thrakkorzog posted:

Perry isn't exactly known for being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

That said, he might have a legitimate first amendment argument. How is, 'I will veto this spending unless Lehmberg steps down,' significantly different from, 'I vetoed that spending, because Lehmberg is in charge?' In both cases, Perry is cutting off funding until Lehmberg quits. They're both political statements, the only real difference is tense.

You can make the argument that he could have just issued the veto without explaining why he vetoed the funding, but as an elected official, he is generally obligated to explain to voters why he vetoed a particular piece of legislation.