Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rick Perry indictment looks, walks and quacks like political power play

Rick Perry indictment looks, walks and quacks like political power play

The criminalization of routine politics only seems to apply to Republicans.

Democrats are salivating over Friday’s indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry, and for good reason. Their one bright hope for the cycle, Texas State Senator and gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, has already done an early dive into the gutter, and their slate for the remaining up-ballot races is mediocre at best.

They’re last shot might be a long shot, but that doesn’t mean they’re not going to try.

Progressive grassroots juggernaut Battleground Texas is already fundraising off of the indictment. PJ Media has a copy of the e-mail sent by Battleground Texas almost immediately after the indictment was handed down:

bgtx-perry-indictment

Excellent timing for a detailed fundraising e-mail, Battleground. It’s almost as if you knew what was coming.

Speculation is growing—especially amongst Texas-based news sources and blogs like Quorum Report—that this indictment will lay waste to any attempts by Perry’s camp to fundraise for a presidential campaign, and damage him in the eyes of undecided and independent voters who don’t spend 24 hours a day locked inside the political news cycle.

Although I agree that it’s likely that Governor Perry’s run for 2016 may have hit its final pothole, I don’t agree that this indictment alone—or even progressives’ best efforts to paint him as a power-hungry despot—will spell doom for Perry’s reputation and chances at a political career after 2014.

Remember that we’re dealing with the same District Attorney’s office that sought a spurious indictment against former House Majority Leader Tom Delay. The Travis County DA’s office’s jurisprudential legacy is firmly cemented in a foundation of liberal nonsense, and their latest figurehead pled guilty to and was convicted of being the drunkest DA to ever get behind the wheel.

This is political payback at either its worst or its finest, depending on how long you’ve been in the business. After Lehmberg was convicted, Governor Perry demanded her resignation from office, and threatened to veto funding for the DA-run Public Integrity Unit if she refused; she called his bluff, and remains in office to this day. Perry vetoed the funding and thus sealed the fate on the reputations of both Lehmberg and the PIU. Lehmberg’s only possible redemption lies in Perry’s eventual conviction, but, as is normally the case with very public witch hunts, the facts—and the narrative—remain overwhelmingly in Perry’s favor.

At the end of the day, Texas democrats have a questionable indictment, and this guy:

Rick Perry and Texas Republicans, on the other hand, have a video of the “embattled” DA and head of the Public Integrity Unit belligerently wasted and strapped to a chair, demanding special treatment from a sheriff named Greg:

At least for now, I think it’s obvious who’s winning the narrative in red Texas.

Travis County itself is notoriously liberal, but you have to wonder just how bad it must be for Battleground Texas and their democrat friends statewide, if they’re forced to bank all expectations on a political play that’s almost certain to fail.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
,

Comments

“Spurious indictment against former House Majority Leader Tom Delay”–nonsense. On November 24, 2010, DeLay was found guilty by a Texas jury on two counts of conspiracy.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to whungerford. | August 16, 2014 at 10:24 am

    I guess you missed this:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/08/15/covering-perry-indictment-ap-mischaracterizes-tom-delay-cases-result-foc

    “The court said all judgments against DeLay were reversed, and the former congressman was formally acquitted.”

      In all my years, 59 to be precise (Born in 1954, first 18 year olds to vote, 1972, voted for McGovern at the request of our striking teachers, and over-exuberant 1972 government class.) I have never seen the Democrat Party so desparate. Even when Reagan sent them to the showers they only were in shock for a little while. But this election has them in truly dire straits and they are pulling out all the stops. Get ready to defend this great nation to the death (politically speaking I trust) against these malevolent madmen. It isn’t going to be pretty but it needs to be victorious for the right side.

    Ragspierre in reply to whungerford. | August 16, 2014 at 10:24 am

    You left out the part where he was granted a reversal by the appellate court.

    Why are you here?

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2014 at 10:33 am

      Low Information Voters never hear anything but the accusations and/or the show-trial verdict.

      Imagine that, Tom “The Hammer” Delay indicted and convicted by 12 Birkenstock wearing, sprout eating, Prius driving, no score soccer playing, frog water drinking, folk music playing, plastic shopping bag banning, tie-dye wearing, Banana Republic shopping Lefties from Austin (pronounced Awwwwwww-stin by the locals).

      Perry’s getting the same treatment.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2014 at 11:27 am

      They played this game with Kaye Bailey, too.

      #waronwomen, the early years…

      sequester in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2014 at 12:21 pm

      This is a State indictment. As a sitting Governor, Perry has a lot more quivers in his arsenal than Delay or Hutchison did.

      I’m sure his lawyers are pouring through the Statutes. He may be legally able to ignore the judge and prosecutor.

    whungerford in reply to whungerford. | August 16, 2014 at 10:50 am

    The last time a Texas Governor (Bill Clements) was indicted, it led to the first woman Governor of Texas.

      Ragspierre in reply to whungerford. | August 16, 2014 at 12:39 pm

      Simple yes or no question: as of right now, is Tom Delay acquitted?

        it cannot bring itself to say it as it would cause its head to implode.

        Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2014 at 2:25 pm

        Simple yes or no question: as of right now is the reversal under review?

        Simple yes or no question: Did a jury convict him?

        Simple yes or no question: When a higher court reverses a decision you agreed with do you accept it or start crying about activist judges and technicalities?

          Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | August 16, 2014 at 2:41 pm

          Yes.

          Yes.

          No, you Collectivist puke. I live in a world of technicalities. It is called “practicing law”.

          Is Tom DeLay innocent right now by any legal standard? Yes or no, please.

          What is your prediction regarding the Perry indictment as to…

          1. legal outcomes, and

          2. political outcomes?

          Do you support drunk driving elitists who abuse LEOs heading up “Integrity Units”? Yes or no, please.

          Have you sought help for the pathologies we know afflict trolls?

          Deodorant in reply to Deodorant. | August 16, 2014 at 2:54 pm

          @Ragspierre You are a collectivist and this is you collective. You gather here to reinforce your collectivist puke.

          Last I heard, when a higher court agrees to hear an appeal, it means some members think the appeal has merit.

          Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | August 16, 2014 at 3:06 pm

          Well, you are typical of your Collective, which really is a term with a meaning.

          If you were not such a dishonest idiot (typical of your trollish clan) you wouldn’t have called a group of individualist thinkers a “collective”. We are, first, individualists, which is why your ilk hates us.

          If you COULD read, you’d note that opinions here are warmly NOT homogeneous.

          When the highest court in the state takes on an appeal, it can simply mean it wants to review a law of first impression. Like this one, stupid. Have you considered that?

          You can’t answer questions, can you? I understand. It is part of the pathology.

          Deodorant in reply to Deodorant. | August 16, 2014 at 3:48 pm

          You are typical of your collective. You may have some differention, but you all basically think alike.

          Calling me a “dishonest idiot (typical of your trollish clan)” is typical of you collective. You are the house troll.

          “If you COULD read” Ouch! That really hurt. LOL Not very original; typical of your responses. I detect a certain communality (same root as communism) in the responses on this site. There is also a complete intolerance of any alternative. Then you resort to name calling. Does that work in court?

          When the highest court in the state takes on an appeal, it can simply mean it that it thinks the Appellant Court was wrong. Mostly, when they agree, they refuse to hear the appeal so as not to waste their time. Have you considered that, stupid?

          You can’t answer criticisms or arguments, can you? You resort to childish name calling – not even original or creative insults. It is part of the pathology.

          Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | August 16, 2014 at 3:56 pm

          Still can’t answer the questions, huh?

          And after I showed you how it’s done and everything.

          You need to look up the term “troll”. Well, like so many other words and ideas.

          I use it correctly, as you’ll see.

          Please, stop stinking up this thread with your hate-twisted dementia. Oh, BTW, there are some quite good pieces on the psychological illnessesssssssss that lead to behavior like yours. Your time would be WELL spent, and could lead to you getting the help you need.

          I mean, doooood, yours is a desperate cry for help.

        sequester in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2014 at 8:59 pm

        Rags, the Appeals Court in the Delay case wrote:

        Because we conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to support DeLay’s convictions, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal.

        Jeopardy attaches to a judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court unanimously and without argument in a per-curium opinion affirmed that in Martizez v Illinois this term. It’s reversal of the Illinois Supreme Court was harsh.

        I doubt the Texas Supreme Court is going to buck the US Supreme Court on this one after Martinez.

          Ragspierre in reply to sequester. | August 16, 2014 at 9:49 pm

          While I agree with your gist, a couple of points…

          The Texas Supremes only consider civil law cases.

          Our highest criminal appellate court is the Court Of Criminal Appeals.

          I can see the Justices reviewing the lower appellate court’s holdings, since this is a matter (I do believe) of first impression, while not considering anything in the appeal meritorious of itself. They might just want to look everything over to see if they should let all the legal precedent stand.

          sequester in reply to sequester. | August 17, 2014 at 9:04 am

          Rags. You Texans certainly do it your way. In many States the Governor has the power of pardon, and the ability to remove prosecutors for cause.

          I suppose the Court of Criminal Appeals may be looking to see whether the Appeals Court had the power to enter a judgment of acquittal. However once duly entered after a jury is sworn, he Supreme Court precedents are very clear. Jeopardy attaches.

          What may be novel is the Appeal Court entry of judgment of acquittal as opposed to the trial court.

          Ragspierre in reply to sequester. | August 17, 2014 at 9:27 am

          I made myself misunderstood.

          If this is a case of first instance, the “middle” appellate court’s acquittal may be peachy with the Court of Criminal Appeals, while it MAY want to review the decision to correct what it considers errors in reasoning, or to slightly (or largely) alter what would stand as a precedent in this arcane area of law. That is, they may like the destination, but not how they got there.

          I dunno. I freely admit to my failings as a mind reader.

    RickCaird in reply to whungerford. | August 16, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    Hey Hungerford. Do you ever get anything right?

    Brian Epps in reply to whungerford. | August 20, 2014 at 11:52 pm

    Delay was charged and convicted on pursuing a nefarious conspiracy to OBEY the law.

    If trying and succeeding to find a LEGAL way to achieve your goals is a crime in your eyes, you need to leave this planet now.

I dunno – Perry plays this right (as in, he aggressively fights it in a very public manner), it could actually boost his chances.

People are sick and tired of the beta male currently sitting in the White House checking boxes and applying academic faculty lounge solutions to every problem that comes his way.

This is going to blow up in Democrats’ faces.

    I agree. Video images of that screeching, alcoholic, drug addled skank (our esteemed Travis County DA) should be plastered on the video-tron in Times Square and everywhere else until this bullshit is dropped.

    This is just going to serve to piss off the conservatives and boost the red turnout this fall.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Paul. | August 16, 2014 at 11:29 am

      Time to corral those Fascist Democrats in Texas.

      Look it up.

      This is exactly what EVIL did in Nazi Germany and the other Nazi states.

      They’ll say night is day and day is night and send folks to death camps if they disagree – if they get their EVIL way.

nordic_prince | August 16, 2014 at 10:23 am

Of course it’s poltically motivated. Democrats are like monkeys flinging poo, only the monkeys are far more entertaining. The Democrats, on the other hand, are disgusting.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to nordic_prince. | August 16, 2014 at 10:26 am

    I’m sure Scott Walker has already called him to offer him moral support.

    The Travis County District Attorney is just an extension of the DNC’s Soviet Style accusation and show-trial apparatus. Maybe we should just move the capital to Midland County, so the Midland County DA could start indicting Democrats!!

    “If anybody can get indicted for ‘abuse of power’ in Texas, then Axelrod’s boss ought to stay out of Texas, lest he be imprisoned in the basement of the Alamo.” — PeeWee Herman

Rick Perry’s chances of getting the nomination in 2016 were never all that good. I think this indictment is all about liberal vindictiveness. They are the people of self-righteous hate.

theduchessofkitty | August 16, 2014 at 11:12 am

The Travis Co DA is now, officially, the Jeff Gilloolly of the Democratic Party.

(Y’all should remember that twenty years ago, that same man kneecaped Nancy Kerrigan in order to give his wife, Tonya Harding, the advantage for Olympic gold. We all knew Kerrigan would get the gold… until the kneecapping happened. In the end, Kerrigan only managed to get silver. And Tonya confessed to knowing – and was forever ruined for honest work.)

But unlike Kerrigan, Perry knows how to fight back. He once killed a coyote who threatened his dog. What makes anyone think he won’t fight back against a drunk prosecutor? (Drunk with power, that is.)

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to theduchessofkitty. | August 16, 2014 at 6:21 pm

    Okay… let’s be realistic. There is “drunk” and there is “.238 drunk”.

    If Madame District Attorney is still able to stand upright at that level – however dysfunctional her cognitive skills might be – this tells me she deserves another Soviet Russian comparison. If she can drink like that, then she doesn’t go out and have “a couple of glasses of wine”. No, she’s into the vodka tank like her Soviet counterparts. This is Lavrentiy Beria type drunk. This is liver killing, psycho inducing, brain frying, hard liquor in a 24-oz. tea glass drunk.

    And, assuming “in vino, veritas”, her insistence that the jailers, “call (sheriff) Greg (Hamilton)”, tells anyone with half a brain that she’s been picked up by the po-lice before, or more likely Travis County, and chauffeured home and tucked into bed.

    So, I would love to know why she ended up arrested instead of given special treatment. I bet she would, too!! 😆

Point of order, Mr Chairman –

Governor Perry demanded her resignation from office, and threatened to veto funding for the DA-run Public Integrity Unit if she refused; she called his bluff, and remains in office to this day. Perry vetoed the funding …

Where’s the bluff? Once he actually votoed the funding, as he’d said he’d do, there was no longer any way to believe that he’d been bluffing.

Governor Perry’s veto of funds for the Public Integrity Unit is less about D.A. Lehmber’s .238 Blood Alcohol level while operating a motor vehicle than it is about her attempted abuse of power by insisting on contacting her buddy, Sheriff Greg Hamilton, in an effort to cover up the arrest. Governor Perry apparently believes that someone in charge of the Public Integrity Unit should have integrity, a concept which is obvious anathema to Democrats.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Desert_Rat45. | August 16, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    10/10!!!!

    Ragspierre in reply to Desert_Rat45. | August 16, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Integrity + publicly elected officials + in freaking public + putting the public in danger of death and disability on the public highways…

    Damn. That concept could catch on as a winning theme with the…you know…public…

    scooterjay in reply to Desert_Rat45. | August 16, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Ding!! That is EXACTLY what I have been thinking….If you gonna show Integrity in Public, then by all means do so…..leave the “Drunk in Public” to Ron White! Furthermore, you would think that a DA would understand the legal and moral implications of driving while impaired, not to mention the irresponsibility and reckless endangerment it causes. Thanks, Travis County DA….you just assured Texas stays Red for awhile.

    Spiny Norman in reply to Desert_Rat45. | August 16, 2014 at 6:46 pm

    …less about D.A. Lehmber’s .238 Blood Alcohol level while operating a motor vehicle than it is about her attempted abuse of power by insisting on contacting her buddy, Sheriff Greg Hamilton, in an effort to cover up the arrest.

    Kinda makes one wonder how many other shenanigans Sheriff Greg has covered up for her…

got 5 videos here including arrest dashcam
http://www.theconservativevoices.com/news/cat/political/perry-targeted-by-da-office

will add more as I find them

In my misspent youth I worked for a while as a deputy and and, on occasion, worked at the booking desk at the jail. Folks should take note of how professional the jail staff was compared to the intoxicated, nasty DA they were dealing with.

Want to guess who still has the larger salary and more perks?

“Fat, drunk and Lebanese is no way to go through life, son.”

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 16, 2014 at 2:24 pm

Background then a question.

I’ve been called for jury duty a handful of times but never served. A couple of times I showed up and my “number” wasn’t called so I was free to go. And a couple of times my number was called and then after I was asked a few questions one of the attorneys excused me from service.

The question for the lawyers familiar with how grand juries work:

Is there a way to weed out biased people from sitting on grand juries? I can’t imagine an unbiased person would have voted to indict based on how this is being reported. Even David Axelrod tweeted he thinks it is “sketchy”.

    The history of this case is a blot on the Texas legal system. It is probably true that it could only have happened in Travis County.

    There are some very good pieces you can find on the abuses of the grand jury process that were promulgated by what I consider to be one of the most crooked DAs in Travis County history. Which is going some.

    Hopefully someone can be more precise but my understanding is that grand juries do not go through the trial jury process where both the state and defense select the jury. The prosecutor runs the show in the grand jury process which is why it’s said you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

By all means ignore the underlying issue. Ignore the reasons Perry wants the Public Integrity Unit defunded. Could it be because the Public Integrity Unit is investigating the Cancer Prevention and Researcb Institute of Texas? Could it be that a former conservative official is under indictment for the mishandling of an 11 million grant.

Of course no member of this arcane collective wants a conservative crony of Perry investigated.

I have my doubts about whether Perry’s indictment will stand. But I have a lot fewer doubts about whether the underlying issue needs to be investigated.

Perry has a history of disbanding commissions when they start to affect him politically. When a scientific commission investigating the facts behind an arson/murder conviction came dangerously close to concluding that an innocent man was executed for an accidental fire, guess what Perry did?

I am sure this collective isn’t in favor of innocent people being executeed; unless that execution upholds a larger ‘libertarian’ principle. Justifying capital punishment is even more important than liberty. If not, why aren’t you guys up in arms about Cameron Todd Willingham?

    Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | August 16, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    “…is under indictment for the mishandling of an 11 million grant.”

    Which would be what is called “Closing the barn door after the horses bolt”.

    Wouldn’t it, stupid? Can any of you trolls think?

    “When a scientific commission investigating the facts behind an arson/murder conviction came dangerously close to concluding that an innocent man was executed for an accidental fire, guess what Perry did?”

    Well, he did NOT ‘disband’ it, moron. Did he?

    Cameron Todd Willingham MAY…possibly…have been wrongly convicted. Using the best available science. People are tried in real time, stupid. Hindsight MIGHT show they were wrongfully convicted. Which is all you have here. MIGHT.

    So. You go ahead and get your hair on fire, and puff up your self-aggrandizing bullshit to make you and your Collective enjoy your cheaply bought illusion of moral superiority. We will just point at you and laugh.

    The rest of us will learn what ACTUAL lessons come out of the Willingham case, and work to make our system even better.

      Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2014 at 4:07 pm

      “Well, he did NOT ‘disband’ it, moron. Did he?” He replaced an independent chairman with a crony who closed the study. He also kicked off scientists in favor of cronys.

      Obviously you can’t read. The issues were raised while Willingham was still alive. The scientific commission was tasked with trying to develop a better standard in order to avoid the issue occuring in the future. But it was politically inconvenient. So the next accused my deprived of his liberty, too. Doesn’t bother you? That’s surprising. Maybe not.

      The prosecutorial misconduct and the bribery are also relevant. They remain, even after the state sanctioned murder. If Perry had a soul, he would want to investigate all of that thoroughly, rather that bury it. If this site was about liberty instead of ideology, you would not be trying to bat it aside. You would be fighting to unearth every unseemly detail. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-doubts-over-a-texas-execution/

      Bye for now. I just wanted to open a window and let a little fresh air in. Although I haven’t bothered to visit here in months, I had every confidence that I would find the usual knee-jerk conservatism on the Perry indictment. You did not disappoint.

      Bye for now. I have made my point and you insults and reflexive attacks are boring.

    RickCaird in reply to Deodorant. | August 16, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    There is no underlying issue. You are just making things up. All Perry said was he expected Lehmber to resign for being convicted of DUI and attempting to cover up her arrest. If she had resigned, he would not have vetoed the funding request.

    Nice try at obfuscating the issue, but like all your other posts, it was a complete #fail.

    Your nom de guerre references the wrong toiletry… you are a massive douche nozzle.

    I’m all in favor of any and all government officials being investigated for corruption. Root it out where-ever it exists. And let’s shrink the size of government while we’re at it… TRUE reductions, not reductions in the rate of growth.

    I’m confident a LOT of others on this site feel the same way. And since you’re so eager to root it out, I bet you must be in favor of a special prosecutor to look into Holder and Obama, huh? Right. And see you offer no proof of Perry’s motivations.

    But we all have seen the videos of the alcoholic, drug addled skank DA abusing her powers and we all know that she refused to resign as the head of the public integrity unit afterwards. Please tell us how you justify her behavior during and after the drunken incident. Is that your idea of integrity?

    Seriously, go wash yourself, your BS stinks to high heaven.

      scooterjay in reply to Paul. | August 16, 2014 at 3:53 pm

      “But we all have seen the videos of the alcoholic, drug addled skank DA abusing her powers and we all know that she refused to resign as the head of the public integrity unit afterwards. Please tell us how you justify her behavior during and after the drunken incident. Is that your idea of integrity?
      Seriously, go wash yourself, your BS stinks to high heaven.”

      Absolutely! ****applause from the audience****

      Deodorant in reply to Paul. | August 16, 2014 at 4:09 pm

      So Perry wasn’t looking to shut down an investigation. I have a bridge to sell you.

        Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | August 16, 2014 at 6:39 pm

        Please put up a link to the title, because you’ve proven you will buy into any fraud printed.

        tom swift in reply to Deodorant. | August 16, 2014 at 7:38 pm

        This is part of the structure of which solid leftoids are made – the absolute conviction that all their fantasies are reality. No evidence, witnessess, testimony, or any of that fancy stuff are needed, just a heaping serving of self-righteousness and unfailing, pig-headed certainty.

        Accusation is identical to guilt. Very simple, something even the dumbest voter can grasp.

          platypus in reply to tom swift. | August 17, 2014 at 7:17 am

          Wasn’t it Dan “what’s the frequency kenneth” Rather who said, it’s the seriousness of the accusation that’s important?

    DaveGinOly in reply to Deodorant. | August 20, 2014 at 12:48 am

    If what you say is true, don’t you think that would have been brought before the grand jury, and mentioned in the indictment?

notice some idiots here are perfectly fine with a DA getting caught driving drunk and then attempting to get the charges fixed through her connections.
They are fine with the enforcer of the law not being held to the law.
they also seem to think this is the first time we’ve done any posting about her arrest because they are too stupid to search.
We’ve had many discussions about this arrest before.
ignore them, they are just looking to toss any excuse out (no matter the timelines or statements) to disparage him. bet they’ll claim it was due to slavery next and related to the ni**er rock issue.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to dmacleo. | August 16, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Those are the same people who say “Fast & Furious” was actually part of a program started by (wait for it… waiiiiit for it…..) BOOOOOSH. They are the ones who think that Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm scandals had no basis in reality (they also believe in man-made Global Warming, power crystals and horoscopes) even after the missing law firm records mysteriously appeared on a table in the most secure edifice in the world. They also believed that Bush abused his office when he fired the US Attorneys (just the latest prez to do that), yet turn a blind eye to the blatant separation of powers abuse by Teh Chozen Won.

    Yes, liberalism is a mental disorder.

    DennisD in reply to dmacleo. | August 16, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    If the roles were reversed in this matter I’m sure the sentiments here would remain the same.

      DennisD in reply to DennisD. | August 16, 2014 at 7:54 pm

      My comment wasn’t meant to be stand-alone, not reply to you dmacleo. Need an edit button here.

      Ragspierre in reply to DennisD. | August 16, 2014 at 8:10 pm

      Yeah. They would.

        DennisD in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2014 at 8:43 pm

        I highly doubt it.

        And geez! I wrote “wasn’t meant to be stand-alone” when of course I mean “was meant to be stand-alone.” Need an edit button!

          Ragspierre in reply to DennisD. | August 16, 2014 at 9:08 pm

          Well, you are stupidly wrong.

          Most people here are not party hacks. We are BIG C Conservatives, and many of those are very reform-minded.

          If you think this poor pathological women would be supported here after her disgrace, you are simply too stupid to bother with.

          Your error-prone posting would get better with practice…but just don’t bother if this is characteristic.

          DennisD in reply to DennisD. | August 16, 2014 at 10:04 pm

          Yes, most here are above politics. The posts and comments most certainly bear that out.

          Ragspierre in reply to DennisD. | August 16, 2014 at 10:19 pm

          Wow. It didn’t take long for you to just go to outright dishonesty.

          EVERYBODY here is very involved in politics, and in the contest of ideas and ideals. And NOBODY said anything remotely to the contrary.

          Do YOU support this poor, sick, elitist who refuses to resign?

          TrooperJohnSmith in reply to DennisD. | August 16, 2014 at 10:42 pm

          Smell that? It’s the DU and the KOS linking LI!

          Even /pol/ is superior to those rags (not ever to be confused with theoneandonly Ragspierre Esq!).

          DennisD in reply to DennisD. | August 17, 2014 at 3:45 am

          It’s not a question of my support, it’s a question of whether her incident makes her unfit for the position she holds. At first blush I’d tend to want see someone who behaved that way to be fired but I don’t know all the details nor, most importantly, her professional record. It may be the case that whatever transpired during her drunken episode is not reflective in any manner of her job performance or ethics. She also went through whatever processes and reviews required to keep her position which suggests that her offense, from at least one corner, was not a disqualifying one.

          As to what you call my dishonesty, there appears to be an awful lot of vitriol against Democrats and Liberals from what I’ve read here and that kind of discourse is a mark of politics rather than policy disagreement.

          Ragspierre in reply to DennisD. | August 17, 2014 at 11:10 am

          EVERYBODY here is very involved in politics, and in the contest of ideas and ideals. And NOBODY said anything remotely to the contrary.

          I asked you a question. You didn’t answer it.

          Hmmmm….

          DennisD in reply to DennisD. | August 17, 2014 at 3:26 pm

          I did answer it, but let me try again in shorter form: I can’t support or object to an official’s continuing employ with regard to a particular incident if I don’t know in detail her job duties, job history and other relevant facts.

          Ragspierre in reply to DennisD. | August 17, 2014 at 4:08 pm

          Me: Do YOU support this poor, sick, elitist who refuses to resign?

          You: It’s not a question of my support…

          See, pard, I ask people hard, pointed questions for a living, and I know when they refuse to answer the question I asked, like you did here.

          I also note with some humor you go on to provide the equivocating, DOUBLEGOODSPEAK HR department response to a question nobody asked.

          Should this employee be fired?

          She’s not an employee. She is a Texas office holder.

          Which is why I asked the question I did, and you ran from.

          I’d say I have my answer, and to a lot more issues than the one I dealt with in my probing question.

          And, yes, you have been probed…

          DennisD in reply to DennisD. | August 17, 2014 at 4:52 pm

          That you may be unsatisfied with my response doesn’t make your question unanswered.

          Ragspierre in reply to DennisD. | August 17, 2014 at 5:01 pm

          People can read. I am always happy to leave to to those folks.

An old friend of mine was close friends with and lived next door to the Bullocks in Austin during many years of his tenureas the Democratic Comptroller and Secretary of State. My friend was a loyal and contributing Democrat and he thought it amusing the Travis County Sheriff’s Department would often drop Bob at home in the middle of the night. Finding his car the next morning must been a chore for Bullock.

It’s nice, I guess, having your own armed designated driving service provided by the taxpayers of Travis County when you are a raging alcoholic.

    auschuck in reply to Texpat. | August 17, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    Thanks Texpat. As someone on the edges of those Bullock episodes many years ago, a couple of comments. For accuracy, Bullock was Lt. Gov. not Secretary of State – a world of difference in duties and power in Texas Government. Times were so different. Think Mad Men then. I am what many would consider a radically right guy but have always held an admiration for Bullock as BOOOOSH did as well. See NYTIMES profile upon his death in 1999 http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/19/us/bob-bullock-a-titan-of-texas-politics-is-dead-at-69.html It is good reading on the hard fought but honorable nature of that fight. I recommend it.

    We have so lost the concept that we fight hard in the arena of ideas but not be personally destructive. To see him cited as similar to the current small time County DA and her failings make me very sad as does this entire situation.

      Texpat in reply to auschuck. | August 18, 2014 at 9:20 pm

      Dear auschuck,

      Please see Bullock resume:

      Secretary of State – 1971 to 1973
      Comptroller – 1975 to 1991
      Lieutenant Governor – 1991 to 1999

      And I did not compare Bob Bullock to this trashy, shrewish harridan occupying the DA’s office in Travis County.

      I was making a comment about the historical tradition of Travis County Sheriff and City of Austin Police departments coddling and protecting Democratic politicians. The two offices Bullock held covered the time I mentioned. Bob quit drinking before he became Lieutenant Governor.

      Personally, I was always an admirer of Bob Bullock and hold no enmity or animus towards the man. He was one of those bigger than life characters only Texas can hatch.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend