Perry Case Complicates Boehner's Lawsuit
The indictment of Governor Rick Perry of Texas and his subsequent court case are about to complicate things politically for John Boehner. No matter the actual outcome of Perry's case, the arguments made by Perry and his supporters are going to provide an easy equivalence with Boehner's plans to sue President Obama -- an equivalence which would not have existed had Perry not been indicted.
Perry is making the claim that the entire thing is just a partisan witchhunt, driven by out-of-control Democrats in the liberal enclave of Austin. He may succeed in convincing the public of this -- and it remains to be seen whether this will help or hurt Perry among Republican primary voters in the upcoming presidential contest. So far, he has signaled that he's going to wear it as a Republican badge of honor -- standing up to liberals trying to tear him down in the courts. Here is Perry's lawyer, summing up this defense:
The facts of this case conclude that the governor's veto was lawful, appropriate and well within the authority of the office of the governor. Today's action, which violates the separation of powers outlined in the Texas Constitution, is nothing more than an effort to weaken the constitutional authority granted to the office of Texas governor, and sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a grand jury to punish the exercise of a lawful and constitutional authority afforded to the Texas governor.
He is arguing that the voters entrusted Perry with executive powers, which Perry then faithfully exercised, and that the case against him is nothing more than Democrats fighting a partisan battle that they already lost at the ballot box.
Now, I should explicitly point out that I have no idea what the actual facts are and until a jury hears the case it is impossible to know whether the indictment was partisan overreach or not. I'm not going to argue the facts of the case here, to put this another way -- we'll all have plenty of time to do so as the case makes its way through the legal system in the months to come. I'm instead focusing only on the politics of the case.
Perry and his defenders are going to be making the case for strong executive power, which (they will say) is supposed to be executed without the interference of the courts. That's Perry's argument in a nutshell, and so far he has not been shy about strongly making this argument himself.
But this is going to become a major political stumbling block for House Republicans when John Boehner actually files his own lawsuit against President Obama. Because they'll be arguing that, in Texas, the executive should be allowed to execute his powers without interference from the courts; while at the same time arguing that on the national level the courts should indeed interfere with the executive attempting to exercise his powers. The parallels are going to be obvious to all, in fact.
Again, the facts of both cases won't even really enter into the discussion much, because while one party thinks the Texas case is weak, the other party is going to say the same thing about Boehner's case. The real argument, in both cases, is: should this be the way politics works? At what point should political arguments be handled by the justice system? Perry's case is all about politics from beginning to end. Boehner's case will be too.
Republicans were counting on Boehner's case to whip their base voters into a frenzy, right before the midterm elections. They were all set to pronounce the righteousness of their position, using the justice system to rein in an otherwise-unchecked president. That's going to be a lot tougher a sell now, especially since it is scheduled to happen after weeks and weeks of discussing the merits of the case against Perry. Republicans will be denouncing using the justice system against an executive in purely partisan fashion, and then they'll have to start arguing that John Boehner has every right to use the justice system against an executive in purely partisan fashion. The turnabout will be so dramatic it might induce whiplash.
To the casual observer of politics, the two cases are going to sound an awful lot alike. Some Democrats, perhaps realizing this, have already expressed doubts about the case against Perry. The woman at the heart of the case isn't exactly a "poster child" character, since video exists of her drunk driving arrest which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in her personality. To defend the case against Perry means also having to defend her, which is why some Democrats are already backing away from this one.
But Republicans won't be able to back away so easily from Boehner's case. This isn't some squabble in one faraway state, this is national politics. The speaker of the House will be suing the president of the country, which can't be written off as some sort of parochial affair. House Republicans are already on the record, having voted to proceed with the lawsuit right before the August break. For some Republicans, the lawsuit won't even go far enough -- Boehner is already walking a tightrope with Republicans who want to see him impeach Obama. Boehner won't be able to back down, to put this another way.
But now the argument for suing Obama is going to get more complicated than anyone could have foreseen. Perry's case is going to prepare the ground with the public, and provide Democrats with an easy response: "How is this case any different than Perry's?" Republicans are going to be arguing one thing for Perry, and the exact opposite for Obama. This is going to become more and more obvious to all concerned, in fact.
The best Boehner can hope for, at this point, is that Perry's case moves very very slowly. Maybe everyone will forget about it if there is no breaking news from Austin in the next month or so. My guess, however, is that Democrats will be more than ready to remind everyone of the similarities between the two cases, and how Republicans are taking positions in the two which are completely contradictory. The Perry case -- again, no matter how it turns out -- has certainly made it a lot more politically complicated for Boehner to move forward with his lawsuit.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I had commented about this in your last FTP, CW....
It's funny as hell to hear REPUBLICANS whining and crying about how Democrats are using the courts to settle political differences.. :D
And I have to give props where props are due....
Democrats, who recognize the slippery slope and how much the accusations parallel the GOP's case against OBAMA are actually lining up in defense of Perry....
It's a hilarious turn of events, wouldn't you agree???
It's what makes politics so much fun for political agnostics like me who are not beholden to any Political Party... :D
Michale
These GOP criminals are embarrassing. If I were a Republican, I would also pretend I wasn't.
Perry isn't setting a very good example for all those poor little Central American children. He should obey the law.
Perry isn't setting a very good example for all those poor little Central American children. He should obey the law.
He's just following Obama's lead...
Michale
Another way to recognize needy Republican chatbots is their excessive use of the "Look Over There" strategy of deflection. Whenever confronted with GOP criminality, the chatbot will fall back on irrelevant, dishonest, off-topic Republican talking points about *somebody else* because the Personal Responsibility crowd has principles.
Another way to recognize needy Republican chatbots is their excessive use of the "Look Over There" strategy of deflection. Whenever confronted with GOP criminality, the chatbot will fall back on irrelevant, dishonest, off-topic Republican talking points about *somebody else* because the Personal Responsibility crowd has principles.
TRANSLATION:
I have not logical or rational argument so I am forced to resort to immature name-calling and childish personal attacks
I accept your concession, JFC... :D
Ya know, for someone who makes it a point NOT to respond to me, I sure have you dancing to my tune.. :D
To paraphrase Morpheus, "Quit trying to ignore me and ignore me!!!"
Dance, little puppet, dance!! :D
Michale
Another way to recognize needy Republican chatbots is their excessive use of the "Look Over There" strategy of deflection.
Yea, that's why I pointed out the absurdity of the GOP's position in the very first comment.. And complimented Democrats for their integrity..
Duuuhhhhhh
Somehow I expected a little more intelligent comments from ya..
What was *I* thinking, eh???
Have a happy... :D
Michale
It's what makes politics so much fun for political agnostics like me who are not beholden to any Political Party... :D
michale, i think you tend to protest a little too much on stuff like this. just because you're an independent doesn't mean you don't have a dog in the hunt. anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the weigantosphere is aware of your political leanings, and they're not exactly impartial.
the neat thing here is that chris has framed the question as one that must be answered and applied to both parties equally. we know that each party will attempt to split hairs to reach a conclusion that makes one case valid and the other not. so the question isn't, "which party is right and which is wrong," it's "At what point should political arguments be handled by the justice system?"
for what it's worth, my own view is that in any case that doesn't meet the standard of impeachment, the case should be brought after the politician in question leaves office (which makes the need for term limits on all political offices even more pronounced by the way). and again, if it's not impeachable, statutes of limitations be suspended until the politician's term ends.
"My theory is that when it comes to important subjects, there are only two ways a person can answer. Which way they chose, tells you who that person is. For instance, there are only two kinds of people in the world, Beatles people and Elvis people. Now Beatles people can like Elvis and Elvis people can like the Beatles, but nobody likes them both equally. Somewhere you have to make a choice. And that choice, tells you who you are."
~mia wallace - pulp fiction
michale, i think you tend to protest a little too much on stuff like this. just because you're an independent doesn't mean you don't have a dog in the hunt. anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the weigantosphere is aware of your political leanings, and they're not exactly impartial.
Not "exactly", I'll agree...
But compared to most Weigantians???
Well, I'll let you make your own determination. :D
the neat thing here is that chris has framed the question as one that must be answered and applied to both parties equally. we know that each party will attempt to split hairs to reach a conclusion that makes one case valid and the other not. so the question isn't, "which party is right and which is wrong," it's "At what point should political arguments be handled by the justice system?"
I completely agree..
But, as we see with JFC's response, those rabid partisans I mention above ONLY want to apply CW's teachings to Republicans..
for what it's worth, my own view is that in any case that doesn't meet the standard of impeachment, the case should be brought after the politician in question leaves office (which makes the need for term limits on all political offices even more pronounced by the way). and again, if it's not impeachable, statutes of limitations be suspended until the politician's term ends.
Lemme ask ya something..
What do you think of the idea of a SINGLE TERM POTUS of 6 years?
No re-election possible. Just 1 term of 6 years...
Michale
It's rare that I read a story like yours that leaves me laughing as loud as it did. As a republican (that hates that jack ass John Boehner and the idiot Grand Dragon from Texas -Rick Perry) I have to say that your story hits the nail on the head!
But to inform you about some of the specifics of the indictment of Perry... He was essentially blackmailing the elected Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg into resigning from the Public Integrity Unit that was investigating the Cancer Research and Prevention Institute that was handing out grants (without any type of review) to projects proposed by campaign donors and supporters of Governor Perry.
Perry's version of damage control was trying to get Lehmberg out of the way and putting a more subservient appointee in her place.
Excellent article Chris. Keep up the good work. I love seeing that idiot from Texas squirm.
One significant difference I see between the two cases is that one is civil while the other is criminal. I suspect that this will be an argument that both sides will use to explain their conflicting positions.
Personally, I tend to consider criminal charges a more legitimate (and less politically motivated) reason to bring a politician to court than a civil suit. Whether it's the case or not, being indicted for criminal charges strikes me as far more serious than being sued. A criminal case indicates, to me at least, a more severe case of wrongdoing than a civil suit would. Being that I would consider myself not even moderately knowledgeable at best in the law, I suspect that a large portion of the people would see things similarly if such a difference were emphasized. I can see how the democrats at the very least will likely attempt to spin this as the case against Perry involves him potentially being a criminal who could face jail time for his crimes, where the worst Obama would be facing would be... retroactively changing when a law should have gone into effect? The point is, one potentially carries far stronger penalties for a far greater misuse of power, and therefore is far more important to press forward with than the other. I can even see republicans following that line of thinking if things end up looking bad for Perry. They could basically abandon him in an attempt to save face under the guise (or even actual belief) of putting the country first. Basically, the only way I see for the republicans to not completely lose the argument while staying on Perry's side is to up the ante against Obama by pressing criminal charges against him, and that would require impeachment.
On an unrelated note, this is the third time I've had to register this name in order to post a comment. Is there something I'm doing wrong that's causing this problem?
Bleyd,
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
You get used to it... :D
Pretty impressive analysis... I can't find anything to disagree with..
So I won't... :D
Michale
JL,
michale, i think you tend to protest a little too much on stuff like this. just because you're an independent doesn't mean you don't have a dog in the hunt. anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the weigantosphere is aware of your political leanings, and they're not exactly impartial.
But my leanings are based completely on common sense, as opposed to Party ideology...
I can provide numerous examples upon request...
Michale
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1237/1076/original.jpg?w=600&h
Yea...
Michael Brown was such a peach.. A pillar of society..
NOT!
Crap.. Wrong commentary...
CW, can you delete???
Sorry about that...
Michale
"The woman at the heart of the case isn't exactly a "poster child" character, since video exists of her drunk driving arrest which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in her personality. To defend the case against Perry means also having to defend her, which is why some Democrats are already backing away from this one."
Yet another example of blaming the victim. So what if she isn't a paragon. She still has rights. According to the indictment, Perry allegedly told her that if she didn't resign (something he did not tell Republican Texas DAs also arrested for DUI0), that he would use his executive authority to veto her budget. Then he did just that. Sounds like abuse of power to me.
Yet another example of blaming the victim.
Yet another example of a liberal coddling criminals as "victims"..
This stupid bitch could have KILLED someone!!
She should have been summarily FIRED for such gross criminal behavior..
She still has rights.
There are ample precedents for rescinding people's rights if the commit crimes...
But I DO agree with you partially..
Perry shouldn't have given her a choice. He should have just fired her worthless ass...
Michale
"My theory is that when it comes to important subjects, there are only two ways a person can answer. Which way they chose, tells you who that person is. For instance, there are only two kinds of people in the world, Beatles people and Elvis people. Now Beatles people can like Elvis and Elvis people can like the Beatles, but nobody likes them both equally. Somewhere you have to make a choice. And that choice, tells you who you are."
~mia wallace - pulp fiction
I am ashamed to say that I have never watched that movie..
Am I missing something?? :D
Michale
nypoet22
"anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the weigantosphere is aware of your political leanings"
So true. “His” charade is embarrassing.
My sincerely held belief is that “he” is a chatbot although I am open-minded enough to consider the possibility that “he” is actually Ann Coulter’s sock-puppet. Despite “his” barrage of illogical and irrelevant slurs, non-sequiturs, and strawmen, I am amused that this chatbot “thinks” I’m in some sort of competition with “him” and that I need to concede. While others here at this site seem to be stressed out by “his” hate speeches, I really couldn’t care less about one lonely, needy Republican tool obsessively trolling the internets for attention with Republican gibberish. They’re a dime a dozen and this one is exceedingly repetitive and unoriginal, so *whatever*. It’s better when they expose their thought disorders outside the RW hate-osphere. IF CW allows it, I’m OK with it.
“His” definition of “facts” is especially humorous – like calling me a “rabid partisan” or “Democrat” despite having no evidence of either one. It’s obvious that “he” isn’t programmed for logical consistency; let alone passing the Turing test. I love the dead giveaway “I voted for Obama” talking point.
Bleyd,
"the only way I see for the republicans to not completely lose the argument while staying on Perry's side is to up the ante against Obama by pressing criminal charges against him, and that would require impeachment."
Agreed. The Orange One is too chickenshit to impeach. He's opted for a stunt with no chance of success (assuming that "success" is defined as winning in court as opposed to a plan to GOTV). That is truly the difference between the two. The Dems are not trying GOTV by going after Perry. Apparently, they're trying to damage a has been's very dim presidential prospects.
nypoet22 [8] -
One interesting thing that I should look into is what happened the last time in Texas. I read one reference to it over the weekend which said something like "the previous case, almost 100 years ago, involved a governor who vetoed the funds for the University of Texas because he didn't like their board (or something along these lines). He was tried for his veto of the funds and was not convicted, which led to an impeachment attempt."
Sounds like an interesting story, with the possibility of drawing parallels with Perry's case, right? Anyway, as the case progresses, I'll try to research this a little bit.
Michale [9] -
I should just stop reading after that bit about how you two both agree it was a good article... right?
Heh.
Oh, wait! Interesting question there at the end. Um, 6-yr single term? Well, it would remove the re-election pressure. But it would also have one unintended side effect -- there would be one-third of the Senate seats that would ALWAYS come up during a presidential election year. The other two-thirds would ALWAYS be elected in off years. As it stands now, the two cycle slowly. Don't know exactly what this would mean for the Senate's makeup, but it would indeed have an impact (that's my guess).
Otherwise, an interesting idea, but also one I'd file under "never gonna happen" as it would require a constitutional amendment. I bet we'll get rid of Tuesday voting (move it to the weekend) before this ever happens, in fact.
-CW
"The woman at the heart of the case isn't exactly a "poster child" character, since video exists of her drunk driving arrest which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in her personality. To defend the case against Perry means also having to defend her, which is why some Democrats are already backing away from this one."
Which is why Dems are weak and constantly get rolled. The Republicans nominated a lying cokehead fratboy chickenhawk with a DUI conviction for president and backed him all the way as he allowed 9/11 to occur on his watch, created an ongoing disaster in Iraq, botched the Katrina response, and wrecked the economy. All of that is Obama's fault.
CW
Otherwise, an interesting idea, but also one I'd file under "never gonna happen" as it would require a constitutional amendment. I bet we'll get rid of Tuesday voting (move it to the weekend) before this ever happens, in fact.
Yea, it was an interesting article about the "Second Term Curse"...
A way to alleviate the curse and to make a POTUS pay more attention to his job would be to eliminate the need for re-election...
JFC,
like calling me a “rabid partisan” or “Democrat” despite having no evidence of either one.
The Republicans nominated a lying cokehead fratboy chickenhawk with a DUI conviction for president and backed him all the way as he allowed 9/11 to occur on his watch, created an ongoing disaster in Iraq, botched the Katrina response, and wrecked the economy.
Yea.. "NO EVIDENCE" of ANY partisanship here.. :D
Like dynamiting fish in a barrel.. :D
Michale
I should just stop reading after that bit about how you two both agree it was a good article... right?
hehehehehehe
Oh, it's a demonstrable fact that NYPoet and I agree a LOT more than we disagree... :D
Michale
ThomasJefferson [10] and Bleyd [11] -
Welcome to the site!
My apologies for the delay in seeing your comments. The way it is supposed to work is that the first comment you ever post is held for moderation, but then after that point all your comments will post instantly, as long as you don't post more than one link per comment.
The auto-moderator flags multilink comments to cut down on comment spam. But recently, I have been adjusting this and the registration process for this site. Somehow, both of you were flagged as spam when you shouldn't have been. Please, to test the system, post another comment below, so I can see if you're able to get through now.
I apologize for the hassle, and Bleyd, I have contacted you via email for further details to figure out what happened.
I ask everyone -- new users in particular! -- to have patience while the site is under adjustment. The new filters to keep spam users from registering is working fairly well, but I'd like to clean up any problems it has introduced.
Thanks everyone, and Bleyd and ThomasJefferson, welcome to the site once again.
[Note: I found a few other comments which were wrongly flagged as spam by regulars here, so if you've had problems in the last day or so, please check again to see if your comment now appears, and sorry for the delay.]
-CW
He was essentially blackmailing the elected Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg into resigning from the Public Integrity Unit
Actually, it's closer to extortion than it is to blackmail...
By the bi...
"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
Michale
Now, to get to the substance of your comments...
ThomasJefferson [10] -
Yeah, the closer you look at this case the more complex it gets, at least politically. The most interesting article I've seen yet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/why-rick-perry-will-be-co_b_5686664.html
But I wanted to shy away from discussing the specifics of the case here, and instead focus on the bigger (more fuzzy) picture of politics, and how it will all play out in the punditocracy.
And thank you for the kind words!
Bleyd [11] -
That is a very interesting point. Although, seen through a political lens, it would be hard to see Obama served with criminal charges unless a Special Prosecutor were ever appointed (which I doubt is going to happen). It took Ken Lay to supply the impeachment charges against Clinton, after all.
But you are right, I hadn't really considered the civil/criminal difference (and how the public views theses things) when writing this.
-CW
Michale [15] -
I've already screwed the comment number system up enough, I think. Here's an official notice, instead:
EVERYONE IGNORE COMMENT 14!
Wrong thread by Michale!
There, that oughta do it.
:-)
-CW
Pastafarian Dan [16] -
Oh, I agree. But before this case ever sees the inside of a courtroom, it's going to play out in the court of public opinion. Which is where the poster child thing fits in (rightly or wrongly).
I also agree about Perry's lack of interest in other DA's found guilty of DUIs...
Michale [17] -
I don't think Perry has that power. Which is why the whole thing happened. She's got an elected position, and Perry can't just chuck her out -- she would likely have had to be impeached by the legislature.
Michale [18] -
Yes, you are indeed missing something. Watch the movie. Don't delay!
Oh, hey, I finally saw The Croods on your recommendation, and did find it funny. The most bizarre thing was the casting of Nick Cage -- real disconnect hearing his voice for the character, but after a while it kind of worked...
Seriously, though, see Pulp Fiction.
John From Censornati [19] -
Michale is all too real. We've even got a photo of him wearing a pro-Obama T-shirt at his place of business (he lost a bet, here in the comments).
Anyone remember that link?
Now I know it's not the Turing Test, but here is why Michale can be proven not to be a chatbot:
* He does occasionally concede when a Republican talking point makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (this is rare, but it does happen now and again).
* Conversely, he also very rarely praises something a Democrat did or said (VERY rarely, but it does indeed happen).
* He behaves himself, for the most part (picture: Newt from Aliens wistfully saying: "Mostly."). I do occasionally have to take him to task for personal attacks, but these incidents have become rarer and rarer, to his credit.
* He quotes funny movie lines, which is beyond the abilities of most chatbots.
Heh. Michale is like the uncle you have to see at Thanksgiving, here at CW.com. Annoying, to be sure, but begrudgingly part of the family.
:-)
John From Censornati [20] -
I think Boehner would define success as "GOTV" personally. My contention is that no matter what happens in November, the lawsuit will become so much dust in the wind immediately afterwards. It's a campaign season stunt, and will not last much longer than that.
I could be wrong about that one, but I bet not.
John From Censornati [22] -
Check this out, I think you'll like it:
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/19/the_rights_bombshell_deceit_why_the_lefts_defense_of_perry_reveals_so_much/
Michale [23] -
I think I read the same article (second term blues), maybe in the Washington Post?
-CW
Michale is all too real. We've even got a photo of him wearing a pro-Obama T-shirt at his place of business (he lost a bet, here in the comments).
Anyone remember that link?
I no longer have the pic as it was a while ago..
But, tell ya what I'm gonna do...
I'll wear it again on Thu and will post a link to my surveillance cams so everyone can see live and in color.. :D
I think I read the same article (second term blues), maybe in the Washington Post?
Yea, probably.. I remember thinking that it was an interesting idea and would really negate a lot of negative bullshit that permeates our Presidency..
Imagine that a POTUS simply doesn't have to campaign for his job....
Michale
Michale
Michale -
Sounds good to me! We need an update! We'll even give you credit for the next insane bet you make in these pages, how's that? Heh.
Found the original:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/07/05/be-careful-what-you-bet-on/
:-)
-CW
"Check this out, I think you'll like it"
I did like that, Chris. Especially the Halbig Truther part. I'm looking forward to seeing Christie Creme finger-printed next. Intentional traffic jams are not cool.
"I do occasionally have to take him to task for personal attacks"
He has been calling me a Nazi. Shame on him.
John From Censornati -
OK, I have to admit that I haven't had time for Friday's comments yet. I'll try to get to them tonight.
M? Cut it out, if you're breaking Godwin's Law...
More later, I assure you.
-CW
Everyone -
How's this for a segue?
Speaking of new rules...
new column is now up.
:-)
-CW
"We've even got a photo of him wearing a pro-Obama T-shirt at his place of business (he lost a bet, here in the comments)."
I certainly hope that part of the payoff was that he had too tell people that he voted for the Socialist Tyrant.
BTW - I am not a Democrat and I have no influence on their nominations. It's a shame that KY has closed primaries. This year I would've voted for Bagger Bevin in the GOP primary had it been open. And I didn't vote for BHO. Annoying uncles with binary thinking do have trouble with *facts* like these.
BTW again - I was amused to think of him as a Republican ObamaBOT and you just ruined that for me.
BTW Chris, he did call me a Nazi, but I was kidding when I snitched. I've been called worse (teabagger) at that other site and I lived to tell about it. I'm holding my arms out wide right now.
John From Censornati -
Nope. It was even worse: an explicit part of the bet was that he had to wear the shirt all day long, and NOT explain to ANYone why he was wearing it. The most we allowed was: "Ask me tomorrow."
He "paid up" admirably, to his credit.
:-)
But I'd still want to see a live feed update, Michale... this time, we'll allow you to explain it, how's that?
-CW
He has been calling me a Nazi. Shame on him.
Uh, really???
"And, of course, you can PROVE that, right?? Oh that's right, I forgot. You were absent the day they taught LAW at Law School."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
It never happened...
Michale
JFC,
I certainly hope that part of the payoff was that he had too tell people that he voted for the Socialist Tyrant.
If you are referring to Obama, uh....
I DID vote for Obama... Duuuhhhh....
Wait a tic... Did you say "HE"??? REALLY!!????? :D
I do occasionally have to take him to task for personal attacks, but these incidents have become rarer and rarer, to his credit.
For the record, I ONLY resort to personal attacks IN RESPONSE to personal attacks..
Most times, not even then...
To paraphrase President Jack Ryan:
"You will find no more faithful a debate partner than I. But if all you want to do is make personal attacks and childish insults?? Well, I can be faithful to that as well"
:D
Just so we're clear...
Michale
CW - 27.
That HuffPo link is one of the few preliminary reports that doesn't dismiss the Perry indictment as frivolous. Perry is winning the press battle hands down.
But, the Texas Constitution sets out strong separation of powers, specifically:
ARTICLE 2. THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT
Sec. 1. DIVISION OF POWERS; THREE SEPARATE DEPARTMENTS; EXERCISE OF POWER PROPERLY ATTACHED TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS. The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are Legislative to one; those which are Executive to another, and those which are Judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.
Sure, impeachment of Perry is one remedy, but it's not the only one, and definitely not a politically expedient one. Texas has abuse of power statutes on the books, and they have teeth. They can't remove him from office, but can change the location, size and amenities he enjoys during his remaining term, not to mention during his subsequent retirement. In other words, it seems at least technically possible that Perry could become one of those politicians governing from a cell.
The indictment isn't frivolous, although a lot of instant reporting about it is.
The indictment isn't frivolous, although a lot of instant reporting about it is.
The indictment is (or is not) as frivolous as Boehner's lawsuit against President Obama..
Michale
JFC,
BTW Chris, he did call me a Nazi, but I was kidding when I snitched.
Still waiting for proof of this, son...
See, here in Weigantia, we are (well SOME of us anyways) are all about FACTS...
And, when called on the FACTS, the person is required to back up their alleged facts..
So, put up or shut up...
Michale
The indictment isn't frivolous,
Perry Grand Juror Was An Active Democratic Party Delegate During Jury Proceedings
http://mediatrackers.org/national/2014/08/20/perry-grand-juror-active-democratic-party-delegate-jury-proceedings
Yea... NO political bias there, eh?? :^/
Michale
Lol,
Please! Michale? You think grand jurors are obviously politically biased if they're active Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertaians, or Socialists?
So, of course, no police officer can credibly be part of any investigation of a police officer, due to their obvious bias. Right?! As an ex-LEO that would mean you have no credibility commenting on the Michael Brown shooting too, due to your bias.--But, then you've already proven that!
Surprisingly, in the real world good citizens are expected to be politically active, and to serve on juries. Its what makes them good citizens.
Please! Michale? You think grand jurors are obviously politically biased if they're active Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertaians, or Socialists?
And you would as well if it had been a Republican on the Grand Jury and a Democrat who was indicted...
:D
Surprisingly, in the real world good citizens are expected to be politically active, and to serve on juries. Its what makes them good citizens.
Except, of course, when they are Republicans. Then, according to you, they are terrorists, arsonists and criminals..
Michale
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
When in Rome . . .
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
JFC,
Still waiting for that proof that I called you a nazi....
"Pics or it didn't happen, eh?"
-Charlie Bradbury, SUPERNATURAL, The Girl With The Dungeons And Dragons Tattoo
:D
Michale
JFC,
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=chrisweigant%20michale%20nazi&safe=off
There ya go, little one..
36,000 search results and NOT ONE SINGLE reference to me calling you a nazi..
You ready to concede you lied??? :D
Michale
Chris,
"Now I know it's not the Turing Test, but . . ."
Your "evidence" against my Republican chatbot conspiracy theory is unconvincing in light of all the SPAMMING "he" has done today. I'm starting to think that maybe you're in on the conspiracy. Maybe all of you Weigantians are chatbots and I'm like Truman Burbank performing for the Quantum™. Or maybe there's just one. Oh look! It's almost twenty past four.
Maybe all of you Weigantians are chatbots and I'm like Truman Burbank performing for the Quantum™.
And people call ME delusional!! :D
Still can't prove I called you a nazi, can ya??
I knew you couldn't, cuz it never happened..
You owe me an apology..
Are you man enough???
I am betting yer not...
Michale
Wow! Michale, if we get to demand proof or get apologies--I want to play!
You've repeatedly claimed that I've called CW "racist," and called others, (other than you,) "racist."
I'm now waiting for the proof, or my apology....
You've repeatedly claimed that I've called CW "racist," and called others, (other than you,) "racist."
Actually, I never claimed that you have called others racist...
You have only reserved that for myself and CW...
When I find the comments where you said CW made racist statements, then it is YOU who will owe ME an apology..
Are you willing to accept those stipulations??
Michale
36,000 search results and NOT ONE SINGLE reference to me calling you a nazi..
You ready to concede you lied??? :D
What's that you say, JFC???
"GOOGLE Searches Don't Mean Dick!!"
Hokay....
http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php?s=nazi&Search.x=10&Search.y=6
8 years of CW.COM posts with the word 'nazi' in it..
And not ONE SINGLE comment from me with the word 'nazi' in it directed at you....
NOT... ONE... SINGLE... COMMENT...
So, anytime you want to man up and render that apology.. I stand ready and willing to acknowledge it...
:D
Michale
michale,
there are many ways to break godwin's law without using the actual word "nazi." after being called a chat-bot and prompted to prove that you're a real person, i certainly don't blame you for demanding proof of anything you're said to have said - what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.
JFC is a bit of a noob here, but if he says you did, you probably did, and aren't there more interesting things out there to debate?
JL
Joshua,
JFC is a bit of a noob here, but if he says you did, you probably did,
You KNOW me.. At least, as a Weigantian, you know me..
Is it in character for me to make PERSONAL attacks on a fellow Weigantian with such a vile and disgusting slur???
Of course it's not...
So, the ONLY logical option is that JFC is lying to generate sympathy for himself..
there are many ways to break godwin's law without using the actual word "nazi."
JFC didn't say anything about breaking Godwin's Law... JFC said, "He has been calling me a Nazi. Shame on him."
So, I simply told him the same question that *I* am told 20 times a day..
PROVE IT...
It's a matter of honor..
Now if one of our Weigantian leaders (you, David, CW, Liz) want to state for the record that me making personal attacks like that is very uncharacteristic and it is doubtful it really happened, then I would be satisfied with that and I would move on....
Much as you and David did when LD called me a racist.. I don't harp on LD for an apology because you and David took care of that for me..
Barring that, I will continue to demand proof from JFC until he admits he lied...
I apologize to ya'all that have to endure this, but when it comes to matters of honor, sometimes it is painful all around..
Michale
John From Censornati [50] -
BWAH hah hah! That was funny!
"It's always 4:20 somewhere in the world," as they say.
Heh.
Michale [54] -
Not to rain on (rein in?) your parade, but I don't think my site's search function searches the comments...
As for the Nazi thing, um, I apologize for bringing up Godwin's Law without reading the Friday comments first. How's that?
-CW
Not to rain on (rein in?)
hehehehehe Good one.. :D
your parade, but I don't think my site's search function searches the comments...
Perhaps.. I did find some nazi references in the comments..
But GOOGLE surely does and none of the references fit JFC's claim...
But JFC could rein in the entire debate by simply providing evidence of his accusation.. I mean, he hasn't been here that long. If it happened, it's liable to be a recent occurrence..
My beef is how I explained it to Joshua.. People have certain characteristics.. After 8 years of posting, it's safe to say that it would be COMPLETELY out of character for me to attack a fellow Weigantian in such a gross and perverse manner...
It's simple...
Put up or shut up...
What could be more fair than that???
As for the Nazi thing, um, I apologize for bringing up Godwin's Law without reading the Friday comments first. How's that?
That works.. For you.. :D
Now, if JFC can follow your lead, everything will be hunky dorky and peachy keen wonderful.. :D
Michale
Michale [153],
"Actually, I never claimed that you have called others racist...
You have only reserved that for myself and CW..."
Michale [153]
"You have called me a racist, you have called CW a racist and you have referred to many others as racist.."
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/08/04/campaign-shifts-to-immigration/
Michale [30]
See how easy it is?--When you're not lying, of course. I've never had any trouble proving my statements.--Or proving that you are a liar.
...Still waiting for my apology.
Still waiting for you to accept my terms..
When I find the quote where you said CW made racist statements, you will issue an apology to me..
You accept that?? Yes or No...
Michale
Yes, you are correct...
I DID say that you have referred to many others as racist...
And I can prove that you have referred to many MANY others and called them racists..
Do you want a list??
Darren Wilson
All the cops of Ferguson PD
All Republicans in the country
George Zimmerman
That's the tip of the list. There is a LOT more..
So, I have proven that you have referred to many others as racist...
Once I get your agreement that you will apologize when I find the link where you said CW made racist comments, I'll list that as well..
Balls in yer court, son.. :D
Have a happy... :D
Michale
CW,
For the record, you are correct.. Your SEARCH function only searches Commentaries and not the comments that follow them.
Any way that could be changed???
Michale
Michale [62] -
That would be a very big job. Huge. I understand a lot of the WordPress code behind this website, but the Search function is utter voodoo to me...
Sorry.
-CW
No worries.. It likely won't be necessary... :D
Michale