Texas does indeed have the right to secede. So does every other polity in the world. There is the same right to secede that the Colonies had from England. If your government treats you badly enough, you can leave. They might try to stop you, but if they don't (or if you can beat them in war) then you're free. Independence cannot be codified.

When Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution, they expressly reserved the right to resign from the Union if they believed their interests were not being served. No one saw that as a problem. Of course they could peaceably leave, because nothing in the Constitution permits the federal government to stop them.

The only case on point is Texas v. White, and that was decided primarily by Justices that Lincoln appointed during and after the war, so it should be no surprise what they decided.

I am a Texan, and I do not support secession (yet), but how can a people descendant from Revolutionaries colonial, Texan, and Southern, seriously question whether a State has the RIGHT to secede. By all means question its wisdom, its effectiveness to solve any or all problems, or even its sanity, but there is absolutely no way you convince me that George Washington was right, Stephen F. Austin was right, but Rick Perry is wrong. Independence transcends statutory or even Constitutional regulation.

Actually, my Adorable Child studied this this very year (7th grade) — and yes, they did talk about the ability to break up into separate states. It might even have been in the textbook itself (I'll have to look).

In the past few days, the hot topics have been this one, handshakes, and bows over kisses. They're great 'hot button' issues that assure that everybody gets pissed off, but that useless discourse is exactly the things we need to ignore. It's as if politicians on both sides would rather have us have these rock fights among ourselves than rationally discuss problems. Wall Street regulations, what to do about our torture problem, and
Where are solutions we can agree upon, are all subjects taking short shrift to these chest-beating rants.

No matter how they broke it up, probably 2 of the 5 resulting states would likely be Blue from the beginning.

Yes, it was a stupid error, but frankly, a surprising number of Texans think that it does say that. They also think it was 8 states Texas could reform into. As it being taught in school, um, no. Covering the lack of a right to secede and the actual right to break into multiple states is not covered in Texas history.

And yep, you are right, I would have jumped all over Obama, so I am being a little unfair on that point. It was pandering, but I still say those who claimed he suggested that Texas would secede are overstating what he said.

I am sorry you over simplify my position.

When McCain ran into the women at the town hall that said she didn't trust Obama because he was an Arab, I applauded the man for correcting her ignorance. I believe leaders need to lead with the truth, not go along with the mob mentality that insults the facts. I believe that is an ethical way to live.

I thought you believed that politicians regularly sell their position to the biggest constituency. Maybe I misunderstood your loathing of Pelosi et al. Are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't have jumped on with both feet if Obama had implied that Illinois could secede during the past 8 years?

Perry's 'mis-statement' about the Texas agreement with the US when it became a state is fairly egregious. You would hope that Texan school kids are taught history as it happened, not as a politician only trying anything to swing his base would like to mis-remember it.

As to my tone, I've not changed. I believe my above analysis is rational; if not, let me know which points you disagree with. Just like always.

Additionally, my first entry on this subject was in reply to jwest.
“And then Polman puts into words what many non-liberal Democrats, independent voters and non-talk-radio political culture Republicans (which includes RINOS and non-RINOS) have begun to feel:”

My response was that I ” believe Perry should concentrate on legal reality and less on moral hypocrisy.”

CStanley — I was actually thinking that Hutchinson would merely highlight the statement(s) themselves, and give them a bit more air locally. It really wouldn't take much more than that, because contrary to how Texas is often portrayed (a caricature somewhat bolstered by at least one set of comments in this thread), most people here are not about to take up arms in pursuit of that Lone Star. It's also true that, just like everywhere else, people are more concerned with the daily grind than political posturing at Tea Parties. Thus, Perry's statements had far less local impact than one might think.

Dunno that that's necessarily pandering, so much as it is using the spotlight that will inevitably shine when the primary approaches.

So how is that not pandering as well? Instead of showing how she'd govern differently, she'd be trying to garner support among moderates based on an impression of Perry's rhetoric.

I'm so fed up with the acceptance of pandering to moderates (you can't possibly vote for him, he said nasty things about a Democrat! He called people traitors!) while the very same moderates are saying that they're fed up with pandering to the bases of the parties. Pandering is pandering- all of it is a political game that keeps voters from focusing on issues and policy.

Well a lot of people say that but in the end they're just screwed.

But really… I don't know how TX would be divided up, but part of TX is on the US/Mexico border…. I thought that was pretty blue….. Would all the new states from the old TX be red?

Oh, and to be clear, it is to divide in to 4 additional states, plus a remaining Texas, so a total of 5 states.

I suspect that's correct, even though the governor who served just prior to George Bush was Ann Richards, a Democrat.

However, while this post (and much of the commentary, including mine above) circles around Perry's role in (de)maintreamed national Republican circles, there's something to be said for the problem I think this creates for him here in Texas as well.

Because you can bet your last dollar that Kay Bailey Hutchinson is going to use Perry's pandering as a bludgeon — and that's likely to serve her very well.

jwest also said: “The primary is decided by Republicans. Not just any republicans, but the hard core base of the republican party. There aren’t any liberal republicans, any independents and only a very few gay republicans voting in the primary.”

Nothing's keeping people from voting as Republicans in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, and Hutchinson's an astute politician. She'll no doubt make sure the rest of the state views Perry's remarks in the same light as the rest of the country.