Governor Perry has bigger problems than conventional wisdom suggests?

What a coincidence, because Perry also has a smaller brain than conventional science can account for....

Don't you understand? He coulda been somebody. He coulda been a president. Instead of just some Republican.

Christ on a cracker, the man snuggled a bottle of maple syrup in public.

He's toast as a candidate.

.

But wouldn't it have been nice to have him run?

Give me 3 reasons why ? ( * - * )

you had me at ' oops '.

Maple syrup is awesome. Maple flavored sausages are even awesomer. True facts.

Hey Mods, if I flag a guy enough times, could he be banned for liking maple flavored sausages?
You should be able to ban someone for liking maple flavored sausages.

Hey, it's awesome! :)

No. It's wrong. You've been fooled (most likely by the RW media) into liking something that is truly unAmerican. You know who else loves maple flavored sausages?
Andrew Breitbart
Ben Shapiro
Tucker Carlson
Glen Beck
Oh, and Hitler, Mao, and Kim Jong-un

So, be on their side if you want, but I'll stay on the side of FREEDOM!!

I'm sorry, but what was that? I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of MAPLE SAUSAGES!

Sinner!

Maple sausage!

unAmerican? Tell that to Vermonters.

Vermonters go to the store and buy sausage with Maple flavoring?
I would think they would consider that sacrilege.

We don't take it THAT seriously- but I've never been to a diner anywhere near where I grew up (Barre) that served maple-flavored sausage. We just dip the links into the syrup we just dumped on our pancakes.

BTW, you can tell the person in the booth next to you is a tourist when they say "hey, this isn't maple syrup! It's too thin!"

Now that I'm fine with. Nothing wrong with the syrup on the sausages, it's the maple FLAVORED sausages that are unAmerican!

I'm with danielsangeo on this one. Maple flavoured sausages, unnatural abomination that they are, are delicious. ;)

Thumbs up to that!

Never had it. Sound eminently nommable, though! :D

No Shop n Saves around here. Where I live, you have Fred Meyer (Kroger), Safeway, Top (Haggen) and Costco. I usually shop at Freddies; they're a combination supermarket/department store.

One good reason is that no Republican candidate for 2016 can beat the frontrunner Benjamin Ghazi.

Perry is no exception.

You know what makes me want to laugh and punch something at the same time?

Hypocrisy.

I feel like that right now, because I am seeing some pretty blatant hypocrisy in this case, particularly among the right-wing media.

Breitbart.com provides a great example.

Take a look at Breitbart's opinions on President Obama's alleged abuses of power versus Governor Perry's alleged abuse of power.

Breitbart on Obama "When Democrats ran all of Congress, the Administration was curiously passive, leaving the details and even major decisions of legislation to committee chairs and floor leaders. But with Republicans empowered to put a brake on Obama’s policies, his Administration has adopted a full-throttle, two-pronged strategy: attack Congress indiscriminately (even if Democrats are collateral damage) and push past the constitutional boundaries on executive authority to keep pushing the President’s agenda." (http://www.breitbart.com/Bi...

Breitbart on Perry

"RickPAC, Texas Governor Rick Perry’s political action committee, struck a vicious blow at his political opponents today with a new video titled, 'Setting the Record Straight'" (http://www.breitbart.com/Br...

As one might expect, Breitbart doesn't seem terribly interested in the actual allegations; its main concern is how Rick Perry is "fighting back" against the charges. Plus it spins the story by calling the individuals suing him "his political opponents".

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the logic in that paragraph they have about Obama. How could he have been "curiously passive" at the same time he apparently needed a brake put on his policies by Republicans?

Especially since that is when his signature healthcare law was passed.

(and the real answer is obvious to anyone who knows about the filibuster rule)

From the Comment section in the Wayne Slater article from the Dallas Morning News:

Let's simplify.
Perry stole from cancer research to reward political donors and then he
tried to derail this being exposed by firing the investigator and, when
that failed, he cut off their funding

.http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews...

This is not good.

Perry is a FANTASTIC candidate...

...for a decent Democrat to run AGAINST!

.

Calm down, we still have Palin, and Bachmann, and Herman Cain, and Ben Carson.

.......and the frontrunner Benjamin Ghazi.

Even if convicted, I still think Perry has a chance at the nomination. They'll just say he was "convicted of sticking it to a Dem", and regardless of anything else, that will rally the base. The only real question is if he'll be able to campaign from prison.

Ironically, Perry is only a Republican because he was convinced, in 1989, by Karl Rove and David Weeks (a political strategist and old Democratic friend of Perry's) to change parties. He was told that it was the only way he would continue to "win" in Texas since the trend was moving away from Democrats. Perry's response was "what do I have to lose."

Those aren't available.

I thought this as soon as I heard about it. The prosecutors did not bring this case on a lark. Perry's in real trouble, and dead as a doornail politically to all but the densest tea baggers. This is a good thing. Rick Perry is the emptiest suit in American politics. The Republican power brokers in Texas did not get behind this man because they were in awe of his intellect.

I would imagine they backed him for the same reason they backed W... they want an empty suit in the Executive Branch to do their bidding.

Unfortunately, he's going to be replaced by someone as bad or worse. I dig Wendy Davis but she's not going to be the next governor of TX.

I loved Rachel's last comment. That was priceless. And Wayne Slater is one, VERY sharp columnist. Might just have to pay for a subscription to the DMH to read his stuff.

All I could think was ZING!! When Rachel made her comment.

I know, he did such a good job. But I expect they'll find someone equally capable.

Apparently, there's less wrong in TX than one might think if Texas media is all over this. I think it can be summed this way:

The Texas Constitution MAY give Gov. GoodHair the right to veto the funding, but when he FIRST states that the approval would ONLY come at the resignation of an official, i.e. using coercion, then the veto falls into misuse of his veto power, because he is now on record as vetoing the bill ONLY to harm the person who he is attempting to coerce.

Ooops

He also, in his comments about the charges, may have committed another felony. He made a threat toward grand jurors which is illegal in the state of Texas.

His mouth has a mind of its own.

They have 'laws' in Texas? Who knew?

Yes, we do. Condemning an entire state for the stupidity of a few is counterproductive.

Perry's statement certainly could be interpreted as a threat. However the problem is proving intent. This is where his history of poor articulation could come to his defense. He could explain he was talking about civil suits against the prosecutor and possibly witnesses who "gave false information."

Well, a Judge took it as a threat! LOL! He just keeps mouthing off! That's what got him in trouble in the first place. He TOLD people what he was doing! LOL!