During the Republican presidential candidates’ debate last night, something happened that worries me. The Washington Times reports:
The scrap between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney may have gotten more attention in Wednesday’s presidential candidates debate, but it was tame compared to the dust-up between Mr. Perry and Rep. Ron Paul, two Texans who apparently have spent plenty of time digging up dirt on each other and aren’t afraid to use it.
At one point when the video cameras weren’t rolling — though the incident was caught by still photographers — Mr. Perry walked over Mr. Paul’s lectern, took hold of the congressman’s wrist and wagged his finger at him.
A spokesman for Mr. Perry said Thursday it was a policy conversation, not a heated exchange.
“The governor and the congressman talked about border security. It was a cordial conversation,” said Mark Miner.
The two Texans, though, lost few opportunities to focus on one another in the debate.
There’s more at the link. The photograph is courtesy of the International Business Times, which also covered the incident.
Look at Rick Perry’s body language. (Another example of it, during the debate, may be seen here.) It’s overtly aggressive, intimidatory and threatening. I know something of body language, and I’m sure those of my readers who also know it will agree – that’s not the sort of body language I want to see in a candidate for the Presidency. Gov. Perry’s words may not be so overtly aggressive, but ‘actions speak louder than words‘, as the saying goes; and his actions, as displayed in the photographs cited above, concern me.
I urge you to try the ‘body language’ test on other candidates for any office. Their words may say one thing, but it’s an exceptional candidate (or one who’s been well trained by experts) who can disguise his or her body language. The latter tends to give away their real attitudes, even if they don’t speak about them truthfully . . . and I don’t like what I’m seeing about Gov. Perry’s internal attitudes, as expressed by his physical demeanor. I’ve had enough of political bullies, or wannabe bullies for that matter.
Anyone care to comment?
Peter
I'm still not sure that Perry is the right answer either; however, I have a hard time imagining any of the eight current contestants to be worse than what we have now. Based purely off that debate – Newt and Ron are leaders for me. Rick S & Herman both did decently also, although I'd never heard of either before then and have yet to form good enough research of their histories to decide what I think.
While I'm not growing to be a fan of Romney (nor really Bachmann with her avoiding of direct questioning and re-redirecting all questions back to topics that had already been discussed), I think the only Republican candidate I would not vote for at this time is Huntsman – who backed down, avoided questions, got dirty too quickly, and was wishy-washy. Otherwise I think they're all decent candidates to beat what we've got now.
Greetings from Texas,
I will have to see how things shake out in the primarys. Personaly speaking, I love Perry's stand of firearms. As a property owner in Texas his stand on private property rights scares the hell out of me.
Having said that, I would vote for a poddle running against Obama or anyone named Clinton.
Pity Condelisa Rice (if I'm spelling the name right) didn't run. Black, female and capable!
We need a President that will stand up to bullies, get in their face, punch back twice as hard. The rioting public sector union bullies. The verbally and physically assaulting UAW and Teamster bullies. The Chicago thug bully president. The bullying liberal media. The 2012 election is a war for traditional American values. The liberals and socialists are already fighting dirty. Us good guys need to fight just as dirty too.
I am all for Perry (unless Palin jumps in).
@Anonymous 10:27 – May I respectfully suggest that you're completely wrong on that? We don't need to 'fight just as dirty' as those with whom we disagree – that reduces us to their level, and means that they can, in turn, justify their dirty tactics because we're using them too. We need to rise above that level. Strength, yes; determination, yes; but dirty tactics, no. Leave those to the underclass – it's all they've got. We're better than that.
Well…..
Perry is confronting an individual with whom he has strong disagreements.
Therefore, his approach may be very different than the one he'd use with typical Congressional (D) folk or, for that matter, foreign leadership.
That said, Perry does come across as a highly-charged guy, perhaps even the real "cowboy" in a GWB/Perry comparo.
That concerns me NOT in a foreign-relations role, but it is a tiny red flag in domestic situations.
You missed another illustrative one.
I've seen lots of approving commentary on how "manly" and take-charge Perry looks- but I'm with you. I think he just comes across a jackass.
Reminds me of another Texan, actually- Lyndon Johnson.
I've lived through 10+ years of Rick Perry as gov. I strongly agree with some of the things he's done, and strongly oppose some of the things he's done, but I have to give him credit for one thing. There's not much doubt about where he stands on issues, and he's very dogged in advancing his agenda – for good or bad.
At the very least that's a refreshing change from the other stuffed shirts (and blouses) in the race, including the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Peter, the Republican party tried to run a "respectful" campaign in 2008 with a gentleman candidate. They did take the high road. They refused to call Sen. Obama a socialist, would not focus on his upbringing, background, education, associations, and general mystery of who he was, where did he come from, and what did he believe in. They were too tentative and did not want to be accused of racism. Republicans lost. They majority of the electorate is not cultured. Campaigning "with one hand tied behind their back" while being slandered in the press is just another way for Republicans to lose again. The 2012 campaign is a war. The only wars America has lost (Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afganistan) are the ones where we fought by a nicer set of rules than the enemy. The USA won WWII by blockading countries into starvation, burning civilian cities, and dropping atomic bombs as fast as we could make them. The Democrats are shutting down legislative branches and are rioting and fleeing their elected offices, the big unions are violent, mobs of minorities are mobilized for violence and flash rioting. The Democrats will fight like that (again) in 2012 and the Republicans better fight to win too.
Some guy commented upon it at his blog:
http://www.dailypaul.com/177873/rick-perry-vs-ron-paul-photo-ron-paul-explains.
My thoughts: It could be as you say, or it could be a photo taken at an inopportune moment. It wouldn't be the first time that some photo-editor searched through a pile of motor-drive prints to find the one that by happenstance made the subject of the photo as unflattering as possible.
Like Douglas2 says, it's very possible that the photos were picked just because they looked useful to the editor.
Newspapers and editors have bias and will use photo selection to further it, by picking photos where someone they dont like look old, tired, sleepy, stupid or aggressive.
As for body language, it could simply be that it was taken at the instant of Perry emphasizing a point in the discussion, and emphasizing it with body language.
If he really is a bully, there will be a long record of him bullying people around as a governor, and not just a few snapshots of him at debates where he looks the part.
As a kid, I used to get into fights with other kids. I found out there were two ways to fight: you could either fight fair, OR you could fight to win. But, you couldn't do both at the same time.
If the Republicans try to "fight fair" while the Democrats are "fighting to win," the Republicans will lose. It's that simple. I want a candidate who will punch back TEN TIMES as hard as the other side! The GOP needs someone who can pick apart the arguments of the other side.
chicopanther