Full Interview: Rick Perry on Hannity

Rick Perry hits Mitt Romney quick, referring to him as ‘Obama lite’ and saying that whoever becomes the nominee must provide a stark contrast to Obama. In substantiating his ‘Obama lite’ comment, he pointed directly to what Mitt Romney said on the O’Reilly Factor, that Romneycare was the right thing for Massachusetts and then cited the report than came out last week suggesting otherwise.

Hannity also pushed Perry on Social Security, fixing it or repealing it. Perry was pretty clear that he wants to fix it and he discussed ideas on how one might fix it, but he never claimed any of the ideas as something he would push for. He kept emphasizing wanting a conversation to discuss it and I was noticing on twitter that people weren’t very keen on the fact that he isn’t talking more specifics that he would push for.

The last big issue was illegal immigration and Perry stood his ground on the Texas Dream Act, but shifted more toward a federal stance of securing the border being the only way we can begin to get a handle on illegal immigration.

Here’s the full interview:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Anonymous

    Great interview!

  • Anonymous

    i wanna see more candidates in the republican camp. where is Paul Ryan?

    • KenInMontana
    • That statement sounds like you might be a moonbat in destroyer_of_moonbats clothing. Oh wait, that’s Ron Paul…sorry

      • Anonymous

        i’ll have you know Perry will NOT be able to seal the deal w/ the american ppl. he could hardly make a coherent thought. Romney is simply a better debater and more glib. Ron Paul would destroy 0bummer in any debate and not break a sweat. i think we simply need more candidates to widen our selection. right now Perry is hurtin with the HPV/SocSec thing.

        • Dude, ron paul should retire to florida in a nursing home drooling oatmeal. He’s 76 & decrepit. You paulistinians should get a life & recruit rand paul, at least he comes from the same gene pool without the nuttiness.

  • Anonymous

    Rick Perry obviously has presidential presence. I like his strength and charisma. Being the longest serving governor in the history of Texas shows he has plenty of executive experience. To me he seems the clear first choice to be our next president.

  • Anonymous

    Rick Perry obviously has presidential presence. I like his strength and charisma. Being the longest serving governor in the history of Texas shows he has plenty of executive experience. To me he seems the clear first choice to be our next president.

  • the right man the tells the truth is Ron Paul

    • That sentence speaks volumes!

    • there we go

      • Anonymous

        are you a robot or something?

        • My statement to you was a joke before (and not a good one since I had to explain it.) It was meant to illustrate the real yo yo’s I sensed coming because of your statement. Those Yo Yo’s would be the Paul bots. Right Akerman?

    • jay


  • Maxsteele

    Wow, I am sold. This guy should be the next president for sure. I believe he can cut right through Obama’s rhetoric like a hot knife through butter.

  • Mark Smith

    I like Perry, Rubio, Palin. I’d take any mix/match of the three. Rubio obviously as a VP. But I am sick of the Perry bashing by some Palin supporters as a means to tear him down in the supposition she won’t get in unless he’s gone either in the polls or physically.

    • Garym

      Look who’s talking.

    • Jack Bryan

      IMHO Rubio won’t run for VP. They’re grooming him for something bigger.

    • ada smith

      Can Rubio be VP? I feel the same way about Rubio.
      But, he’d be the next in line for President if something happend…….. and his parents weren’t U.S. Citizens when he was born.

  • Anonymous

    and no teleprompters

    • Anonymous

      Excellent point. He can think.

  • Anonymous

    OMG! He is going to fix the border the way Bush did! Another major issue not fix! By the way, technology on the border is code for faulty technology. Of course it’s going to cost more than an 18ft concrete wall like the one Israel has. I’m pretty sure a comprehensive approach will be mention soon enough. Got to keep the Mexican Citizens flowing, would not want to hurt the chances of future big government voters now do we!


    • I just met with the attorney trying to challenge Perry’s handiwork on secondary education for illegals with taxpayer dollars. His policies on this were in conflict with Fed. Law as putting DREAMERS on a path to citizenship after they have spent a few years here in schools automatically disqualifies them from applying for citizenship or residency. According to the proper application of the law (505) I believe they are to be exited and not allowed to apply for 10 YEARS! Also illegal aliens are accessing in TX. GRANT MONIES to supplement the instate- tuition.Attorney said this usually equals about 6k per semester.WHAT A DEAL,EH?

      • Anonymous

        You did? Is he going to overturn the SCOTUS from 1982 which forced that on all the states?

      • Anonymous

        To go on what your saying in 1996 there was a federal law passed that states no in state tuition for Illegals. But with Perry the American way is to break the law, and get a free ride.

    • And on which side of the Rio Grande do you propose to erect the fence? Or do you think you can build it right down the middle? What about the wildlife migrations in the Big Bend and other areas? Also, you might want to read up on the Mexico-US water rights treaties.

  • I wish he’d come out with an actual plan for social security and other government programs- all the “let’s have a discussion” reminds me too much of Hillary in the last campaing season “Let’s chat. Let’s have a dialogue…”
    I do not agree with Perry on his stance on illegals either. Illegal immigration is NOT just a Texas issue. It’s all over the states. Yes, Texas, Arizona, California and Florida are huge illegal states, but looking at the way he has handled it in his own state doesn’t sit well with me, nor a lot of folks. Giving illegal children in state tuition is about as much as giving them all welfare, housing and free healthcare. Everyone else ends up paying for it all. And for what? These innocent kids whose parents broke the laws of this Country decide that America stole the land, they fly the Mexican flags, yet American kids get sent home for displaying the Red White and Blue because it may offend some of the hispanic kids? He needs to come up with some real plans and ideas instead of just wanting to talk about it before I could vote for him.

    • Anonymous

      This is a major con game! We have about 30million+ Mexican Citizens here. I don’t believe the government estimate. The permanent political class goal would be to make these Mexican Citizen over a period of time American Citizen!!!

      Imagine if 30million poor citizens of a third world country with no concept of freedom or anything that made this country great become American Citizen!! They will completely change the demographic for politicians that promise goodies and we are the ones will pay for it! Will pay with our diluted votes and will pay with our tax $$$. These people have an abhorrent lust for power they’ll do anything to keep it and grow it. Even if it destroys us!!!

      By the way in February 2008 primary election for the first time in history we had a president of another country campaigning us to vote for Barack Obama over Hillary. That was the president of Mexico. The outrage from the media and the Permanent Political Class was defining! No, actually it was non-existent!!!! It was virtually ignored!!!


      • Anonymous

        What makes you think Palin would solve the immigration problem any differently from Perry? From an October 21, 2008 interview with Palin:

        As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?
        Palin: There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

        Sounds exactly like Perry’s dilemma — Dealing with the ones who have gotten in due to the failure of the Feds to do their job in an economic and humane way. Sarah’s right — it’s an impossibility to round them all up and send them back. You’re kidding yourself if you think she’ll deport them all if she were president. She wouldn’t, and she said so herself.

    • Jack Bryan

      Besides “let’s have a dialogue” he also employed the Obama tag line “let’s have a grownup (read: adult) conversation.” Quit the BS and just say what your plan is. Save the “sacred pledge” crap too. Social Security is broke and nobody should have any illusions about that.

  • Jack Bryan

    Wow, hard hitting interview. Nice glossing over the Gardasil issue without forcing him to give an answer to it. Of course, I’d never accuse Hannity of being a good interviewer: I remember a radio interview he did with Mitch McConnell where he let him give the exact same answer to three different questions in a row. He has given a fair shake to Ron Paul though, so he’s not all bad.

    • Anonymous

      Woops, accidentally “liked” your comment instead of hitting reply, but what I really wanted to do was ask what more you think the man could possibly say regarding Gardasil? What kind of answer do you want to force out of him beyond what he has already said on it. You can hate it and not get over it and put your support behind someone else because of this one issue, or you can accept his admittance that the EO was a mistake and move on. Those are the two choices because history cannot be changed, so pick one and that’s that.

      I wish we could focus on the hundreds or thousands of other decisions he’s made in the last 10 years as governor instead of this one, single issue. It’s ridiculous.

      • Jack Bryan

        Gardasil is a terrible drug, and lots of young girls have gotten extremely ill from it:

        (Please note that all of the above links are a year old or older)

        Being the father of 3 (1 boy, 2 girls) I feel that Perry should at least be put on the spot to defend himself on the issue at every opportunity, as he will need to eventually IF he gets the nomination. If I wanted to be conspiratorial about it, I’d say Hannity sidestepped the issue because Merck is such a huge ad buyer. I’d rather like to think that Hannity is more or less stumping for him, and that’s why he didn’t ask him.

        • Anonymous

          And about 35 million have NOT gotten sick from it. And I’m a parent too.

          You’re just going to have to accept that in the scheme of things, this one issue isn’t the “make it or break it” issue for a lot of people, much as you’d like for it to be rehashed over and over again at every debate and interview. I go to a lot of blogs and read a lot of comments and I see a lot of people out there saying the Gardasil issue is taking up too much valuable time at the debates when we should be talking about the ECONOMY — jobs, entitlements, the debt.

          And if he does get the nomination, it will NOT come up. Mandating a single vaccine with an OPT-OUT versus mandating the purchase of insurance with FINES if you don’t buy it? I seriously don’t think Obama will even bother going there.

          • Jack Bryan

            I can see that it isn’t “make it or break it” for a lot of people, that doesn’t mean it’s not important and isn’t worth bringing up. You’re right that Obama won’t go there. He has plenty of MoveOn and Media Matters surrogates to do his dirty work for him. This isn’t going away.

  • Frederick

    Why do people find Perry such a good candidate for America when he is virtually a coporate socialist just like Obama. What do you call a signature piece of legislation called TEF (Texas Enterprise fund)? If it’s not corporate welfare, then what is it? To top if off a blind eye is turned to the companies who recieve grant money from the state under Perry that fail to meet targets set forth in the rules of TEF. 20 out of 50 companies that are feeding out of this trough are Perry donors.

    Then you have the “Texas Emerging Technology Fund” another taxpayer trough who also are recieving nice returns for their contribution to Perry.

    Then you have the fact that he raised the business tax to conpensate for the shortfall from a tax reduction.

    He’s rigging the game folks. This isn’t principled leadership nor free market capitalism. This is status quo cronyism.

    Then you have the liberal immigration stance that Perry seems to be very proud of. More taxpayer dollars given to illegals. He’s going to have a hard time convincing Obama in a debate that he is any different let alone American’s who are not putting blinder on.

    • Anonymous

      hate to burst ur bubble but the tef is only for closing deals when states compete for business…if texas is not doing half as bad as the other states may be it is because tef has something to do with it. The notion that a company comes to state solely because it is easy to setup and operate is a pipe dream because several states compete for business and sometimes you need these funds to get them to come here i wish we lived in a world where companies come solely based on merit …unfortunately that is not the world we live in.

      • Frederick

        Then you don’t believe in limited government, and free markets. The pipe dream is to believe that these practices are healthy to the enonomy. These are corrupt practices that always result in budget deficit shortfalls, more debt, higher taxes, entrenched interests, and bailouts. And Republicans wonder why they get booted out of office. These are nothing more than giveaways to many companies that already get venture capitol, and/or are already raking in healthy profits. Democrats are just as guilty, but at least democrats don’t deny that it needs to be constantly fed with more, and more taxes. What’s nonsense is to believe that states need to engage in slush funding, while calling it incentive, to do business at taxpayer expense.

    • Jack Bryan

      Didn’t the TEF do business with Countrywide?

  • Anonymous

    perry was a gore lover. that gives me the creeps.

    • jay

      That ended in 1989, which would be 22 years ago. How would you know sobriety if you don’t know drunkenness?

    • Anonymous

      Reagan was a Democrat before the party left him.

      • Anonymous

        Ronaldius Magnus was a conservative dem. the dems of today are another animal. algore is a prog-lib. dont compare apples and oranges. Ronaldius Magnus would never support an algore.

        • Jack Bryan

          Rick Perry is no Ronald Reagan. End of story.

          • Anonymous

            True that. He wasn’t the one that declared amnesty in ’87, either. Ronaldus was fantastic Prez. But unlike so many of his fans today, he lived in the real world and worked with a real Congress and had to make real executive decisions and compromises.
            In these respects, he and Perry might have something in common after all, beyond those ho-hum conservative principles. Governing.

            Note: Posting twice – first comment didn’t attach itself to this thread.

            • Jack Bryan

              There’s a difference between compromise and being compromised.

        • Anonymous

          What Al is and what Al was are two very different things. Al was a conservative Dem too, and Reagan and Perry made the switch for the exact same same reasons – the party left them. Read up.

    • But that was a long time before Gore became a creep.

      • Jack Bryan

        There was a time when Al Gore wasn’t a creep? You realize that during the 80s one of Al’s big issues was his support of the nuclear freeze movement, inexorably opposed to Reagan’s peace through strength. It was only with the collapse of the USSR that he then switched to global warming.

  • Anonymous

    The guy simply doesn’t articulate his views clearly enough to be effective.

    He has Sarah Palin syndrome…syntax destroyer and meandering, unfocused debating skills.


    • I for one will take “syntax destroyer and meandering, unfocused debating skills”, over empty rhetoric (even if it soars) any day. I believe actions do speak louder than words. Palin and Perry have proven themselves to be decisive leaders; they just don’t have the non-regional, accent-neutral voices that the masses seem to prefer these days.

    • Mark Smith

      I’ll take Texas Aggie over Harvard smooth, thank-you very much. We’ve seen where Harvard smooth leads, now, haven’t we.

    • Anonymous

      I agree with you about Perry but you’re wrong about Palin. Yes, she’s given some bad interviews and she’s had moments when she’s been inarticulate off the cuff, but her speeches are second to none and she well against Biden in the VP debate. OK, granted, Biden isn’t exactly Einstein, but she more than held her own.

      There are videos of her during the Alaska Governor’s debate at YouTube. She’s very good in debates.

    • Anonymous

      I wish he were as glib as Romney and Obama, but he’s not as bad as Sarah. She’s actually improved a little recently, tho.

  • Thanks for posting. Perry always seems more articulate in one-on-one interviews than in debates. Re your comment “…but shifted more toward a federal stance of securing the border being the only way we can begin to get a handle on illegal immigration.”

    That is no shift; he has always said the border needs to be secured–with strategic fencing, electronic surveillance and boots on the ground.

  • Anonymous

    I’m really having a hard time with Perry. I’ve come away with a very negative reaction to every speech I’ve watched, but I’ve liked him in both debates even though he hasn’t done very well in either of them. He seems very phony in speeches, but came across as likeable and real in the debates, just tentative and ill-prepared.

    I did not like him in this interview at all. He does not seem to be able to think on his feet at all. It’s almost like he doesn’t know what to say. He comes across as very inarticulate. I don’t know. I don’t know what to think about the guy.

  • Anonymous

    True that. He wasn’t the one that declared amnesty in ’87, either. Ronaldus was fantastic Prez. But unlike so many of his fans today, he lived in the real world and worked with a real Congress and had to make real executive decisions based on that.
    In these respects, he and Perry might have something in commone after all – beyond those ho-hum conservative principles.

  • Anonymous

    I won’t vote for Romney. Romney care is bad enough, but he initially said he believed in “Global warming?” Good grief, he’s way too dangerous.

  • Anonymous

    He’s being truthful about Social Security. I respect that. I’ve posted this entire article because you have to pay $8.95 to read this. It’s worth the cost, it’s a very good blog, but I didn’t know who could pay it, and who couldn’t. Please read this.

    Palin, Perry, and The Rolling PALIN, PERRY, AND THE ROLLING STONES
    Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
    Thursday, 18 August 2011

    On June 12, 1964, at Big Reggie’s Danceland Ballroom in Excelsior, Minnesota (on Lake Minnetonka west of Minneapolis), The Rolling Stones gave a performance during their first American tour. They were little-known back then (everyone was into Beatlemania), they were drunk, played poorly, and got booed off the stage by the audience of 300.

    The next morning, Mick Jagger went into Bacon’s Drug Store to fill a prescription. Standing in front of him was a local character named Jimmy Hutmaker, Excelsior’s retarded town mascot whom everyone befriended. Jimmy wanted his usual morning pick-me-up, a cherry coke – but the fellow who manned the soda fountain said they were out of cherry syrup, so he gave Jimmy a regular coke.

    Whereupon Jimmy turned to Mick, shrugged his shoulders, and said, “You can’t always get what you want.”

    Jagger never forgot what “Mr. Jimmy” said, and used it to create an achingly extraordinary rock and roll masterpiece (with the beginning and closing chorus sung by the London Bach Choir):

    Oh, you can’t always get what you want
    Oh, you can’t always get what you want
    Oh, you can’t always get what you want
    But if you try sometimes, you just might find
    You get what you need

    The song has been haunting me for the last several days. I have listened to it a score of times (the link is to the original 1968 recording which was used as a soundtrack for the House television series), during breaks reading a particular book.

    And thus I have arrived at a conclusion: However much we want Sarah Palin, what we need is Rick Perry.

    Last week’s HFR (8/12) discussed the odds of a Hillary candidacy and Zero being LBJ Redux, a Wisconsin lady infuriating the left nationwide, the massive threat of Dem vote fraud in 2012, the absurdity of the left’s smear on Rick Perry being “pro-Sharia” and why Ismailism is a peaceful form of Islam, why Chris Christie by contrast is a sharia apologist, Ron Paul’s Hate America & Israel foreign policy on full display, the phony protests in Chinese Turkestan, and that China’s debt problems are worse than Portugal’s.

    As of now, this HFR has received a record number of comments on the Forum, well over 200 – with all but a small fraction ignoring everything else except Rick Perry, devolving into a debate between pro- and anti-Perry TTPers.

    I’m not about to try and settle this – and no matter who’s right, the debate has been very informative. I’ll just suggest certain considerations for the debate in hopes they may be taken into account as the debate continues, as it no doubt will.

    First, every election we always hear that this one is “the most important of our lifetimes” – but in 2012, it is in fact true. This is the Big One. America is right now on the brink of full-on economic collapse and a full-on 1984 Fascist Dictatorship thanks to an almost fatal error electing Zero. Zero’s re-election would remove the “almost.”

    Second, the ABO – Anyone But Obama – argument is silly. The monumental damage Zero has done has momentum, inertia. It will keep going even without him. It will take a counterforce to slow it down to where capitalist repair mechanisms can exceed the rate of damage. The absolute minimum, then, for a Republican nominee is someone who can supply at least this counterforce.

    Third, the Buckley argument is the opposite of silly. Bill Buckley averred that he would always support the most conservative electable candidate in a race – and expected everyone to note the qualifier. There may be exceptions to this, but 2012 is not one of them.

    Fourth, for such a conservative electable candidate to effectively supply the sufficient counterforce, he or she must target not only the active damage of the Dems, but the passive damage of the Rinos whose SOP is chronic wimping out to Dem intimidation.

    Fifth, the most dynamic game-changing force in US politics today is the Tea Parties. All of the above requires a nominee who has their enthusiastic support, and who can focus their efforts into successful victories for the White House, Senate, and House – and a successful seizure of the machinery of the Republican Party itself.

    Sixth, if you want perfection, die and go to heaven, as that’s the only place you’ll find it. If you want a Messiah, pray for the Second Coming, but don’t demand it of a Republican presidential candidate. If you want miracles, pray that the Almighty will perform them, but don’t expect them to be performed by a human being, POTUS or no.

    Seventh, in 2012, the Dems are going to conduct the most immoral electoral campaign in American history – and do it with over a billion dollars. The smears, the lies, the politics of personal destruction, the cheating and vote fraud will be nuclear.

    We are fighting to get the government out of our lives – they are fighting for their survival as the only existence they know is as moochers and parasites. And the only morality they know is: the end justifies the means. Anything goes. There are no rules and no laws that apply to them.

    Which means we must have a candidate capable of standing up to this, who will be as cold-blooded cutthroat as they are, and can raise the hundreds of millions to do so.

    Bottom line: this is as serious as it gets, life or death for America, millions of Americans consigned to poverty, tyranny, and the clear possibility of massive bloodshed, or not. So we need to choose our horse in the race with ruthless realism.

    Let’s start winnowing out the unelectable folks no matter how nice they are or how principled or ego-driven who have no chance whatever of winning the Pub primaries much less the general: Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, McCotter, Huntsman, and Paul. They may stay in to get their points across in the debates, but that’s it.

    Of the declared candidates, that leaves Bachmann, Romney, and Perry. The least electable is Bachmann. She’s wonderfully pro-American, her many fans adore her with good reason. But that’s not good enough. She’s not cutthroat enough and she can’t raise enough money.

    Which is why so many of her supporters are switching to Perry, and her paid-for Ames victory didn’t amount to a bale of hay.

    So we’re left with Romney and Perry. This is not a fair fight. But politics never is. Our guy is going to be up against a Dem who will try to knee him in the groin and gouge his eyes out. Who do you want in the ring against him? Rick, who jogs with a .380 Ruger, plugs a coyote with it and laughs, “Now he’s mulch” – or Mitt, whose response to queries on Romneycare, will be as one wag puts it, to “rope-a-dope himself to the mat”?

    What’s funny is that it’s taken the Rino Establishment all of five days (it’s Thursday and Perry declared last Saturday) to figure out that Perry is going eat Romney for a breakfast snack and are already frantically searching for a replacement – someone, anyone who can stop Perry.

    So suddenly there’s this flurry of desperate “leaks” about Paul Ryan or Chris Christie running, which the non-candidates have to wearily shoot down.

    The fact is, both the Dems and the Rinos are afraid of Perry. They are afraid of him. That’s who we need, someone they are scared of. Is there anyone else?

    Did I hear someone say Sarah?

    Yes, the only two folks who strike fear into Dem and Rino hearts alike are Palin and Perry. So let me tell you what she’s going to do.

    Palin is a huntress. She is now watching her quarries, Perry and Zero, watching and waiting. She knows Perry will be hit with a tsunami of smears, lies, distortions, the full monty of personal destruction. She’s been hit with it, stood right up to it, and is still standing. Can Perry? Will he still be standing after the tsunami washes over him or will he be swept away?

    That’s what Palin is waiting to see. If he’s still standing and fighting back as hard as ever, then she endorses and campaigns for him. If he’s swept away, she declares her candidacy.

    This will not take long. The Dems and Rinos are going for a quick knockout. The deluge has already started, e.g., ridiculing Texas jobs (which means ridiculing Texas, how smart is that?)[1] or accusing him of executing an innocent man.[2]

    Next up – watch for it – will be rumors and reports that he’s a closet homosexual. They’ve already begun circulating a rumor about him and some unnamed veterinarian in Dallas. This is drivel, of course. Perry is a man’s man, and a real woman’s man too. The contrast between his true masculinity and Zero’s metrosexuality is so overt that the Dems will do anything to demean it.

    Yet what about all the criticism of Perry from our side, which are genuine concerns such as requiring HPV vaccinations and accusations of crony capitalism regarding wind energy or toll roads?

    These and others raise legitimate questions, and the debate among them on the Forum will continue. I, for example, don’t understand how Perry can think warmism is a “phony mess” yet be all for some expensive renewable energy program. For me, though, his contempt for the EPA and ethanol subsidies plus being a total drill-baby-drill guy way overcomes this.

    And that’s really the issue. Whenever we have to make an important real world decision, it’s always weighing the assets against the liabilities. It’s never all of the former and none of the latter. For me, Perry’s assets – particularly for the fight we’re in – overwhelm his liabilities.

    We need a president who wants to turn the terrorist enemies of America into mulch, who’s a climate skeptic’s dream, who says, “Mr. Obama talks a lot about jobs, but the only job he really cares about is the one he’s got,” whose electoral strategy is “to keep your boot on your opponent’s neck until after the election and all the votes are counted.”

    We need a president who tells the press in interviews and writes in print that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are “bankrupt,” that they are “Ponzi schemes.” Who writes that two “great milestones on the road to serfdom” for America were the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments.

    You can find these statements in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight To Save America From Washington. It’s the book I mentioned above that I’ve been reading. His main theme, his main vehicle to reclaim our country from the federalies, is the 10th Amendment. States can do all kinds of things that Washington cannot is one primary lesson he draws from it.

    The lesson I draw from his is that a lot of things he has done as governor that are questionable would be unconstitutional anathema to him as president. I cannot encourage you more to read his book, read his passion for the 10th Amendment, then judge for yourself.

    We’re in the fight of our lives, folks – a street fight for our lives with no rules. The only thing that matters is who wins as that’s the way the enemy plays. If we don’t have a go-for-the-jugular ruthless street fighter on our side, we lose.

    I don’t see anyone else but Perry or Palin – and if Perry is still standing by the end of September (the latest Palin has said she would get in), it’s him with Palin behind him.

    You don’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.

  • Anonymous

    I am in shock from these people. The country is going broke and they are arguing about HPV vaccines. We have had enough of the BS talk. We need jobs in America more than anything else. Now the Chinese are going broke because their biggest customer, America, is running out of money to buy their stuff. Now what? Everybody can lie about their age and go on Social Security. More than half of the country gets a check for something. How much longer can that go on? You can’t talk about that because the seniors will be mad. Anyone would be mad if they think you are stopping their check. It is like alimony being paid by the USA. They just keep raising it and raising it. Pretty soon the guy will quit working. The most you can take is everything. We are at that point now. Now they are printing 40% of what they spend. They figured out how to spend more than everything on everyone who screams. Lets send checks to all the women, gays, Latinos and ME. Ben Franklin said that once people figure out how to vote themselves money, democracy is over. Guess what? They figured it out.