GregsOpinion.com

(Via Kuff ... and others)

And so its come to this ... talk of Perry's impeachment. One point I'm heartened to see Kuff state and I'll agree in full: the fact that Lon Burnam's name is involved here is not something that really instills confidence. Kuff links to a prior episode of Burnam's verbal misdeeds. As for myself, I just view Burnam as the most radical liberal in the lege and not exactly the voice of impassioned reason. Garnet Coleman's involvement is marginally better in my eyes, but by how much, I'm not entirely sure yet. Kuff's point is well worth echoing:

I'm all in favor of a full and open discussion of the items on this list. For sure, I think the TLC hiring the Vegas law firm to draft gambling legislation stinks to high heaven, and I don't believe for a minute the denials from Perry's office that they had nothing to do with it. If this is all a way to focus attention on some questionable and underexplored doings by Perry, there's nothing wrong with that - indeed, I'd say it's an appropriate thing for the minority party to be talking about. And yes, it's fine to mention impeachment as a possible sanction if any of these allegations can be sufficiently proven, as long as we all understand that we're talking about one of several possible remedies for crimes that may or may not exist.

That said, I think any public mention of the I-word now, whether intentional or accidental, is way premature and will probably serve to sidetrack the more serious effort to get at the truth of these matters since the whole thing immediately becomes cast as just another escalation of partisan warfare. The focus shifts from the allegations and investigations of potential wrongdoing to screaming headlines of "Democrats want to impeach the Governor!!!"

In short, more evidence is needed. Yes, Rick Perry looks as sleazy as can be. But we don't indict based on looks. While I have the same doubts that any right-thinking center-leftish type likely shares (as well as one unnamed Republican state rep), get to the bottom of it first, then talk about impeachment.

One problem involved here, that's not dissimilar from the case in Washington ... the GOP has all the levers of power. So there's not a lot of impetus on behalf of one branch of the GOP to investigate the other. While Washington Dems decry the lack of a House investigation into Abu Ghraib, Austin Dems now decry the lack of any investigation into a number of Perry's misdeeds (perceived or real). Could the impeachment rucus just be a ploy to at least press for such an investigation? Dunno. In any event, it looks bad to hit the press with talk of impeachment first and foremost. Oh, and it also looks bad to have Lon Burnam speaking for your cause ... ANY cause.

Turning to the parlor game of political guesswork ... the albatross around Perry's neck continues to grow. I've long stated that there are precious few scenarios by which I can see Carole Keeton Strayhorn being on the ballot in November based on primary race scenarios now in play. Its starting to become an open question if the same may not be true of Rick Perry. Truth be told, as a Dem, I think we're licking our chops over running against him - knowing its the best shot at a statewide win that we can possibly have. I mean, unless we nominate Lon Burnam, that is.