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.”
She interjected herself, so she is relevant. And he didnt deny that Merck lobbied him. He didnt address it. He brought up the woman who lobbied him because he was going to bring her up no matter what. But he didnt lie.
Where did Perry lie?
he didn’t lie he only did a ‘Bammy’ and ‘Over stated’. ;-)
Because you believe Gardasil is an evil vaccine that nobody should take? Or because you think Women who have sex should die of cervical cancer?
Or do you oppose government “subverting” the right of the mother to make life-or-death decisions for her child, like whether or not to abort them?
Is there NO instance where you think it is OK for government to step in and protect the life of a child, even against the wishes of thier parents? What if the parents are refusing life-saving medical treatment? What if they are abusing the child?
What is it about gardasil that makes it unique to you as an invalid method of the government helping to save the life of a child?
Take a breath. Don't let your emotions run away with your common sense.
And what works in Texas won’t work in places that aren’t Texas. It’s just that simple. “ <<<
You know you may be right. Sadly. Welcome to the Romney nomination. A much better fit for today’s conservatives who live outside of Texas. I’ll take Texas.
You forgot to ping Jim to your post about him. I know you’re upset that Perry bombed at the debate but manners are manners just the same.
Are you whacked out because perry screwed up tonight? You sure sound like it.
No, dear. It’s because he MANDATED something, could have been anything, that HE adjudged to be the right thing and said he would do it AGAIN whether he was governor or president.
I don’t want another obama. Been there. Done that.
Hey, if Jim is OK with FR being a Romney site, that’s his own deal.
I’ll work to defeat both Romeny and Obama, and I met Jim years ago at John Barleycorns in Tigard, OR, so if he wants to dump me, so be it.
This site is becoming a cesspool of half-truths at best, and lies at worst. Ban me if you want, Jim, but this is your baby, and Romney now has a clear path.
I would rather burn my eyes out with a hot poker.
What is the matter with you? This is Free Republic not the Florida primary. You are being ridiculous.
“On January 3, 2008, the Iowa caucuses began. The final averaged results from Real Clear Politics showed Mike Huckabee at 30%, Romney at 27%, McCain and Thompson tied at 12%, Paul at 7%, and Giuliani at 6%.[7] Among those surveyed in Exit Polling data, 45% cited themselves as very conservative and voted for Huckabee 35% to Romney’s 23% and Thompson’s 22%. Among those who called themselves “somewhat conservative” (43%), Huckabee won 34% to Romney’s 27% and McCain’s 18%.[8]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#2007
Romney and Huckabee were battling it out for the top spot as late as January 2008 last time around, while McCain TIED for third.
My point is, anyone who’s saying “Perry’s over, Romney is the nominee” at this point must be enjoying sweet memories of when Huckabee was our nominee last time.
So we have to vote for your guy or else?
FreeRepublic doesn’t mean that lies are allowed to be posted without being questioned, does it?
I’ll work to defeat both Romeny and Obama
Me too
I met Jim years ago at John Barleycorns in Tigard, OR
That is awesome! I'd like the chance to shake his hand and thank him for FR in person someday.
You should probably call it a night though.
You sound like you are saying that government has no right to mandate anything. So, I want to see if I understand your position.
Are you opposed to laws that require parents to put children in child safety seats in their cars?
Are you opposed to every mandatory vaccination?
Are you opposed to laws requiring women to take reasonable care of themselves while pregnant?
Would you oppose government stepping in if parents refused to let their newborn born with a congenital heart defect to be operated on, even if the operation is certain to fix the problem and the baby will die otherwise?
Do you think government cannot mandate that your neighbor not pour his used motor oil in your yard?
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. Of course, I think it’s a stupid argument for Perry to make, because it precisely opens up this line of attack. I don’t for a minute think he is arguing for a blanket right to act in whatever way he thinks would make life better for a child.
And I’m known to be on the other side of that issue. When the CPS stepped into the FLDS compound and took all their children, many conservatives were cheering government stepping between parents and their children “for the good of the children”. I opposed the move as an overstepping of government authority, and argued that children might die, but that was an unfortunate but necessary price to pay to keep tyranny from taking over.
But I think your argument is flawed, because I don’t think any conservative here truly opposes ALL government intervention to save the life of a child. We are all pro-life, so we want government to step in and force a mother to bear her child to conception. Even if she wants to take a pill and end her own pregnancy, we want government to mandate that she take care of herself and not do things that might harm her child.
We essentially want government to mandate interference in a parent’s final authority over their own lives, because we stand for being pro-life, and will chose the pro-life position in that battle.
Or maybe you don’t agree with any of that. MAybe you don’t want to make abortion illegal — I shouldn’t put words in your mouth, but there are very few pro-choice people here.
” So we have to vote for your guy or else? “ <<<
You tell me. I can see where the machine is going, starting tonight, on FOX, LUNTZ, NRO, Malkin, RINOs everywhere, disenchanted democrats and the useful idiots. Romney is their man. The conservative one is not.
And btw, perry is not my candidate. He’s just a candidate who could beat Romney, who shot to the top of the polls, who was blessed by Sarah Palin as being conservative, and who seemed to bring together all the parts of our party, which would help us beat Obama.
So I had some hope he would solve the problem that Sarah Palin wasn’t solving because she wasn’t entering the race.
I guess he still could, but he is going to have to learn how to handle a debate. He clearly is not used to being attacked from the right. Maybe his back problems are making it hard for him to concentrate — not that this would be a good excuse, because as President he’s going to have to be in the game, back or no back.
It’s just weird because I watch his speeches and he’s a decent communicator, I watched his town hall meeting and he took questions and answered them in excellent fashion.
I just think he sucks at debating people in sound bites. And clearly he has no idea how to pick sound bites — most of his “sound bites” end up killing him. He’s not a sound bite person, he needs full paragraphs to explain what he means.
But even if I never support him, I think your argument about mandates is silly, and doesn’t actually match a conservative position on the subject in general.
That is the most ridiculous waste of a post I have ever seen from you. Must be really bad for you tonight, huh? I understand. Warm milk with a little vanilla and sugar might help.
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.