Gov. Perry Says He's Never Advocated for Secession

Semantics aside, this overlooks a pretty important reaction to the most recent attempt at secession. If you need a hint, it happened about two decades after our 1845 admission to this great nation. Basically, a bloc of states found out what happens when they attempt to exercise their 'right' to secede.

The 2 major problems I have with Perry's Op-Ed piece are this:

1. His flip flopping. Perry talked about secession (CNN, Fox News, and all the other major news groups talked about it, it wasn't by mistake). And now he backs away from it, saying "I have never advocated for secession and never will." Look, while I know he probably didn't mean it and most likely said it to get a crowd reaction, he needs to stand by the fact that he said it. I would respect him a hell of a lot more if he said "Yea I said it, but ...." (BTW - this goes for anyone that gets quoted and then claims the I was mis-quoted defense, not just Perry)

2. The hypocrisy of the whole "tea party" movement. Perry is protesting spending and all of these government actions. Yet, where was Perry when Bush was flushing money down the Iraq toilet ($670 BILLION and counting). And that doesn't even account for the tons of unconstitutional acts of the prior administration (torture, domestic phone tapping, suspension of habeas corpus and due process, the ability for the president to commandeer a states national guard for national use, etc etc etc). How could Perry let all of this go on under a Republican president for 8 years (and people who spoke up were "unpatriotic", "traitors", etc)? Yet now, under a Democratic president, it is all of a sudden bad? Especially when these acts are being done to fix an economy wrecked by unchecked business practices (ones that the past administration endorsed).

Basically Perry is further sliding along as Professional Politician Slick Rick, smooth talker ... (oh wait, not so smooth, you hear all those ums and ahs?) the talker that will say whatever the people want to hear.

Perry is one of Bush's cronies... he's in the same game as the lot of people who pander to the big dollars. Perry also talks about Texas sovereignty but he also is allowing our highways to become toll roads, at the hands of Spanish company Cintra, and to have a certain portion of the revenue go to bolster Mexico's infrastructure.

Does anyone out there really believe we still have a 2-party system? It's the bankers vs the little people... US!

Perry's every bit a politician. My wife was there when he gave the speech at the Tea Party... he's one of the guys who always made fun of us Tax Protesters and Ron Paul supporters... now the GOP is trying to latch on. I'm glad more people are becoming aware of the issues, but the same crooked politicians who abused their own rules during the primaries and caucuses, are suddenly our friends?

Don't believe it!

Since Elizabeth prefers to butcher Perry's quote rather than provide the full context, here, once again, is the video. Judge for yourself whether his answer constitutes "advocacy" or not:

Ugh, the embedded video showed up in the preview but not in the post. Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5xTxcFA398

Okay, then fine, here is the whole answer where he talks about secession (um's, ah's, you know's and other non words removed):

I think there's a lot of different scenarios. Texas is a unique place. When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pays attention. We got a great Union, there's absolutely no reason to dissolve it, but if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place and we're a pretty independent lot.

5th sentence speaks that dissolution of the US isn't the way to go, unless "Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people", then, maybe it is?

6th sentence reiterates our uniqueness (and thus our ability to secede), and throws our independence in to boot.

So I am just curious how this is being misquoted, misinterpreted, etc? How are his comments not seen as advocating secession?

"We have a great union, there's absolutely no reason to dissolve it" lends a context to his words that Elizabeth conveniently left out in order to snark about it. That doesn't sound like advocacy to me, no matter how vague the rest of his answer may have been.

No part of what he says constitutes a solid endorsement of secession, but that one sentence, at least, constitutes an unmistakable rejection of the idea.

"We got a great Union, there's absolutely no reason to dissolve it, BUT if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come out of that."

Caiwyn, Caiwyn, tell me, dear: can you count to 0?

Man, talking about butchering a quote. You get on Elizabeth for doing it, and then you go out and do it yourself. This time, for your own cause. Good job.

Are you kidding me? You might have a point if it weren't for the fact that I posted the link to the entire video. Citing the part that Elizabeth explicitly cut out is not the same as butchering the quote in the first place, and you know it.

But I guess I shouldn't have expected intellectual honesty from someone like you.