Budget

Rick Perry's Balanced Budgets

|

Eats, shoots, and leaves?

As governor of Texas, Rick Perry leaned on federal stimulus funds more than any other governor, using about $6 billion in federal stimulus funds to close roughly 97 percent of his state's budget shortfall in 2010. But that didn't stop him from complaining loudly about the stimulus legislation. "I have been vocal in my opposition" to the law, he wrote in a letter to President Obama agreeing to accept federal stimulus funds in Texas, because it "will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt."

This year, with stimulus money unavailable, he turned to other methods to balance the Texas budget. As The Washington Post's Suzy Khimm reports, Perry's new budget "ignores a $4.5 billion structural deficit that happens every year" thanks to a 2006 tax overhaul that didn't work as projected. According to a report by ABC News, Perry's budget also closed a big part of its budget gap by delaying a $2.3 billion education payment a single day. Thanks to that one-day delay, the payment will fall into the next budget year, and therefore will not technically affect the current year's budget. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

138 responses to “Rick Perry's Balanced Budgets

  1. Its almost like Perry is another politician faced with making an unpalatable choice (cut spending and/or raise taxes) vs take free money and play budget games. In a Perry/Bachmann/Romney world, deficits won’t go away, but they may be less than in an Obama world. Though guaranteed we’ll still spend money on drunken sailors (who, after all, defend our nation).

    1. You mean he’ll give billions of poor people’s money to Wall St.

      1. Re: Oral Hazard,

        You mean he’ll give billions of poor people’s money to Wall St.

        I thought Obama was giving newly minted phony money to Wall Street, not “poor people’s money.”

        Get your facts straight, Oral.

        1. Poor people have billions of dollars?

          1. Well yeah, once you chop them into pieces.

    2. Going to be a lot of crying Raisinites if George W Bush Jr. (Perry) gets elected. I love it!

    3. We ignore politics most of the time.

    4. From the description there, Perry sounds a bit like the guy in a little folk tale that’s been making the rounds lately about a guy whose cow dies, and he can’t get much for the meat or for the hide. What he does instead is hold a raffle for the cow, selling five hundred tickets at two bucks a ticket. When a friend asks him later how he made out, he says he got $998 for his cow. “Didn’t anyone complain about it bein’ dead?” “Just the guy who won the raffle, so I gave him his two bucks back.”

      Then this joke usually ends: “And that‘s the guy who’s going to solve our budget problems.”

  2. Was this a description of the governor of Texas or California?

    Oh, and in deference to drunken sailors, they stop spending when they run out of cash.

    1. Sailors, drunken, tipsy or straight, are owed deference only when they quit being two bit whores for Caesar and then do everything they can to “protect our freedoms”.

      1. I’d sooner give a drunken sailor some of my money for his drinking and whoring rather than a politician for his spending.

      2. Yeah, I hear you. Police are bullshit.

    2. And for the most part they spend their own fucking money.

      1. Libertarians seem to know a lot about sailors.

    3. We only spend our own money.

  3. That’s some brilliant accounting there that only the government could get away with, we’ve accrued this expense but since we’re cash basis, it doesn’t count.

    1. D’oh!

      When ABC tells the American people that Texas took $6 billion of the stimulus, they fail to mention that there is about a 1.43:1 ratio of taxing to distribution.

      At that ratio Washington collected about $8.6B to distribute the $6B stimulus to Texas.

      Did they get it all from Texas? Who knows, but it doesn’t matter since they got it thinking they know better how to spend it from Central Planning.

  4. Why doesn’t he just do what NY does and dump all the debt on smokers?

  5. So I take it Reason will not be supporting Perry for president.

    1. Why would they? Obama will be on the ballot, after all.

      1. I still can’t believe how many of them voted for Captain Not My Fault.

        Were they that romanticized by the “US Ends Racism by Electing Black Dude President” movie?

        Was the shit he’s pulling now that hard to see when he was running?

        He was statism DEFINED and yet all these Reasonoids pulled the lever.

        For shame.

        1. I still can’t believe how many of them voted for Captain Not My Fault.

          The republicans from 2003 to 2008 were really fucking bad.

          I think besides Weigel most of them felt anything would be less bad.

          Anyway Tim said he is coming back in a fort night and Ron is still here…ask them why they voted for hope and change.

          I am pretty sure Tim, Ron, and David are the three that voted for the O…who else were there?

          1. The republicans from 2003 to 2008 were really fucking bad.

            They were fucking bad. That I agree. But the democrats were just as bad if not worse. I tend to say worse because at least when the Republicans fucked up their base generated a Tea Party to throw the bums out. The Democrats are too petrified of people finding out how truly socialist and statist they are thus they will never get rid of someone like a Barney Frank, who is probably more responsible for our current economic problems than anyone in Washington, and yet he gets re-elected in a landslide every year.

            I remember this conversation (why these folks voted for Obama) and the answer was usually “the Republicans are worse and Obama might legalize weed, strike down the Patriot Act, end the wars and close Guantanamo.”

            Boy do they look fucking stupid today.

            1. Worse, there was absolutely NO EMPIRCAL EVIDENCE to support their proposition that Obama would do any of those things. NONE.

              My hunch is that a far higher percentage of Reason staffers as well as voters who exclusively vote for either democrats or republicans voted for Obama than folks who do not buy the official 9 / 11 conspiracy fable. By a landslide.

              1. folks who do not buy the official 9 / 11 conspiracy fable.

                Wait…

                So who blew up the Towers? Osama? Bush? Jews?

                I am confused as to which one you are saying is the fable and which is not.

                1. Neither you, nor I, know who (a) organized and masterminded the operation; (b) financed the operation; (c) assisted, in any way, the operation and (d) executed the spectacular blows.

                  What I do know is that one must be pretty gullible to buy the official United Socialist State of Amerika fable that a handful of saudi islamic fundamentalists armed with boxcutters are the culprits.

                  1. Libertymike|8.15.11 @ 6:33PM|#
                    “Neither you, nor I, know who (a) organized and masterminded the operation; (b) financed the operation; (c) assisted, in any way, the operation and (d) executed the spectacular blows.”

                    And since I wasn’t there when the bomb was built, I’ll just presume nuclear weapons are a hoax. And that landing on the moon? Ha!
                    Argument from ignorance is pretty, well, ignorant.

                    1. I do know that the united states has a propensity to lie and to perpetrate false flag operations and to kill lots of people and to be the only entity to mass murder by nuclear weapon.

                      You do not know who planned, organized, financed and executed the 9/ 11 attacks. I assume that you know that the US goverment has a propensity to lie, mass murder and perpetrate false falge operations. If you do not, you are truly ignorant.

                      Thus, please explain why you penned such an ignorant post.

                  2. sometimes something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck..really is a duck.

                    1. What if it weighs as much as a duck?

                2. Steel doesn’t burn, JC! Steel doesn’t burn!

                  1. Neither does stupid.

                    But, Osama is dead!

                    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

                  2. Ice doesn’t burn either, er. . . never mind.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..detailpage

              2. How exactly could one get empirical evidence of a future event?

            2. At the time, I think it seemed reasonable to people who weren’t being sufficiently cynical. The fact that those of us who don’t vote (and that includes a number of reason staffers) were expressing our extreme doubts that he would be better didn’t seem to matter. And to be perfectly honest, even we were astonished by how bad he is, and we expected it.

              Still, the people who voted for him should man up and say “I was a fucking moron and will never, ever make that mistake again.”

              1. Epi, I am not, in the slightest, astounded by what he has done and how he has done it.

                Yes, they should man up and acknowledge, that they were fucking morons.

              2. Still, the people who voted for him should man up and say “I was a fucking moron and will never, ever make that mistake again.”

                Or, even something like “You might want to take most of my opinions with a big grain of salt, because my ability to spot obvious hucksters is non-existent.”

                Manning up also means that they should understand the consequences of such craptacular decisions – a deserved reduction in the trust of their opinions.

                1. They most certainly forfeit the right to be regarded as a critical thinker.

              3. The fact that those of us who don’t vote (and that includes a number of reason staffers) were expressing our extreme doubts that he would be better didn’t seem to matter.

                This is true. There were a number of staffers who don’t vote on principle, and they called out Obama for being an empty suit at the time. This last presidential election was the poster child for why your vote doesn’t mean dick in the Presidential race.

                I voted for McCain/against Obama only because I was petrified of President “Spread the Wealth”, but I’ll fully admit that McCain wouldn’t have done things a whole lot differently and I’m ashamed of my vote. The only thing you could say about McCain is that Obamacare wouldn’t have happened, and by that standard alone we would’ve been better off.

                I won’t make that mistake again. Neither of these parties will get my vote this time.

                1. Tman, how could you?

                  Okay, you are forgiven. Now its time for pennance. You must read and memorize Towards a New Liberty, then kidnap Tony, blindfold him and transport him to a Waterloo, Iowas tea party meeting.

                2. I won’t make that mistake again. Neither of these parties will get my vote this time.

                  You have learned an important lesson, grasshopper. Voting is merely participating in a rigged, bullshit game where you have no statistical effect but when you participate you give it legitimacy.

                  Fuck that.

                3. I’ll fully admit that McCain wouldn’t have done things a whole lot differently and I’m ashamed of my vote.

                  That is why i always vote Libertarain.

                  I am virtually guaranteed to be ashamed of my vote but also guaranteed to not vote for the asshole who is destroying the country.

                  Plus the shame usually does not happen until like a year or two later when the former Libertarian candidate starts PR consulting for some third world dictator.

                4. But that in itself is just as bad Tman. It is a popular sayting amongst diehard party loyalists to say you are throwing your vote away, but you have the option of writting in a candidate or voting third party. Doing so, while it might not lead to the person you want being elected, lets the government know what you actually want to happen. I mean would the 1990s have been any different if Bush I won versus Clinton, most likely not. I know who I am voting for come 2012 whether or not he is on the Republican ticket is moot.

              4. The real American is the one that doesn’t vote.

                1. This person doesn’t vote in his republic, then bitches about politics in an obscure forum.

                  1. How’s that smartphone data plan working for you?

                  2. “This person doesn’t vote in his republic, then bitches about politics in an obscure forum.”

                    Suck it Trebek.

                2. I’m not trying to stroke the cock of the Reason staff, but I’m willing to give them a bit of a pass. First off, there’s no way in hell any politician has brazenly lied as much as Obama did on the campaign trail. I mean, the guy has broken virtually every promise he made in 2008. Name me a single other candidate that went back on as many promises. Couple that with the fact that Obama had virtually no voting record that could be used as a test to see what his thoughts had been in the past on the issues. There was simply…nothing.

                  Personally, I saw the guy for the duplicitous piece of shit that he has proven to be from Day 1. Hell, I am still of the belief that he will manufacture a war or other crisis pre-election if it looks like he is gonna get his ass kicked. That is how much I think he craves control.

                  So, I’m done bashing the Reason staff for voting for Obama. Yeah, those who did made a piss-poor decision, but not even Einstein got every equation right.

                  1. I agree that they shouldn’t be chastised for their decision, but it does lower their ability to maintain a principled stance against anti-libertarian pols since they abandoned them to vote President Not My Fault.

                    There was simply…nothing.

                    And yet, if you asked them at the time they would come up all sorts of reasons why there was……something- which means they were shitty journalists.

                  2. Sorry, sloopster, the fact that he had no voting record should have been a warning sign, not an excuse.

                    For me, I just do not understand why a self-proclaimed libertarian would ever, ever, vote for a TEAM RED or TEAM BLUE candidate for president (Ron Paul could never make it to that point). Ever. The only possible excuse is if you think your vote has an impact, and well, if you’re thinking that, you have much bigger problems.

                    I’d love to hear some rationalizations on why you would vote for TEAM RED or TEAM BLUE over an LP candidate, if you really feel you must vote. And let’s not hear the old “the LP is crazy”, because they are, but so are TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE.

                    1. Well I can’t speak much for national elections. But in local elections it might because there is a paticular issue you really care about that you know one person does better supporting than the other. For myself it is second admendment rights, generally republicans in my state do a far better job defending that right than democrats, so I have thrown a few votes their way in local elections.

                    2. I hear you, Epi, and I agree with you from a personal standpoint. I can just see how someone, if forced, would have chosen an unknown quantity that had made promises of transparency, reduced involvement in wars, closure of Gitmo, a slowdown in the WOD, opening up to gays in the military, and the myriad other pronouncements Obama made and has reversed course on.

                      I mean seriously? If the man had lived up to half of those promises, he would have been the most libertarian president since Silent Cal.

                      That said, I will vote for the same party I voted for in 2008. Actually, it will be tha same candidate. I will write-in a Republican…and it will be Ron Paul/Gary Johnson.

                      I wasn’t defending their voting for Obama. I was simply saying how I could understand someone buying the bullshit because there was nothing to weigh it against irt a voting record, and no candidate has ever gone back on as many promises in the history of elections in this country.

                  3. he will manufacture a war or other crisis pre-election if it looks like he is gonna get his ass kicked.

                    Sadly if he doesn’t that would actually put him a cut above the rest.

                    We are so fucked.

                  4. Obama’s entire life screamed socialist. Lack of a public record was no excuse.

                    And even on that score, they often ignored his public record. Such as his declarations he would double down on Afghanistan.

    2. It wouldn’t be Reason if they didn’t point out that politicians are politicians. If they wrote only glowing reviews of Team Red/ Team Blue players, I’d think I’d stumbled on Daily Kos or Redstate on accident.

    3. Reason loves Romney now:

      https://reason.com/blog/2011/08…..are-people

      Reason generally hates all candidates….unless that candidate is Obama and the coverage is written by David Weigel

      1. The decision to hire David Weigel was on par with voting for Obama, so there’s that.

        1. Um, this

        2. At the time of Weigel’s hire he was a conservative libertarianish guy.

          Then he made sweet love to Ezra Klien and his whole world turned upside down!!

          No but seriously nothing about Weigel at the time of his hire showed he would support a candidate like Obama.

          I am pretty sure it had everything to do with the Iraq War and Weigel felt Obama was the only credible candidate who opposed the war….why that required him to support Obamacare and find and give coverage to every birther no matter how obscure on the planet and then label them “the main stream republican party” is anyone’s guess.

          Weigel’s support of Obama to be against the war is pretty clear cut…all the lies and hackery and obfuscation and creative editing was the bad part.

          1. That may be true for others, but I can tell you truthfully that the first time I read a Weigel column, I actually flipped the magazine over to check the cover – to make sure that I was reading Reason.

  6. These accounting tricks is why Perry would pick Pawlenty as he VP, and is already courting him. They understand each other.

    1. Sorry, wow. English is my first language, I swear.

      1. That’s okay, English are my first language, too.

  7. It’s a Perry 3-fer…does this mean no more Rick Perry stories for the rest of the week?

    1. That depends. Did any of the Reason staffers write a book about him?

  8. Can we get one more picture of Rick Perry…

    1. Where’s the photo where they glue his hair helmet on?

  9. You guys don’t have to sink him on the 2nd day of his candidacy. Give him a week to shoot off his own foot, then start in on him.

  10. Who the hell is Rick Perry and why do we care.

    And is it just me, or does this Rick Perry character no look like Nathan Arizona.

    1. He used to be the lead singer for Journey.

      Y’know, I’d probably vote for Nathan Arizona.

      1. I would vote for the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse… because he’s the only movie character in cinema history that truly understood economics:

        “Price, it’s not what you say it is, it’s what the market will bear.” -T.L.B.A.

        1. Needless to say, Hollywood portrayed him as being evil.

          1. Is it just me, or did this exact conversation happen last week?

  11. Perry is probably as bad as the other candidates on the foreign policy front, but what would his domestic policies be? I don’t think he will run a campaign of compassionate conservatism claptrap that George W. Bush popularized.

    1. I don’t think he will run a campaign of compassionate conservatism claptrap that George W. Bush popularized.

      Maybe he’ll be “ship-em-all-back-to-mexico”. My favorite attribute of the modern GOP.

    2. Speaking of which, who is David Brooks rooting for?

      1. Whoever E.J. Dionne is voting for.

    1. I’m not entirely sure how that has anything to do with Rick Perry, but a story about taint must be relevant.

    2. Yeah, that was highlight of the day and is now on my FB. Thanks, db!

      Boar Taint…huh huh, huh huh, huh huh…

  12. This might be my favorite alt text.

  13. That picture right there makes me want to vote for him.

  14. Jesus, 3 Perry posts? This is where having some central editing capacity would come in handy.

    And now for something completely different: the picture of Michelle Bachmann wrestling with a corn dog.

    1. Unbelievable scoop, BP!

    2. Things you put in your mouth.

    3. That picture right there makes me want to vote for her.

      Nah, not really.

      But seriously, you have to admit that’s pretty impressive. She’s not just licking a little around the top or anything. She’s going for it all.

      I bet she swallowed, too.

      1. Name Nomad posted it yesterday.

        I wonder, Fatty – if her church has the typical evangelical proscriptions against ‘sodomies’, she might not have enough experience.

        1. So, what you’re saying is, you ripped off Name Nomad. You slime.

          Someone here at work put that picture up as their desktop wallpaper, so I’ve been seeing it all day.

          1. Hostile work environment!!11!!1

          2. Name Nomad has been graced by my mention of him. Just as dbcooper was over at Urkobold.

            As for your co-worker’s wallpaper, you deserve it, troglodyte. If you were coding as you should be, you wouldn’t have noticed, lazy wretch.

            1. If you saw how small the space we are in is, you’d take that back, hater.

              1. I’m gonna send him this pic to put up tomorrow…

                1. Hello, lunch….

            2. Aha, thanks for the hat tip. You sugarfree’d the link though. 🙂

              1. Thx, db. My hatred for Episiarch caused me to screw up my typing.

                1. I only hope that hatred causes you an unsteady hand during a duel, BP. Then I will know that I was the one who truly killed you. Last.

    4. That photo is worth at least 100,000 votes.

      If she stages another one like that with more mustard there’s 200,000.

        1. That’s what I was thinking. Well, that or Justin needs to see his doctor.

        2. Thinned with salt water.

          1. …and all over her lips and chin.

            1. I remember seeing I have a friend who told me about a page in Hustler that was called “What would ___________ look like with a cock in his/her mouth.”

              I cannot help but think that I my buddy will see this corn dog replaced by a big fat dong in the next month or two. I will let you guys know as soon as my October edition hits the mailbox my friend tells me he saw it.

    5. That’s disgusting!

      I’m going to masturbate now.

    6. Actually, according to The Daily Show, that might have been a battered deep-fried stick of butter.

      Seriously. Reality trumps fiction kine deal.

  15. Speaking of Obama and the 2012 election..

    Anyone else notice that the Birthers have disappeared?

    Funny thing is they disappeared and Obama’s approval rating dropped to an all time low.

    1. ACtually, now that you mention it, no, in fact I didn’t notice the birthers had disappeared.

      But really, that’s a relative term. Stroll on over to Free Republic and you’ll see they are still alive and kicking.

      1. Maybe people started realizing that it would have been easy for Obama to settle that dispute 2? years before. But he chose not to do that so that he could antagonize some of the Republicans.

        So he may have been telling the truth about his birth, but he lied about his attempts to bring people together.

        1. Its not like the issue was settled, as a matter of fact.

          1. a birther and a truether…

            My fucking god!!

            You are a monster!!!!

        2. That’s pretty much what I was thinking. He was trying to keep his base intact by allowing the attack to continue. He knew it would 1) be decried as racism and 2) he could dispel it whenever he wished.

          I was actually surprised he didn’t wait a bit longer.

          1. Yeah seemed like classic October Surprise material.

            1. No. Like it would have been a game changer?

          2. I think he would have liked to wait a bit longer, but Trump latched onto it and was starting to gain traction with it.

            1. yeah you nailed it.

    2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?

    3. Re: Joshua Corning,

      Anyone else notice that the Birthers have disappeared?

      No, they simply turned into the Certifithers, looking for signs that the long document was forged.

      1. OM, don’t tell me that you put much, if any, faith in the integrity and reliability of a state issued document.

        Still waiting for the release of O’s applications and grades regarding his Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard matriculations.

        1. did you lose a bet or something?

  16. Romney flip-flops from one side of an issue to another. The pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-tax, pro-mandate Massachusetts moderate becomes a walking sculpture of Reagan-spunk for 2012.

    Perry doesn’t flip-flop. He straddles — trying to be on both sides of the issue at the same time. the Tenther who wants to crack down on medical weed. The secessionist who wants to dictate gay-marriage bans to New York. The Tea-Partier who sucks up stimulus money like an Oreck in overdrive.

    I think Perry is smoother than Mitt, so he is more likely to get away with blowing smoke up the Republican party’s @$$, and he’ll get the nomination.

    1. Perry: The Texas Straddle-snake

      1. Ow – you guys are starting to make my balls ache – enough of this “straddle” talk, please

  17. Rick Perry’s Balanced Budgets

    Did he raise taxes?

    No?

    Then what’s the point?

  18. Everyone knows that whoever has the most hair wins the presidency.

    Obama got lucky when he ran against McCain, but I think his days are numbered (unless Herman Cain upsets the Republican field).

    1. Then I hope Michelle goes all natural, for her sake.

      1. Oh Barfman, why have you forsaken us?

        1. *barf*

          Just here to help

  19. The legislature also raided the fund for summer electric bills for the poor.

  20. I like this picture, if only because it will make half the people I hate shit themselves in an orgy of anti-gun-anti-roachstomper elitism.

  21. Libertymike|8.15.11 @ 7:18PM|#
    “I do know that the united states has a propensity to lie and to perpetrate false flag operations and to kill lots of people”
    Yes, as do most all governments.

    “and to be the only entity to mass murder by nuclear weapon.”
    You mean to end a war and save probably millions of lives? Is that what you mean?

    “You do not know who planned, organized, financed and executed the 9/ 11 attacks.”
    Obviously, I have a better idea, backed by clear evidence, than some stupid ‘truther’ bozo.

    “I assume that you know that the US goverment has a propensity to lie, mass murder and perpetrate false falge operations. If you do not, you are truly ignorant.”
    You repeat yourself, which is not surprising. See above.

    “Thus, please explain why you penned such an ignorant post.”
    I would, but I’m not sure how you managed it.
    Go suck on your tin-foil hat.

    1. Yeah, I can’t buy into the grand conspiracy either.

      Not because they’re not evil enough to do something like that to retain power, but because they’re too incompetent to actually carry it off without a colossal screw-up. I mean, really. Joe Biden?

      For example, I’m of the opinion that the capture/killing of OBL was in itself a flawed op.

      If OBL is indeed dead, then we failed to capture the operational and spiritual head of an organization that we’ve spent over 1Trillion combating since their formation years ago. The intelligence from his capture (whether we told anyone of his survival or not) – not of just current operations, but long term, is of possibly incalculable value.

      We couldn’t capture someone of that stature without killing him, even though he was very lightly guarded, and we still lost high level technology in the process of the op.

      Look, I’m not ragging on the guys doing the job,(as they’re considerably better at it than any other special ops team in the world), I’m just pointing out the cock up that occurred in what is arguably one of the most important intelligence and military operations in recent years. Even the best of the best don’t always pull it off perfectly.

      You don’t get it both ways. Either the government is filled with highly trained and capable henchmen who jump and die to preserve the ‘grand plan’ (which would lead one to wonder why the same genius level talent can’t seem to prevent widespread unhappiness with their performance), or their ranks are filled with the types who seek out a constant, if unexciting, livelihood.

      1. “Not because they’re not evil enough to do something like that to retain power, but because they’re too incompetent to actually carry it off without a colossal screw-up. I mean, really. Joe Biden?”

        Yep. Every tin-foil-hatter presumes the government is stupid enough to try it and smart enough to pull it off.
        Internal contradiction.

      2. And I’ll add:
        “We couldn’t capture someone of that stature without killing him, even though he was very lightly guarded, and we still lost high level technology in the process of the op.”

        I seem to recall, in my reading of military ops, that shooting an un-armed opponent is, shall we say, sleazy?
        Yes, I know imprisoning him for trial would invite reprisals. So?

        1. Yes, I know imprisoning him for trial would invite reprisals. So?

          Actually, the idea that the US is running some sort of ‘false flag’ operation would require our secret capture and interrogation of OBL, while publicly maintaining that he was still fomenting terrorist attacks.

          The messy attack in Pakistan doesn’t seem to serve any organized purposes, other than to demonstrate the lack of a ‘grand plan’.

  22. Rick Perry equals George W. Bush with communication skills.

  23. Tricky Rick.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.