Apologies are for things done by mistake. Perry stood to benefit from his decision. It was no accident. In the true tradition on criminals and politicians, he's not sorry he did it. He is just sorry it's causing him problems now. Keep voting for people who think it's alright to trample your rights, but don't expect anything to actually change. You're the one who is buying what the party is pushing. Don't accuse me of blind partisanship. Do you think they really care if Perry beats Romney? They're the same guy with different accents. A vote for either will protect their power. That's all they care about.

So thinking that a doctor can advise me better than a politician is anti-intellectualism? Nonsense. This was just another chance for a slimy politician to cozy up to the drug companies by sending some money their way. Now, all of those who support Perry want to give him a pass because, "it's for the children." Please. Obamacare was passed in the name of mercy, as well. Still, you fought it from the beginning, and rightly so. So much evil can be done in the name of mercy. It doesn't matter if it's your side doing it. Perry was wrong. He is corrupt. Bachmann, Paul, and the others who have called him out on this are correct.

The only reason O'Donnell was asked for an interview is because she was a political candidate. That is what made her "famous" enough to even sell a book. (That seems a little absurd to me, but oh well...) Therefore, hard, pointed, uncomfortable questions should be expected. I agree that he would have gone easier on a liberal.

As I've said in previous posts, I'm not looking to hand the power back to the Republicans. I'm not Republican so I don't care that he was a Democrat. It's the rest of the stuff that bothers me. I'm not playing the "at least he's better than Obama" game. My dog is better than Obama, but I'm not writing him in. I don't like Perry. I don't trust him. He's a the classic smug, big government loving politician. That man makes my skin crawl. If people want to support Perry, they will, but I will not. Doesn't matter if he's the nominee. Wouldn't matter if he was the only guy on the ballot in the general election. I'm not voting for him.

Shhh, we are supposed to forget all of that. He's a "true" conservative now, haven't you heard? He's put that all behind him, according to the MSM, anyway.

Just remember, for every person who does what you are going to do, Ron Paul gets one vote closer to taking the nomination. They are trying desperately to shut him down, but there are many more of us than there were in 2008. Paul is much better known, too. They got off easy last time because a lot of people trusted Obama to end the wars. He hasn't done it, and this time, there is no other Democrat to focus on. The other Republicans aren't even pretending to want to end them. It won't be as easy for them this time because Paul is the only candidate who really would do it. He's going to draw people from the right and left, plus all of us Libertarians out there. One point I'd like to mention for any voters registered Independent or Democrat. You may know this, but last time, some Paul supporters were surprised to find out that their state had a closed primary. They didn't end up getting to vote. Be sure to check.

No diversion. It's a legitimate question. Imperialism, militarism, and those "entangling alliances" set the stage for WWI. The fallout from WWI in Germany helped Hitler rise to power so, it is fair to ask whether he would ever have had that chance if it hadn't been for the first war. You can accuse people of short sighted about the threat he posed, but it can be traced back to those mistakes. Therefore, no I am not afraid that "Paul doesn't see the...threat." I'm terribly afraid that others have forgotten the original causes of the whole mess.

You mention WWII, so what caused WWI?

You are talking about them making trouble for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they couldn't make trouble for us if we weren't there. We are not going to fix those countries, and it is not our problem to fix those countries. We were attacked by people who were based largely in Afghanistan so we attacked them. That part I understand, and I support, though I think we should have done it quicker and hit them harder. (Plus, I'm not sure how Pakistan keeps getting a pass, but anyway.) I don't care if these places ever set up a stable government. If their citizens get tired of it, they can fix it. If we must go to war with someone, fine, but you aren't going to win the people's hearts and trust by bombing them. Understand that, let the military do what they are there to do, and then let them come home. Make it clear that we will respond when attacked, and make them not want us to have to do that.

Israel. Yes, it's true. Iran would love nothing more than to destroy Israel, and Israel would love to take out Iran and the rest of the Middle East out. I completely understand why they feel that way. Israel is threatened by the rest of those countries, but because it would cause trouble for us, we don't want them to do anything about it. If we were in the same position, we would, but we tell them to talk it out. All that aside, Israel is not the US, and the US is not Israel. We borrow money from China, who seems to love Iran so that we can defend and support Israel, while telling Israel not to defend itself because we don't want to get dragged into the mess. How does that make any sense?

I have a little different take on that one. Santorum only seems to talk about social issues. While there are a lot of social conservatives out there, I think a lot of people are going to be looking more at the economy in the general election. I'm not saying he couldn't get the nomination, but I think he would ultimately lose when he wasn't playing to a conservative audience. Perry may play better to independents. I don't like him, but he does seem to say what a lot of people want to hear.