Texas Governer warns of secession

[Ivan Seeking]

The Republican Party has always prided itself on being the party of Lincoln. But one prominent member, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, apparently might rather be in the party of Jefferson Davis. He suggests that if the federal government "continues to thumb their nose at the American people," Texans might have to consider seceding. You may recall that my native state of Texas tried that once, and it didn't turn out too well...

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/04/will-texas-secede.html

Interestingly, Sarah Palin's husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence party, whose stated objective is secession from the Union.

Could it be that some modern Republicans really don't believe in America; that they are driven entirely by their own ideology? Could it be that this is pervasive and the reason we saw such a reckless disregard for Constitutional Law, under Bush?

Out of frustration, many liberals and independents wanted to leave the country when Bush was re-elected in 2004. It seems that given that same frustration [Obama has only been in office for 90+ days], these Republicans would rather destroy the country and start a civil war.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

2008 election results for Texas

McCain 55%
Obama 44%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#TXP00

It looks to me like SW Texas should secede from Texas. In some areas, Obama got 70-80% of the vote.

 

[russ_watters]

Could it be that some modern Republicans really don't believe in America; that they are driven entirely by their own ideology?

Out of frustration, many liberals and independents wanted to leave the country when Bush was re-elected in 2004. It seems that given that same frustration [Obama has only been in office for 90+ days], these Republicans would rather destroy the country and start a civil war.

I was thinking the same thing -- so how are these two groups different?

 

[Tsu]

Well... evaluate these two statements:

1) "liberals and independents wanted to leave the country"
2) "Republicans would rather destroy the country and start a civil war"

You can't see how they differ? Oh dear...

 

[drankin]

Well... evaluate these two statements:

1) "liberals and independents wanted to leave the country"
2) "Republicans would rather destroy the country and start a civil war"

You can't see how they differ? Oh dear...

I don't believe it's exclusively a "Republican" idea. And I don't believe they are interested in destroying any country or starting a civil war. I think creating a separate country based on conservative ideals would be fantastic. Then the libs could run a country they want and all the conservatives could run a country the way they want. I kinda like the idea. A win/win. What's not to like? I hear Chuck Norris would run for President!

It would never happen, of course. Fox News isn't even running any web propaganda on it! LOL

 

[russ_watters]

Well... evaluate these two statements:

1) "liberals and independents wanted to leave the country"
2) "Republicans would rather destroy the country and start a civil war"

You can't see how they differ? Oh dear...

The second statement was written in such a way as to be purposely inflammatory. How about we rewrite it in such a way as it isn't, but still actually means what was said in the article:

1) "liberals and independents* wanted to leave the country"
2) 'Republicans want to leave the country.'

So - now tell me how they are different!?

*Independents? Really?

[edit] Btw, I notice the word "seceding" is outside the quotes, not inside. I'd be interested in reading what was actually said. Did he actually use the word/did his quote really imply what the media says...?

 

[russ_watters]

[after some research]Ok, I was going to string you along, but this is too absurd even to bait you into. Here's a Youtube clip of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5xTxcFA398&feature=related

Several things are clear in it:
1. He's being baited by a left wingnut (and he knows it).
2. He doesn't use the word "secede", the wingnut interviewer does.
2a. You can't see quotation marks in a spoken quote/paraphrase on MSNBC.
3. He doesn't say anything that implies secession is really on the table - "who knows what will happen" is clearly an attempt to answer a stupid question without being overly dismissive.
4. The follow-up by another reporter(?) is so dumb that he laughs at and insults the idiot and walks away.
5. The liberal media has picked-up on this because...well...yeah, you know.

Ivan, you start threads about Fox news's bias - this is a great example of the other side of the coin. You bought into a convenient/pleasant fiction delivered to you by your preferred-bias media.

 

[chemisttree]

Too funny Ivan! I think that Perry should be impeached not because he said something about secession but because I think he is a crook! We need Kinky in that office!

Don't you think you are being waaaaaaaaaaaay biased to set up this strawman that liberals merely wanted to leave the country whereas 'these Republicans' (you never said who 'these Republicans' were...) wanted to destroy the country and start a civil war?

Ivan, meet some liberals that want to secede from the union and want to DESTROY THE COUNTRY!

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/morris/050308 [Broken]
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/news_events [Broken]

 

[LowlyPion]

Not to worry. Rick Perry's grab for the far right looks like a failing ploy.

His implied threat of secession is ridiculously unfounded. There is minimal support for such thinking in Texas. If put to a vote the idea would be dashed by a 3 to 1 margin according to a http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/texas/in_texas_31_say_state_has_right_to_secede_from_u_s_but_75_opt_to_stay" [Broken].

In fact it looks like Perry himself will be put to a vote shortly and currently his numbers relative to Kay Bailey Hutchinson suggest that his tenure will likely be found as wanting as this lame idea to suggest secession.

The Rasmussen Poll is also interesting in that 31% of Texans mistakenly think, like Perry implies, that such a secession right exists. None does of course.

 

[Vanadium 50]

He's being baited by a left wingnut (and he knows it).

I believe the term "wingnut" corresponds to the right. The corresponding term on the left is "moonbat".

this is a great example of the other side of the coin. You bought into a convenient/pleasant fiction delivered to you by your preferred-bias media.

I'm afraid I agree here. One of the disadvantages of "narrowcasting".

I also disagree with the claim that a theoretical and unlikely secession would inevitably lead to civil war. The US has allowed it's territories to leave voluntarily - Cuba in 1902 and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands in and around 1986.

I'm surprised that this is viewed as such a concern by Democrats, though. You'd think they would be believers in democracy. If someone doesn't want to live under their enlightened rule, should they be forced to? If a state says, "no, we no longer want this", should they be forced to remain in the union? Should they receive our enlightened leadership at the barrel of a gun? Remember, this isn't like the 1861 Civil War where there was a larger moral issue - this is about taxes, not slavery.

 

[OmCheeto]

When Kosovo split from Serbia last year, the Serbs at work were all in a hissy fit and were handing out flyers to announce a protest. I wish I had a copy. The very first thing on the flyer was a question, obviously intended to get Americans to relate to their plight. Unfortunately the question was; "How would you like it if Texas were annexed by Mexico?"

I was like, "Well, as long as the Bush clan is included in the deal, I'm all for it. But I thought you guys were upset about losing Kosovo?"

And look what I've found. The Swedes have already started on the map!

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/absolutmexico.jpg

 

[LowlyPion]

If a state says, "no, we no longer want this", should they be forced to remain in the union? Should they receive our enlightened leadership at the barrel of a gun?

If that's what it takes ... absolut-ly. Majority rules. That is what they signed up for isn't it? If the feel of Yankee steel is the taste they need to remember the lessons of civics, ...

It's interesting how "patriotism" is a fine rallying flag, fundamental core value, bedrock of the Republic, what they will lay their lives down for issue, ... that is until these people no longer get their way at the polls in the exercise of the very democracy that they have pledged their all for.

 

[misgfool]

I'm surprised that this is viewed as such a concern by Democrats, though. You'd think they would be believers in democracy. If someone doesn't want to live under their enlightened rule, should they be forced to? If a state says, "no, we no longer want this", should they be forced to remain in the union? Should they receive our enlightened leadership at the barrel of a gun?

You have to consider also the (military) strategic interests and security of the union.

 

[misgfool]

Besides the unhappy can always leave the US and leave the land behind. I'm sure that there are a lot of countries willing to accept them.

 

[LowlyPion]

Besides the unhappy can always leave the US and leave the land behind. I'm sure that there are a lot of countries willing to accept them.

Maybe the US could set up a time share country, that the disaffected that lose elections, can go there when the other guys get into power? With Obama the Liberal ex-pats can now return and the whacko gun-totes can go for their hiatus.

 

[OmCheeto]

Maybe the US could set up a time share country, that the disaffected that lose elections, can go there when the other guys get into power? With Obama the Liberal ex-pats can now return and the whacko gun-totes can go for their hiatus.

Excellent idea. How about the eastern border of Afghanistan?

 

[LowlyPion]

Excellent idea. How about the eastern border of Afghanistan?

That would sure give the gun toters something to do.

Might make Pittsburgh under Obama even look a little better to them after a while.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/04/will-texas-secede.html

Interestingly, Sarah Palin's husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence party, whose stated objective is secession from the Union.

Could it be that some modern Republicans really don't believe in America; that they are driven entirely by their own ideology? Could it be that this is pervasive and the reason we saw such a reckless disregard for Constitutional Law, under Bush?

Out of frustration, many liberals and independents wanted to leave the country when Bush was re-elected in 2004. It seems that given that same frustration [Obama has only been in office for 90+ days], these Republicans would rather destroy the country and start a civil war.

I expected nothing less from you, Ivan. First, a job well-done on attempting to bash the Palins. I'm just surprised Fox News did not make an appearence in this one, how disappointing.

Let's move on to what is actually relevant here. There is always extreme sentiment. I can't see how the two groups you mention here differ significantly. How do you measure the levels of frustration of these two groups? I would also like you to show Bush's "reckless disregard for Constitutional Law" during his two terms, just for kicks and giggles of course.

 

[LowlyPion]

I would also like you to show Bush's "reckless disregard for Constitutional Law" during his two terms, just for kicks and giggles of course.

Sadly that is not the topic of the thread. Though since you are interested I might suggest those ginned up legal documents on torture as an excellent jumping off point if you are interested in sniffing the trail blazed by the last administration in regards to undermining human rights and setting off into violation of US international treaties with respect to treatment of prisoners.

I suspect the more we get to reading these hidden memos, the better the idea we all might get as to the blatant disregard for the rule of law for anything that posed an obstacle to the last administration's conservative agendas.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Sadly that is not the topic of the thread.

Then excuse me for trying to get Ivan to substantiate another extreme premise. Generally I like to see a little number in superscript or a legitimate justification.

 

[LowlyPion]

Monday, April 27, 2009, 1:14pm CDT
Gov. Perry requests meds for swine flu
To counteract the threat of a growing swine flu epidemic, Gov. Rick Perry on Monday requested 850,000 courses of antiviral medication from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2009/04/27/daily6.html

What a ninny. A secessionist until he needs meds?

 

[russ_watters]

He's not a secessionist.

 

[LowlyPion]

He's not a secessionist.

Only when he wants to appeal to the crack-pot right apparently. Then he wants to smirk and entertain the appearance of "rethinking" Texas' union with the US Government.

When he needs meds or help with the border he's into to Federalism "big time".

 

[chemisttree]

Only when he wants to appeal to the crack-pot right apparently. Then he wants to smirk and entertain the appearance of "rethinking" Texas' union with the US Government.

When did Perry "entertain the appearance of "rethinking" Texas' union with the US Government"?

 

[russ_watters]

Since he didn't respond to the stupid leading question with "I would not under any circumstances consider secession", we get people here and in the media jumping to the conclusion that he supports it. It's logic-leaping.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Since he didn't respond to the stupid leading question with "I would not under any circumstances consider secession", we get people here and in the media jumping to the conclusion that he supports it. It's logic-leaping.

He apparently will also be running against a secessionist in the next election.

 

[jaap de vries]

His answer was:

"If Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American People, who knows what might come out of that...Texas is a unique place"

There are answers he could have given to make sure that he would not be considered a secessionist.

Why was the interviewer a "left wing nut case" maybe it was a right wing secessionist?! in either case we don't know.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...In a new survey by Research 2000 for the liberal Daily Kos blog, Texas voters were asked whether the Lone Star State would be better off as an "independent nation" or as part of the United States.

Overall, more than six in ten chose the latter option. (No big surprise there.) But, among Republicans, 48 percent said it would be better for Texas if the state was an independent nation -- the same number who said they would prefer the state remain a part of the United States.

Just to reiterate: roughly half of all self-identified Texas Republicans in the Research 2000 poll said they would rather their state be an independent nation...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/republican-party/secession-divides-texas-republ.html

So one has to ask: How much money does Texas receive from the Federal Government each year? How much have they received for disaster relief? I would like to have it back.

It seems that about half of Texas Republicans really don't love this country. They are more Texan than American.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

It's a Daily Kos poll...what else did you expect?

 

[Al68]

Maybe the US could set up a time share country, that the disaffected that lose elections, can go there when the other guys get into power? With Obama the Liberal ex-pats can now return and the whacko gun-totes can go for their hiatus.

We did set up a system very similar to that in the U.S. Constitution. It's called Federalism.

If a state is oppressive, one can just move to a different state, and since general law making power belongs (delegated) to the states, and is specifically forbidden for the Federal Gov't, the only way to be significantly oppressed in the U.S is for every state to pass the same oppressive laws independently (unlikely if the law is really oppressive) or for the Federal Gov't to violate the constitutional limits on its power (obviously likely).

And since the Federal Gov't does have the legitimate power to protect citizens from oppressive state laws, the former is even more unlikely unless it's the Fed. Gov't that is the oppressor.

As far as being "ex-pats", it's the people who believe in this constitutional system that are the patriots.

 

[brainy kevin]

The Texas governor is insane. I have no other way to put it.

 

[brainy kevin]

I expected nothing less from you, Ivan. First, a job well-done on attempting to bash the Palins. I'm just surprised Fox News did not make an appearence in this one, how disappointing.

Let's move on to what is actually relevant here. There is always extreme sentiment. I can't see how the two groups you mention here differ significantly. How do you measure the levels of frustration of these two groups? I would also like you to show Bush's "reckless disregard for Constitutional Law" during his two terms, just for kicks and giggles of course.

Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, Guantanamo, the list goes on and on.