Perry has been contributing to the problem for too many years now - America needs someone who is not like Perry - just the opposite. NO TO THE ILLEGAL ALIEN LOVING PERRY

Perry spoke out against Arizona, giving the DNC ammo. Perry called Bush a racist because Bush wanted the GOP to uphold the laws on illegal aliens. Perry went to Mexico and bragged that he gave illegal alien workers benefits, benefits over legal American citizens even. Perry is not what America needs.

Politically Incorrect Benjamin , Nobody wants to get rid of Hispanics - we want to get rid of illegal aliens - and the way to do that is not allow them to work American jobs and not give them taxpayer paid benefits. It's OK for the fruit and veggie pickers to work legally, coming and going seasonally, on worker guest permits, but the illegal aliens taking construction, manufacturing, maintenance, hotel, restaurant, etc. jobs while their not on the books 'wives' crank out kids on welfare, foodstamps, sec-8, schools.................. it's gotta stop.

Nobody wants to get rid of Hispanics - we want to get rid of illegal aliens - and the way to do that is not allow them to work American jobs and not give them taxpayer paid benefits. It's OK for the fruit and veggie pickers to work legally, coming and going seasonally, on worker guest permits, but the illegal aliens taking construction, manufacturing, maintenance, hotel, restaurant, etc. jobs while their not on the books 'wives' crank out kids on welfare, foodstamps, sec-8, schools.................. it's gotta stop.

Massachusetts doesn't have socialized health care. What they have is a private-market health insurance program - NOT a government program. MA private health insurance saves taxpayers from getting stuck paying the health care bills of FREELOADERS. MA was teetering on bankruptcy; this was a solution to save the state.

Look, I know that there are some conservatives who believe that an individual mandate — in any context — is fundamentally wrong. I don’t think a national individual mandate is right, but I do think it can work for some states. To say, however, that because Mitt Romney created state-level, bipartisan, popular plan in a state with a budget he balanced, he’s somehow disqualified from the Republican nomination because Obama bastardized his ideas and rammed them down all our throats . . . well, I just don’t buy that. And neither should you.

RomneyCare is constitutional; ObamaCare may very well prove to be an unconstitutional abuse of federal power. I know quite a few people are sneering at the multiple lawsuits challenging the federal individual mandate, but — like it or not — the states and the federal governments have different constitutional powers. States have a general “police power,” which allows them to pass laws to advance the health, safety, and (traditionally) morals of the community. The federal government is limited to its enumerated powers. Constitutional critics of Obamacare ask a common-sense question: Where in the enumerated powers of the Constitution is the federal government empowered to require citizens to purchase a product from a private entity?

Mitt created bipartisan consensus while Obama rammed his reform down our throats and against the majority opinion of the American people. Had the President attempted a truly bipartisan reform, we likely would have had a bill, but it would have been far more modest, far less controversial, and it would not have broken the bank. There’s a difference between leadership — which Mitt showed in Massachusetts — and the raw exercise of power, which Obama, Reid, and Pelosi demonstrated in Washington. How much conservative rage stems from the fact that we (and the rest of America) were essentially steamrolled?

RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt balanced the state budget. If you don’t think this an important distinction, then you haven’t been paying attention. Mitt enacted health care reform in a wealthy state, that he first rendered fiscally sound, to cover a modest amount of uninsured. Obama enacted his reform in a nation that is shattering deficit records to insure millions upon millions of uninsured with no money in the bank. How much conservative anger about ObamaCare is driven by fiscal concern? I know much of mine is. How can we possibly pay for this? Who could rationally think we can afford this reform in an era of record deficits?

RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts; ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all imposition on all states, regardless of their economic condition. Massachusetts is the third-wealthiest state in the United States. Moreover, even before state-level health care reform, 89% of its residents were insured. Do you think it’s possible that a wealthy state with a low percentage of uninsured might have greater means to offer universal coverage? Some much poorer states have up to 25 to 26% of their population uninsured. How much more will it cost to offer universal coverage in those states? Shouldn’t they be free to work out solutions that fit with their economic reality?