Rick Perry

Rick Perry Endorses Cancer for President, Would Be Willing to Accept Position as Cancer's Running Mate

Oops!

|

Foter / Gage Skidmore

During his brief,  run for the GOP presidential nomination last year, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry emerged as one of the loudest and harshest voices of criticism against Donald Trump. Last July, shortly after Trump entered the race, Perry devoted an entire speech to blasting Trump as a form of "cancer" on the conservative movement. 

In that speech, Perry declared in no uncertain terms that Trump was a serious problem for conservatives and that Trump's campaign threatened to destroy the entire ideological movement if not swiftly and soundly defeated. The entire text of the speech is still online. Here is a characteristic sample:

Let no one be mistaken – Donald Trump's candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded.

It cannot be pacified or ignored, for it will destroy a set of principles that has lifted more people out of poverty than any force in the history of the civilized world – the cause of conservatism.

I feel so strongly about this because I believe conservatism is the only way forward for this country.

Yesterday, Perry demonstrated exactly how strongly he feels about this by endorsing Donald Trump for president.

"I believe in the process," Perry said in an interview with CNN, "and the process has said Donald Trump will be our nominee and I'm going to support him and help him and do what I can."

Perry's offer of help and support extends to accepting the vice presidential nomination, should it be offered to him, he said. "I am going to be open to any way I can help. I am not going to say no," he told CNN when asked about the possibility. Perry acknowledged that he does not believe Trump to be an ideal nominee, but he also praised Trump as "one of the most talented people who has ever run for the president I have ever seen." (Perry's own skills as a presidential candidate are legendary.)  

Perry's campaign last year was built on big ideas and policy innovation. He appears to have given up on that approach. 

Instead, Perry is now arguing that conservatives should give cancer a chance, because, after all, it proven to be quite successful, and further saying that he would be willing to support cancer in achieving its goals however he can. Cancer-Perry 2016! 

NEXT: Parents, Want to Attach GPS Monitors to Your Kids Every Time They Leave the House?

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.

  1. I guess Trump must’ve won their pullup contest.

    1. Or perhaps it was a pull down contest.

    2. That’s all it took this year, to win the GOP nomination? Where was Warty when we needed him most?

      1. Warty doesn’t care for the needs of humans, some guy. When it was discovered that his tears could cure cancer, he had his tear ducts removed and launched into the sun.

    3. Euphemisms, abstract, etc.

  2. I will be Trump’s VP if Ivanka is my intern.

      1. That right there. That would be my anti-Trump commercial. And I’d just end with fade to black with INCEST written in big red lettering.

        1. He would totally clinch Kentucky with that ad.

          1. He would totally clinch Kentucky with that ad.

            Done and done.

  3. In a way, this makes sense. If the only choices were Trump, Clinton, and cancer…..

  4. I, for one am shocked. Shocked!

    Whoever heard of a primary opponent denigrating the winner during the primary, then turning around and supporting him afterward? This is a stunning reversal indeed!

    1. Rhombus Parallelogram, Jr. I for one am shocked (and disappointed) that there’s not a trademark Type-O in your comment. Sad, really.

      Almost as sad as somebody with principles who believes in keeping a promise no matter how distasteful or how bitter the gall – keeping promises on principle is for losers. Or as sad as somebody who’ll keep a promise only so long as there’s something to be gained by doing so – like a VP or a cabinet slot. A cabana boy slot? I’ll be a human footstool or a coatrack or a napkin dispenser? Please? Anything?? I’ll lick out your asshole for a nickel, but that’s my final offer – I still have my dignity you know.

      1. I’m not defending the practice, Mr. Skids. I just thought the piece suggested that this was unprecedented.

        Trademark typo? I’m not following, although I intended to place a comma after “I, for one”.

        1. You were only one comma short, then.

  5. I just saw that Rand Paul endorsed Trump, as well.

    1. At least they are keeping their promises. No choice at this point, really. They just never thought it would come to this. But the alternative is to look like a real life loser.

    2. Dead to me (he was on life support anyway).

  6. If anybody’s interested, I endorsed Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout for beer of the week.

    1. Good stuff.

    2. That is a tasty beverage, and i approve your endorsement.

    3. Samuel Smith anything is Top. Notch.

  7. During his brief, run

    You know who else was missing a word?

    1. Crossword puzzle solvers?

    2. Bastien Balthazar Bux?

    3. People not solving crossword puzzles?

  8. “I will support him the best way I can, and that is by giving him advice to keep him from fucking the country right up.”

  9. Are we seriously going to get another one of these pointless, whiny Suderweigel thumbsuckers every time another republican party flack endorses the republican party nominee? Because this is going to happen like a hundred more times in the next couple of weeks.

    1. Suderweigel

      Like others here, I’ve mocked the use of “Block Insane Yomomma” many times. But I must admit, “Suderweigel” is pretty good.

      1. [citation needed]

        1. It rolls off the tongue in a way Block Insane Yomomma clearly does not, and its point is at least clear (“Suderman is like Weigel”).

          As far as name-calling goes, I give it a solid B.

          1. That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

    2. Suderweigel

      Never change, Mike. Or, actually, do.

      1. You’re as much of a whiny-ass little bitch boy as he is by the way.

        1. Nice comeback. Did your mom teach it to you?

        2. The irony is rich and thick.

      2. Is Domestic Dissident the alias of Mike “Block Insane Yomomma” M?

        1. Shut the fuck up, Smelly Pisscreant. Mike is the comedic master of our time and you should have some respect

          1. YOU shut up, I-Swish. Quit alienating Cow Leads Sediment!

            1. Just drop it, Creepy Men Sex!

              1. Tushmaster, terror of the hobobutt is more like it!

                1. Whatever, BoogerPee.

                  1. NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

          2. I was actually being serious (Citizen X refers to him as Mike and he types like him – if it is him and that’s well-known, then I’ve missed that by not being too active here lately), but I laughed at your comment. I have the utmost respect for someone who has such profound insults as “Block Insane Yomomma.” Haven’t heard quality like that since 5th grade.

      3. I kinda like “Suderweigel”.

        1. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

    3. Trump is going to troll the media so hard over the next six months, they won’t have time for endorsement posts for long.

      The “Happy Cinco de Mayo” tweet from Taco Hell was only a teaser.

      Trump could make national news by announcing a speech at Northwestern.

      The opposition might even turn violent. It’s gonna get worse and worse. Is there anyone more hated by middle America than college students these days? Being denounced by social justice warriors on campus may become like a new litmus test for Republican candidates.

      P.S. I’d rather have a post for every endorsement Trump gets than read another Robby post about the campus outrage of the day.

      1. If you can’t enjoy Trump trolling and torturing the Washington media, you really have no heart. This is going to be such a fun summer.

        1. And I expect he’ll figure that anti-Trump riots are poll viagra, and he’ll make sure we have a steady supply of those.

  10. If Trump wins, he’ll need a lot of help. He’ll confine himself to being spokesman, mostly. All he really cares about is being on TV anyway.

    I hear Australians use a phrase a lot, “Poor fellow, my country”. I look at Trump and Hillary, and I think I know what they mean.

    I never believed having the right politicians was the solution to our problems, but I never doubted that awful ones could make it worse. And I keep hoping I’m wrong about politicians, that someday one of them will surprise the hell out of me.

    Will somebody please invent the warp drive already?

  11. Mildly OT: Christian ponders why Christians are voting for the Donald. Shockingly, she hits pretty close to the mark.

    And it is in precisely that last phrase?”Christian nation”?the answer may be found: America’s entrenched, pseudo-Christian civil religion is the primary culprit here. President Trump is the due result of our theologically vacant imperial cult, which in the guise of orthodoxy worships only the power of the state.

    Of course, Americans might rightly protest that we don’t ascribe divinity to the presidency, but the office is undoubtedly sacralized. Its successes?notably in foreign policy?are attributed to divine blessing. Conventional politicians may be more politic than Trump, but most will happily harness God to tow their pet projects. A classic example is what theologian Michael J. Gorman labels the “divine passive voice,” in which, often in the run-up to war, presidents say things like “We are called?” to subtly invoke a holy authority for their plans. In a Trump White House, the voice would simply become slightly more active.

    1. “If America is “under God”?if the United States becomes the “city on a hill”?we needn’t worry about obeying God rather than men. It’s all one and the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph is idolatrously mutated into an American tribal deity.”

      Great point.

      1. I am pretty sure God doesn’t vote and judges you on a lot of things other than you vote. I am going to go out on a limb and say that assuming their is a God he is going to judge jackasses who who rationalize their political beliefs by appealing to him a lot harsher than he will people for voting for Trump.

        I have so fucking had with the “Jesus told me how you should vote” crowd.

        1. he is going to judge jackasses who who rationalize their political beliefs by appealing to him a lot harsher than he will people for voting for Trump.

          I think the point of the article is that there’s a large group of people who overlap into both groups. Don’t get me wrong, my faith informs and controls my politics. However, I completely agree with this article that there are a bunch of Trump voters who worship the US Government as much as (if not more than) God.

          1. Trump voters in no way compete with the Progressive Theocracy for worshiping Government.

    2. I think it’s more that historically, America has had a presumption that people are either Christian, or secular types with a cultural Christian background. Now, there are two powerful forces in the West that are explicitly anti-Christian. Islamic theocrats are violent, but newer and less numerous (especially in the US, which lags Europe in disastrous social trends), Progressive kratotheists are less overtly violent but have amassed much more institutional power over time, and revel in using it to crush unbelievers. Trumpists are looking for someone who shares their belief that war is on the horizon, and is willing to fight it.

      1. Basically they are voting for the guy they feel cares about their interests and will fight on their behalf. What is causing people like Suderman and this woman to have such a case of the vapors over it is the nerve of such people to think their interests mattered or that they should have any kind of say in how the country is run.

        1. Damn the hoi polloi! They should know their place by now!

  12. The melodramatic use of “Cancer” seems to be a thing on the right which is almost as lame as “Woke” on the left.

    1. Let me change that = its worse. because “woke” is just retarded, while “cancer” is a thing that kills lots of people.

      1. Worse makes more sense than Wookie.

    2. Did you mean “Wookie”?

      1. …. no

        ENB dropped it earlier today.

        Also = Wookiepedia

        1. e.g.

          For years, the idea of being “woke” was a hallmark of socially-minded, black social media, but it’s recently crossed over onto the broader, whiter internet.

          “Can We Talk About How Woke Matt McGorry Was In 2015,” BuzzFeed asked in a post celebrating the How To Get Away With Murder actor for being a cis, hetero, white guy who’s also sympathetic to gender and racial inequality. “Woke,” MTV decided, was the new “on fleek” on its list of 2016’s teen slang. And Twitter is full of people tweeting “#staywoke,” often as a joke.

          But it’s not quite that simple. Like most slang, the meaning of “woke” changes depending on who’s saying it, and to whom. Among black people talking about Ferguson, “stay woke” might mean something like: “stay conscious of the apparatus of white supremacy, don’t automatically accept the official explanations for police violence, keep safe.”

          In this usage, “woke” indicates healthy paranoia, especially about issues of racial and political justice.

          etc. its just a dumb term that indicates “In-Group” approval by SJW douchegarglers

          1. Woke seems to be a term meaning ‘sufficiently brainwashed’

            1. yep

              the above link clarifies its origins in the BLM-type movement, expansion to the broader SJW-sphere, and now has become a hackneyed and meaningless buzzword (which achieved its apex, naturally, in this Buzzfeed post )

              Which is exactly when everyone else in the wider world starts asking, “Eh?What the hell does that mean?”

          2. There’s a black Facebook/Twitter/whatever the fuck?

            I had no idea. I bet its more fun than the white one. Where is it?

    3. Cancer metaphors aren’t just on the right.

      “If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. ? The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone?its ideologies and inventions?which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.”

      Man, Susan Sontag was an idiot.

      1. Yeah, I think everyone uses it. Its a popular term to demonize anything so “I CANT EVEN” that it trancends any need for further rationale.

        Milo says, “Feminism is cancer” mostly because he knows its a term that everyone he’s addressing (including the feminists) will gasp at and immediately understand as the ‘most awful denunciation’ possible.

        i’m generally a fan of ‘living language’ and ever-expanding vocabulary. i just think the lingo that has come out of the contemporary culture-wars actually makes people stupider. Which may be the point? reduce everything to politicized grunts and eyerolls.

        1. It is a living language that we are killing by taking meaningful words and putting them into contexts where they are meaningless. What is a “cancer” on something? Basically it is something that the speaker doesn’t like but is either too lazy or too stupid to properly explain why so instead uses a completely unexplained but pejorative metaphor when describing it.

          1. cancer could be an aptish metaphor for the government’s tendency to get bigger

        2. Ivan Klima in Love and Garbage called it jerkish. I’m pleased to see that it lives on in some form.

          1. Jerkish
            n.? ?The word is “Jerkish.” Originally coined by the Czech novelist Ivan Klima to describe the thoughtless, boiled-down language acceptable to Stalinist censors, he announced that Jerkish had been invented in America for communication between people and chimpanzees; it consists of 225 words. Now, says Alvarez, Jerkish really has spread to the West and its “codified stupidity” continues to flourish as the “sentimental and intolerant moral coercion of political correctness?the power of kitsch and clich?.”? ?”Notebook” by Andrew Marr Telegraph (U.K.) Jan. 19, 2005. (source: Double-Tongued Dictionary)

            Wow. That is exactly it.

            Reminds me that everything i might think has likely already been thought before.

            1. You realize how much of the SJW thought process relies on this sort of thing whenever you read their prose =

              e.g.

              This training initiative is intended to provide all students entering Oregon State University an orientation to concepts of diversity, inclusion and social justice and help empower all OSU students to contribute to an inclusive university community,” according to the proposal.

              Its just a shotgun blast of their terminology, all of which adds up to nothing but Feelgood Noise which says absolutely nothing.

              nothing says, “inclusive community” so much like turning every group of people into a set of warring Identity-Politics-Tribes with historically-laden racial/gender burdens they never knew about.

            2. The best college experience I had was two Aesthetic courses in first and second year where our prof assigned a bunch of books from semi-obscure authors, and nearly each and every one was a masterpiece. Love and Garbage was my personal favorite, and I swear to god V. S. Naipaul is some kind of a witch, because his Among the Believers was written in 1980 and is ridiculously prescient and relevant to this day.

              What I’m saying, everyone should read Klima. Also, if you can find it, Vladimir Voinovich – Moscow 2042 and Life and Adventures of Ivan Chonkin are a brilliant companion to Solzhenitsyn and a proof that Russians have a sense of humor.

  13. So in the upcoming election we have a choice–cancer or herpes? Cancer will kill you, but if you don’t bother treating it (and even sometimes if you do) the whole thing will be over in pretty short order. Herpes won’t kill you, but it’s annoying as hell and never completely goes away.

    1. “annoying as hell and never completely goes away”

      America, your post-Presidential Obama.

  14. Where’s the alt-text for that picture? Checking for cancer. Could you use a glove, doc?

  15. Amazingly, Reason hasn’t said a single word today about the Rhoades story in the NYT. As I said in the morning links, How can you not like a guy who speaks truth to power like this?

    As Rhodes admits, it’s not that hard to shape the narrative. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” Rhodes said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

    1. To be fair to Reason their foreign policy experts (Chapman, Richman, Krayewski) don’t need anyone to explain anything to them, or to see anything. They know everything already, and are thus miles ahead.

    2. I can understand why Reason wouldn’t post a link to an article about an apparatchik boasting about how he totally pwned Reason.

      As with the UVA rape case, the commentariat smelled a rat within seconds. At least with UVA, Robbie eventually came around, mostly.

  16. I don’t see why any of the candidates feel the need to live up to a pledge to support the nominee when the nominee turns out to be somebody who himself did not take the pledge. Trump merely pledged to support the nominee as long as the GOP treated him fairly and all throughout the campaign we’ve seen what Donald Trump considers “fair”. By that standard, every single one of the candidates can claim not to have been treated fairly by the GOP. Donald Trump never had any intention whatsoever of supporting any GOP nominee not named Donald Trump. The existence of a GOP nominee not named Donald Trump would in fact be proof to him that he was not treated fairly. Why can’t all the other candidates use that same standard?

    1. But, that’s just me being angry and bitter about being betrayed by Trump just like the rest of you – I seriously believed for one brief moment (no I didn’t) if nothing else Trump was at least ripping the GOP’s throat out with his bare teeth and here he was giving it mouth-to-mouth resuscitation the whole time. Why won’t they just die already! Trump is somehow supposed to be proof the voters are angry at the GOP for being sell-outs merely interested in doing whatever it takes to stay in power? No, Trump is the proof the GOP are sell-outs merely interested in doing whatever it takes to stay in power. Look at all the people promising “just hold your nose and vote R this one time and it’ll be better next time” just like they did with Bob Dole and John McCain and Mitt Romney – and the ‘better” turned out to be that shithead Bush and that other shithead Bush. How is 2016 one bit different than the last 40 damn years of GOP campaigning?

      President Trump is going to be all the proof the GOP needs that selling out is the right thing to do. President Biden will be proof they didn’t sell out hard enough. How much free shit will they be offering in 2020 do you suppose? As much as it takes, baby, as much as it takes.

  17. Nothing new for ‘Reason’… still too many mental midgets writing articles. Clever as kindergarten hip-hop & rap crap.

  18. I guess it’s better than the metastatic cancer . . . . CLINTON!

  19. Welcome to the 21st century where anyone that can manage to get in front of a camera or a microphone for 10 seconds is somehow relevant or can even run for president.
    Gary Johnson 2016

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.