Posted on 09/13/2011 8:22:23 AM PDT by IMissPresidentReagan
>I agree. Did not PALIN say that one of Perry’s chief staff members went to work for Merck AFTER she left her govt job and BEFORE Perry made his Gardisil decision-—i.e., Palin was implying that that fact alone is a conflict of interest and falls within her definition of crony capitalism.
Is that what you understood?<
Yes. Here’s Michelle Malkin’s column, she just updated it to defend Palin’s take. It’s an interesting read.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/13/the-right-and-wrong-way-to-talk-about-gardasil/
That’s what they “plan” to raise.
hash it out
inform ourselves so we can battle the libtardz and paultardz
Yeah, I don’t have a link for it at hand, but it was when Mitt was heading up the RGA. Some mega-donor—I’m thinking maybe Perry from Perry Homes or something like that—had already given millions to Perry, because that’s allowed in the state of Texas. But there was some sort of controversy that would make additional donations from the guy embarrassing or problematic, so it was arranged that he’d donate a million to the RGA and the RGA would dispense a million to Perry’s campaign.
Again, the guy could have just given the money directly and it would have been legal, but it would have been politically problematic. Thus the RGA was used.
Yes, I know. I could have been more precise.
Someone on FR said Medicaid ruled that states MUST mandate it before Medicaid would pay for it, which if true, is one more reason why immigration is destroying up this country.
So Merck gives the RGA $355K over a five year period and the RGA gives $4M to the Perry campaign over a five year period. Kind of hard to see a quid pro quo here since those funds are fungible. Plus it’s all legal.
It’s between Mittens and Perry since the adulterer couch sitter and the rest don’t have a prayer in the polls.
Perry’s success was based on being able to raise those RGA funds and we already have an example where money was indeed laundered through the RGA for him.
Looks like his really big fundraising was for his super PAC, where donors and amounts are shielded:
This is the stuff that makes politics go round, DC so dysfunctional, and our federal debt out of control. Where there’s enough smoke you don’t want to hire a guy as national fire chief, even if you don’t have him on video setting fires.
Perry’s foul record was common knowledge in TX well before he stepped into this race.
And I’m still betting on Palin as my candidate. She is the only pol we have with a long, consistent record of fighting and beating corruption—and that’s what our country desperately needs.
People who have NO girls that they wish to have the vaccine are among those who shared the hidden cost in premiums. Tea Party is about opposing mandates/taxation without representation. Now we all know the legislature did NOT allow mandate/tax Perry to have his way.
Granted this is small potatoes in the grand scheme of mandates/taxation, it is the character of the politician we are suppose to be vetting. After all the US taxpayer already paid for the vaccines for the poor. There was NO option for the buyers of insurance to OPT out of higher premiums.
Good way to put it, and it's surprising, but then, Rush has always surprised me, usually for the better but sometimes the opposite, as today. I value Rush and think he's right most of the time; right now, though, is one of his wrong times, and I'm also a bit confused.
Unless they were pure photoshop jobs, Romney had flyers out on the doorsteps of Florida primary voters that Perry was calling for the end of social security so immediately that it would leave them vulnerable -- abandon them. That's lying. As you may remember about me, I find Perry disappointing and hope Palin gets in and kicks his tail. The fact remains: Romney lied about an opponent in order to gain points. What I read on what was posted here on FR a few days ago, was not ambiguous, a "lie depending on how you look at it." It was a lie no matter how you looked at it. That's BAD in any candidate; I wonder: did Reagan LIE about candidates in his campaign literature? I wish Rush was as willing and eager to dismiss Romney, a statist lacking honor through and through, as he is to dismiss Paul and Huntsman.
That he's not, that he's willing to look so far the other way when it comes to Romney's downright dirty tactics (let alone his consistently statist and amoral track record), pains me. Then again, perhaps Rush doesn't know about that flyer -- a possiblity; the man can't be everywhere all the time!
At least Bachmann didn't flat-out lie.
So now the RGA is involved in the conspiracy of laundering money to Perry two years before 2008?
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.