Rick Perry defended by the New York Times? Well...sorta

I just checked the weather report for Hell and its says "hot, with a 40% chance of raining brimstone," so there's no chance of a deep freeze. But who would have ever guessed that the New York Times editorial board would come to the defense of Texas Governor Rick Perry after his indictment for abuse of power.

As you might expect, the Times delivers the back of the hand with the pat on the head, as is evidenced by the headline: "Is Gov. Rick Perry’s Bad Judgment Really a Crime?"

After the arrest, Mr. Perry told Ms. Lehmberg that if she didn’t resign, he would cut the financing for the Public Integrity Unit. In June, he did just that, using his line-item veto to zero out the $7.5 million for the unit. That was a bad idea. Had county officials not stepped in with some money, the veto could have shut down an important investigative body and its cases. Mr. Perry should have left the matter to the courts, where both a criminal and a civil attempt to have her removed failed, or to the voters.

But his ill-advised veto still doesn’t seem to rise to the level of a criminal act. After a complaint was filed by a liberal group, a judge appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, a San Antonio lawyer and former federal prosecutor, to take the case. A Travis County grand jury indicted Mr. Perry on two felony counts: abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. The indictment says he exceeded his veto power by combining it with a threat to Ms. Lehmberg if she didn’t quit.

Governors and presidents threaten vetoes and engage in horse-trading all the time to get what they want, but for that kind of political activity to become criminal requires far more evidence than has been revealed in the Perry case so far. Perhaps Mr. McCrum will have some solid proof to show once the case heads to trial. But, for now, Texas voters should be more furious at Mr. Perry for refusing to expand Medicaid, and for all the favors he has done for big donors, than for a budget veto.

Well, gee. What'dya expect? It's the New York bloomin' Times, fer crying out loud.

Still, I'm sure Perry welcomes the Times endorsement, if not to prove that his trumped up indictment has unsettled many on the other side.

 

I just checked the weather report for Hell and its says "hot, with a 40% chance of raining brimstone," so there's no chance of a deep freeze. But who would have ever guessed that the New York Times editorial board would come to the defense of Texas Governor Rick Perry after his indictment for abuse of power.

As you might expect, the Times delivers the back of the hand with the pat on the head, as is evidenced by the headline: "Is Gov. Rick Perry’s Bad Judgment Really a Crime?"

After the arrest, Mr. Perry told Ms. Lehmberg that if she didn’t resign, he would cut the financing for the Public Integrity Unit. In June, he did just that, using his line-item veto to zero out the $7.5 million for the unit. That was a bad idea. Had county officials not stepped in with some money, the veto could have shut down an important investigative body and its cases. Mr. Perry should have left the matter to the courts, where both a criminal and a civil attempt to have her removed failed, or to the voters.

But his ill-advised veto still doesn’t seem to rise to the level of a criminal act. After a complaint was filed by a liberal group, a judge appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, a San Antonio lawyer and former federal prosecutor, to take the case. A Travis County grand jury indicted Mr. Perry on two felony counts: abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. The indictment says he exceeded his veto power by combining it with a threat to Ms. Lehmberg if she didn’t quit.

Governors and presidents threaten vetoes and engage in horse-trading all the time to get what they want, but for that kind of political activity to become criminal requires far more evidence than has been revealed in the Perry case so far. Perhaps Mr. McCrum will have some solid proof to show once the case heads to trial. But, for now, Texas voters should be more furious at Mr. Perry for refusing to expand Medicaid, and for all the favors he has done for big donors, than for a budget veto.

Well, gee. What'dya expect? It's the New York bloomin' Times, fer crying out loud.

Still, I'm sure Perry welcomes the Times endorsement, if not to prove that his trumped up indictment has unsettled many on the other side.

 

RECENT VIDEOS