Posted on 09/13/2011 4:56:17 AM PDT by SueRae
Edited on 09/13/2011 5:27:32 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Sarah Palin says she is not afraid to call out fellow Republicans when she thinks they have been "part of the problem." On Monday night, Palin accuses Republican candidate for President Rick Perry of engaging in "crony capitalism." Perry, as governor of Texas, mandated that young girls get a vaccination for the HPV virus in an executive order. Perry is criticized for this in part because of his connections to the drug manufacturer Merck.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
_________________________________________
Oh, you were there as his advisor on this? Of course not. You are simply speculating without any proof.
Every cop worth his salt knows that a copy of the Bible is one of the props most often used by con-men.
SarahPAC still has the entire 2012 election cycle to go through; what percentage do you suppose will have been spent by then, 200%?
>> “Every cop worth his salt knows that a copy of the Bible is one of the props most often used by con-men.” <<
.
You must be refering to Rick Perry, anf his CLIP-ON CHRISTIANITY.
Presidential TV ads will come out of that and also she will have to really ramp up for other candidates as well. It is not a big PAC. Demint’s Senate Conservative Fund was double the last cycle. If she does not run her PAC will be ramped up if she runs money goes to her campaign and the PAC as well.
______________________________________
Your post is a personal attack but, since you are a devoted palinite, the mods will let it stand.
Now, as to the accuracy of my statement that while palin was mayor of Wasilla and then again as Governor SBS profited greatly from contracts with both those tax-payer funded entities, it is a matter of record.
As to my statement that this same SBS company hired palin as a paid TV spokesperson when she was between jobs, well, even another uber-palinite acknowledged it as fact earlier in this thread.
I guess the truth hurts. Too bad.
Proof?
Yes it is. My wife and I took HS age kids in for routine wellness checks, and the clinic separated the kids from the parents. We were told that two of the kids were behind in some vaccines, and should be caught up. Gardasil was specifically mentioned, but not required. We knew the daughter was inclined against Gardasil (give her a choice, and she says NO WAY). We told the doctor of the preference that our daughter had, as far as we knew, but that daughter was old enough (17) to make a reasoned decision, given a choice.
The doctor did not give daughter a choice. Daughter was in fact surprised that doctor showed up in daughter's examination room with the intention to give Gardasil, and assumed that we, her parents had "okayed" it.
The primary harm done was to the medical profession. No side effect from the vaccine, but daughter now reasonably harbors disgust and distrust of doctors.
What about the opt out?
Sorry, your Gardasil logic is all wrong. You are more than welcome to have your daughter inoculated with it. Then you may have peace of mind (though it’s only about 75% effective against HPV).
But the logic for other vaccinations is that they are against communicable diseases that could otherwise unfairly expose other children simply attending school with the infected.
That’s not the case here. It could be that Gardasil is a good thing for everyone, but there’s no reason for the government to mandate (or fund) it.
It's the same one used to opt out of the other "mandatory" vaccines. The affidavit form was made available online, for all who were able to express conscientious objection.
As far as I know, there was never a "Gardasil only" opt out. A parent either says "we object to [all] vaccinations," or accepts the vaccination list mandated by the state.
The whole point of making the vaccine mandatory is to obtain as near universal inoculation as practical. The law admits a small fraction to abstain, out of deference to conscientious objection (same idea pertains to the draft).
Making opt-out easier has had the side effect of more and more TX parents opting out of OTHER vaccines!
So, the only basis that remains for my objection to "opt out" as making the mandate palatable, is the "complexity" of the op-out procedure.
One must file an affidavit with the state; after which the state issues a waiver. The original waiver is required by the schools. Obtaining a waiver must be done each two years.
Parents who may object would have to look forward a few weeks, in order to obtain the required state-issued waiver before school starts.
What Perry did to make this process easier was make the form available online.
“That’s interesting because Palin endorsed Perry after the Gardasil kerfuffle.”
Lesser of two weavils, without a doubt!
Sarah, in 2010, was supporting TEA Party candidates, and sure winners, who would be a solid support base for her Administration, especially when she went after the business as usual crowd, crooks, and carreerists that infest DC.
Perry’s accepted her support saying he wasn’t a 2012 presidential candidate. Sorry gal, but Perry has shown his stripes with his going back on his word, and has additionally exposed himself as a crony capitalist.
Sarah dislikes both attributes in a politician. All bets are off vis a vis Perry.
So it’s okay for Sarah Palin to endorse a candidate who practices crony capitalism which she professes to hate, because he is the lesser of two evils, but it’s not okay for voters to support him?
Got it.
And how do you explain her endorsement of McCain over the much more conservative Hayworth? They had already lost the election and she wasn’t his VP candidate any more so what did she owe him? Nothing.
Sarah compromises her principles when it’s convenient just like any other politician. I’m supporting the only non-politician in the bunch. If you were intellectually honest, you’d support him too.
1) There’s a huge difference between being governor of Texas and POTUS.
2) You don’t go out on a limb for a guy like J.D. Hayworth, who has more baggage than a cross-country flight on Christmas Eve.
Herman Cain is indeed my second choice, but Sarah has a record of confronting this kind of thing head-on from the top of the government. That’s what I want running the country.
Thanks! :D
What is there to fret over?
Start here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2777621/posts?page=359#359
“Seems as though Merck was funneling money through a group called Women in Government to politicians all over the country.
BTW, Rep Dianne White Delisi, the sponsor of HB 2475’s mother-in-law was chief of staff for none other than Rick Perry at the time. She was also state director for...
...YOU GUESSED IT! Women in Government!!
Yeah, there’s no scandal here. NO SIR!!! LOLOL!
BY: Perfect_Rovian_Storm
.
From there I’m sure even you can figure it out.
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.