"Comeback Kid?" Perry Interview by Parade Magazine (comming out 10-23)

Rick Perry: "A debate is an eight-ring circus, and you have a minute to talk. Sometimes it can be hard to explain your position on a host of issues. I readily admit I’m not the slickest politician nor the smoothest debater."

RP: "When you come into the fray and you’re leading in the polls, you’re going to get attacked by everyone. I get it. I’m a big boy, and I know how to play that game. "

RP:"Well, I disregard that. Americans are looking for somebody to stand up and tell them the truth, and I have a record to back it up. Ultimately, if I can explain my heart, my jobs record, and my philosophy to Americans, I’m pretty confident that I’ll win."

You’re a very successful fund-raiser. But it’s been reported that nearly half of the major donors during your governorship ended up receiving business contracts, political appointments, or tax breaks. The word that’s been applied to you is “cronyism.” How do you respond?

RP:"That’s the same old, tired criticism which comes when people don’t want to talk about the real issues, like how do we create jobs."

RP:"No. Decisions in Texas are generally legislative, with the lieutenant governor, speaker, and governor making them together. There were no unilateral decisions from my office dealing with those issues. And I’ll go back to my record. I’ve been elected three times as governor. The people obviously have confidence in me."

Your wife, Anita Perry, tends to stay out of the spotlight. At the Sept. 12 debate, you described her as “beautiful, thoughtful, incredible.” What is she like as a person?

RP:"She’s very smart and loyal. She’s not predisposed to be a public figure since she saw how her father, a small-town doctor, had to be shared with all these other people. She’s also a great patriot. "

Some of our recent presidents have admitted to experimenting with drugs. What about you?

LYNN SHERR: Let’s start with an easy question. How would you describe your husband?

ANITA PERRY: I think he’s the most handsome man. And he’s creative, smart, kind, thoughtful. …

My daddy was a family practice doctor, and in the 1970s after Medicare began, I remember him telling me, as wise as he was, “We’re moving towards socialized medicine. The first time you take a dollar from the federal government, they’ll start trying to control your life.” I became a nurse, and I’ve seen government take away more and more of our freedom to choose the care we want and the drugs we want.

I started thinking about it last November after his reelection. Then in June a friend sent me a magazine article; it was about Obamacare. I read it and thought, “I don’t want more of the same.” One day Rick and I were talking and I said, “I am so concerned with our children’s future and their children’s future and what will happen to them. We’ve given so many years to public service, and we need to make a difference.” I didn’t want us to wake up when we were 80 and regret we didn’t do this. Our country is in danger, in my opinion.

He’s taken a lot of heat over his 2007 executive order mandating that sixth-grade girls get the HPV vaccine unless their parents opted out. [It was overturned by the state legislature.] What role did you play in his decision?

No, but I thought he handled it the wrong way. I’ve been cochair for the March of Dimes immunization program, and I’m pro-immunization. I would have supported the vaccine. I do not see it as an opening for sexual promiscuity in any way. I see it as another immunization.

Yes, he’s said he made a mistake. He just wants to get rid of cancer in our lifetime. I don’t know how many other men would admit, “I made a mistake.”

It’s already ugly. [laughs] It’s so unkind and unfair, because you know what? All we want to do is serve our country, fight for freedom, and bring back America, the greatest country in the world. The other day, an older lady asked me, “What do you think about the polls?” I said, “I can’t look at them. All I can do is get up every day and tell everyone what a wonderful man and leader Rick Perry is.”

If he is elected president next year, what issues or causes will you take up as first lady?

It’s hard to say. I’m a health care professional. I love our military. But we’ve got a lot of work to do before we make it to the White House.

You’ve said your husband prays every night and morning. Yes. He always asks for wisdom for our president. What about you?

It’s not hard. I’ve had lots of years to do it, and I’ve become comfortable in that role. I love meeting people—goodness gracious, that’s the best part.

When your husband gives speeches, do you ever find yourself wanting to put words in his mouth?

Well, most of the time. Whether he says it in a way that you or I want to hear …

Let me ask you one last question about the future. If you make it all the way to the White House, what will you bring with you?

ticks?

He is for securing the border. He is not for amnesty.

He cannot deport illegals - only the Federal Government can do that.

He will deport illegals if President.

“say that I am heartless”

are you calling children brought over into Texas by their illegal parents who grew up most of their lives “ticks”?

and your feelings are hurt because you feel he called you heartless?

He said he should not have said that.

But I say.....if the shoe fits......

Do you have a link for that?

The only DNA collection in Texas at Texas A&M I know of is for people who have committed a crime.

Only criminals dna are collected at Texas A&M as far as I know.

Please prove your assertion.

You're a mom in Texas and you were oblivious to the lawsuit and legislation?

Between 2002 and 2009, the state was collecting DNA samples of newborns to the tune of 4.5 million samples or so without the consent of parents. When TDSHS was storing the samples at A&M, A&M wanted to release a press release stating that they were working with DSHS to store the samples. The emails from DSHS made it clear they knew people would get upset if it became public knowledge that DNA samples were being kept without the consent of parents, and they asked A&M not to do so, and A&M did what they were asked.

PDF of the lawsuit is here, the lawsuit was entitled "Beleno v. Texas Department of State Health Services" which is case # SA-09-CA-0188-FB in the Texas Western District Court. Defendants were Texas Department of State Health Services, Texas A&M University, Nancy W. Dickey, David L. Lakey, and Roderick E. McCallum. Judge was Fred Biery.

The Texas legislature discussed it during the 81st legislature http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/major81.pdf

Those in the legislature for the continued collection stated:

The genetic material legally obtained through the newborn screening program meets the definition of a state record as machine-readable information received on behalf of a state agency. As such, this material may be retained for an appropriate amount of time as dictated by state records retention statutes. Despite this fact, some have expressed concerns that the retention constitutes an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Such concerns are unfounded because passive consent to retention of the materials would be implicit when parents knew that they could request that the genetic material be destroyed, but did not.

Thankfully, conservatives opposed it:

Given the potential that some parents might not receive the disclosure statement due to this bill’s “opt- out” disclosure policy, parents may later discover that their child’s genetic material was subject to uses of which they may not approve. Although a parent may feel comfortable with the permitted uses of retained genetic material in HB 1672, the permissible uses of this material could be expanded in future years in ways to which many people would object. Should genetic information ever become available to employers, they could discriminate in their choice of job applicants based on the applicants’ genetic predispositions. If law enforcement were provided access to this retained genetic material, they might attempt to use this information in investigations, which could infringe on a person’s right against self-incrimination.

Further, a lawsuit was filed in March against DSHS in U.S. district court in San Antonio, Beleno v. Texas Department of State Health Services, in which the plaintiffs — five parents of newborns whose genetic material was collected and retained — alleged that DSHS’s retention of newborn genetic material violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure when their children’s confidential genetic information was taken and stored without their consent.

House Bill 1672 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB1672) was passed and signed, which is supposed to end this, but there was too much silence over this. Nobody was punished, Perry and Dewhurst remained silent. The state quickly settled once interest by the media and public started picking up, and while they have promised to destroy all samples collected prior to May 2009 (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/news/releases/20091222.shtm), there is no telling what all was done with them, what happened to the ones that were sent to the feds, etc.

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.