I guess that is my problem with this action: Most any type of bartering that a governor would engage the Legislature in would qualify as criminal. Even if a governor made a statement to the effect of “The proposed legislation has problems and I will likely veto it. However, the legislation would be less objectionable if ___________” he has committed a crime.
It seems that the Governor must either sign or veto legislation, or say that he will either sign or veto legislation but not comment on the substance of it, or of anything that he feels might improve the legislation.
Suppose an equivalent federal law and Obama says: “The House bill denies necessary funding to senior citizens and therefore I will veto it.” Isn’t that threatening to take action as a public servant to influence the House to increase funding for seniors, and therefore a crime??? That seems absurd to me.
I’m not understanding the argument that Perry was justified in using whatever means were available to him to get rid of a problem official.
If it’s okay for Perry to coerce an elected official because of a DUI, would it be wrong for him to pull that move on an elected official who had the gall to disagree with his ideology, religion, or favorite TV shows? I think we’d all find this a uncomfortable prospect. So legalities aside, if we all agree there is a line when the use of coerce-veto power becomes antithetical to ethical governance, the crux is figuring out where that line begins.
Cutting funding to an agency doesn’t hurt just the head. It hurts all the employees, the programs, and the stakeholders that relies on that funding. Why should the state of TX (and Travis County) suffer because the governor wants to punish someone for driving drunk? This is what it boils down to me, and its why Perry deserves to be in trouble. If you’re willing to use the state’s treasury to essentially extort people, then it means you can not be trusted to prioritize the public’s well-being over political and personal vendettas. It also means you don’t respect the political process enough to let the will of the people stand on its own.
Do conservatives who are defending Perry see nothing alarming about a state-level official subverting the will of the local electorate? If Obama wanted Christie out of office (for that bridge craziness) and threatened to reduce federal funding to his state to bring about that outcome, would yall be okay with that?
Perry is not a dictator. His veto can be overridden. When executives like Perry or Obama are elected, we know that we are giving them a sharp sword with the veto power and hope that they will use it responsibly. We also understand that so long as 1/3 of one house of the legislature backs their action, it must not be absurdly bat shit crazy. We might disagree with it, but we live with the results.*
*Again, so long as it is political and not monetary, sexual, or otherwise personal in nature.
Someone, in fact, did come to that conclusion in bold. Specifically, the judge who reviewed the facts and rejected the petition to have her removed.
Why does Perry’s judgement overrule the judge’s? Her fitness to serve in her elected position is not a thing that is open for any and everyone to decide and act upon.
You did not answer any of my questions, though. Seriously, I’m curious.
Do you see nothing disturbing about a governor pressuring an elected official to resign through the threat of underfunding their program? Sure, their veto can be overridden. But this assurance means nothing if they’ve used their power to cow members of the legislature into submission.
Your asterisked statement is, like, the whole point. Perry’s motivations suspiciously look political in nature. Even if in truth, he was strictly concerned about the impact the DUI has on Lehmberg’s service, his actions look identical to the actions of someone motivated by self-serving political (and criminal) interests.
You would think people who cared about the democratic process, “small government”, etc. would see the danger in turning a blind eye to Perry’s actions. It opens the doors for Democrats to do the same thing.
And of course Perry’s veto was political, through and through. Politics is practiced so poorly these days that folks of all stripes forget what it looks like.
Perry made a bold, political move, using one of his most substantial political tools. If the move was too bold, there are lots of countervailing political tools to bring him back in line – public shaming of Perry or Perry donors, pressure on members of his coalition, a veto override, elections, recall elections, impeachment. And the consequences for bad politics are, or would be - loss of political position or clout.
The problem with the indictment is that it is not a political tool, but a criminal one: It seeks to take away life, liberty and property based on political conduct.
Presidents have control over a great deal of federal money that can be allocated to one state or another. What if Obama was so upset that Rick Perry was not going to expand Medicaid in Texas as the ACA intended, that Obama told Perry that he was going to withhold federal funds for Perry’s pet cancer project if he didn’t expand Medicaid? After all, continued closings of rural hospitals mean avoidable deaths. Assuming that this withholding of funds was allowable under normal presidential discretion, would the Republicans give a little golf clap and say “well played?”
Well if the state of Texas has decreed this to be a crime, then whether this constitutes a “problem” depends on personal opinion, not fact. Right?
In my opinion, it is not unreasonable to charge a state executive with a crime for abusing his power, especially when it has negatively impacted innocent bystanders and (rather conveniently) interfered with the state’s ability to investigate misconduct involving the accused.
Because getting a DUI means you should quit your job? Says who? :roll eyes:
Look up Roy Ashburn in California.
Look up Vito Fossela in NYC
Nobody resigns over a DUI, some of these “family values” clowns won’t even resign after getting caught with hookers. (Vitter in Louisiana, Bob Allen in Florida)
What about the two other Texas DA’s convicted of DWI while Perry was governor? He did nothing. They were Republicans, of course. And they were not in charge of a unit investigating Perry’s possible corruption…
At least Boehner will be convinced to drop his lawsuit, lest he be thought a hypocrite.
