Nah. They also argue for strict constructionist judges and personal responsibility (“Keep the government out of our lives!”), but then want to amend the constitution at every turn. Gay marriage? Amend the constitution! Abortion? Amend the constitution! Immigration? Amend the constitution! People who want to wear polka-dotted dresses? Amend the constitution! It’s getting ridiculous.
While I do think it probably annoys true conservatives, the people who’ve co-opted the Republican party seem perfectly happy to rip this country apart to fulfill their own ends. They’d absolutely destroy America, ostensibly to “save” it.
I think FactCheck is going too easy on him here. His saying “we could, but there is no reason to” sounds a little like those who graciously “took the President at his word” about his citizenship. By a strictly literal reading of his words, he is against secession, but it’s a dogwhistle.
The fact that he addressed the secession issue with anything other than categorical rejection indicates to me that he’s willing to toy with the crazies. Even if he, in his heart of hearts, knows the idea of secession is insane, he gave the idea way too much credibility by saying “who knows what could happen?” And his “I see no reason to secede” is another weaselly statement. “I see no reason…now… but I don’t rule anything out” is I think the message Perry wants the crazies to hear. Again, he may think it’s ridiculous, but he’s not saying it’s ridiculous. He’s saying it’s a reasonable item for disucssion, which it is not. He is also wrong in saying that Texas has some special status that would allow them to leave the Union. Why bring this up if the very idea of secession is anathema, as it should be to someone who wants to be President?
He did not technically, literally come out in support of secession, true. But what he said is still worthy of condemnation.
Yes. That’s my point. You can’t blame the decision to lie, misinform and manufacture issues ? Really ? Mr. Nixon, is that you ? They said you was dead, man !
There’s no serious move for secession in Texas, and there hasn’t been since 1861. Anything else is either a bunch of nuts spewing hot air, or politicians spewing hot air at the nuts.
The guy was at a Tea Party rally in Texas, which is a state (one of 2) that was its own nation prior to statehood.
This means that there’s a certain independent streak among some of the more conservative types; that’s what he was playing to with his comment.
It’s not much different than politicians in other countries saying crazy (to us) things in public for internal consumption, even though they don’t reflect the real geopolitical situation.
I doubt Perry will make every rabid conservative happy, but like PhillyGuy said, he’s about as conservative as you can get with a serious chance at nomination.
There is some concerns about his commitment to federalism might interfere with some aspects of the conservative agenda. His answer about gay marriage in New York leads some to believe he may let 10th amendment concerns interfere with a unique moment in conservative history. After Obama destroys the Democrat party, the next president will have a unique opportunity with large majorities in both houses of congress. There is a fear that Perry would squander this moment by being too deferential to states.
The Declaration of Independence endorses a right of secession when a government becomes tyrannical. Perry said that it hasn’t happened yet, but if it does, then it’s an option. What did he say that Jefferson (and the rest of the Founding Fathers) wouldn’t agree with?
Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the hypothetical views of the Founders are the law of the land. The Constitution is, and it does not allow for secession (IANAL, but I referred to this, this, and this). Secession is not “an option”.
When someone who wants to lead the country is asked about secession, the reply should be something like, “that’s fucking crazy”, not “you know, you might have a point there.” Shouldn’t the President be pretty committed to keeping the country together? And doesn’t the Republican Party like to remind everyone that they’re the “Party of Lincoln”? I’m not positive, but I think Lincoln would take issue with the idea that Texas has a right to secede.
The colonies did not secede from Great Britain, the colonies were never equal partners, were exploited and put upon and taxed without representation etc. as detailed in the DoI and those were the reasons for the rebellion and it explained the right to form their own government according to enlightenment principles. That Union is indissoluble. The Confederacy attempted to secede by force of arms and the issue was decided by force of arms and the Federal Government forcibly put down the rebellion at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Perry absolutely did invoke secession in a way that praised the yahoos that talk it up and left the door open. An American patriot would, I hope, rhetorically slam the door in the face of secessionist talk. Perry didn’t. He cozied up to the idiot talk that happened to be secessionist. As some of the people here are doing.
There seems to be no stoop too low for Rick Perry to make in sucking up to imbecility.
It seems odd to me that a century and a half after “the war to secede to start a country to preserve slavery” that there are still some people who defend the concept of secession. The Constitution doesn’t have a way to secede for states with butt-hurt majorities. A brilliant lawyer did a lot of writing and speaking on the lack of secession as an option. His name was Abraham Lincoln. He marshaled a series of legal arguments against secession prior to the civil war that is actually very impressive.
A look at the actual provisions to adopt the current Constitution show a rigorous process for a member state to join (not a majority vote on a hot day in the legislature), a minimum number of states to join, and then the other original colonies would not be members until they joined.
The idea of taking ones marbles and leaving was talked about from time to time up until the end of the civil war, whereupon the rebellion being put down, state institutions were reestablished and things got up and running again. For Perry not to have any grasp of the enormity of screwed-up blithering idiocy he is flirting with for popularity’s sake is breathtaking.
Whatever it is that politicians do, it is done with words, and Rick Perry thinks before he talks only so far as he thinks it is a good thing to whip up crowds when he is talking.
Most hatred of conservative co-workers I have heard come from the fact that they view Perry as “a good ol’ boy” who is really only looking out for himself and his political allies. A lot of my VERY conservative coworkers dislike him immensely, but will always vote for him because he is pretty conservative overall. They just think he does a lot of inside deals and such.
Now, that’s quite a good post. I might quibble about whether AL really laid out a legal case against secession or not since most legal scholars note that the Civil War, itself, was the be-all and end-all of the secession issue. But that is a minor point, and I really am not familiar with AL wrote about the issue, so I could easily be wrong on that.
I would also add that whatever it is we do on this MB, and in GD in particular, is done with words. Posters should think before posting. Your original statement was factually incorrect. Perry did not “suggest that Texas secede from the Union”. Had you posted that latter statement instead, I would have had no issue with it.
I’m not really persuaded by the argument that Perry must have meant it as a joke since people laughed. It might have been one of those “laughing at you, not with you” kind of moments.
Here is a longer version of the audio elucidator linked to. It doesn’t sound to me like he’s kidding. I don’t get the sense that he’s building up to a punchline, but maybe I just don’t get his style. I never found George Carlin all that funny either, so maybe it’s me.
Perry apparently thought the joke was funny enough to try it again. See the routine here. He didn’t get any laughs there, but maybe that was a tough crowd. He got a better reaction with the material about right-wing extremist groups. That was in response to a question from the crowd, so maybe like a lot of comedians, Perry is just better at improv than scripted material.
Oh, I see. He was suggesting that Texas could leave the Union, but not that Texas might secede from the Union. Thanks for the, ah, clarification.
BTW, did you listen to the audio? I will grant that Texas humor, which is steeped in post-modernist irony, is often too subtle for others. But speaking as a recovering Texan, no, he wasn’t joking. That old hack about how Texas used to be a soveriegn nation and that somehow changes things is a canard of long, long standing.
Aside:
I’ve been growing increasingly troubled by factcheck, which has done solid service in the past, but lately seems to be bending over backwards to find a centrism where none actually exists. For instance, the "laughter " line implies a delivery and response like a punch line followed by general audience merriment. That does not correspond well with the audio.
