Yes, and I said, and say again, that is is absurd to compare adding a vaccine to the list of required vaccines to Obama and the democrats implementing Obamacare.
Every executive decision looks like every other executive decision, if you speak broadly enough. But Obamacare was passed by legislators. It was debated in congress for months. It was out in the open, and we all knew how bad it was, and the democrats passed it anyway, not for cronyism, but because they had an ideological belief in a single-payer government-run health system and this was how they were getting there.
I don’t accept Malkin’s hypothesis that Perry trampled on the deliberative process (didn’t the legislature pass the vaccine law that sets up mandatory vaccines for school, and give the authority to put specific vaccines on or off the list to an executive department?), “human shield demagogery” (that sounds clever but is stupid, “for the children” isn’t “human shield” — human shield is “I’m holding up consideration of this law that will really help people until you pass my rediculous bill into law”), and cronyism (We can go after ANY politician, democrat or republican, for taking interest in laws that affect the people who support them with donations).
But taking them as fact, they have nothing to do with Obamacare (the word you used in YOUR comment), nor or they Obama-like relative to Obamacare.
Obamacare was an abuse of the legislative process, not a trampling of the deliberative process. It was defended as saving the country money, of reforming our medical system, it lowered the deficit, it gave everybody health insurance, and to help people who pay for insurance to pay less because it removed the burden of the uninsured (These were all false, but THOSE were the selling points, not some “human shield” argument that we had to pass it in order to pass something necessary).
And it was not about Obama paying back his supporters (he did a LOT of that of course). It was about pushing a left-wing ideology on the country, taking over the health care system, making us more socialist. There were things put in the bill that supporters wanted, but that was to buy votes, not because the bill was written to do so.
People who we are trying to convince to repeal Obamacare will be confused by an argument that Perry is as bad as Obama because he added a vaccine to a required list. When they see the absurdity of making a big deal about it, they will wonder if the same people are making too big a deal about Obamacare.
Everybody here agrees that Romney is a real problem, because he implemented and defended an Obamacare-like program in Mass. So we say RomneyCare is like Obamacare, and that ROmney has an Obamacare problem, and we question how Romney will campaign against Obama on the issue because Obama can praise ROmney for his own version of Obamacare.
That’s what an “Obamacare problem looks like, and Romneycare was legislation that looks “Obama-like”. I don’t see a teneble argument that Obama will be able to point to Perry’s adding Gardicil to the school vaccine list and saying “See, Perry supports Obamacare”. They are entirely different things, and were arrived at in entirely different manner and for entirely DIFFERENT reasons.
No, there is no comparison between adding a vaccine and Obamacare, and there is no comparison between HOW Perry added a vaccine, and how Obama and the democrats enacted Obamacare.
It’s just another way for people who oppose Perry to reframe the Gardicil debate by tying it to something all conservatives and a majority of americans loathe.
[Earlier in this thread, after a lazy first read of the Malkin piece, I did mistakenly argue that Malkin was drawing a defensible comparison between ObamaCare and the Gardasil mandate. But that was my mistaken interpretation, not Malkin's contention.]
I don’t accept Malkin’s hypothesis that Perry trampled on the deliberative process (didn’t the legislature pass the vaccine law that sets up mandatory vaccines for school, and give the authority to put specific vaccines on or off the list to an executive department?), “human shield demagogery” (that sounds clever but is stupid, “for the children” isn’t “human shield” — human shield is “I’m holding up consideration of this law that will really help people until you pass my rediculous bill into law”), and cronyism (We can go after ANY politician, democrat or republican, for taking interest in laws that affect the people who support them with donations).
Your response here doesn't rebut Malkin in regards to charges of cronyism, trampling deliberative process, or demagoguery. It's as if you're responding to what you think is in the article rather than what is actually in the article. Malkin makes specific claims and citations and you respond with a generalization (all politicians could be accused of cronyism), a semantic argument ("human shield" is clever but doesn't mean what she thinks it mean) and a red herring (Perry had legal authority via a vaccine law).
It’s just another way for people who oppose Perry to reframe the Gardicil debate by tying it to something all conservatives and a majority of americans loathe.
It doesn't take a false comparison with ObamaCare to tie the Gardasil mandate to something loathsome. What Perry did with regards to the Gardasil mandate is loathsome enough on its own.