Posted on 09/22/2011 9:27:22 PM PDT by dangus
The Fox commentators noted that Rick Perry's best moment was his anecdote about a cancer survivor whose "lobby[ing]" convinced him to mandate Gardasil. It appeared to be his one good moment in an otherwise dreadfully bad debate performance. Unfortunately, as National Review Online contributor Katrina Trinko exposes, it was all a fib:
When Michele Bachmann lobbed the crony capitalism charge at Rick Perry, he said that the lobbyist who had impacted him was 31-year-old Heather Burcham.“I got lobbied on this issue,” Perry said. “I got lobbied by a 31 year old young lady who had stage 4 cervical cancer. I spent a lot of time with her. She came by my office She talked to me about this program.”
Perry, however, did not meet Burcham until after he had signed the executive order mandating the HPV vaccine.
Perry spokesman Mark Miner denies that Perry spoke disingenuously about Burcham’s role in the process, but concedes that Perry did not meet Burcham until after signing the executive order.
Miner says Perry’s comment was “not at all” misleading.
“When you’re talking about legislation, when you’re going through the legislative process, you have people come in all the time,” Miner says. “This was someone who really had a personal, human story to tell on this. They hit it off. And the governor really kept in touch with her, visited her in the hospital, visited her throughout her long ordeal, really had a personal impact on him.”
” I would rather burn my eyes out with a hot poker. “ <<<
Insightful.
Wow! More than one gaff in the same night.
I don’t see Perry as a conservative. So we’re 14 mos out and this is all the Republicans have to offer. It’s McCain all over again.
I guess your meaningless response is easier for you than actually thinking about your beliefs, or defending them. But it’s a poor excuse for rational thought.
Don’t you have ANY idea what you actually think, or how you apply your beliefs to the real world? I didn’t ask hard questions — anybody who has a solid philosophical viewpoint would be able to rattle off the answers to those questions. What is stopping you? Afraid of what your answers would tell you about yourself and your arguments here?
I’ll make this extremely simple for you. Do you support a government mandate that a woman NOT take drugs which would have the effect of killing or injuring their unborn child? It’s a simple question.
I don’t see Perry as a conservative. “ <<<<
Well then, let’s do a Romney. How’s that? Purists up there on the stage aren’t doing so well are they?
Essentially what you are saying is that Perry isn’t ready for prime time. His national stage presence is not the same as his Texas stage presence where he appears invincible. If he can’t hack it, it’s on him. No one was more anticipated than rick perry...except maybe Sarah. he had everything in his favor. he blew it and no one else.
People like you are so happy with mediocrity. I want something better.
I expected better from Perry.
No one has won or lost the nomination yet. It is still early. I feel that Mitt Romney thinks it is his to lose, but he has changed his positions too many times to appeal to many conservatives. I would judge a person by his or her record, and what he or she has done. I do not think that the best debater would necessarily be the best president. I vote for the person who I think is closest to the core values I hold, and I think has a chance to be elected, not the one who is the best debater.
I am against abortion ten million per cent...by any means or for any reason. I would rather die myself than MURDER an unborn inncent life...in my own case or anyone else’s. Furthermore, I have voiced that opinion loudly and clearly many times on this forum...and very recently at that. Now if you have any other questions about me personally, let me tell you what you do. Act like you have some sense and some common decency and courtesy and I MIGHT be inclined to respond. Otherwise, forget it.
“This is the first time I’ve ever seen so many pro-life people livid about a candidate who says he will take the pro-life position in any decision.”
Spinnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
You dizzy yet?
Tonight he insulted everyone who doesn't agree with him on the issue of illegals not paying out of state tuition. We should not be educating illegals, we should be deporting them. Even if you don't believe that, why is it fair to U.S. citizens from other states to pay out of state tuition when those here ILLEGALLY from another country will not have to pay? How does disagreeing with him for whatever reason mean you are heartless? Why should I consider voting for someone that insults me?
I can agree to disagree with someone, and I usually have to vote against someone instead of for someone I really support- holding my nose is one thing but being insulted when I was trying to find reasons to vote for him is another. He should have stuck with explaining why he supported the issue instead of insulting those that don't agree with him.
By the way I am not in anyway supporting Romney- I would vote for someone that insults me first, in fact Romney is last on my list and it will be a cold day he gets my vote for anything. Hey- what a choice!
In other words, they will reflexively take the opposite position to any thing called ‘liberal’. No thought involved at all. If liberals are for abortion, an anti-liberal won't be.
To me, what makes a Conservative is that a Conservative can rationally argue the position they take... and will have reached that position on their own, without anyone breastfeeding it to them.
How about G-d’s mandate? Thou shalt not murder.
HELLO, McFly! Just like Rudy and Fred did in 2007 and they were writing off McCain, right, got it. This is far from over people and this is not an endorsement for any of the announced.
IN fairness, McCain skipped the Iowa caucuses to concentrate on Michigan, South Carolina and Florida. At the time, there was no sense that third place represented a failure. The most that can be said was Huckabee went from Cain-like dark horse, to one of the major contenders.
I didn’t mean to suggest anything different, sorry if that isn’t clear. My point was that people seem to think everything is set in stone already. The fact is, there are a lot of strategic moves being made, and we won’t know until everything shakes out. I merely posted that info to show how the field looked at that point in comparison to now (which is a lot earlier on the calendar).
Romney has a lot invested in the big states, and even if he loses early on he could still be all set. But that doesn’t mean he is the nominee as some would have us believe.
And that should end this thread. Perry's statement is factually correct -- it is only those trying to make it force fit the timeline of the EO that try to make it appear otherwise.
WHERE IS THE LIE???
From the article: Perry spokesman Mark Miner denies that Perry spoke disingenuously about Burcham’s role in the process, but concedes that Perry did not meet Burcham until after signing the executive order.
So stop calling other posters liars. According to the article, Perry's own spokesman backs up their opinion here. Now if you can find something to refute that, please post it. But otherwise, knock it off.
Unbelievable. I expect such lies from a democrat not our candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.