Did you also know that Rep. Bachmann was elected in November of 2006 to the United States House of Representatives, and that she had nothing to do with the Minnesota Legislature's decision to approve of injecting minor children of their citizens with Gardasil in 2007, as she was not a member of that body?
I do not expect that these facts would change your opinion of Rep. Bachmann, but I might expect you to apologize to her for your implication of impropriety during her time in the Minnesota Legislature.
But I may be wrong.
You might want to go back and read my three posts in this thread (out of four total, five including this one about to be posted) that specifically referenced your interest here instead of focusing your attention on non-specific declarations you seem to think will make for a good argument.
The information I provided was about the State of Minnesota, providing a historical context for the State’s participation in the Gardasil vaccination program, and I followed that in post #66 with an account of how Minnesota, Texas, and many other states were a part of a nation-wide implementation of Gardasil programs.
Michele Bachmann was not directly involved with decision making or implementation on the most local of level for Minnesota’s Gardasil program. That’s just plain silly to think I said that.
However, the State of Minnesota, the State of Alaska, and 16 other states at that time were incorporating Gardasil programs at the tax-payers expense. Many other states were gearing up their Gardasil programs at that time but had yet to make it known HOW they were funding it.
The point to be made is that this was a nation-wide movement, one that INCLUDED Minnesota and Texas both plus many more states, and not simply one action allocated to the State of Texas and the State of Texas alone.
If you had actually READ post #66, the second to the last post, (which I had to post slightly later since I had to step away from my computer for a small bit), you would have known at your writing of your last post to me that I was CLEARLY referencing the original author of the original article and had disregarded that idea that a politician should be labeled as a crony capitalist simply because their name is associated with something that occurs in everyday life, and especially when those companies who donated were operating in everyone’s lives ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. Those kinds of life connections just happen, and having the normal cris-cross of life, especially in a health care action such as this specific immunization which was happening ALL OVER THE COUNTRY THEN, is not the same as unethical or illegal actions.
Had you actually READ all my connected posts, you would have seen my vindication of Michele Bachmann concerning the author’s stretch to make a point for this being crony capitalism.
I feel somewhat irritated with having to come back here and having to explain all these things all over AGAIN when you could have just read everything to begin with before coming back with some kind of ax to grind. If you had read everything and not had preconceived ideas of what you could pick at, we could all have gone all with life.
As it was, I had to take the time AGAIN to provide information yet AGAIN to clarify to you that we need to look at the Gardasil issue in its entirety, as a part of what was going on nation-wide, not just in Texas. ALL the states were jumping on the Gardasil bandwagon at that point. Some were using tax payer money to bring Gardasil into their state health systems; some like Texas were trying to keep their programs at a local level using private funds.
It wasn’t WHETHER the states were incorporating Gardasil into vaccination schedules - they ALL were - Furthermore, it wasn’t whether the manufacturer would get money or not from Texas. They were getting money from ALL the states that had already implemented their programs and were about to do so.
Gardasil was on the national scene, already at or about to be in all states. The only difference was that some states chose to fund their Gardasil programs with tax payer money, and some opted for keeping the program local using private funds, something that would normally be considered conservative — except in THIS circumstance apparently.
So there it is AGAIN. It’s taken additional time for me to go over this again, (I really would have preferred you to have just read the various posts), but then again, thank you for the opportunity to get this insight and information out to people here yet AGAIN.
Please read post 83 which was sent sent your way.
However, since you needed everything reviewed, I figured it might be better to re-post this to you in the hopes you might actually read it this time.
________
Does Michele Bachmann Have a Crony Problem Too?
Friday, September 16, 2011 11:03:57 PM · 66 of 83
casinva to dusttoyou
(dusttoyou’s comment)
Whether Michele did the dirty with the pharmas is not half the problem of her impulsiveness, which could be “Biblical” deadly in Oval Office
(My comment)
I saw your remark earlier before I needed to leave but wanted to come back and let you know I think you hit the nail right on its head.
Even though Michele Bachmann (and I’m sure other politicians as well) got campaign donations from some of the same companies that would have benefited from Minnesota’s federally-tax-funded Gardasil program at that time... and from the Gardasil immunization programs that were popping up all over the country during that time period, that does not appear to be the problem she is facing or that even appears to be concerning enough to look at. Her problems stem from her obvious alliance with Mitt Romney and her self-imploding campaign.
I think it’s good to know Minnesota and all the other states during that era were in the process of including Gardasil into their state’s health departments and clinics, many of them, as in Minnesota and Alaska, on tax payer dollars. That needs to be understood so that no one politician or state is scrutinized without the overall historical picture of the time. And minus information that donations were in fact done unethically or illegally, it’s hard for politicians to accept donations without SOMEHOW touching a part of life in which that politician lives.
But it’s FAR different when desperation (or something else) reveals character traits that just won’t do for someone holding the position of President of the United States.
Thanks for sharing your wisdom!