Uh, maybe on the guy who cut the funding? On the guy who went after a bunch of people to hurt one person, and got two innocent people canned? But wait, their boss deserved it, that makes them losing their jobs okay what the fuck kind of logic is that?
Not on the person who valued her own skin more than the people under her, or the work she was doing? And what's the alternative? Let a belligerent drunk who tried to intimidate police with the power of her office just continue as though nothing had happened? Do her 20-odd days in jail, drop a measly $4 grand, and take half a year off litigating cases, and let's just pretend she never decided to disregard the lives of everyone around her.
What's left for the governor to do with this person? He even offered her the chance to stay on under someone else's leadership, and he even offered to appoint a Democrat just to demonstrate the whole thing wasn't a political power play.
I dunno man. it definitely changes my thinking to learn that some people got fired, but I don't agree with you that Lehmberg is absolved of all responsibility for their firing.
Cheating on his wife is not exactly criminal. Only criminal thing he may have done was use state money on said trips, for which he repaid the state after the thing came out.
what's the punishment for essentially taking off from leading a state to go meet your soulmate from another country?
there was more there than just cheating on his wife
Censure.
Hey look, the system worked. If the voters of his district want to send him to the House, that's their business.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Really, I'm not seeing a huge need to get someone out of elected office no matter what the cost unless the person is actually causing serious harm that can't wait for election time to come.
Same here. I think the argument is that she was abusing the power of her office, but you can't tell me this was the sole means of trying to oust her. Even if it was, was it worth getting an innocent pair people fired?
Uh, maybe on the guy who cut the funding? On the guy who went after a bunch of people to hurt one person, and got two innocent people canned? But wait, their boss deserved it, that makes them losing their jobs okay what the fuck kind of logic is that?
Not on the person who valued her own skin more than the people under her, or the work she was doing? And what's the alternative? Let a belligerent drunk who tried to intimidate police with the power of her office just continue as though nothing had happened? Do her 20-odd days in jail, drop a measly $4 grand, and take half a year off litigating cases, and let's just pretend she never decided to disregard the lives of everyone around her.
What's left for the governor to do with this person? He even offered her the chance to stay on under someone else's leadership, and he even offered to appoint a Democrat just to demonstrate the whole thing wasn't a political power play.
I dunno man. it definitely changes my thinking to learn that some people got fired, but I don't agree with you that Lehmberg is absolved of all responsibility for their firing.
Cheating on his wife is not exactly criminal. Only criminal thing he may have done was use state money on said trips, for which he repaid the state after the thing came out.
what's the punishment for essentially taking off from leading a state to go meet your soulmate from another country?
there was more there than just cheating on his wife
Censure.
Hey look, the system worked. If the voters of his district want to send him to the House, that's their business.
As someone who lived in SC for 8 years, I can tell you they only voted for Sanford as a big "Fuck You" to the rest of the world because they couldn't vote for Strom Thurmond anymore.
Uh, maybe on the guy who cut the funding? On the guy who went after a bunch of people to hurt one person, and got two innocent people canned? But wait, their boss deserved it, that makes them losing their jobs okay what the fuck kind of logic is that?
Not on the person who valued her own skin more than the people under her, or the work she was doing? And what's the alternative? Let a belligerent drunk who tried to intimidate police with the power of her office just continue as though nothing had happened? Do her 20-odd days in jail, drop a measly $4 grand, and take half a year off litigating cases, and let's just pretend she never decided to disregard the lives of everyone around her.
What's left for the governor to do with this person? He even offered her the chance to stay on under someone else's leadership, and he even offered to appoint a Democrat just to demonstrate the whole thing wasn't a political power play.
I dunno man. it definitely changes my thinking to learn that some people got fired, but I don't agree with you that Lehmberg is absolved of all responsibility for their firing.
Cheating on his wife is not exactly criminal. Only criminal thing he may have done was use state money on said trips, for which he repaid the state after the thing came out.
what's the punishment for essentially taking off from leading a state to go meet your soulmate from another country?
there was more there than just cheating on his wife
Much more damning was that he just vanished without anyone having a clue what the hell happened to him or who was in charge in the mean time.
That having been said, I was terribly amused that he (a member of the party of family values) vamoosed on fathers day weekend.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
As someone who lived in SC for 8 years, I can tell you they only voted for Sanford as a big "Fuck You" to the rest of the world because they couldn't vote for Strom Thurmond anymore.
South Carolina, the raised middle finger of America
Uh, maybe on the guy who cut the funding? On the guy who went after a bunch of people to hurt one person, and got two innocent people canned? But wait, their boss deserved it, that makes them losing their jobs okay what the fuck kind of logic is that?
Not on the person who valued her own skin more than the people under her, or the work she was doing? And what's the alternative? Let a belligerent drunk who tried to intimidate police with the power of her office just continue as though nothing had happened? Do her 20-odd days in jail, drop a measly $4 grand, and take half a year off litigating cases, and let's just pretend she never decided to disregard the lives of everyone around her.
how dare she simply serve her sentence and pay the kind of fine any other Texan would for a similar offense
she obviously should be made to further suffer through questionably legal and dubiously ethical means after she's paid her debt to society
since we should clearly hold our elected public servants to a higher standard if they try to coerce someone of lower position using their own higher office
As someone who lived in SC for 8 years, I can tell you they only voted for Sanford as a big "Fuck You" to the rest of the world because they couldn't vote for Strom Thurmond anymore.
South Carolina, the raised middle finger of America
They're not all bad. We got Stephen Colbert from them, so I'm willing to forgive a fair amount.
That Mitch McConnell ad was amazing, never before has a politician said so little by not actually saying anything at all.
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
edited August 2014
So MSNBC, noted conservative bastion, is running as their #4 front page story on their website "the weak case against Rick Perry. " After seeing this plus Jonathan Chait of the New Yorker yesterday or the day before, I wondered:
As Spool has noted, there appears to be unanimous bipartisan support for a finding that the indictment was faulty. Has anyone seen a political writer, journalist or attorney who has published remarks saying otherwise?
Edit: I mean; it's fairly interesting in and of itself that nobody is even attempting a token defense of the legal rigor of the indictment. Interesting broader commentary on political reporting: preference of elections and the political question doctrine to settle political disputes vs. Indictment, or heging bets for defense of a future Dem politician who pulls a similar stunt? I'm not a media theory guy, idk.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
The closest precedent dates back to 1917, when Gov. James Ferguson, who wanted the University of Texas to fire some faculty and staff of which he disapproved, was indicted based on his veto of funding to the university. Ferguson resigned before he was convicted. "There's not really any legal or political precedent for this. You've got to go back nearly a century," Jillson said.
Wait. Whoa there. In 1917, they brought exactly the same case against a sitting governor and that precedent is not a precedent because it goes back "nearly a century"? Is there a statute of limitations on relevance of which I am not aware, because it sure would have come in handy back in 1998, when the Republicans in the House impeached a sitting president despite the fact that action hadn't been taken for well over a century.
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
Not to mention that the political media has an infatuation for comity that leads them to avoid mentioning that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Regarding Chait, it was this infatuation that lead to him getting ripped a new orifice rhetorically by Ta-Nehesi Coates over the patholoization of black culture a few months ago.
Hey, at this point most of what we know is that the case was strong enough for a Grand Jury to indict.
It may be strong, it may be weak, it may get thrown out down the line. Maybe Perry walks, maybe he ends up convicted, maybe he takes a plea.
That's all in the future and in the hands of the justice system. Since there is a gag order on the Grand Jury, we can only speculate and wait and see what happens.
+1
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
No, it's a conspiracy to let Perry stay relevant so we get funnier Daily Show episodes in 2016.
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
No, I think that they would choose to "play nice" for a number of reasons related to comity, which is an endemic problem. Chait, whom a lot of people have been referencing, has been publicly caught out doing this himself.
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
Look, all I know is that Perry was indicted by a grand jury.
Since there is a gag order, we can only make assumptions about why the grand jury made this choice or the strength of the evidence, but there's nothing wrong with taking some schadenfreude at an asshole like Perry getting indicted.
Either way the indictment happened. That's a plain fact.
Questions of the motivation of the jury, bias against Perry, etc are assumptions, speculation, and opinion. I'm more than happy to smile over the facts at hand, even if I'm not making a judgement of his overall guilt or not.
I'm of the opinion that Rick Perry getting the Republican nomination for President would be a wonderful thing for the Democrats. Frankly, if the USA elects Rick Perry to the office of President, we deserve what we'll end up getting.
I'm of the opinion that Rick Perry getting the Republican nomination for President would be a wonderful thing for the Democrats. Frankly, if the USA elects Rick Perry to the office of President, we deserve what we'll end up getting.
I'm rooting for Newt Gingrich again. I want that moon base. No matter the cost.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
No, I think that they would choose to "play nice" for a number of reasons related to comity, which is an endemic problem. Chait, whom a lot of people have been referencing, has been publicly caught out doing this himself.
That would be a valid point if one couldn't easily find many articles in Chait's archive mocking and harassing GOP presidential candidates, including Perry.
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
No, I think that they would choose to "play nice" for a number of reasons related to comity, which is an endemic problem. Chait, whom a lot of people have been referencing, has been publicly caught out doing this himself.
Hmm?
I'd be interested at that link.
I think this is Coates' last post on the matter, with links to their previous discussion.
Speaking of: TNC is back from his summer French only vacation, hooray! Well, I mean, if he had happier things to talk about instead of Ferguson.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
No, I think that they would choose to "play nice" for a number of reasons related to comity, which is an endemic problem. Chait, whom a lot of people have been referencing, has been publicly caught out doing this himself.
Hmm?
I'd be interested at that link.
Even if Chait has been caught doing this, and I don't think Hedgie would lie about that , it doesn't explain the complete and utter dearth (edit: my offer from earlier in this page stands! ) of Dem commentators expressing approval of the indictment, or even a halfhearted "well we'll see what evidence they have. " instead, it's "no that was pretty dumb and that's not how the political question doctrine and elections work."
Or, as Hedgie posits, it's all a big Dem conspiracy to lockstep a media message with an "infatuation with comity", because the Dems have always been so good at getting their politicians people to move in marching order with a consistent message, right? Let alone liberal journalists not even concerned with the party message.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
No, I think that they would choose to "play nice" for a number of reasons related to comity, which is an endemic problem. Chait, whom a lot of people have been referencing, has been publicly caught out doing this himself.
Hmm?
I'd be interested at that link.
This is what I was talking about earlier. And I read his argument against the indictment, and it's laughably blinkered. The argument is twofold - one, he preordains Perry's actions as reasonable, dismissing any potential ulterior motives or knock-on effects; and two, he argues that the threat of the veto is inherent in the veto itself - an argument I don't exactly find convincing.
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
No, I think that they would choose to "play nice" for a number of reasons related to comity, which is an endemic problem. Chait, whom a lot of people have been referencing, has been publicly caught out doing this himself.
Hmm?
I'd be interested at that link.
I think this is Coates' last post on the matter, with links to their previous discussion.
Speaking of: TNC is back from his summer French only vacation, hooray! Well, I mean, if he had happier things to talk about instead of Ferguson.
I love Chait and TNC, and followed their amazing back and forth pretty closely. Their debate really had nothing to do with Chait playing nice for reasons related to comity. Ultimately it boiled down to TNC's intensely felt loss of faith that a completely non-racist society was ultimately achievable, because race is chained to class and social mobility is low. Chait on the other hand ignored the question of what could be ultimately achieved and pointed out that progress undeniably had happened in the past and was presently underway. Both perspectives were valid.
I'm not sure that is what AH had in mind.
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. - Fitzgerald
Or people hate drunk drivers and are in favor of vigilante actions to punish them, even if it's illegal and sets a horrible precedent. Lots of bad American laws and opinions based around 'Fuck those guys'.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
No, I think that they would choose to "play nice" for a number of reasons related to comity, which is an endemic problem. Chait, whom a lot of people have been referencing, has been publicly caught out doing this himself.
Hmm?
I'd be interested at that link.
Even if Chait has been caught doing this, and I don't think Hedgie would lie about that , it doesn't explain the complete and utter dearth (edit: my offer from earlier in this page stands! ) of Dem commentators expressing approval of the indictment, or even a halfhearted "well we'll see what evidence they have. " instead, it's "no that was pretty dumb and that's not how the political question doctrine and elections work."
Or, as Hedgie posits, it's all a big Dem conspiracy to lockstep a media message with an "infatuation with comity", because the Dems have always been so good at getting their politicians people to move in marching order with a consistent message, right? Let alone liberal journalists not even concerned with the party message.
It actually is really weird. There's always at least one major commentator who argues against the common opinion.
I can't find anybody arguing loudly in favor of the indictment. A couple of tweets from a State rep or two, but that's about it.
It's also interesting to me that the last time a Governor was indicted in Texas was for the same thing.
Perry's indictment is the first of a sitting governor in Texas on such charges since 1917 when, according to The Dallas Morning News, James "Pa" Ferguson was indicted for vetoing funding for the University of Texas in an attempt to push out faculty and staff. He resigned.
Also weird, I thought Lehmberg was somehow involved in the indictment or the case against Perry, but she's not and hasn't publicly commented on it.
Posts
Sanford was in love with a beautiful Argentinian woman who spoke four languages.
The best kind of scoundrel.
Censure.
Hey look, the system worked. If the voters of his district want to send him to the House, that's their business.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
ooooooh Censure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure
Bad, bad boy!
Much more damning was that he just vanished without anyone having a clue what the hell happened to him or who was in charge in the mean time.
That having been said, I was terribly amused that he (a member of the party of family values) vamoosed on fathers day weekend.
South Carolina, the raised middle finger of America
how dare she simply serve her sentence and pay the kind of fine any other Texan would for a similar offense
she obviously should be made to further suffer through questionably legal and dubiously ethical means after she's paid her debt to society
since we should clearly hold our elected public servants to a higher standard if they try to coerce someone of lower position using their own higher office
burn her at the stake, i say
They're not all bad. We got Stephen Colbert from them, so I'm willing to forgive a fair amount.
howtf did he get my email I wonder
Yeah, but he will blow it all on lame Youtube ads.
The correctest thing so far in this thread.
As Spool has noted, there appears to be unanimous bipartisan support for a finding that the indictment was faulty. Has anyone seen a political writer, journalist or attorney who has published remarks saying otherwise?
Edit: I mean; it's fairly interesting in and of itself that nobody is even attempting a token defense of the legal rigor of the indictment. Interesting broader commentary on political reporting: preference of elections and the political question doctrine to settle political disputes vs. Indictment, or heging bets for defense of a future Dem politician who pulls a similar stunt? I'm not a media theory guy, idk.
How about that.
Not to mention that the political media has an infatuation for comity that leads them to avoid mentioning that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Regarding Chait, it was this infatuation that lead to him getting ripped a new orifice rhetorically by Ta-Nehesi Coates over the patholoization of black culture a few months ago.
Hey, at this point most of what we know is that the case was strong enough for a Grand Jury to indict.
It may be strong, it may be weak, it may get thrown out down the line. Maybe Perry walks, maybe he ends up convicted, maybe he takes a plea.
That's all in the future and in the hands of the justice system. Since there is a gag order on the Grand Jury, we can only speculate and wait and see what happens.
You think Dem commentators would miss an opportunity to get in some shots on a forerunner GOP presidential candidate because of their purported hidden conspiratorial desire to promote vigilante actions?
Here's an alternative: D&D slants HARD to the left and some of the analysis in the first couple pages is so clouded by how much you guys hate Perry / the GOP that you ran with it.
I'm a straight ticket Dem voter and I wish they wouldn't have done it.
No, it's a conspiracy to let Perry stay relevant so we get funnier Daily Show episodes in 2016.
No, I think that they would choose to "play nice" for a number of reasons related to comity, which is an endemic problem. Chait, whom a lot of people have been referencing, has been publicly caught out doing this himself.
I would walk that appalachian trail.
Look, all I know is that Perry was indicted by a grand jury.
Since there is a gag order, we can only make assumptions about why the grand jury made this choice or the strength of the evidence, but there's nothing wrong with taking some schadenfreude at an asshole like Perry getting indicted.
Either way the indictment happened. That's a plain fact.
Questions of the motivation of the jury, bias against Perry, etc are assumptions, speculation, and opinion. I'm more than happy to smile over the facts at hand, even if I'm not making a judgement of his overall guilt or not.
Steam: adamjnet
I'm rooting for Newt Gingrich again. I want that moon base. No matter the cost.
this is so far away from Rob Ford it's not funny
That would be a valid point if one couldn't easily find many articles in Chait's archive mocking and harassing GOP presidential candidates, including Perry.
http://nymag.com/srch?t=sw&tx=chait Rick Perry&N=0&No=0&fd=All&Ns=issuedate|1
I think this is Coates' last post on the matter, with links to their previous discussion.
Speaking of: TNC is back from his summer French only vacation, hooray! Well, I mean, if he had happier things to talk about instead of Ferguson.
Even if Chait has been caught doing this, and I don't think Hedgie would lie about that , it doesn't explain the complete and utter dearth (edit: my offer from earlier in this page stands! ) of Dem commentators expressing approval of the indictment, or even a halfhearted "well we'll see what evidence they have. " instead, it's "no that was pretty dumb and that's not how the political question doctrine and elections work."
Or, as Hedgie posits, it's all a big Dem conspiracy to lockstep a media message with an "infatuation with comity", because the Dems have always been so good at getting their politicians people to move in marching order with a consistent message, right? Let alone liberal journalists not even concerned with the party message.
This is what I was talking about earlier. And I read his argument against the indictment, and it's laughably blinkered. The argument is twofold - one, he preordains Perry's actions as reasonable, dismissing any potential ulterior motives or knock-on effects; and two, he argues that the threat of the veto is inherent in the veto itself - an argument I don't exactly find convincing.
Chris Christie is a frontrunner. His problems go beyond putting his foot in his mouth at a debate.
That debate gaffe is not a disqualifier.
Edit: Chris Christie is a frontrunner as much as any other GOP frontrunner, anyways, for whatever that's worth.
I love Chait and TNC, and followed their amazing back and forth pretty closely. Their debate really had nothing to do with Chait playing nice for reasons related to comity. Ultimately it boiled down to TNC's intensely felt loss of faith that a completely non-racist society was ultimately achievable, because race is chained to class and social mobility is low. Chait on the other hand ignored the question of what could be ultimately achieved and pointed out that progress undeniably had happened in the past and was presently underway. Both perspectives were valid.
I'm not sure that is what AH had in mind.
It actually is really weird. There's always at least one major commentator who argues against the common opinion.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1418808/rick-perry-mugshot-not-happening-any-time-soon/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/16/politics/rick-perry-indictment/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/08/perry-indictment-an-abuse-of-power/
I can't find anybody arguing loudly in favor of the indictment. A couple of tweets from a State rep or two, but that's about it.
It's also interesting to me that the last time a Governor was indicted in Texas was for the same thing.
Also weird, I thought Lehmberg was somehow involved in the indictment or the case against Perry, but she's not and hasn't publicly commented on it.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube