If gov't was not involved in such things, most of the "special interests" would dry up.
I think the Guardasil case has two sides to it and is not as cut-and-dry as some try to make it.
Perry does not have a repeat-record of such "special interest" things that you can point to, like you could with Bill Clinton or Obama.
I know that if we end up with Perry, that we are not getting everything we want in a candidate. However, he is closer to the ideal than many of the others in the primary (except Cain and Bachmann). Unless they break-out, I can be a realist and support Perry heartily.
I knew what we were getting with Bush43. His Texas record was far worse than Perry's and he was still a superior choice over Gore.
I simply do not approve of some on our side who take every opportunity to attack Perry in exactly the same manner liberals will (if he is our nominee).
It would be far more effective to point out that Cain would be far better for fixing the economy than Perry or that Bachmann would be far better at charting her own course than Perry.
Constant personal attacks on a candidate are not necessary.
One thing I discovered just from some Google searching was that the man now so richly endorsing Perry as head of the Conservative Republicans of Texas group now had a different view several years ago.
He cited the Guardasil thing plus other matters including a ten percent business tax hike that Perry pushed through in 2007, one year after his re-election in 2006.
I get the sense that this Conservative Republicans of Texas group may just be fronting for the party establishment since Texas State Senator Dan Patrick, a conservative talk show host turned elected official, started something called the Independent Conservative Republicans of Texas group.