Indictment of Perry May Actually Increase His Stature

Probably the only thing about
bothering former Texas Gov. Rick Perry about being
indicted for using his veto power to force Democratic District
Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg out of office following a drunken
driving arrest is that they didn’t wait until 2015 to give his
possible presidential campaign a publicity push.

The immediate analysis outside of Democratic partisan circles is
that the charges are maybe just a little bit trumped up and may end
up letting a rich, powerful political figure play the victim card.
From
Bloomberg:

“Every Republican in Iowa that I have spoken to thinks it is a
politically motivated scheme to tarnish him as he prepares for the
2016 campaign,” said Jamie Johnson, a member of the party’s state
central committee who last month introduced Perry at a county
fundraiser in the state that will host the first presidential
nomination contest.

“This is going to backfire and it will help Rick Perry,” said
Johnson. “It will cause people to rally around him.”

And it’s not just the right supporting Perry against the
accusations. David Axelrod, former adviser to President Barack
Obama, called the charges “sketchy.” Jonathan Chait calls the
indictment “unbelievably
ridiculous” because it’s essentially punishing Perry
“threatening” a veto before carrying through with it:

The prosecutors claim that, while vetoing the bill may be an
official action, threatening a veto is not. Of course the threat of
the veto is an integral part of its function. The legislature can
hardly negotiate with the governor if he won’t tell them in advance
what he plans to veto. This is why, when you say the word “veto,”
the next word that springs to mind is “threat.” That’s how vetoes
work.

The theory behind the indictment is flexible enough that almost
any kind of political conflict could be defined as a “misuse” of
power or “coercion” of one’s opponents. To describe the indictment
as “frivolous” gives it far more credence than it deserves. Perry
may not be much smarter than a ham sandwich, but he is exactly as
guilty as one.

The Texas Observer gives some more
background on the scandal here, arguing that there is some
partisanship here in Perry’s actions in that the
Democrat-controlled Public Integrity Unit was one of the few state
agencies outside his influence and that he would have been the guy
to appoint Lehmberg’s replacement. The Observer also notes
that the state’s Public Integrity Unit’s role in indicting former
U.S. Majority Leader Republican Tom DeLay, so “naturally” (their
adjective, not mine) the Republicans would want to strip it of its
power. The Observer, however, fails to note that charges
against DeLay were later tossed out on appeal due to lack of
evidence. The state is trying to get them reinstated (note the
name-check of Lehmberg in
this story from March). A decision probably won’t come until
2015.

The Observer does note what will likely end up
protecting charges of partisanship or cronyism by Perry from
getting much traction with the public: There is a
video of Lehmberg’s hilariously drunken escapades in jail
following her arrest. Her blood alcohol level was tested at .239,
nearly three times the legal limit, and it showed. She does not
make exactly a compelling figure to defend the character of the
Public Integrity Unit, and it’s hard to see exactly who outside of
Texas political figures will see Perry’s behavior here in a
negative light, even if his motives were extremely tainted.

Meanwhile, Perry, when not defending his decision as governor,
is
calling for more action in Iraq, because of course he is.