth noting that The Daily What reports that ad is now officially the most "disliked" video of YouTube's history, beating out Rebecca Black's "Friday" video within just 2 days of being posted.

[Roy Karrde]

Funny thing is, with those on the left and Perry's own opponents on the right, going after the video so feverishly. They are just giving the video free advertisement. Instead of letting it sink into the either with all the other campaign videos out right now. It gives Perry tons more advertisement, and reaches out to even more voters.

[Heald]

Funny thing is, with those on the left and Perry's own opponents on the right, going after the video so feverishly. They are just giving the video free advertisement. Instead of letting it sink into the either with all the other campaign videos out right now. It gives Perry tons more advertisement, and reaches out to even more voters.

I don't really buy this. A video of Perry screaming "FUCKING MEXICANS" into a microphone 50 times with Nyan Cat playing in the background would generate ten times as much publicity as this video but I doubt that would help his campaign.

[Roy Karrde]

I don't really buy this. A video of Perry screaming "FUCKING MEXICANS" into a microphone 50 times with Nyan Cat playing in the background would generate ten times as much publicity as this video but I doubt that would help his campaign.

That would constitute more of a meltdown video, like we saw of Howard Dean, this however is more of a campaign message, not a meltdown video, aimed at middle class families, and religious voters. One obviously is a video the campaign wouldnt want to get out, the other isn't. To put it another way, the more attention the left gives this video, the greater the chance the people who are the target audience for this video see it, and embrace it.

In politics the usual rule of thumb for campaign videos is not to give your opponent free advertisement. The left is doing that for Perry, giving him free advertisement. They may disagree with his message, but in the end the campaign video will reach even more voters, many of which it is designed exactly for, than it would have with out the left going ape shit over it. And the Perry campaign does not have to spend a dime.

[mattbcl]

Interesting point. Do you suppose he generated the ad to provoke the kind of response he's getting and ramp up his visibility? Any number of people have opined that he's a doddering moron, but I don't agree. He had to know it was going to be controversial, and that he would be reviled by the LGBT, liberal, and moderate communities for lending his voice to that script.

[Asilynne]

Now, I haven't seen the vid yet, but from the one line people keep quoting it seems less like its "OMG HAT GAYZ" and more "We should all be able to embrace who we are publicly without fear of ridicule or harassment". I think its great that more and more people in the LGBT community can feel the freedom of being themselves without having to be afraid of what people think, thats what America is all about. But not all Americans enjoy that freedom anymore. It seems to be popular to bash Christians in any capacity, and I remember in High school having to be afraid to let people know because I was brutally harassed, and even in the Christian club that met after school we weren't safe from taunts and people throwing things at us. This is wrong no matter who you are. We wouldn't tolerate it if it were done to minorities, or jews, or muslims, or gays, so we shouldn't tolerate it when its done to Christians, even if we don't believe in the same things.

We should all stand up for every other American's right to be who they are without fear, regardless if we follow the same path.

[shazza]

The parallel between gays serving in the military and kids being incapable to celebrate Christmas was arduously homophobic. Plain and simple. Perry's comparison was insinuating that America has become so backwards that something as absurd as enlisting homosexuals is fine but kids being able to express their freedom is not. He is championing for a return to the 'true' America that has been lost; homosexuals serving in the military is not the 'true' America. You’re blind if you don’t see it.

Perry is fundamentally denouncing expression and freedom in one capacity but advocating another form of expression and freedom.

And it's almost 2012. Wow.

[kurai]

The parallel between gays serving in the military and kids being incapable to celebrate Christmas was arduously homophobic. Plain and simple. Perry's comparison was insinuating that America has become so backwards that something as absurd as enlisting homosexuals is fine but kids being able to express their freedom is not. He is championing for a return to the 'true' America that has been lost; homosexuals serving in the military is not the 'true' America. You’re blind if you don’t see it.

Perry is fundamentally denouncing expression and freedom in one capacity but advocating another form of expression and freedom.

And it's almost 2012. Wow.

the absolute best one can get from the given quotation would be 'why gay rights but not christian rights', which pretty clearly defines the subordinate group (at worst, you find 'no gay rights, christian rights')...

seems if you want to argue for total equity through the negation of any special treatment you could phrase it a thousand other ways that don't appear to be deliberately offensive?

the worst part is that the quote is a totally false dichotomy (between freedom and restraint), the actual status quo provides freedom on all fronts:

- nothing stops you from opting in to being in the military as a homosexual
- nothing stops you from opting in to prayer at school/celebrating Christmas
- being gay in the military is not mandatory
- praying at school/celebrating Christmas is not mandatory

he is advocating enforced christian morality to restrain others (that is, praying in school is not the same thing as school prayer), not freedom for christians (which is already present, just not in the exclusive state apparently desired by Perry)

as such, he is committing the worst betrayal of america's finest attribute - individual social liberty

[Dark Sage]

More bad news for Perry.

In an interview, he couldn't remember Justice Sonia Sotomayor's name, and had to be helped by an aide to remember it.

How many gaffes is Perry going to make? As Foghorn Leghorn once said, this guy's about as sharp as a sack of wet leather.

[Gavin Luper]

Funny thing is, with those on the left and Perry's own opponents on the right, going after the video so feverishly. They are just giving the video free advertisement. Instead of letting it sink into the either with all the other campaign videos out right now. It gives Perry tons more advertisement, and reaches out to even more voters.

I call bullshit. It gives him tons more advertisement as an anti-homo fundamentalist who is hated rather than considered for the candidacy. Check the like/dislike ratio on the video, mate. The more people who see it, the more who loathe it.

I think Roy brings up a valid point. One does not need to be open about one's sexuality in order to serve in any position, either in the public or private sectors. My grandmother had a delightful phrase regarding this: "I wish homophobes would stop flaming gay people. And I wish gay people would stop flaming, period!" To translate, she had absolutely no issue with anybody choosing how to live their own lives and how to conduct their personal business - she only took offense when they shoved it in the faces of others. I think you would find that a lot of society (including gays) would tend to agree with that position... after all, how do you think they feel when the exaggerated merits of a straight lifestyle are shoved down their throats?

Being open about one's sexuality doesn't mean dancing on a parade float in the military barracks and trying to fuck all the other dudes in the showers. It means when your comrades are discussing their girlfriends and wives back home and ask you, "So, you got anyone special back home?" you don't have to say, "Uhhh ... no" and lie about yourself. You should be free to say "yes, I have a boyfriend" or "yes, I have a husband and two kids and a dog" or "yeah I've got a few dudes I go around with". No different to a straight soldier saying "I have a girlfriend" or "I have a wife and two kids and a dog" or "I've got a few chicks I go around with". I realise nobody would ever really phrase the latter like that, but I'm just making the point. There's really no difference between any of those, and if the case is that heteros can say that and it's perfectly normal and okay but homos can't because they're gay and shouldn't need to be so open about it, then that would be bigotry.

I think Katie is right, and I don't mean to generalise like this and I know it doesn't apply in all cases, but I think it's easy if you're heterosexual to take for granted how much of a non-event it is if a man is in a social situation or meeting new people and says something like, "Oh, you're from France? So is my girlfriend." Conversely, to say "so is my boyfriend" in that same sentence invites anything from mild surprise and/or a flurry of polite or friendly questions, through to comments of "I wouldn't have picked that" or looks of disapproval and disgust, total awkwardness, people screwing up their faces in you, shaking their heads, refusing to shake your hand or if you're revealed as a homo mid-handshake, dropping your hand in disgust and walking away. (That's assuming relatively polite company, ignoring actual problems like homos being threatened, abused, bullied, bashed, and in many countries, imprisoned, beaten or killed.) Anyway, in most situations it is much easier for heteros to mention their significant other and have conversation continue normally than for homos to do the same thing. The amount of times I've mentioned my boyfriend with new work colleagues or friends of friends only to have them be all "OMG DID YOU JUST COME OUT TO ME" is ridiculous. I'm not coming out of anything; I'm completely open about being homosexual.

Anyway, TL;DR version: DADT's repeal was absolutely important, because it means homos can be themselves and talk about their loved ones and lives back home freely, IN THE SAME WAY THAT (MANY) HETEROS DO WITHOUT EVEN NOTICING.

Now, I haven't seen the vid yet, but from the one line people keep quoting it seems less like its "OMG HAT GAYZ" and more "We should all be able to embrace who we are publicly without fear of ridicule or harassment". I think its great that more and more people in the LGBT community can feel the freedom of being themselves without having to be afraid of what people think, thats what America is all about. But not all Americans enjoy that freedom anymore. It seems to be popular to bash Christians in any capacity, and I remember in High school having to be afraid to let people know because I was brutally harassed, and even in the Christian club that met after school we weren't safe from taunts and people throwing things at us. This is wrong no matter who you are. We wouldn't tolerate it if it were done to minorities, or jews, or muslims, or gays, so we shouldn't tolerate it when its done to Christians, even if we don't believe in the same things.

We should all stand up for every other American's right to be who they are without fear, regardless if we follow the same path.

The Rick Perry video contains very thinly-veiled anti-gay sentiment, period. However, I do agree with you, I don't like the Christian or anything-else bashing, either. There shouldn't be this discrimination, either positive or negative. The opportunities and dignities of the world should be no different whether you are homosexual or a Christian, and of course, it should be pointed out that those two groups are not mutually exclusive; there are loads of homosexual Christians. Freedom encompasses both sexuality and religion, and as long is nobody is being hurt or threatened with either of those, they ought to be protected.

I think you're missing the entire point of why DADT is so fucking horrific. DADT was a band-aid of surrender, saying "well if no one will vote to NOT kick out gay service members, why don't we just never talk about it?" Under DADT being gay in the military was still disallowed. Regardless, no your orientation doesn't matter in your job. That's the point. If you can get fired from your job for accidentally letting slip "Yes, on Christmas my family likes to drive through the neighborhood to look at Christmas lights. Funny story actually, last year my boyfriend - OOPS DISCHARGED" - there is something seriously wrong. Straight people take for granted how often they can mention their significant others. Why should some people have to hide their personal life when sharing your personal life is the norm for everyone else?

It's like disallowing redheads from serving. If you make all redheads shave their heads, no one knows that they have red hair. But why fucking bother? Hair color doesn't matter, attraction doesn't matter. Period.

Well said, thank you.

[Roy Karrde]

I call bullshit. It gives him tons more advertisement as an anti-homo fundamentalist who is hated rather than considered for the candidacy. Check the like/dislike ratio on the video, mate. The more people who see it, the more who loathe it.

Really? The man is going after the Social Conservative vote, in a closed election. Who is going to hate him? The Libertarians? They will vote for Paul. The Liberals and Democrats? They can't vote in the Iowa Caucus, and if he some how makes it to the Convention, this ad will be long gone as there will be more recent things to run at him with. The Tea Party and Centrist Republicans? They are battling over Gingrich and Newt.

In Iowa, the candidate who locks down the Social Conservative vote, will have a very good showing. And that is who the ad is geared toward.

The Rick Perry video contains very thinly-veiled anti-gay sentiment, period.

Not quite. To quote a local radio show host today: It is pointing out a disconnect, look at what we tolerate, we tolerate homosexuality in the military, but we don't tolerate a kid bringing a candy cane to school with a Jesus message attached to it to give to a buddy in the third grade. There is nothing anti gay, thinly veiled or not, about pointing the inconsistency out.

[mattbcl]

The left is giving it free advertisement the same way Obama flogged McCain's "hundred years" line, the same way McCain flogged Obama's "spread the wealth" line - they don't need to add anything to it, they only need to let it speak for itself. It's self-immolation. My prediction is it will anger far more voters into either staying home or actively voting against him, and those who embrace it will be drowned out.

[Roy Karrde]

The left is giving it free advertisement the same way Obama flogged McCain's "hundred years" line, the same way McCain flogged Obama's "spread the wealth" line - they don't need to add anything to it, they only need to let it speak for itself. It's self-immolation. My prediction is it will anger far more voters into either staying home or actively voting against him, and those who embrace it will be drowned out.

If this were the General Election you would be absolutely right 100%. But this isnt the General Election, this is the Iowa primaries. Meaning that the Liberals and Democrats cannot vote, the Libertarians will vote for Ron Paul, the Moderates and Tea Party supporters will vote for either Gingrich or Romney. And who ever captures the Social Conservative vote will come out pretty strong.

[kurai]

it is surely the height of ignorance to piece together a meaningful interpretation of a candidate's beliefs from multiple sources over an extended period of time. words and phrases do not gain additional meaning from their juxtaposition in reference to each other.

the news item gavin provides does not include the most relevant quote:

"This administration's war on traditional American values must stop. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money,"

now we can ponder that this comes from the same person who says, as above, that:

"There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

what is the result of combining such rhetoric?

for Perry, equal rights for homosexuals, domestically and abroad, are 'special rights'

this is abominable and obviously anti-american

[Roy Karrde]

it is surely the height of ignorance to piece together a meaningful interpretation of a candidate's beliefs from multiple sources over an extended period of time. words and phrases do not gain additional meaning from their juxtaposition in reference to each other.

the news item gavin provides does not include the most relevant quote:

"This administration's war on traditional American values must stop. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money,"

now we can ponder that this comes from the same person who says, as above, that:

"There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

what is the result of combining such rhetoric?

for Perry, equal rights for homosexuals, domestically and abroad, are 'special rights'

this is abominable and obviously anti-american

Is it wrong? Of course, and I completely disapprove of it, but then again I am open to having rights for all sexualities, and not just stop with homosexuals. If we begin to pick and choose who gets rights, it does in a way extend to being special rights.

That being said however, you cannot take one statement, place it against another, and automatically infer the second statement is anti gay.

[kurai]

I think you misunderstand. The 'special rights' remark made by Perry, in the foreign aid example, is the right to not be arrested/tortured/executed by the state, or to be openly discriminated against and assaulted in civil society. This is the aid contingency generated by the new Obama approach which Perry so happily rejects.

This is not "just stop[ping] with homosexuals". It is focusing on a mortal necessity. Living is not a special right. Equality under the law is not special. Perry's remarks thus define homosexuals as inhuman.

I am fairly confident that you can take one instance of vicious anti-gay rhetoric and use this to justify an anti-gay interpretation of a second, slightly more ambiguous statement.

[Dark Sage]

People, there's no point. Roy won't give up. He's the same as any Republican. He will not let anybody but himself have the last word, and won't admit that he's wrong. Just let him have it so we won't have to listen to him anymore.

When all the GOP's faults cause them to suffer a disaster next year, he'll finally shut up.

[Roy Karrde]

I think you misunderstand. The 'special rights' remark made by Perry, in the foreign aid example, is the right to not be arrested/tortured/executed by the state, or to be openly discriminated against and assaulted in civil society. This is the aid contingency generated by the new Obama approach which Perry so happily rejects.

This is not "just stop[ping] with homosexuals". It is focusing on a mortal necessity. Living is not a special right. Equality under the law is not special. Perry's remarks thus define homosexuals as inhuman.

Ahh okay that makes sense thanks for straightening it up.

I am fairly confident that you can take one instance of vicious anti-gay rhetoric and use this to justify an anti-gay interpretation of a second, slightly more ambiguous statement.

Except as you say, it is a interpretation nothing more. It is no where close to being definitive. And can be read in more than one ways.

People, there's no point. Roy won't give up. He's the same as any Republican. He will not let anybody but himself have the last word, and won't admit that he's wrong. Just let him have it so we won't have to listen to him anymore.

Yeah not only have I let you and others have the final word, but I have asked you before on commenting on where YOU were wrong, and you refused. Stop with the personal attacks and actually debate.

When all the GOP's faults cause them to suffer a disaster next year, he'll finally shut up.

And will you shut up if Obama loses next year?

[Dark Sage]

Only if you agree right now to shut up if he wins. Deal?

[Roy Karrde]

Only if you agree right now to shut up if he wins. Deal?

I probably wont but then again I am not the one who claimed the other will quiet down when the other loses.

[kurai]

Judge not, lest ye not be judged.

[kurai]

I'm not following you.

You accept the premise that Perry characterizes human rights in such a negative manner on one occasion, but reject it out of hand on another? What is the benefit to such naivete? If one is able to interpret multiple statements in the same manner, should we dismiss this because it is distasteful? Which set of words must be uttered before Perry's anti-homosexual rights approach is a plank of his political platform?

This is the discourse which Perry himself has provided - these quotes are not out of context, but part of his campaign structure. There is no accidental continuity between his remarks. It is not coincidental - in fact, it is an intentional abuse of the fact that public interpretation will occur - you personally contend that such rhetoric will provide a beneficial outcome in the Iowa primaries.

If we are not to accept the remarks at face-value, Perry is a liar and intends to deceive the populace for his own gain. If we do accept that he believes what he is presenting, he is opposed to the liberty on which America was founded.

In neither case is he a respectable candidate for the office.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm not following you.

You accept the premise that Perry characterizes human rights in such a negative manner on one occasion, but reject it out of hand on another? What is the benefit to such naivete? If one is able to interpret multiple statements in the same manner, should we dismiss this because it is distasteful? Which set of words must be uttered before Perry's anti-homosexual rights approach is a plank of his political platform?

This is the discourse which Perry himself has provided - these quotes are not out of context, but part of his campaign structure. There is no accidental continuity between his remarks. It is not coincidental - in fact, it is an intentional abuse of the fact that public interpretation will occur - you personally contend that such rhetoric will provide a beneficial outcome in the Iowa primaries.

If we are not to accept the remarks at face-value, Perry is a liar and intends to deceive the populace for his own gain. If we do accept that he believes what he is presenting, he is opposed to the liberty on which America was founded.

In neither case is he a respectable candidate for the office.

I am willing to accept that he has made anti homosexual remarks before, but I am not going to automatically accept that every time he compares Gays, the Gay Movement, or Gay Rights to absolutely anything, he is doing it in a negative context. In this case it is one of creating a simple comparison of the advancement of rights of one group and not the other. There is nothing inherently negative of that, and one could argue the only reason that DADT was even used was because it was the most recent social rights advancement that one could pick from. If say Perry had used any different thing else as a comparison, would you and others automatically snap at it being negative, or just one making a comparison of the President's Priorities or lack there of when it comes to members of faith?

[Dark Sage]

Perry's not going to win the nomination anyway. Not only are Gingrich and Romney both ahead of him, he's made so many gaffes, he's starting to look stupid.

I'm not even going to comment on the others. Bachmann's bigotry is even more obvious. She actually wants to reinstate DADT. The rest are jokes.

And if Gingrich is nominated... May God have mercy on us all.

[Roy Karrde]

And if Gingrich is nominated... May God have mercy on us all.

And yet Gingrich right now is running a mostly positive campaign much like Obama did in 2008, and would utterly school Obama in the debates. If Gingrich continues the upbeat enthusiastic message, and does not dive deep into the dirt as Obama will have to do in this upcoming election. He has a good chance of winning.

He has not retrieved himself from the most abhorrent position possible - homosexuals should not be considered to have human rights: their right to live is "special". There is no reason to interpret any of his remarks in a dispassionate fashion. He has said these words without apology.

He is not the candidate providing for liberty and the equality of humanity.

And yet that has absolutely nothing to do with the Ad or the fact that it was merely a comparison being made.

[kurai]

He has not retrieved himself from the most abhorrent position possible - homosexuals should not be considered to have human rights: their right to live is "special". There is no reason to interpret any of his remarks in a dispassionate fashion. He has said these words without apology.

He is not the candidate providing for liberty and the equality of humanity.

[kurai]

Ok. Will you continue to support Rick Perry now that he has publicly denounced homosexuals as unworthy of human rights and equal consideration under the law?

Even if he did not do so in "Strong" (and it can be interpreted this way), he did so elsewhere.

[Roy Karrde]

Ok. Will you continue to support Rick Perry now that he has publicly denounced homosexuals as unworthy of human rights and equal consideration under the law?

Even if he did not do so in "Strong" (and it can be interpreted this way), he did so elsewhere.

I dont currently support Rick Perry, like I said I am not a Social Conservative and hold the same views as he does. I do like what he has done with the economy in Texas and would welcome him in a cabinet post but I do not have the same Social Conservative views.

[kurai]

You "would welcome him in a cabinet post"? What possible economic benefit weighs against the dehumanization of an entire category of people? Is this not the road back to fascist eugenics?

[Roy Karrde]

You "would welcome him in a cabinet post"? What possible economic benefit weighs against the dehumanization of an entire category of people? Is this not the road back to fascist eugenics?

A Cabinet post would focus squarely on providing information to the President on say the domestic economy. A place in which he can suggest reforms and such that have made the Texas economy thrive, while not going anywhere near social issues.

[kurai]

I am fairly sure that I know what a Cabinet post is. A two-part question arises from your following remark:

1) How does one reform economics without approaching 'social issues'? They are inextricably embedded in one another. You can not reform tax policy without reforming spending policy. You can not change the approach to foreign aid without changing the social incentives on which it is based (see Perry's direct remarks as above).

2) A high-level Cabinet post necessarily means an entrance to the line of succession. Even if merely a consultant, should one not meet Presidential standards to also be in Cabinet, especially given the dramatic environment that would be present alongside the necessity of such succession?

[Roy Karrde]

1) How does one reform economics without approaching 'social issues'? They are inextricably embedded in one another. You can not reform tax policy without reforming spending policy. You can not change the approach to foreign aid without changing the social incentives on which it is based (see Perry's direct remarks as above).

Reforming spending by and large would be the focus of Congress. For the President it would mainly be appointments to the NLRB and repeal of overburdening regulations.

2) A high-level Cabinet post necessarily means an entrance to the line of succession. Even if merely a consultant, should one not meet Presidential standards to also be in Cabinet, especially given the dramatic environment that would be present alongside the necessity of such succession?

That is true, but the chance is so fairly remote, that it should not be something to keep the appointment from happening. Or if to satisfy you, he could be appointed to a Czar role, which has no chance of succession.

[kurai]

Reforming spending by and large would be the focus of Congress. For the President it would mainly be appointments to the NLRB and repeal of overburdening regulations.

-

That is true, but the chance is so fairly remote, that it should not be something to keep the appointment from happening. Or if to satisfy you, he could be appointed to a Czar role, which has no chance of succession.

You forget that the executive's foremost role in reform is as the unifying stage on which the direction of policy is set (the voice of the nation; the bully pulpit). You also set aside the notion that economics and social intention are inseparable - choices will have to be made, social values have an input on these choices. Rick Perry's social values are repugnant, but you seek to include them in the policy process.

-

Rick Perry is not qualified to participate as a Czar-level economic adviser - he has no relevant academic credentials? If combined with his social approach (as above), I do not see value to his inclusion in the governing process.

[Roy Karrde]

You forget that the executive's foremost role in reform is as the unifying stage on which the direction of policy is set. You also set aside the notion that economics and social intention are inseparable - choices will have to be made, social values have an input on these choices. Rick Perry's social values are repugnant, but you seek to include them in the policy process.

His social values toward Gays is wrong, does that mean all of his social values are wrong? No of course not. But to think that Perry would have any guiding role in social issues in a cabnet position is inane. The reforms that we need right now, mainly in terms of regulations to create job opportunities have very little to no social impact what so ever. Not to mention his position would be to advise, not to set actual policy.

Rick Perry is not qualified to participate as a Czar-level economic adviser - he has no relevant academic credentials? If combined with his social approach (as above), I do not see value in his inclusion to the governing process.

There is no need for him to have any academic credentials for the Czar position, only to be able to inform the President on a specific policy. The growth of the Texas economy in and of itself is more than relevant for that.

[kurai]

His social values toward Gays is wrong, does that mean all of his social values are wrong? No of course not. But to think that Perry would have any guiding role in social issues in a cabnet position is inane. The reforms that we need right now, mainly in terms of regulations to create job opportunities have very little to no social impact what so ever. Not to mention his position would be to advise, not to set actual policy.

-

There is no need for him to have any academic credentials for the Czar position, only to be able to inform the President on a specific policy. The growth of the Texas economy in and of itself is more than relevant for that.

You can not conduct economic policy which has no social impact - this claim does not even make sense.

As an advisor, Rick Perry would contend that foreign aid should not be contingent on LGBT treatment in a given country's legal system (he has said so publicly!). This is the kind of advice he would provide to an economic end which relies on a social values basis. As for his other values, the specifics are uncertain, but they do not need to be otherwise: one instance of repugnancy ought to be enough for disqualification.

-

Sorry, can you point to any current Czar which has been appointed towards economic oversight based purely on political credentials? They all have advanced degrees in economics or law. What would be the point of appointing Rick Perry rather than the qualified economic advisors which he personally used?

[kurai]

I will reiterate that "you seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether."

Yes, he ran things in Texas. He is not going to run things in the proposed situation - why not pick from the pool of his advisors? He did not form economic policy himself (you can tell this by the fact that he is not qualified to have done so), and thus all you have provided is evidence that he can select good advisors for himself. Use those; Perry is not personally fit on any level.

Since you have placed Perry back into a high position in the presidential line of succession, I would suggest reapproaching my two-part question. Why is an intolerant man fit for the highest executive?

[Roy Karrde]

I will reiterate that "you seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether."

And I will reiterate "So having anti American rhetoric disqualifies a person as a adviser? Goodie this should be fun, should we begin going down the list of some of the advisers that Obama has appointed? By the way I consider some one who has ran a state as well as Perry as being a adviser in that role."

Yes, he ran things in Texas. He is not going to run things in the proposed situation - why not pick from the pool of his advisors? He did not form economic policy himself (you can tell this by the fact that he is not qualified to have done so), and thus all you have provided is evidence that he can select good advisors for himself. Use those; Perry is not personally fit on any level.

Perry has the needed experience of what went well in Texas, and how that can translate to a national level. Mind you Governors serving as Advisers and Positions for the President is not unheard of, just ask Janet Napolitano.

Since you have placed Perry back into a high position in the presidential line of succession, I would suggest reapproaching my two-part question. Why is an intolerant man fit for the highest executive?

Because as I said before, the chance of actually becoming President ranks so low, that it should not disqualify him to the role. If we are to suddenly become concerned as to intolerant people holding areas of high position on the off chance that they are to become President. Then we should take steps to ensure that Nancy Pelosi never becomes Speaker of the House shouldnt we?

[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?

[kurai]

The best possible advice is not going to be provided by someone with merely political experience in hearing the advice of others (plus experience in animal science). You point out various other advisors for their having been selected based on political incentive, but neglect to acknowledge that they have experience beyond this. Rick Perry's successes in executive oversight can be appreciated, but he unavoidably lacks this secondary set of qualifications.

It is incoherent to suggest that an advanced understanding of law or economics would not help in the federal executive - you are trying to argue that a law degree is of no use to someone heading the Department of Homeland Security. It is not a qualification by itself, but it is a step towards being able to provide the best possible advice when combined with other aspects of one's experience.

-

Were we not talking about one candidate's denial of human rights this entire time? Is the foundation and soul of America not the self-evident truth of inalienable rights? Rick Perry feels that the right to life is alien from a homosexual person.

If you have other examples tantamount to such a pure opposition of American values, I will agree that they are also not qualified for its highest office.