Skip to comments.Downright eerie how Perry's people talked about Merck product on same day Merck gave Perry money
Posted on 02/24/2007 7:40:00 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
I wonder how many people actually believe it when the governor's office says it was just a coincidence that the drug company Merck donated $5,000 to Rick Perry's campaign on the same day Perry's people discussed Merck's HPV vaccine.
Hey, it could happen. Coincidences happen all the time, like when an 18-wheeler jackknifes on Interstate 35, and a traffic jam follows. Or, Dick Cheney shows up, and a protest breaks out. Or Christmas is coming comes, and Santa appears at the mall.
Coincidence or not, what I can't figure out is why the governor only got $5,000. That's chicken scratch for a drug deal. I'll bet we have punks in this town who make more on crack on a Saturday night. I hope the governor at least got a free Merck ball cap or mouse pad.
Early this month, "King Rick the First" Perry ordered that all girls in Texas entering sixth grade next year be given the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, which helps prevent cervical cancer. I call him King Rick the First because he keeps issuing all these executive orders without consulting the Legislature, which is starting to honk the Legislature off.
I think some of Perry's fellow Republicans were upset with him on this one because they thought giving girls this drug would be perceived as encouraging sex among kids. Like kids are going to decide to have sex because they're getting shots. From what I remember about being a kid, it doesn't work that way. I swear I don't remember ever asking, "Have you had all of your shots?" Heck, I didn't even ask that in college.
Anyway, let us return now to Oct. 16, a day spookily like many others, until two things happened: 1) New Jersey-based Merck coincidentally gave Perry's campaign $5,000, and 2) Perry's chief of staff, Deirdre Delisi, coincidentally met with the governor's budget director and three members of his office for an "HPV Vaccine for Children Briefing."
I suppose it's also coincidental that Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff, is a Merck lobbyist. Merck rhymes with perk. So if you see a truck dolly full of boxes of Merck pill samples being wheeled into the governor's office, it's just a coincidence.
All of this stuff coming together at the same time is so eerily supernatural and almost creepy that it just gives me the heebie-jeebies.
You know, when you stop and think about it, maybe this Merck thing was just a coincidence.
When I think of Perry, instead of big business, I immediately think of his concern for young girls. This is why you see Perry on Oprah's couch all the time, wringing his hands over our youth. Fat chance of that, huh?
But this world is just full of coincidences, so maybe this Merck incident is just one of them. Like when, you know, money changes hands and bills get passed.
Sounds like bribery and corruption to me. DOJ will want a look into this.
If you want on or off my Gardasil ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
I think Perry may be more like Dan Morales than anyone thought.
Can't stand him. He gave in-state tuition to aliens. That's all I need to know.
Rick Perry loves Texas Politics, it is a make $ for his family and friends. Just doing doing what good ol boys have done since 1846.
I wonder if it is a coincidence that Merck is one of the elite corporate members (only 30) on the North American Competitiveness Council of the SPP? I guess this is how these socialists corporations compete. Free Trade anyone?"
This is called mandating or forcing. This is totally un American.
Perry simply does not have the constitutional authority to do what he tried to do. He will rescind the EO. He has no choice.Something smelled from the very beginning about this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always though the Texas Governor was more a figurehead whose only "real" power was appointing all those board members that run the state. And, aren't Texas Gov's Executive Orders usually of the "Be Kind to Animals Week" type thing?
He got almost 40% of the vote! That's a mandate! The public has spoken.;)
EVERYTHING Perry has tried to do is tainted.
For him to gain my respect he would have to change Parties, then resign.
I Thank God he is a figurehead
What's eerie about it? Did you think politicians didn't do this sort of thing?
Perry's political career is over - he's toast. I'm extremely happy I didn't vote for this RINO clown this last election.
Just as suspected Merck's fingerprints are all over this one.
Whats even more downright eerie is how much King Rick's voice sounds exactly like GWB.
Another one of Rick's out of place wild hairs is showing and it ain't pretty.
Okay, let's see. Someone comes
to the Governor's office --- Nope, he'd have to bring the money off Capitol grounds.
Okay, the Merck lobbyist comes to the campaign headquarters with a $5000 check for the likely incumbent - who does have 4 opponents. He mentions that the State will be buying a lot of Merck's new vaccine for the Medicaid and Vaccines for Children (including CHIP, the uninsured and Native Americans), by federal law.
Then, the Merck rep mentions that privately insured families are having a much harder time affording the vaccine, since the insurance companies won't pay until the vaccine is mandatory.
Is it really surprising that there would be interest in discussing the costs to the State in the increased vaccines due to a mandate vs. voluntarily taking the vaccine that's offered for free to Medicaid and uninsured kids?
Or in helping the insured families?
The Governor did what he's supposed to do - he acted as the head of the Executive Branch. From what I've read, he could have just sent a note over to the DSHS. Instead, he made sure more people heard about the mandate and the opt out clause.
The Legislature passed that law - HB 1403 in 2001
Oh yes the "opt out clause". Parents can "opt out". Of course there will be a list of all the parents who "opt out". I'm sure CPS will have it.
Then they can be easily charged with something like *child abuse*, *neglect*, or *endangering the welfare of a minor*. Lots of material there.
The law forbids such a list of who opts out. There is a list of those who request the form.
However, how many knew this before? And did or did not the Governor' action increase the knowledge of the general public (and terrify the more totalitarian docs) about the opt out?
No such charges in Texas - although I've heard that Medicaid patients have been (illegally and fraudulently) threatened with losing Medicaid if they don't get all the recommended shots.
See my post 19 above. How many people were made aware of the opt out by the strong position in the Governor's EO? He added that note purposefully to call attention to the opt out on this vaccine, while he could have just left alone, since there's already Statutory law that's in place.
What does "executive officer of the State" mean to you?
Homeschoolers fight bogus poisoning claim
The social worker crumpled a document the mother handed her explaining why she wouldn't allow her entry into the home, then yelled that she would "come in now" and do a strip search of one of the children.
The tirade had been triggered by an anonymous tipster, accusing the family of "only allowing their two boys to listen to Christian music." The tipster also said the children "ate their Cheerios dry" and got nearly all their "socialization through their church."
Oh, the horrors.
As I said, this is *Texas.* My own rep's wife home schools 6 of their 7 children - one is in college. I fought tooth and nail for him against the incumbent RINO - and she retaliated in her own way
Maybe the Governor needs an emergency to justify directing agencies, businesses, and private individuals outside the Executive branch, but, of course the head of the Executive Branch can and should direct the heads of the various departments in that branch. They are not independent agents.
It's one thing for a judge to tell the Governor that he doesn't have the right to make special requests of judges - that's a different branch of state government and we've all seen how fussy those judges about any criticism.
However, to expect the Governor to just sit by and let the agency bureaucrats run the bureaucracy without any direction is pure madness. Just come up to Austin when any of the abortion/gay/transgendered issue bills are heard (or watch them on the computer) to see who would be deciding all of these matters if the elected head of the Executive Branch weren't strong enough.
(I'll holler at y'all when HB 300 gets to Committee. The last time this came up in 2005, lots of people signed in against the bill but not testifying, but only a couple of us actually gave testimony against it. )
And then there's the lawsuit that was filed Friday that will put us in bad with Medicaid and all those regs on the Vaccines for Children entitlements -- here come the fines and censures from the Feds.
Thank God we've got General Abbott to answer all the questions.
Pure coincidence of course. A good conservative like Perry could never be corrupt.
Should have voted for Kinky, it couldn't have been any worse.
Chris Bell basically told Democrats to support Perry on this, nuff said.
Perry is further proof that "Once a Democrat, Always a Democrat."
(And before any one points out Ronald Reagan, the Democratic Party back then was much different than the one in place since the late 60s)
Enforcing the bribery laws is all the campaign finance reform we will ever need.
Perry is going to get is ass handed to him. And rightly so because he is grabbing power. Rick Perry cannot expand the power of the Texas govenors office by a stroke of the pen.
Read Perry's past EO's, read the Texas Constitution. Perry can no more say with an EO that the state will spend $35 million dollars vaccinating young women as he could mandating we shoot a rocket in to space.
Besides Perry's abuse of power I'm confounded when I see so-called conservatives agree that it's A-OK for Perry to steal the rights of Texas parents and Texas children.
I saw an interview of Perry this weekend and he was asked if the legislature reversed his EO would he veto it. He said that if it came across his desk he would have to wait and look at it. I think he would (veto it).
The germ theory - and particularly the incidence and damage by this virus - is neither Democrat nor Republican.
Actual mode of transmission is not as pertinent as the risk - note that Texas mandates the 3 shots for tetanus, which is not spread by casual contact with classmates. Besides, Clostridium tetani can be treated with antibiotics.
I object to vaccine mandates and wonder why none of the legislators who are introducing bills or the group that has filed the lawsuit to block this mandate are focusing *on* this EO, rather than trying to change the Statutes that make it so hard for parents to opt out of any of the mandated vaccines.
I've made myself less popular at Texas Medical Association meetings when I stood to argue against tightening the mandates or making it even harder to opt out.
However, with the system the way it is, I just don't see the head of the Executive Branch as overstepping his bounds to give directives to one of the departments in that branch. The Department could have unilaterally added Gardasil to the mandated list, just as they did the Hep B and Varicella vaccines. The opt out was mentioned in the EO, which the Governor didn't have to do. If mandated, the private insurance companies will be more likely to cover it. And if Farrar and Van de Putte's bills pass in the legislature, our girls will have more "comprehensive sex ed" in order to "inform" them about the virus, the vaccine and sexual activity than under the Governor's EO and current DSHS practices.
It's not going to make much of a financial change to the State budget. The feds have already made sure that Texas will pay for most of the doses of vaccines that we would pay for under a mandate.
These viruses are so prevalent that I appreciate the tool to use against them. The cancer is more and more rare - but too many teen girls and young women find themselves facing years of repeat paps, biopsies and lasers, freezing, and burning, while (thankfully) never becoming diagnosed with actual cancer.
If we learned anything from the HIV debacle, it should be that the virus is a matter for medical concern, and the focus on the social aspects as to how the virus is spread, while vital to public health policy, can distract from control. Both the social aspect and the viral infection must be addressed.
Sometimes there is no use in attempting to discuss a particular topic with some people here. While all the the items you note may be interesting they don't change the fact that Perry simply did not have the authority to do what he did.
I appreciate that you are a physician. I'd prefer you remain one and keep away from any political power. I find your way of thinking scary. What's next? Would you require that nobody have unprotected sex without the permission of the government? Because unprotected sex can result in all sorts of nasty things?
Texas has a process where we elect people who then work together to formulate and pass laws. This process is designed to allow the public to have a say-so in what laws are passed or not passed. The Texas legislature makes the law and allocates taxpayer money to implement the law. The governor can then either sign the law or not. It never has been and it should never be that the governor is able to legislate. It's not his job and there is a reason for that as we can now see from Perry's attempted grab for power. He is an elected offical with a temporary job who is accountable to others under our system. He cannot do any damn thing he pleases via executive orders.
As I have said before, Perry will rescind this EO because he has to. If he does not have the sense to do so the courts or the legislature will do that for him. At the end of the day that's what will happen. You can chit chat about all the medical issues you are focused on all you wish but they are not going to change what will happen.
He needs to be recalled, but then we would just have another lying P.O.S. to contend with.
It's a viscous cycle.
Is there any sort of middle ground, here? Didn't I say that I oppose mandates and am disappointed that none of our legislators are addressing the opt out rules?
I'd no more suggest that the government forbid unprotected sex to prevent HPV than to attempt to regulate who gardens, is exposed to animal saliva or puncture wounds to prevent "lock jaw."
The legislature gave the DSHS the power to mandate vaccines.
BTW, Did the Governor rescind his coal plant EO that the judge ruled against?