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.
“Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. And you cannot continue to ignore what Sarah Palin has stated in regard to Rick Perry. That is, unless you believe Sarah Palin was lying. Do you believe she was lying, Brices Crossroads?”
You are a veteran Palin basher who have infested nearly every Palin thread ever begun here. Now you post statements Palin made during the gubernatorial campaign and make it appear that she is endorsing Perry for President, which is hogwash. Perry has said nice things about Palin too. I could post those and make it look like he is endorsing her, but I don’t do that because I don’t deliberately try to mislead people. I won’t sink to your level.
Endorsing him against KBH and a truther is a lot different than endorsing this open borders zealot who likes Islamofascists for the Presidency. In the governor’s race he was the least of three evils. In this race he is just the least.
You really are nothing buy a propagandist. I usually ignore you, but I reply only to set the record straight lest anyone be misled by you.
It's either/or, aye? Either she's correct, or she's lying, right?
There's a third posibility of course. Palin could be just plain wrong about Perry.
In 2009, the idea that is might be more dangerous was publicized. But, as of 2007, it was vetted by the board we use to vet drugs. So at the time of the EO, with the information available, it was not unproven.
Also, the article you linked says that a person at a conference took the researcher’s promotion of the the vaccine to be negative, and specifically stated that the lead researcher did not offer that suggestion. 1/3 of the article showed the lead researcher to say that HPV is not as serious as it is portrayed, and unless 70% of girls get the vaccine, it will be hard to determine the results. The last 1/3 is pure speculation. The article also appears to be on a Catholic website, written in the point of view that the author was against Gardasil before doing any research. A quick Google search shows there is strong opposition to Gardasil within the Catholic community, so the objectivity of this report is questionable.
The other point I was making was in reference to the post before it, which was complaining of mandated “unproven” vaccines. I addressed the “unproven” aspect first. Then I addressed the mandated aspect. Its not my fault you didnt see the context in your own post.
You really are desperate. Using that warped logic, Thalidomide was proven.
Fact: Gardasil is unproven in that the effectiveness and the side effects are still unknown.
Fact: Dr. Harper said that "with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated,
Fact: Dr. Harper's comments in an ABC News report concur with the National Vaccine Information Center's claim that "...a whopping 89 percent of the reports Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for health officials to do a proper follow-up and review.
You're free to continue your hopeless cause of denying the obvious but I will not allow you to waste any more of my time. This drug is unproven by any definition of the word and a researcher who helped develop it along with the National Vaccine Information Center both agree. Bye
Again what is your point ?
When Palin took on the Murkoski machine she was threatened and that was back in 2006 ?
Are you this clueless ?
They are all over the net now !
Someone named Axelrod created the strategy .
Go Google his name and educate yourself.
Read that Doctor's comment about this program which makes Michelle ranting column appear way off the mark.
Texas is way better off than 45 states in the US .
Texas is the second largest state in the US so I think the Gove will expand.
I thought the TX Gov has limited powers and the TX Congress had more controlled over spending so how is that Perry's fault ?
Well, when we talk about electability, we’re talking about the ability to beat the Democrat in November 2012.
Electability is not the ability to win the Republican Primaries.
That would be Palin, the most able to win the Republican Primaries.
Ron Paul does appeal to a group of people - young males in particular - that other Republicans don’t appeal too.
Ron Paul would win Republican votes in November, and those young males.
The other Republicans wouldn’t be winning those young males.
Republicans might prefer a different candidate, but that other candidate wouldn’t appeal to those young males. That’s what makes Ron Paul more electable.
Just look at the polls, the polls show this.
You don’t understand what “electable” means.
Any Republican is capable of winning the Republican primary, or, put differently, the ability of winning the Republican primary is not a reason to vote for a person.
Especially if you’d lose in November. Winning or losing in November is what people mean when they talk about “electability”.
If Democrats and Independents in Ohio and Indiana hate Rick Perry, it doesn’t help Perry at all that 10 percent of Republicans are switching from Romney to Perry. Unless Perry gets votes from Independents and Democrats north of the Ohio River, he’s not electable. Ron Paul gets more of those votes.
Yes, it’s true that Rick Perry does well with elderly Republican women.
Check these crosstabs of the Merrimack NH poll.
Paul is in 3d place with 14%, Perry in 2d place with 18%.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62506259/New-Hampshire-2012-Republican-Primary-Survey-Crosstabs-081711
Paul does better than Perry with Independent Men - 21 / 13.
That right there points to Perry’s electability problems.
The R’s will vote for Paul over Obama. Some would rather have Perry, but they’d vote for Paul.
The I’s won’t vote for Perry, especially young male independents.
“he listened to the public and killed the plan and it never went into effect” << False!
WRONG - IT IS NOT FALSE!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2765343/posts
Get back to me in November. Rick Perry just got in the race. Summer is vacation time. Once people get to know Rick his polls will be very favorable. He will win New Hampshire (Live Free or Die) with ease. Iowa caucuses...prolly not
Rick will easily be raising tens of millions to prevail in the primaries and the Nov6th 2012 election. He’ll beat Bammy Boy by 15 points
Free Republic is not a Rick Perry board. There are people who will disagree with your opinion. They are allowed to do so. Right now EVERY candidate has detractors on threads about them. Perry is not unique. And you only harm your candidate when you are insulting other posters.
I'm not clueless, but you're delusional when it comes to your slanderous accusation, which needs to stop right now.
Several FReepers are trying to learn about your candidate and others have already formed their opinions which differs from yours. Too bad for you and Governor Perry. He's been a career politician for 27 years with part of the time as a democrat, so some FReepers are convinced that he's not a conservative and that's their right.
Me? I am still trying to learn about him, thankyouverymuch.
FWIW, just this morning on Imus, Kinky Friedman, who ran against him for Governor, spoke highly of him! He said he's the real deal, a job creator in Texas, an Evangelica who loves God and gays, and is not a right-wing whacko!
Quite the endorsement, huh?
Yes,it is false.
He fought the legislature bitterly before they bested him in the struggle. He remains bitter and sarcastic on the subject.
I commend you on your insight and your common sense reply. Well said.
There are a number of issues that he would have lost me on.
The worst (for me) was his Executive Order” requiring every sixth grade girl have proof of Gardasil vaccination before being allowed to attend classes.
This is a non-communicable disease, and over 100 deaths are already attributed to the vaccinations. Thousands of other girls and young women are experiencing immune system abnormalities and other rather serious ongoing problems.
It was his willingness to circumvent due process that bothered me most, and indicated this man is not worthy of my trust.
Luckily the state Legislature over-ruled him. I would suspect it took a two-thirds majority to do it. And they got it, this EO was so bad.
"Sarah Palin Will Not Run for President"
Ha.
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.