healthinsp wrote:The last time this happened it was a very similar case, except the governor vetoed funding for UT in an effort to get rid of some board members he didn't like.
If the politics were reversed, would the outrage still be the same?
Sure, why not? I am very tired of political hardball.
Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party are as concerned about the Constitution as they are about their own power, and the result is that they put power politics ahead of actual governance. They BOTH treat governance like the goal was political patronage, not the trust placed in them by the citizens who elected them. If they
cared about the citizens, they'd stop blowing our money, they'd take care of the border situation, they would willingly accept term limits AND pay cuts. It's bad enough that that's what they call governance, but they infect the
rest of us with their bile. They can ALL go to hades.
About the only thing I have come to not like about Texas is the politics. When I was a young man in California (back when republicans actually numbered enough to restrain the other party), if someone tried to run the kinds of political ads we see here now (witness Wendy Davis's sliming of Greg Abbot starting a few days ago over Abbot's [alleged] "support" of a rapist), that person would have swiftly found themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit for slander......and the plaintiff would have coasted to victory. But here, now, this kind of shoddy political product is commonplace. Heck, republicans do it to each other.
The idea of politics as a "contact sport" is bull. If you're not a gentleman (or woman), I won't vote for you no matter your politics. Your
character will weigh as much in my decision-making as much as your politics. I cast my first vote as a republican for Bob Dole against Bill Clinton......not so much because of politics (although the AWB did have something to do with it), but because Bob Dole was a man of
character who laid it all on the line for his country and paid a heavy price for it. Clinton, on the other hand, was a faithless serial adulterer. I'll grant that being married to Hillary would challenge any man's morals, but still.......I hold myself accountable to a higher power. I've been faithful to my wife for almost 28 years. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO DO!!! To behave as Clinton behaved, you have to be a person of loose morals and thin character. So I voted for Bob Dole when Clinton ran for reelection.
My final vote as a Republican was for Romney. It was the act of a politically desperate citizen. After that, I quit. Nobody has my allegiance any more. Both parties have
grossly abused my trust. Neither party has my trust any longer.
Our founders were not above this kind of crap either, but that doesn't make it right.........although there was a delicious exchange between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams once, and their various supporters when they ran against one another. An Adams supporter once publically suggested that were Jefferson to become the president, “we would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution.” A prominent newspaper in Connecticut opined that Jefferson's election would foster a nation in which "murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced."
One of Jefferson's supporters countered that Adams was a rageful, lying, warmongering fellow; a “repulsive pedant” and “gross hypocrite” who “behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character.”
Stephen Douglas accused Lincoln of being a drunk, claiming that Lincoln could "ruin more liquor" than all the men in town together. Some of my favorite stuff was written by Samuel Clemens in some of his short stories about working as an editor in a small-town newspaper, with all the usual "Twainish" embellishments and hyperbole.
My favorite politician of all times remains George Washington, who didn't want to job, refused at first to take it, relented when everyone begged him to do it, then nearly retired over the question of a second term because he didn't feel that a 2nd term was the right thing to do. He only acceded to it when he had nearly unanimous support in favor of it. My guess is that Washington went to his grave believing that a 2 term presidency was a bad idea.
Question the opponent's qualifications, by all means. Obama's were not subjected to nearly enough scrutiny by a fawning and obsequious media........and we're all living the result of that complete lack of intellectual curiosity. George W. Bush, on the other hand, had the media's willing participation in his character assassination, prior to and during his presidency. That whole national guard thing cooked up by Dan Rather (a passionate democrat) turned out to be smoke and mirrors and an obvious forgery. I wish that the 4th estate had been as curious about Obama.
Question his or her character.........if there is ACTUAL evidence of its lack (exactly the case with DA Wino in Austin). But let's do exactly as you suggest and then some, and switch the D and R after their names to a P and a Q as an exercise in unfreighting your question of ideology:
- Prosecutor Jones (P) gets stupid drunk and blows a 2.3 during a DUI stop, showing extraordinarily bad judgement. Worse yet, Jones (P) behaves like one of those nightmare prisoners down at the county jail.
- A public outcry begins, demanding that Jones step down as Prosecutor. Jones haughtily refuses to follow the will of the people who pay his salary, and he refuses to step down.
- Enter Governor Wilson (Q), who also tells Jones (P) that he should step down because he is no longer morally qualified to head up a division that investigates corruption (drunks can be blackmailed, etc.).
- Again, Jones (P) refuses to step down. Speculation is that the reason for Jones's refusal is the knowledge that Wilson (Q) will appoint another Q to fill Jones's vacated position. If true, and it makes sense because there is no GOOD reason why a drunk should be left in charge of a division which investigates corruption, then Jones has put party ambition ahead of the good of the state and its citizens.
- Now, it is highly probable although not written in stone that if Jones (P) stops down, Wilson (Q) will appoint another Q to fill the job Jones held, but at least the people of the state of Texas would be getting a sober person to investigation corruption, instead of a drunk.
- Governor Wilson (Q), acting as the representative of ALL the people, not just the Qs, threatens Jones (P) with defunding Jones's division if Jones does not step down. After all, why continue to fund a division run by an unrepentant and recalcitrant drunk of poor judgement?
- Wilson (Q) has not just used his power to threaten or coerce a private citizen. He has used it to force accountability in another public "servant" who otherwise refuses to be accountable. That's part of his job as the state's chief executive.
Now, it is obvious from your tone that you a) do not like Perry, and b) might even be a democrat yourself. I have no party baggage to cloud my discernment. I'm not Perry's biggest fan either, but in this case, as the chief executive who represents the interests of ALL Texans, not just the narrow interests of some little party apparatchik with the apparent job description of sniping republicans, he is right to try and force her out. How many democrats has she pursued? And don't try to tell me that there is no corruption among democrats. Of COURSE there is. SHE is placing her narrow party concerns and personal ambitions for power ahead of the good of the state's residents. Perry might well replace her with a republican if she steps down, but at least that one will be clear headed. Perry has his own ambitions, some of which he may not be qualified for either. But if I have to choose whose house to forget my wallet, I think it is safer with him than with her.......and party's got nothing to do with it.
I just think that he is right in this instance.
