To: All
.....>>>"VAN SUSTEREN: Well, there's a big difference, though, at least in my mind, whether you do it because you really believe it's the right and you're just flat out wrong or you shouldn't have done it or whatever, and the other difference is whether you did it because you wanted a campaign contribution. And I'm curious which you think was the one here with the governor.
BACHMANN: Well, of course, I don't know the thoughts and the intents of the governor's heart. I have no idea what they are, nor would I speculate."<<<.... SOURCE
Reasons for HPV vaccine
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Bachmann is pathetic in claiming “she would not speculate”. If so, why did she try to connect Merck campaign contribution to Perry’s EO decision?
To: Cincinatus' Wife; RoosterRedux; jonrick46; deepbluesea; RockinRight; TexMom7; potlatch; ...
Perry Ping....IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
42 posted on
09/13/2011 11:57:33 AM PDT by
shield
(Rev 2:9 Woe unto those who say they are Judahites and are not, but are of the syna GOG ue of Satan.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Michelle blew it here. The correct answer is that if it's a good idea, Perry could have used his office to promote it, without requiring it. Regardless of campaign contributions, it was a bad idea to try to force it by having only opt-out, not opt-in.
The opt-out was a bad idea, regardless of whether it was to benefit Merck, or merely because Perry believes the end justifies the means.
128 posted on
09/13/2011 1:31:28 PM PDT by
slowhandluke
(It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson