Gryn, I'd say your meta-analysis is right on the money, but I did have a response to one of your comments:

"A smear job by Republican might make sense if it was an internal power play move. I don't that makes sense since there doesn't seem to be anyone who would obviously benefit from the downfall of Perry (someone got info?)."

The one Republican who would have a strong interest in bringing Perry down is Carole Keeton Strayhorn, the state's comptroller. (Note: long story about Texas politics follows.) Her office, historically speaking, has had to sign off on every budget approved by the Texas Legislature, since according to the state's constitution it has to come out the door as balanced (i.e. no deficit spending allowed). Last June she refused to certify the budget, because the one the Republican-dominated Lege had submitted simply wasn't balanced (I believe they wanted to cut taxes too much without cutting spending accordingly - sound familiar?).

Anyway, she was promptly denounced as a Benedict Arnold by the state's leading Republicans -- even though, in reality, she was just doing her constitutionally mandated job, in a non-partisan fashion -- and a few months later Perry pushed for the Lege to pass a bill which stripped her office of much of its authority. The bill was openly described by Perry and others as the "Get Carole" bill. Needless to say, she was extremely pissed off. She said the following about the "Get Carole" bill in a Texas Monthly interview (link to it at bottom - registration for the site required):

"It started and ended in the governor's office. I've been told by a number of sources that the governor went behind closed doors to meet with the House Republican Caucus and said--and I quote--"It is personal." My telling the truth is apparently what is personal to the governor. Well, I'll tell you what's personal to me. What's personal to me is that we've lost the dignity, the honor, the effectiveness, and most important, the spirit of bipartisanship championed by our former governor and now president, George W. Bush."

Keep in mind this is a Republican criticizing another Republican! Anyway, if Perry is forced out or forced not to run for re-election in 2006, Strayhorn is one of the two leading candidates to take his place, the other being Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

So, yes: there is definitely someone within the state's Republican party with a vested interest in bringing Perry down. That said, I think Strayhorn is savvy enough to realize that spreading a bullshit false rumor wouldn't do the trick. Spreading real rumors about Perry's sexual orientation, however, is another story.

I agree, I don't think Strayhorn has enough clout to pull off fabricating the whole thing, but she has motive to make sure an existing rumor about Perry is propogated fast and furious in conservative circles.  It's possible she might have taken creative license with the facts (Anita getting a divorce) and embelish them with the rumors (Connor and Perry) since it would be difficult to disentangle the truth from the fiction in that case.

I'm not saying that's the case, but it's a plausible scenario (however it might be too clever for her to think of and pull off).

Becky Beaver is not a low-profile divorce attorney - she is one of those you hire when you want fireworks and media in full swing at the gory details. I have no idea if Ms. Perry has retained Ms. Beaver, that is just what is being rumoured.

I have talked to several people who work in the Texas legislature and other state offices that work with the Governor day after day. These people include both Conservative Republicans and Liberal Dems.

The general consensus is what Gryn said: someone would not have to look too hard to find evidence of marital infidelity.

A smaller but still significant number replied that the talk of Perry sleeping with men was not really new news to insiders.

Only a couple of people thought the Secretary of State scenario was plausible. Not that it was out of the realm of possibility, but most said they hadn't heard the rumours specifically in connection with him.

Some people were of the opinion that since "gay rumours" have hounded the Secretary of State, as well, since he took office - perhaps someone was drawing a connection that wasn't there - or at least has not been proven.

I don't know if anyone's ever done an analysis of divorce rates amongst politicians, particularly after they become pols, but I believe it's probably lower than that of the general population. Maybe not by much. But definitely lower.

Politicians running for/serving in office just about never initiate divorce action--they know how deadly it can be to their careers. Meanwhile, political spouses rarely leave a marriage during the middle of a campaign or term. I mean, I know it happens, but, at Perry's level, in a powerful state like Texas, it's very rare. The spouse would receive considerable inducements to stay, like unlimited shopping opportunities/trips to Europe, & etc. Many spouses are just as addicted to the power as the husband. Some have deep-seated beliefs against divorce. Some are hopelessly in love with the rotter. Whatever the case, the pol will figure out which scenario will keep the wifey tractable. Even if none of the above would apply, the pol would fight, very hard to keep the marriage from dissolving. Unless you're John Warner married to Liz Taylor, but that's sort of an exception proving the rule.

Anyway, something really terrible has to happen in most of these marriages for the spouse to leave. Drug problems, hurtful infidelity (the pol forming a deep emotional attachment to a mistress), severe abuse and homosexuality are really the only things that will compel a pol spouse to leave, 99% of the time. Think of Mrs. Bob Livingston, married to that lecherous creep, and STAYING with him. I don't know what her reasons are/were, but it's clear that she knew he was a philandering fuckwit and still she STAYED. Look at Hillary Clinton. Yeah, her husband was a pretty good Prez, I don't care, really, that he was a skirtchaser...but I wouldn't have married the guy if I knew he couldn't keep it in his pants, much less stayed married to him if he had humiliated me the way he did Hillary. Yet Hillary stayed, for whatever reason she had. This isn't uncommon for political marriages.

And it is for this reason that I believe, if Anita Perry has left, it's not about casual heterosexual infidelity. It's one (or some combination) of the 4 possibilities I listed above. Time will tell us if a divorce will happen, and the reason(s). Until then, I remain guardedly optimistic about the possibility of getting rid of this cancer.

Pie in the sky wish: Perry, in a moment of remorse for rejecting his old Democratic affiliation, reveals that he and Bush were lovers, so that the Republican party will seek true forgiveness for its many sins. That would just be the cat's meow.