I don't live in Texas, so I have my own filter. Texas has some strange politics.
Elected officials have no right to interfere in the judicial process for partisan ends. A state governor may use pardons and commutations as permitted by the State constitution, but that is as far as it goes. The governor cannot fire a judge or diminish his pay (which is a constructive firing) for political purposes.
An indictment has been made, and that does not itself imply guilt -- just that a case for prosecution exists. That is all.
It's good to see that someone gets it. I keep seeing this really, really nasty meme that it's okay to blatantly break the law if you're doing to to "punish" a wrong-doer (alleged or otherwise). Does anyone think that what Perry did would have been just dandy if he'd done it because the person he was targeting was hispanic? Or gay? Or Muslim? The ends DO NOT justify the means - if a civilization start ignoring its own laws because it think that is true, then its doomed.
There are two aspects here. How bad does it look for Perry? Did he break the law?
The DA's drunk driving arrest/ behavior fits both discussions. Primarily we've talked about the former, but it's still relevant for the latter.
As Governor, Perry has veto powers. And he is also able to say that he will use the veto powers under certain circumstances.
He wouldn't be able to use the veto powers to remove someone for being gay, Muslim or Hispanic. However, a prosecutor serving three weeks in jail for drunk driving, who is videotaped trying to pull rank on the officers around her, is not the moral equivalent of someone who is a victim of discrimination. She did something that's clearly wrong.