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.
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.
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.
I'll take Texas Aggie over Harvard smooth, thank-you very much. We've seen where Harvard smooth leads, now, haven't we.
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.
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.
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.
That ended in 1989, which would be 22 years ago. How would you know sobriety if you don't know drunkenness?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
That statement sounds like you might be a moonbat in destroyer_of_moonbats clothing. Oh wait, that's Ron Paul...sorry
He has stated he is not running,