Moreover, no President that I'm aware of has ever vetoed a bill simply because it didn't contain the funding level he desired, i.e., the Transportation bill, Farm bill or the recent $3T Border that's been dwindled down by both chambers of Congress to around $650B. Heck, President GW Bush didn't veto TARP because it didn't contain the higher funding level he wanted. He took what Congress ultimately gave him.
My point here is President's typically don't veto bills due to lower than expected funding nor do they do so because they want someone out of a specific government position. They do so because the bill laying before them contains provisions (or the lack thereof) they don't like.
Now, you can argue that's exactly what Gov. Perry did - veto a bill because it contained a spending measure he didn't like - but given the fact that he'd used the funding of the PUI as the basis of his veto threat to pressure DA Lehmberg to resign - his rational for using his veto power goes contrary to common reasoning behind budget reduction measures to justifies him exercising said veto for budget purposes.
In other words, if Gov. Perry had said, "Texas is running a budget deficit and we need to make some significant across the board budget cuts. This bill doesn't go far enough in bringing our state's deficit under control," I don't think anyone would have argued with him. But I'm pretty sure that's not what happened here.
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground
Don't expect them to agree, and don't spend too much time on logic; just point out the absurdity. I think it's rather obvious to everyone, but the Perry crowd can't be expected to agree since that would be admitting guilt. An intelligent jury will take care of the guilt part.
Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Barack Obama January 2008
Beginning on or about June 10, 2013, and continuing through June 14, 2013, in the County of Travis, Texas, by means of coercion, to-wit: threatening to veto legislation that had been approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to provide funding for the continued operation of the Public integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney's Office unless Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg resigned from her official position as elected District Attorney, James Richard "Rick" Perry, intentionally or knowingly influenced or attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg, a public servant, namely, the elected District Attorney for Travis County, Texas, in the specifIc performance of her official duty, to-wit: the duty to continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected District Attorney for the County of Travis, Texas through the completion of her elected term of office, and the defendant and Rosemary Lehmberg were not members of the same governing body of a governmental entity, such offense having been committed by defendant, a public servant, while acting in an official capacity as a public servant.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1063651547 (Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat [W:613/629])