I highlight the New York Times because their editorial board put out the most backhanded defense of Perry I’ve ever seen. The bottom line, even the Times is skeptical of the charges against Rick Perry which speaks volumes for the validity of the claims. Note the opening paragraph illustrating just how much animosity the Times actually has for Perry, though they still felt obliged to defend him on this matter.

From the New York Times:

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is one of the least thoughtful and most damaging state leaders in America, having done great harm to immigrants, abortion clinics and people without health insurance during his 14 years in office. But bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution.

For more than a year, Mr. Perry has been seeking the resignation of the Travis County district attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg. He had good reason to do so: Ms. Lehmberg was arrested in April 2013 for driving with a blood alcohol level of more than three times the legal limit, and she verbally abused the officers who found her with an open bottle of vodka. She ranted and raved at the local jail, threatening sheriff’s deputies, and she had to be restrained in a chair with a hood over her head. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in jail. In addition to endangering people’s lives, she instantly lost her credibility as a prosecutor of drunken-driving cases.

Whether the charges pan out or not, this will be a sore spot for Perry’s bid in 2016. Many voters hear the word “indictment” and it won’t matter whether he’s found guilty or the charges are dropped. The mere fact that this exists will be reason enough for some people to drop Perry thinking he’s just another corrupt politician.


  1. As I said elsewhere, Perry has to show respect for the legal system, while proclaiming his innocence. But, instead, he stated that he will not resign over it. Stupid. It makes him sound guilty and intransigent. Shades of Nixon.

    What he should have said is that charges can be made, but that doesn’t make them true. After all, as Sol Wachtler famously said, you could get a grand jury to indict a HAM SANDWICH if that’s what you want.

  2. Bye, bye Perry — it shows that a Republican cannot neg a Jewish Dem (regardless of actual guilt, being Jewish makes them immune)…and survive politically.

    AIPAC rules, and when Israel says jump — US politicians say: “How high!”

    Why do you think when talking about US foreign policy all US politicians preface their statements with: “In order to protect the USA and Israel…”….

    Gotta love when Rand Paul says: “In order to protect Israel, and USA…” — the mockery is lost on most…that he states Israel first….!

    • Yeah. I have also noticed politicians saying “Israel and the US.” The US has been “the defender of Israel.” But by being so adamant about it, we ironically, antagonize other countries which might otherwise be more sympathetic to Israel. Since we are such a knee-jert “defender,”

      • It is sickening, that US politicians have to pay homage to the foreign nation of Israel, every time they open their mouth. Shows how much power AIPAC (the most perniciously powerful entity in DC, The American Israeli Political Action Committee) has in electing nearly all our Congressmen and Senators…and all other low entry bureaucrats that run our Country!

        We’ve lost our REAL US DOLLAR to phoney WORTHLESS paper NOTES printed by the Federal Reserve, owned and controlled by Zionists since 1913!

        Now we are losing our WHOLE Nation to these same thugs!


Comments are closed.