Your commentary is almost better than celebrity gossip. The worlds of TMZ and NYT continue to collide making society even more farcical! You even mention the Founding Fathers, how cute.

Hey, why stop at state's rights? Why not allow counties, or municipalities, neighborhoods, or heck even individual property owners to become similar "laboratories for policy innovation"? I mean, if a man's home truly IS his castle, then why shouldn't he be able to enjoy all the traditional rights and privileges of a feudal lord?

Or is one of those things only intended for the upper 1% income bracket?

Rick Perry is fine with other states being harmed as long as it ultimately benefits his state. Texas took a ton of stimulus money, which Perry both asked for and criticized on the same day: http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/23/news/eco…

Of course a Texan would believe in an "every state for itself" mentality, since their mentality is "every man for himself".

Perry's analysis of Massachusetts' health care law may be wrong, but his interpretation of states' rights in general seems reasonable.

So the natural follow-up question for Perry should be, "Given your position on states' rights, do you now oppose a Constituional amendment banning same-sex marriage or federal enforcement of marijuana prohibition in those states that take different views from your own?"

Conservatives believe in states' rights only insofar as it furthers their agenda.

The best thing I've heard in a while is that Rick Perry's Day of Christian Fascism Rally only pre-sold 8000 tickets though they booked a 74,000 seat venue. Hopefully that torpedoes the rat.

Texan Hulk SMASH!!!

Why is it always white dudes in former confederate states who think states' rights is a such a great idea? I can't imagine.