Apparently they never invited him back, so you are probably wrong about them liking his style.
Every vaccine order forces kids to get shots; it was stupid to force Gardisil, but the wording of the initial quoted paragraph would apply equally to ANY vaccine:
“In February of Whatever, Governer Whoever signed a SHOCKING executive order forcing every single kindergarten child to submit to multiple painful jab regimins of the Polio, Measles, and other vaccine. He also forced state health officials to make the vaccine available “free” to kids from 2-18.”
My point is that it’s an issue, but it’s inflamed by the rhetoric that is content-free but worded to outrage.
To equate this to Obamacare is to make a mockery out of common sense, and destroys the REAL ARGUMENTS we have against Obamacare. Adding a vaccine to the required list is NOTHING like Obamacare. Having a required list of vaccines is nothing like Obamacare.
I think it’s stupid to cheapen the real arguments we have against the monstrosity of Obamacare by saying it’s the same as requiring a new vaccine. Heck, there are a lot of people who thought it was GOOD to require the new vaccine, that it was helpful — tell them it’s like Obamacare and you might just convince them that Obamacare is a good thing.
That's a straw man argument. Malkin simply didn't equate a "required list of vaccines" to ObamaCare. Heck, the word ObamaCare is not even in the column.
What Malkin does say--and most of her critics on this thread fail to directly refute--is that the Gardasil episode includes behavior which is "Obama-like". As Malkin puts it, there is evidence of "every worst habit of the Obama administration." Malkin then goes on to offer specific, fact-based reasons for her claim.
Malkin's contention is that the Gardasil episode displays the following habits of the Perry administration: (1)trampled on the deliberative process, (2) engaged in "human shield demagoguery", and (3) cronyism. Malkin's critics would do well to actually respond to these specific claims, instead of knocking down a straw man argument that isn't made by Malkin.
I've never been a huge fan of Malkin, because she can get carried away with moments of self-righteous hyperbole which distract or undermine her positions. But here Malkin has written what I believe will come to be considered a seminal piece of political criticism, one that raises substantive issues that cannot simply be dismissed as hyperbole and stands to haunt Perry for the rest of the campaign.