Posted on 08/17/2011 4:41:52 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Texas, we have a problem. Your GOP governor is running for president against Barack Obama. Yet, one of his most infamous acts as executive of the nation's second-largest state smacks of every worst habit of the Obama administration. And his newly crafted rationalizations for the atrocious decision are positively Clintonesque.
In February 2007, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a shocking executive order forcing every sixth-grade girl to submit to a three-jab regimen of the Gardasil vaccine. He also forced state health officials to make the vaccine available "free" to girls ages 9 to 18. The drug, promoted by manufacturer Merck as an effective shield against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) and genital warts, as well as cervical cancer, had only been approved by the Food and Drug Administration eight months prior to Perry's edict.
Gardasil's wear-off time and long-term side effects have yet to be determined. "Serious questions" remain about its "overall effectiveness," according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Even the chair of the federal panel that recommended Gardasil for children opposes mandating it as a condition of school enrollment. Young girls and boys are simply not at an increased risk of contracting HPV in the classroom the way they are at risk of contracting measles or other school-age communicable diseases.
Perry defenders pointed to a bogus "opt-out" provision in his mandate "to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care." But requiring parents to seek the government's permission to keep an untested drug out of their kids' veins is a plain usurpation of their authority. Translation: Ask your bureaucratic overlord to determine if a Gardasil waiver is right for you.
Libertarians and social conservatives alike slammed Perry's reckless disregard for parental rights and individual liberty. The Republican-dominated legislature also balked. In May 2007, both chambers passed bills overturning the governor's unilaterally imposed health order.
Fast-forward five years. After announcing his 2012 presidential bid this weekend, Perry now admits he "didn't do my research well enough" on the Gardasil vaccine before stuffing his bad medicine down Texans' throats. On Monday, he added: "That particular issue is one that I readily stand up and say I made a mistake on. I listened to the legislature ... and I agreed with their decision."
Perry downplayed his underhanded maneuver as an aberrational "error," and then — gobsmackingly — he spun the debacle as a display of his great character: "One of the things I do pride myself on, I listen. When the electorate says, 'Hey, that's not what we want to do,' we backed up, took a look at what we did."
Are these non-apology apologies enough to quell the concerns of voters looking for a presidential candidate who will provide a clear, unmistakable contrast to Barack Obama? Not by a long shot.
How Obama-like was this scandal? Let us count the ways:
TRAMPLING OF THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
Since Day One, President Obama has short-circuited transparency, public debate and congressional oversight. How can Perry effectively challenge the White House's czar fetish, stealth recess appointments, selective waiver-mania and backdoor legislating through administrative orders when Perry himself employed the very same process as governor? Not only did Perry defend going above the heads of elected state legislators, but his office also falsely claimed the legislature had no right to repeal the executive order. "The order is effective until Perry or a successor changes it, and the Legislature has no authority to repeal it," Perry spokeswoman Krista Moody told The Washington Post in February 2007.
When both the House and Senate repealed the law six weeks later, Perry did not — as he now claims — listen humbly or "agree with their decision."
HUMAN SHIELD DEMAGOGUERY.
In response to the legislature's rebuke, the infuriated governor attacked those who supported repeal as "shameful" spreaders of "misinformation" who were putting "women's lives" at risk. Borrowing a tried-and-true Alinskyite page from the progressive left, Perry surrounded himself with female cervical cancer victims and deflected criticism of his imperial tactics with emotional anecdotes.
He then lionized himself and the minority of politicians who voted against repeal of his Gardasil order. "They will never have to think twice about whether they did the right thing. No lost lives will occupy the confines of their conscience, sacrificed on the altar of political expediency." Perry, of course, has now put his own ghastly Gardasil order on that same altar — but with no apology to all those he demonized and exploited along the way.
CRONYISM.
Most noxious of all, Perry wraps his big government health mandate in the "pro-life" mantle. But the do-gooder theater is a distraction from the business-as-usual back-scratching and astro-turfing that are Obama hallmarks. Perry's former chief of staff Mike Toomey is a top Merck lobbyist. Toomey's mother-in-law headed a Merck-funded front group pushing vaccination mandates. And Merck's political action committee pitched in $6,000 to Perry's re-election campaign in 2007.
The PerryCare executive fiat was not simply a one-off mistake explained away by lack of "research." It exposed a fundamental lapse in both political and policy judgments, an appalling lack of ethics and a disturbing willingness to smear principled defenders of limited government who object to the Nanny State using their children as guinea pigs.
Trusting Rick Perry's tea party credentials is a perilous shot in the dark.
“Now you’re being coy about it.”
How could I possibly be coy about that? That is ludicrous. I have posted numerous pro-Palin articles. search of my history would show that. Yes, I support Palin. Proudly. So does the owner of this site. It is not a secret. BTW, I am not obliged to reply to any post from someone asking a question the answer to which is self evident to anyone who ever even lurks on this site..
The fact that I support Palin does not mean I cannot examine the credentials and public records of candidates who have not yet been vetted but who are being rammed down our throats by the Establishment, FOX news and Hot Air.
Why don’t you start defending Perry, if you can, rather than trying to examine the motives of those who are posting facts about him? He is going to be bleeding support big time, with Malkin, Levin and Dan Riehl (who had heretofore said noting about him) beginning to criticize his record.
Be open about your goal: To protect big government from the hazard that Palin represents to criminal governance.
.
Apparently some conservatives prefer obama to Perry and some of the others who are not perfect. They need a perfect candidate, or they will stay home.
I would like to have a perfect candidate too, but I'm voting for the person against obama on Election Day.
His support for Giuliani in 2008 is disturbing, as is his big spending as governor. Why does he spend so much?
The more I see of Rick Perry, the more I am reminded of George W. Bush.
Do you have science to back that up? Its pretty bold to say “ever” unless you can prove it. Or are you just against government mandated activity, in which case you would need to change your attack.
By the time you hit Jr High in Texas, you gotten the following vaccines:
Diptheria
Pertussis
Tetanus
Polio
Measles
Mumps
Rubella
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Haemophilus Influenzae type B
Varicella
Pneumococcus
Are all of those vaccines unsafe for children? How do you measure safe?
Or are you just mad because your candidate isnt doing well (or in) and you compensate for that by attacking someone else?
It's called Primary Season. Happens every four years. The Dems had their own four years ago as well, and it wasn't pretty either.
I know a bunch of liberals, and they don't have a bad word to say about obama.
If you think the Dems are really all just one big happy family united around Zero, then head over to DU for an eye-opening experience. (But inoculate yourself with Gardasil first, however. It's a cesspool over there.)
Thanks very much for finding and posting Michelle Malkin’s column.
I’m still trying to learn facts about Governor Perry, on the chance that he’s the GOP nominee *after* the Marathon Primary season!
It’s imperative that Obama is defeated, but equally imperative that he’s defeated by a reliable TEA PARTY Republican nominee.
My prayers and hopes remain solidly with Governor Palin, (yes I truly believe she’s running) but I want to be open to supporting our nominee provided our nominee meets our TEA PARTY criteria!
No more, cave-in RINOS or candidates posing as Tea Party Republicans, only to disappoint us later! Elect verified, TEA PARTY Republicans only, and that goes for the House and Senate!
TEA PARTY VICTORY 2012!
>> “he listened to the public and killed the plan and it never went into effect” <<
False!
From the article:
“In response to the legislature’s rebuke, the infuriated governor attacked those who supported repeal as ‘shameful’ spreaders of ‘misinformation’ who were putting ‘women’s lives’ at risk. Borrowing a tried-and-true Alinskyite page from the progressive left, Perry surrounded himself with female cervical cancer victims and deflected criticism of his imperial tactics with emotional anecdotes.
He then lionized himself and the minority of politicians who voted against repeal of his Gardasil order. ‘They will never have to think twice about whether they did the right thing. No lost lives will occupy the confines of their conscience, sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.’ Perry, of course, has now put his own ghastly Gardasil order on that same altar — but with no apology to all those he demonized and exploited along the way. “
We all just trying to work out who we voting FOR.
Perry gots a chance—after Palin,Bachman and Cain he's got my vote—as of now that is.
The push to mandate Gardasil, the bringing in of cancer survivors, and then his angry response to his rebuke all reminds one of how a Democrat would operate. Bob
“I would like to have a perfect candidate too, but I’m voting for the person against obama on Election Day.”
Primaries are about picking a candidate. That means examining and comparing the candidates’ records.It is not negative to compare candidate’s records and public statements, as you suggest. You come on these threads and piously bemoan a lack of lack of civility where there is no such thing. Sheesh. Spare us the sanctimony.
The 1976 and 1980 Reagan campaign were rough and tumble affairs. I know. I was in them. The Gipper gave as good as he got. If you doubt that read Craig Shirley’s books. If you want a GOP primary where everyone sits around the campfire singing kumbaya, you won’t find it.
That was for his campaign. There are other things involved besides campaign contributions. I will find the full report and post it. I have done so much research on candidates, I didn’t save every smidgin, but I did read it, so I will find it. A couple of the pages regarding this whole Gardasil thing have been wiped. Like the Texas AG report. Surprise, surprise.
Polls will be coming out with Perry beating Bammy Boy by at least 15 points. In two months this is what you will see. All these Republican versus Obama polls are fluid, highly changeable
You get to vote in the primary of your state, but beyond that, it's all out of your control. Will you stay home on Election Day if you don't get your perfect candidate?
So Palin is not going to run because you say so? More nonsense from the class of 1998.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027175_autism_vaccines.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/024322_vaccine_children_autism.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/028109_Andrew_Wakefield_Jenny_McCarthy.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/019372_flu_shot_vaccine.html
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.