Is Rick Perry Confused About What Treason Is?

Rick Perry has kicked off his campaign with remarks that the Washington Post cleverly referred to as an "ugly start" in reference to Fed chairman Bernanke:

“If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.”

Um, what does ugly treatment entail, Perry?  Uh, are we going to beat him up?  Hmmm.

He continues:

“Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion,” Mr. Perry said.

Perry's remarks about the Bush-appointed Chairman are misleading.  He not only seems to be implying that America's money troubles are due to too much money being printed (how is that for oversimplification?) but he confuses voters on what treason actually entails.  Matt Browner Hamlin at AMERICAblog raises an interesting point: which is more treasonous, doing your job as appointed by the President of the United States, or threatening to secede from the Union?

Perry's comments about the President not loving America, the troops deserving a patriotic veteran Commander in Chief, and Bernanke committing treason they all get at his biggest weakness: his secession comments. Perry is deploying a classic Rovian tactic - go after your opponent where you are weakest.

Video of his secessionist statement:



Do I think that Texas has the legal right to secede?  On reviewing info from others, yeah, maybe.  Are his statements treasonous?  Probably not.  Is Hamlin right that Perry is attacking the President and other members of the government on subjects that he himself is weak?  Abso-friggin-lutely.  You can't threaten to take your State out of the Union and then claim to be a patriot, sir.

In this case, sir=asshat.