1. chet says

    Well, you could always gather together enough people to googlebomb it, for starters.

    Maybe start by getting Cory Doctorow and a few others to spread the word ….

  2. Katja says

    The American electorate has never had a problem with a president who has blood on his hands, Republican or Democrat. Ideally, the blood of foreigners or presumed criminals, but that’s not a strict requirement. It’s more important to appear strong than to be right. Admitting errors is unpresidential, too, and will lead to accusations of flip-flopping.

  3. Ebenezer Scrooge says

    You’re right about admitting errors. But there is a subtle difference between admitting errors and admitting sins in American politics. The latter is just fine, especially in Scots-Irish political culture.

  4. Barry says

    I live in a liberal town, and the saying is that a Republican hear would be a Democrat anywhere else. Applying this statement to Texan Republicans…………………

  5. Mark Kleiman says

    JM, if you can’t tell the difference between warfare and judicial murder, please have your moral vision examined by a competent professional.

  6. Katja says

    Mark, Rick Perry didn’t do anything that is outside the noble tradition of the United States of America when it comes to its always responsible handling of the death penalty issue. After all, this is a country where even the courts are heavily divided on whether actual innocence is an obstacle to a properly ordered execution, reflecting popular sentiments that justice better be swift than certain.

  7. horseball says

    Huh? I read the link. I’m genuinely puzzled as to what the supposed evidence pointing to this man’s innocence is. As far as I can tell, it is that they got some old guy to write a report that said the fire bore some similarities to another case many years ago. Saying that there is some consistencies between this fire and another accidentally started one doesn’t seem all that compelling. Sure, in any case a magazine article can be written which would cast doubt on the verdict, but to raise one to the level of cause celebre I think they ought to have a case where the evidence unmistakably points to some other cause, not just a bunch of hand-waving about other possibilities.

    I’m actually curious. Could someone tell me what’s so convincing?