In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

Fireworks in Tea Party debate 
  
 The issue in tonight’s Tea Party debate was supposed to be Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s controversial statements on Social Security. It did come up, but the fireworks turned out to be on immigration and on his mandatory HPV vaccination, when Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) finally awoke from her slumber and, along with a very effective Rick Santorum, pummeled Perry on the topic. As in the first debate, Perry started strong and lost steam and ground later in the debate. It was the second uneven but not disastrous performance for him, topped off by an atrocious answer on Afghanistan. 
  
 All afternoon, the political chatter was about Social Security. Perry tried to tone down his rhetoric in a USA Today op-ed. Mitt Romney released a clip of Perry saying it shouldn’t be a federal program. Jon Huntsman criticized them both. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal endorsed Perry and neatly sidestepped a question in a pre-debate interview about whether it’s true that “Perry [is] vulnerable, especially to a general election audience for having the view that... Social Security is essentially unconstitutional. It shouldn’t be there.” Jindal stressed that Perry was being bold in raising Social Security’s viability. 
  
 Sure enough, Social Security was the first topic in the debate and generated some heat. Perry did not put the issue behind him. He promised Social Security would be there for seniors, but wasn’t pressed by moderator Wolf Blitzer on his incendiary language. However, Mitt Romney did that, reciting chapter and verse of Perry’s book in which Perry argued that Social Security should go back to the states and suggesting that it is unconstitutional. Perry seemed hesitating, speaking slowly, and surprisingly doubled down on the suggestion that states could be allowed to opt out. If conservatives were looking for evidence that Romney was exaggerating Perry’s disdain for the federal program, they didn’t find it. The issue remains. And with each outing, Perry’s negative stance toward the federal program becomes harder to explain to independents and moderate Republicans. 
  
 Throughout the evening, Romney proved the better debater (projecting command of his facts and a forceful tone) and the better prepared of the two front runners. He gave solid answers on jobs and on his desire to reform entitlements. He rattled off a series of steps (albeit generic ones) for balancing the buget. On RomneyCare, he’s perfected the delivery of his defense (e.g. he didn’t raise taxes, he’ll repeal ObamaCare), but he likely isn’t convincing anyone in the GOP base. He scored a foreign policy point by promising to return the Winston Churchill bust that President Obama removed. 
  
 Perry was at his best reciting his states’ jobs record, although Newt Gingrich deflated his bubble a bit by pointing out that government doesn’t create jobs. Perry simultaneously tried to change his views (in his book, he was against Medicare Part D, now he is for it; in the past he opposed national tort reform, in the debate he supported it) while refusing to give ground rhetorically. He staunchly defended giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants — prompting a chorus of boos. He stood firm on HPV mandatory vaccination, saying only he shouldn’t have resorted to an executive order. One of his worst moments came late in the debate, when he agreed with Jon Huntsman about the urgency of returning troops from Afghanistan. Did he forget his talking point? He’s supposed to be against timetables and premature withrawals. 
  
 His defining characteristic seems to be a refusal to admit error when challenged. That may appeal to hard liners, but it will continue to provide fodder for his opponents. Moreover, he flagged as the debate wore on, much the way he did last time. Soon he will be required to put more meat on the bones of his policy positions. 
  
 Rick Santorum was the unexpected surprise, reciting his own record on Social Security reform and defending the market-based Medicare Part D. (Perry, to the surprise of many Tea Partyers, also said he’d keep Medicare Part D.) Santorum sounded level-headed on the Federal Reserve, urging that it focus solely on sound money. He was impassioned on spurring manufacturing job growth. He lit on fire when he condemned Perry for “big government run amok.”And he socked it to for Ron Paul for seeming to blame the U.S. for Sept. 11. He was forceful and, indeed, eloquent on American exceptionalism. 
  
 Meanwhile, Bachmann shied from taking on the front-runners for much of the debate. She declined to take the bait on criticizing Perry for saying Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s conduct was “treasonous.” However, she finally rose to the occasion in criticizing Perry on HPV mandatory vaccinations, calling it “plain wrong." She also accused Perry flat-out of being influenced by a contribution from the drug manufacturer. In a bizarre exchange, Perry said he was offended if she was accusing him of being bought for only $5,000. (But bigger donors could have tempted him?) She shot back, “I’m offended for the 12-year-old girls.” That round went to Bachmann, but whether it is important enough to trip up Perry is very questionable. She made a bigger impression later in the debate castigating Perry for his in-state tuition break for illegal aliens. 
  
 The winners: Santorum — not a bad answer all night, and sounded better than most of the others; Perry on jobs; and Romney for overall strong answers and precision in his arguments. 
  
 The losers: Perry on everything else, Bachmann (who still isn’t on a par with Romney and Perry); national security (almost entirely ignored); Perry spinners who insist Social Security isn’t an issue for the Texas governor; and Paul, who was finally unmasked as a crackpot and apologist for our enemies (reciting Osama bin Laden propaganda). 
  
 More on the GOP debate from PostOpinions 
  
 Milbank: Under attack, Perry stumbles 
  
 Dionne: GOP’s Social Security hypocrisy 
  
 Stromberg: Perry’s substance vs. Romney’s substance 
  
 Bernstein: GOP spins further from reality 
  
 Thiessen: A pathetic national security debate 
  
 Petri: Rick Perry’s sinister vaccines ||||| Within 90 minutes of the end of the GOP debate, Michele Bachmann's camp emailed on the HPV vaccine dust-up with Rick Perry, highlighting her status as a mom as she questioned his conservative credentials. 
  
 It's also the first time I can remember Bachmann going after a Republican rival in one of her fundraising pitches. And while she didn't quite deliver a Perry contrast that her team had curtain-raised - one that focused on Social Security - she certainly hit him hard, and has signaled a new stage of the race. 
  
 The email is below. (h/t Hohmann and Ball). 
  
 Dear Fellow Conservative, 
  
 I'm offended. 
  
 If you watched tonight's Republican debate, you saw Rick Perry defend his decision to mandate a vaccine for young girls through an executive order while he was governor of Texas. As a mother, I have raised three biological daughters and 23 foster daughters, and I believe taking away a parents right to direct the health care of their children is flat out wrong . It’s a violation of liberty and everything you and I stand for. 
  
 Tonight, I also questioned why Governor Perry made this executive order. When you look at the facts, the question becomes, is this about life or is this about millions and potentially billions for the drug company? 
  
 We cannot forget that in the midst of the executive order, a big drug company made millions of dollars because of this mandate. This drug company's PAC made thousands of dollars in political donations to Governor Perry, and his own former Chief of Staff was working as the lobbyist for this drug company when he issued the mandate. This is flat out wrong. 
  
 Governor Perry says if given the option again he would not issue the mandate. However, as President of the United States there are no mulligans; there are no do-overs. 
  
 I am also concerned that Governor Perry also supports giving subsidies to illegal immigrants. The American way is not to give taxpayer-subsidized benefits to people who have broken the law and are here illegally. That is not the American way. 
  
 I believe it is going to take a strong constitutional conservative to defeat Barack Obama. Our constitutional conservative values must guide our actions for solving America’s challenges. And if these values are not represented in the White House, we are in for four more years of the same policies that have led our country in the wrong direction. 
  
 Our nation's challenges are have reached a critical point. And we cannot risk electing a Republican nominee to face Barack Obama who doesn't get it right the first time. The stakes are too high. The current polling of Republican voters show we are endanger of sending a candidate who does not adhere to our shared values to face Barack Obama in the general election. There are a number of candidates who say they are “members of the Tea Party,” but their records of policy and action do not reflect Tea Party values. 
  
 As conservatives, it is our charge to make Barack Obama a one-term President. I know that I am the only candidate in this race who can not only defeat Barack Obama, but who will adhere to constitutional conservative values as President. 
  
 I need to know you stand with me today, and ask that you make a special emergency donation of $25, $50, $100 or more. 
  
 We need to defeat Barack Obama, and you can help me do this by joining my campaign right now with a generous contribution. My opponents are raising money hand-over-fist from donors with deep pockets. My campaign relies on the generosity of you- everyday men and women- to fund my campaign with small donations. 
  
 Your support is needed now more than ever if we are going to win this fight. Thank you for your generosity and God bless you and your family. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
  
  
 Michele Bachmann 
  
 P.S. If we don’t join together and take action, we risk allowing a candidate who does not represent our values to go up against Barack Obama in the general election. Please take action today by following this link to make a generous contribution of any amount to help our campaign take on our opponents. Thank you. |||||
Pundits seemed to all agree that Michele Bachmann was on the ropes heading into last night’s Tea Party debate—and now they all seem to agree that she fought her way back in with her scathing indictment of Rick Perry’s HPV vaccination program. Here’s what people are saying: "Bachmann needed to make some noise ... and she did," a Republican strategist tells Reuters. "She challenged Perry in a very aggressive way." The question, another adds, is whether it will affect Iowa polling, because Bachmann "has to either win Iowa or help Perry implode." "Bachmann, the founder of the Tea Party Caucus in the House, knew her audience well and it showed," writes Amy Walter of ABC. Then again, "Bachmann’s weakness has been her inability to prove she can expand her appeal," and this debate didn’t help with that. "Bachmann finally awoke from her slumber" and "pummeled" Perry on HPV and illegal immigration, writes Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. But she still doesn’t think Bachmann vaulted herself to tier one status. Bachmann herself was pretty pleased with the HPV dustup, because less than two hours later she sent out a fundraising email citing it, Politico notes, adding, "She certainly hit him hard, and has signaled a new stage of the race."