« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Rick Perry And the Gardasil Decision

By: streiff (Diary)  |  August 16th, 2011 at 03:32 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Now that Texas Governor Rick Perry has entered the race for the GOP presidential nomination his actions as governor are coming under close scrutiny.

One of the items being tossed about is his Executive Order requiring all girls in Texas to receive the vaccine to prevent infection by human pappillovirus (HPV) prior to entering sixth grade.

There are reasons to criticize the decision but they aren’t the ones being discussed.

Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics has a good run down on the controversy, despite quoting a particularly vile anti-vaccine group. In a nutshell, in 2006 Merck received approval from the FDA for a vaccine that was effective against several strains of HPV that were known to create lesions that were known precursors to cervical cancer.

At the time, this looked like a silver bullet: a shot that would prevent cervical cancer. The decision initially appeared to be a no-brainer. By requiring the immunization of girls it seemed like that most of them would be immune to cervical cancer caused by exposure to HPV. By the time Governor Perry issued his Executive Order, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) had recommended the vaccine for all females aged 9 to 26. In other words, Governor Perry was hardly breaking new ground here. He was following the guidance issued by the CDC in a minimalist manner, his order only covered upcoming 6th grade girls.

The criticism that Governor Perry somehow trammelled parental rights is nothing short of a calumny. The Executive Order specifically states:

Parents’ Rights.The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law.

Beyond this, currently all manner of vaccines against childhood diseases are given to children and considered mandatory. Why the HPV vaccine would be considered an affront to parental rights while the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine would not is more than a little unclear. There was a concern by some that the vaccine would be the entry point to skankdom by leading girls to believe that by being immune from genital warts — and not herpes, syphillis, gonorrhea, AIDS, chlamydia, etc., — they would feel the overwhelming urge to engage in promiscuous and unprotected sex. How this line of reasoning works is a little more than I can grasp.

However, there were a lot of very good scientific reasons as to why Gardasil should not have been made mandatory. For instance,

1. The recommendation did not include males, though males can carry and transmit HPV. This oversight made the creation of “herd immunity” impossible. This, definitionally, means the vaccine could have only a limited effect in combatting HPV.

2. Not all strains of HPV linked to cancer were affected by the vaccine. While doing something is better than doing nothing… generally… no one knows what the impact will be of creating a better evolutionary environment for the others strains by eliminating competing versions of the virus.

3.Requiring people to receive a vaccine against diseases which they may very well never encounter is a very queasy ethical area. Unlike diseases like measles, whooping cough, etc., HPV is not spread through casual contact.

4. Clinical trials were conducted on women aged 16-26 leaving everyone to presume that Gardasil was safe and efficacious in 10 year-olds even though there was zero data pertaining to that age group.

The decision by Governor Perry to make Gardasil mandatory is a nothingburger. Clearly, Governor Perry erred in issuing his Executive Order, something he has admitted, and to his great credit, when he was challenged he relented rather than digging in. But his error was in acting on the recommendation of the federal agency charged with developing vaccine recommendations without proper staff work and building a political consensus to support that action.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • luvnthebigsites

    That will be trumpeted (I hope). Perry made a mistake and owned up to it. Romneycare is still a disaster to this day and the Romney campaign hides or obfuscates. Throw in Globull warming… Its over. Its been over.

    • irishgirl

      This whole Gardisil thing is about as worthless as “he was a Democrat 24 years ago and helped Al Gore”……imho

      • robbyshankar

        I still see the two as very similar. (As a disclaimer, I would be more than happy to vote for either Romney or Perry. In fact, I’m please as punch that the nomination will most likely go to one of them.) Also Perry stood by his decision for quite a while. I believe that when the Texas Legislature passed the bill overriding his EO, he let it become law by simply not signing it or vetoing it, and there are some statements out there that he thought that the legislature made a pretty big mistake. It appears that his “owning up to it” is more for political expediency. I really don’t see how Perry can attack Romney on health mandates. Perry didn’t even bother using the representative legislature like Romney did, he tried to do it all on his own.

        Having said that, even if his “owning up” is only for political purposes, I think he has learned his lesson in the same way that I actually think Romney might actually try harder than any other candidate to repeal Obamacare. (He doesn’t want to be blamed for it.) Sometimes political expediency is simply the way for our politicians to bend their will to the will of the people

        • chamberD

          You “think he has learned his lesson.” You mean, he bowed to the will of his backers to create a mandate for young public school girls to receive Gardasil. And if parents objected, they were permitted “to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet.”

          Did he know that 68 deaths are attributed directly to Gardasil? Did he know that 18,000 girls receiving the vaccine have suffered complications related to it?

          The Gardasil incident cannot be forgiven — it must certainly not be forgotten; it is a window into his political philosophy, his statist leanings, that we ignore at our peril.

          It exemplifies the antithesis of his market tested speech given on Saturday to announce his candidacy, wherein he championed limited government with the memorable line of how “inconsequential” government should be in our lives.

          Will we listen to his speeches permit ourselves to be swayed by words? because at this momentous time in our history we need a conservative statesman — or certain doom portends? Or will we delve into his record for ourselves, cast off our desperation, and dispassionately examine who this man is?

          • runner12

            vaccine because of Merck donating a measly 6,000 dollars to his campaign. For the record, I strongly disagree with Perry on this issue. I think it was a gross overreach of the state and I believe that Perry failed to do his research on the side effects of Gardasil.

            But to say something cannot be forgiven when somewhat admits wrongdoing is uncharitable. Saying we should not forget it is acceptable though.

            Perrt has issues, there is no denying that. But if he is such a statist establishment-type, then why do all of the GOP establishment guys hate his guts? This does not make sense to me. The only thing that I can figure out is its because Perry is his own man. The mistakes he has made were his mistakes and not as a result of outside pressure.

            I think the reality is that the establishment is not sure they can control him. I think this fact alone is a net positive for Perry.

          • chamberD

            And I will consider what you say; however, my instinct about him is to be very wary — I’m not even at the “trust, but verify” stage.

  • irishgirl

    As the mother of two daughters here in Texas, Point #3 was the one that got me outraged. I would not want to give my daughters shots that they may or may not have needed. It is different than measles, etc. But after having both daughters’ doctors lecture them (both in early 20′s) on HPV (and frankly, the oldest one called one day to give me the thrilling news that her latest exam had revealed the virus…..) I chilled out on judging Governor Perry for this one. And I absolutely see where anyone could get swayed into thinking this was a great deal and everyone should jump on the vaccinations. But the people here in Texas let him know it wasn’t going to fly, end of story.

    • Reg

      The left has no problem with mandating health procedures for other peoples kids.

  • kowalski

    It shouldn’t have been mandatory but it should have been a public health recommendation that parents could choose or decline – but for both genders. It’s a serious issue and the vaccine should be an option for health care providers and pediatricians. I completely agree with your last sentence except that I still don’t think even with a “political consensus” he should have ordered it as mandatory.

    In other words I split the baby on this and I think Gardasil should have been recommended treatment but not compelled treatment, and then let the parents decide. That would have been the wiser course of action.

    • streiff

      was a way of making health insurance companies cover the costs. The vax costs $120 per dose and you have to get three doses.

      • acat

        All the parents had to do was opt out by simple affadavit. Every doctor likely has the opt-out forms on file.

        Given the number of parents listening to unfounded fears of a link between autism and vaccinations and opting out of standard measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough shots, I’d find it hard to believe doctors don’t have this stuff on hand.

        Mew

  • http://www.manerlittle.com Jonathan Crumly

    This is an excellent analysis of the genesis of Perry’s stubbed toe on Gardasil. Thank you for the information & perspective.

    My one bone of contention is that your analysis of the parental rights concern looks at the wrong problem. You focused on why would parents fight this vaccine and not others. The battle lines being drawn across the country over parental rights is the continual overreaching of the State into the parent/child relationship. The concerns raised were not that Gardasil would lead to ?skankdom? but why is it appropriate for the State to mandate vaccinations against a disease that can only contracted through sexual activity? In America (at least for the near future), children are not deemed wards of the State from birth. For at least a little while longer, the State must prove that parents are unfit before it can impose its will on health care decisions. Juxtapose the State?s command to vaccinate 6th grade girls against an STD with vocal support for ?comprehensive sex education? (i.e. pornography in the view of most sane parents) and adamant opposition to abstinence education for 6th graders and you can easily see the concern of parents here. It is not a concern for the conduct of their daughters; it is a concern for the continual overreaching of the State into parental rights and responsibilities with no cause.

    • streiff

      why no outrage over the Hep B vaccine which is acquired primarily through drug use?

      Not trying to be snarky but at some point a decision has to be made by someone on which vaccines are mandatory. This is not a parents rights issue because as a parent the only impact in blowing off the requirement, other than subjecting your own children to needless risk, is not attending public school. If you feel that strongly about it then I’d suggest home schooling.

      So this isn’t a parents rights issue in any way shape or form. rather it is is a public health issue.

      Now there were very good scientific reasons why ACIP should not have recommended Gardasil be made mandatory but, on the flip side, do you want to be the guy who potentially has the cure for cervical cancer in his grasp and says, “oh no, I shan’t overreach”?

      So I understand your argument but I discount it from a lot of directions and I say this as the father of pre-teen children, two of them girls.

      • Reg

        Because it does have a risk, and received severe scoldings from the doctor each time. It sure as hell is a parents rights issue. We are creating a culture where school and health officials are viewed as having greater rights towards children than their parents.

        • grateful_red

          Hep C – bloodborne pathogen, risk factors for infection -

          • grateful_red

            Hep C ? viral bloodborne pathogen (no vaccine), risk factors for infection
            #1 IV drug use
            #2 Blood transfusions prior to about 1990 (we couln’t test for it)
            #3 intra-nasal cocaine use
            #4 tatoos (unclean needel used 2 times or more)
            #5 Being a health care worker (sucks to be me)
            Strangely – Hep C is thought not to be sexually tansmitted

            Hep B viral bloodborne pathogen (vaccine available), risk factors
            #1 Being from south east asia (disease is common)
            #2 Having sex with south east asian prostitutes
            #3 Being born to a mother with hep B (vertical transmission)
            #4 IV drug use (rare in USA)

            I got the Hep B vaccine when I became a medical student,,,, Hep C scares the **** out of me.

          • runner12

            as part of admission to the rehabilitation department. Hurt like a DPT shot, but no bad side effects. It was better than getting Hep B, let me tell you.

          • runner12

            I meant the rehab deparment at the health sciences center. My first sentence sounded a little sketchy.

          • streiff

            Hep B, not C

        • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

          Then stay the [expletive deleted] away from mine.

      • chamberD

        and you are wrong. Oh yes, if parents don’t like it they can homeschool — after the liberal ethos has permeated the culture, denigrating stay-at-home mothers and heralding the mom who brings home the bacon; after our tax laws have dis-incentivized the traditional family with the marriage penalty.

        It is most certainly a parental rights issue: the government has decided it knows best about your childrens’ medical well-being, and the only way you can stop its overreach is with an affidavit???

        I will not vote for Rick Perry, for this reason and for many others; and I’m appalled that Erick Erickson is so taken with this obvious FAKE.

        • cwilson

          …so we can mark you down as an Obama supporter? Will you be sending in a check today, or just wait until we can deduct it from your paycheck directly?

          My point: if you’re talking about the primary election, that’s all well and good. Support whoever you like (except Laup Nor). If you’re talking about the general election…then you’re either a Democrat, or a **** fool (or both).

  • Reg

    That’s the problem. He wasn’t following a pack of states to do it. He was at the forefront. It reveals a deeply authoritarian, statist mindset.

    The reason this is a problem is #3, and that is the reason everybody who objects does so. A vaccine against stds simply should not be mandated. Vaccines impose risks, they all do. This was a new vaccine likely to have additional unknown risks. This isn’t a disease that requires full vaccination for efectivenes.

    It’s a gross violation of liberty and parental responsibility for children to mandate such vaccines. it leads to a culture in which the responsible are expected (and scolded and shamed by liberal doctors) to bear additional risks of such treatment because of the irresponsibility of others. And it pushes the state further into the role of imposing itself onto the sexual lives of all children to mitigate the damage caused by the obviously poor decisions of the less responsible children.

    Would mandatory std testing of kids from fifth grade on save lives and prevent disease? Very likely it would, at very little risk to kids. But to mandate that completely confuses the role of the state. Family is primary, and the state only performs those functions families cannot easily perform or coordinate themselves. But that’s obviously not the case In Rick Perrys worldview. State is primary and must make sure families follow the dictates of the state, even if it imposes unwanted unnecessary risks on our fifth grade daughters.

    He needs to explain this decision better. Of course it was mistake, it was obvious at the time, and he and now its convenient to say, my bad, and walk away from it. To be honest, the explanation that bothers me least is corruption.

    • streiff

      it is a difference of opinion between some people and the agency that set the rules for vaccinations.

      I think his explanation has been more than adequate. Those who are predisposed to accept his explanation will, those who aren’t, won’t. I don’t see why he’d address if further.

      • Reg

        Agree with me.

        Would you be fine with mandatory std testing for kids?

        • acat

          It’s uncomfortable to discuss but .. some of the little darlings are having sex that young, and they have no clue what they’re opening themselves up for.

          Better to have testing, a private conference with parents in an off-school-grounds location, and treatment than long-term complications that include spreading the disease(s), infertility, cancer, and worst of all .. aborted children.

          Mew

          • Reg

            About the role of government, and it sounds like Perry is very much in alignment with your worldview.

            Happily the republican party is a big tent, but I prefer a much more libertarian leaning candidate.

          • Scope

            rather than an Obama supporter, simply because the Obama admin. would love nothing better than to require everyone to get vaccinations, just as they want to require everyone to purchase health insurance. Didn’t Sebielus go through the whole garbage with the deadly flue scare a year or so ago, which never panned out.

            The reason I knew you supported Ron Paul is because he thinks that the government has no business involving themselves in personal medical decisions, including vaccinations of any kind. In this Ron Paul article he argues against Smallpox vaccinations, but his main goal is in arguing against all government mandated vaccinations. He began wanting pot legalized, but when pressed for an answer in a debate, he threw in legalizing heroine and prostitution also. So it is not a hard stretch to see he is against all vaccinations.

            The reason why we don’t have smallpox, and that it has been eradicated from the world, is because of vaccinations. You can say that Polio, Whooping Cough and measels are going the same route, because of mandated vaccinations, though those diseases are not yet on the eradicated list. From a report I read on an immunization website, 71% of the last outbreak of measels in the US, was caused by importing it by those crossing our borders.

            So, if I understand it correctly, Paul would let it up to individuals to decide if they want to participate in eradicating diseases, whatever they are, because everyone is totally and completely personally responsible citizens. So, is a responsible parent, decides not to participate in a vaccination program, and they are in the incubation period before symptoms appear, and the kid goes to school and passes that disease on to many many others, that’s their problem. Do I have that right?

            As was said above, if you chose not to participate in something, should everyone else have to suffer the consequences of your irresponsibility?

          • Reg

            Sleep around, my irresponsibility in not getting hep b or gardasil vaccinations don’t matter. its fundamentally differentt than smallpox or other airborne diseases that can’t be avoided by lifestyle changes.

            Vaccines against diseases transferable by airborne pathogens should be made mandatory. Failing to be vaccinated does pose a danger in those circumstances. State action is required.

            But once simple lifestyle choices can make one immune from a disease, a mandated vaccine imposes on liberty.

            If you want to make a law that makes sexual contact without notification of stds testing or vaccination a tort, creating liability for the disease, great. I agree. It’s irresponsible and wrong to engage in such behavior, and victims should be compensated. But I pose no danger to anybody because I avoid such risky behaviors, and the state oveesteps by making me bear the risk of the vaccine in that situation.

            I am a big fan of ron paul when he talks about the fed, I think he’s extraordinarily dense when he talks about foreign policy.

          • congressworksforus

            >>As was said above, if you chose not to participate in something, should everyone else have to suffer the consequences of your irresponsibility?

            Uh, you realize the libs are making the same argument about the individual mandate in the healthcare bill, right?

            Sheesh, I thought this was RedState.com, not Red-as-in-communist-style-government-mandates-State.com.

            I cannot believe some of the arguments being made here by pro-vaccine people…

        • streiff

          I’m also opposed to mandatory testing for ESP in people Alzheimer’s.

          I really don’t care what Libertarians think about a GOP candidate. If they mattered they’d have their own candidate to talk about.

        • Scope

          that alot of people agree with you, with no backup statistics, you are using the liberal way that the liberals argue. Everybody knows it is not an argument, it is a vet weak way of arguing your case. I can say that everybody loves spinach, but it doesn’t make it true.

    • Doc Holliday

      you came here to trash ALL Republicans and those with a clue know that. Why you still can post here is something I can not fathom. Any quick check of your posting history shows you try to tamp down support for whatever Republican gains favor here. You never say a thing against your saint obama. You can fool some of us, but you can never fool all of us.

      Are we clear?

      • luvnthebigsites

        Agreed. Somebody whip out the “blamstick”. I’m bored with “regs” posts.

        • Doc Holliday

          .

      • Reg

        It’s nice to see so many engaging in thoughtful discussion and not brainless campaigning for your guy.

        Check the archived sites. I’ve been around a long time.

        • luvnthebigsites

          Your post is comprehensive and irrelevant. Did you post it to win conservative hearts and minds?

          • Reg

            Politicians say when they start running for president, and ignore what they did while in office.

          • luvnthebigsites

            This Herman Cain supporter pays close attention to politicians that can admit they were wrong. (That goes for Redstate posters that veer of the reservation too) you should try it.

      • mikeymike143

        who savages the front runners for the republicans. but i have yet to see him say a cross word about obama. and i will echo the comments of several other people and wonder why the ban hammer hasnt landed yet?

        • Reg

          His presidency is a failure and it should end in 2O12.

          If criticizing republicans for their stupid, statist decisions is prohibited, feel free to ban me.

          Otherwise quit whining that somebody on the internet disagrees with you. Grow up.

          • acat

            Who, if not Perry, should we support?

            Mew

          • Reg

            There’s no reason to pick a guy now. I thought pawlenty was the best,but nobody was willing to accept his reversals on universal coverage or cap and trade like they are so eager to do for Perrys numerous mistakes.

            I’d vote for any of these guys, but I’m tired of gritting my teeth while filling the oval for the nominee. I really just want somebody competent and reasonably conservative, not flashy, who can wipe the floor with Barack in the general election.

          • acat

            In alphabetical order, the believable candidates are:

            Bachmann
            Paul
            Perry
            Romney

            Say something good about each one, please.

            Mew

          • Reg

            When its months until he election, and nothing discussed now will make any difference in the general election.

            Bachmann is conservative, Paul is libertarian, Romney is electable, Perry is electable.

            I have never criticized bachmanns conservatism or Perrys electability.

            those are good things. I want both though, conservative and electable. I don’t see it yet.

          • acat

            You seem awfully defensive. This isn’t hard. Let me get you started.

            Ron Paul is a small-government candidate, and has consistently been a vocal proponent of cutting the size of the federal bureaucracy for his entire political career.

            That’s how it’s done. Now, you try Romney.

            Mew

          • luvnthebigsites

            .

          • congressworksforus

            Far too early to be picking candidates.

            The biggest problem is that the earlier the field narrows, the sooner the LSM gets to start pillorying whomever we’re left with.

            From a policy perspective, the more candidates in the arena, the more likely we are to have substantive debates. If we boil down to the four politicians you mention, and exclude someone like Herman Cain who brings an entirely different perspective, the sooner the LSM starts controlling the subject of the debate. (And I mean the whole process, not the televised nonsense.)

            I really don’t understand why we’re so quick to discard people either.

            Frankly, if we’d all been around in 1980, Carter would have gotten a second term because Bush would have beaten Reagan for the nomination.

          • luvnthebigsites

            If your going to comment on a scrambled thread like this… Make sure your ducks are in a row. If your rolling with Reg… You hold bad company… FYI.

          • acat

            I want to know that Reg can say anything positive about *any* of them.

            So far, he hasn’t managed the feat.

            Mew

        • acat

          I am not a moderator, nor am I anyone’s sock puppet but ..

          If you have an issue with moderation, it belongs in e-mail.

          Silly season is upon us and yes, there are trolls in the woods, but there are also properly licensed hunters.

          Mew

      • briang

        If only one opinion is allowed, why do we even have a comment section?
        People should simply respond to Reg’s points and leave the personal attacks out.
        If people like the idea of state-run health care vaccinating kids they can let everyone know. If they want to leave these sorts of matters up to the individuals, well this is the place to voice their opinion.

        • gekster

          Some people do engage in debate, and quite fiesty at times.
          Alot of posters have legit disagreements, and alot simply agree to desagree.

          In the case of Mr. Reg, for the past few days all he has engaged in is bashing the percieved front runner for the Republican nomination.
          When it looked like Bachmann was going to be a favorite, he started slaming her, and even wrote a diary doing as much.
          Now he is on a slamming Perry spree, and it is not going over very well for him.
          He doesn’t want debate, he wants conflict.
          It’s his choice.
          That’s just my opinion.

          • Reg

            You seem to be drinking a lot of it.

            This cult of personality crap is what makes politics dangerous. We are electing a government official to manage the largest most powerful country in history. Once you let your guard down and buy into campaign rhetoric and superficial posing, you become part of the problem. Take a very hard look at who you vote for, without the rose colored glasses.

          • gekster

            Who is your choice, and why.

    • grateful_red

      do you do “STD screens” —

      Do you do a cervical exam of all the girls and swab for chlymidia and gonarrhea?

      Do you do a VDRL (which has a pretty high false positive rate) for Syphilus?

      Do you do a urethal swab (up the penis) for the boys for GC/Chlymidia?

      How do you screen for HSV which isn’t always evident?

      Do you give everone a HIV test? Did you know that the statndard preliminary HIV test has more false positives than true positives? (that’s why we always run a second more sensitive and specific one)

      Do you have any idea how much this would cost to impliment?

      Overall there are MUCH more effective ways to spend public health dollars that would save MANY more lives and prevent a much larger number of diseases (smoking cessation for the kids? anyone? anyone? Bueller?)

      • grateful_red

        As a health professional (surgeon)

        If I had a daughter – I’d get her vaccinated for HPV, Hep B and everything else.

        At the same time I completely respect your right not to. Everything, even crossing the street, has risk.

        The manditory vaccines like pertussis (whooping cough) protect us from contagious, potentially deadly diseases. There is a small segment 2-5% of the population that can not develop adequate immunity from the vaccine. Therefore to protect these individuals it is critical that all get vaccinated….. not so with HPV.

        • Reg

          Vaccination doesn’t exist when its not necessary for the effectiveness of the vaccine in others.

          Std testing was offered as a similar thought experiment about how far Perry excusers would go in permitting mandated health procedures for kids. Happily, a mandate isn’t feasible, but Some crisis pregnancy centers and other programs do offer std testing for kids, which is a good thing.

          • streiff

            oh, that’s right. It isn’t communicable. I guess it’s bad that the polio vax is mandatory.

          • Reg

            Like day care centers.

            How do you think you get polio?

            If I’m wrong, and you can get HPV from kids who don’t wash their hands properly, I’ll change my opinion. But those facts werent in front of Perry when he made his decision, so my opinion of Perry wouldn’t change.

          • streiff

            in fact, not particularly close to true. You should read Wikipedia more carefully before commenting.

          • grateful_red

            Is fecal -oral transmission or oral -oral transmission and is highly transmissible

            The active form (pathogenic) of the virus has all but been replaced in the western hemisphere by the attenuated oral vaccine form. Hence the fact that there hasn’t been a case of paralytic polio in the last half dozen decades..

            As far as I know you can only find polio in the UAE and some other countries on the saudi peninsula…. In the un-immunized it is EASILY transmitted.

            Polio like smallpox, may be a disease we can eradicate in our lifetime…

            We almost had TB beat too.. :-(

  • gekster

    From one percieved front runner to the other percieved front runner.
    I don’t think we’ve had a tribble this versatile before.
    And you do seam versitle.
    tribble one (arc_utah) would be proud.

    (and your post shows that you have a problem paying attention,
    or at the least with reading).

    • gekster

      …..

  • kevinsoberg

    This article covers many of the concerns over Perry’s Gardasil Decision. However, two major concerns were either barely touched on or were ignored altogether.
    The first concerns the question of when government should interfere in an individual’s life. The assumption of the writer is that because a federal agency recommended the vaccine, it automatically validates a government requirement of it. Is that so? There are many illness for which there exist vaccines, but a relative few are mandated by the government. Who are these mandated vaccines for? Under what conditions are they mandated? What has been the accepted rationale for their mandate? These vaccines are only mandated for school age children attending public school because these illnesses are spread by environmental or casual contact. No other vaccines are required of anyone, unless they are a healthcare worker. Now, knowing all this, does it not beg the question: Why would Governor Perry not follow this long-used rationale when deciding to issue his executive order?
    There can only be one answer to that question: Perry believes government may do what he believes is right. This is the same man who has (correctly) criticized President Obama and Congressional Democrats for trying to extend the reach of the federal government. This makes Perry a hypocrite. Period. Another question is “What was Perry’s motivation for his executive order?”
    The question of Perry’s motivation includes a couple of elements: the reason, the timing and the rush. Perry made his order following the election, but had not mentioned at any time during the campaign. The order was made during the school year, which meant it would not effectively go into action until the next school year. The order was made without any previous public hearings by the executive or the legislature.
    If it wasn’t vetted, wouldn’t be immediately effective, and had not been an issue during the election, then why the rush? I cannot know for certain, but I have my suspicions. This leads to the concern overlooked in the article: Perry received campaign money from Merck (the manufacturer of the vaccine) and his former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, had become a lobbyist for Merck.
    So, is it as simple as Governor Perry overstepping without forethought, as his admirers would have us believe? Or did Governor Perry plan to pay off a political ally and a donator with state money while throwing out all concerns for the proper action of government? Those are the most important concerns of nthis whole matter, and they were not even addressed.

    • gekster

      …………………………

      • kevinsoberg

        You say these concerns have been addressed elsewhere. So what?
        This is an original posting, which attempts to be comprehensive. However, it wasn’t. Not only that, the two greatest concerns we should have as conservatives were not even listed. If someone were to read this and nothing else, he would be ill informed.
        Instead of telling me others have asked these same questions somewhere else, tell me the answers. Otherwise, you’re writing simply to see your handle posted, along with your little mantra/diatribe.

        • gekster

          Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry
          It’s on the very top on the right.

          And I was trying to be informative.
          Where you got what you got I don’t have a clue.
          Getting snarky with me does no good, I don’t give a crap.
          And I don’t need to see my handle, I know who I am, and that is not a mantr/diatribe,
          It’s my sig line.

          • izoneguy
          • kevinsoberg

            So what if they’ve been addressed. They have not been answered. I live in Texas. This man has been my governor for 10+ years. He never answered the points I bring up when this whole thing occurred 4 years ago. All he did was apologize.
            To those of you in other states, Perry may sound like a conservative. In Texas, he is the epitome of Establishment Republican. His is tied to and funded by large corporate interests. Look carefully. Ultimately, he may be the best we have, but don’t fall for his cult of personality’.
            We are conservatives. We are supposed to seriously believe in things. I hope we do. Otherwise, we are no better then the Statists.

          • gekster

            Nothing could be easier.

          • Scope

            if this isn’t that other guys brother, cousin, or meet up partner.

          • gekster

            lost count of nts

          • Reg

            Search in Google site:archive.redstate.com reg

            You’ll see I’ve been around longer than you.

            I can’t find the archive for tacitus old site, or Id send you there.

            You guys need to get a life.

          • gekster

            Niether scope nor I referenced you in our little exchange.
            There was another guy posting as kevinsoberg is, and it ain’t you.
            again I will ask, by the way.
            who do you support and tell why.

            Oh. and claiming conservative by being long on RS is the same as claiming to be a mechanic because you own a garage.

          • Reg

            2004 discussion on who leads the party if bush loses. I’ve been pushing pawlenty for 7 years. No wonder I’m bitter.

            Archives.redstate.com/story/2004/8/20/8339/85313

          • Reg

            Archive.redstate.com/story/2004/8/20/8339/85313

          • Reg

            I’m for hoping somebody not yet in the race.

            Go read my last diary, where I lay it all out.

            If you read what I’ve posted here over the past decade, maybe you’ll stop questioning my motives and actually say something substantive, which I have het to see from you.

          • gekster

            Don’t want to say it’s Ron Paul, then don’t.

          • Scope

            that anyone has fallen for is Ron Paul. And it sounds as though you prefer one Texan over another. Why don’t you just come out and say it. I’ve found it diconcerting that Paul, and his supporters have much more to say about the other Republican candidates, yet little criticism goes toward Obama and the liberals.

          • Reg

            Paul isn’t the guy. He’s not electable and hes disqualified because he opposes a strong military.

            Although, he is exactly right on ending the federal reserve, and deserves a lot of credit for making the position mainstream.

    • Scope

      and I will tell you why. Merck donated a paltry $6,000. to Perry, which is pocket change compared to Perry’s unbeatable ability for fundraising. He was able to garner more donations for the Republican Governors Assoc than Haley Barbour, who was seen as a pro in that area. Perry has always been a prodigious fundraiser. Do you really believe that any Governor would propose anything based on a peasley $6,000. donation. Again, your argument lacks any merit.

      • kevinsoberg

        Your sole argument against my supposition is the amount of the direct donation given to Perry’s campaign by Merck. I was not my only argument. You did not react to Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff, being employed as a lobbyist by Merck. You did not react to the timing. You did not respond to the by-passing of the legislature. What was the rush? Why not go through the legislature?
        Oh, here’s something I left out earlier: Perry’s chief of staff in 2007 was Deidre Delisi. Her mother, Diane White Delisi, was the state director of Women in Government, an advocacy group. Women in Government received funding from Merck as a part of its lobbying. Also, an executive of Merck sat on Women in Politics business council.
        That seems like a lot of connections between the governor and Merck. But maybe that’s just me…

        • gekster

          That was enough to …..oh, why bother.

    • westcoastpatriette

      Follow the Merck money. That could be THE reason he tried to ram it through by executive order. Payback to pharmaceutical lobbyists. If that is the case, that makes his hypocrisy even more diabolical pre-
      tending he cares so much about cervical cancer in our preteen girls.

      • gekster

        from:
        http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20459
        excerpt:
        Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) says that it’s just a coincidence that he and eight other lawmakers received donations of $5,000 each from Merck lobbyists

        Yeah, that donation alone put him over the top to be a millionare.
        In polatics, $5,000 is not that much to risk a political career on, don’t ya think.

        • izoneguy

          Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick?Perry

          There are still some who are convinced that Merck contributed more than a paltry $6,000 to Perry. They are simply wrong. Merck gave two checks, one for $1,000 and another for $5,000 to Perry in the 2006 election timeframe (in 2008, they contributed a whopping $2,500). Here is a source to view all of Perry?s contributions:

          ProPublica.

          In fact, Merck has only contributed $23,500 to Perry over a 1998-2010 span, not exactly George Soros money. For comparison, from 2000-2006 Merck gave $2,460,000 to state politicians across 40 states.

        • westcoastpatriette

          You, streiff and izoneguy are like talking to a stonewall. It’s almost eerie your knee-jerk defense of Perry’s questionable behavior.

          You say Perry says that it’s just a coincidence that he and eight other lawmakers received donations of $5,000 each from Merck lobbyists. Let’s see: 9 x $5,000 = $45,000. But all evidence gets a “so what” from you guys. I don’t get it. And the insults take away from your arguments.

          • gekster

            I’m sorry if you see an insult in my above comment.
            I must have missed it.
            I was trying to be informative.
            Perry got a total of $6,000 for that one campaighn.
            like I said, thats not much in the political sense, and certainly not enough to ruin ones career over.

            You did say follow the Merk money.
            I did and posted what I found.
            And I don’t think that the other politicians gave there donations to Perry,
            as your math seams to imply.
            It just seams that if Perry did something wrong, the Merk money would be at the bottom of that list.
            Sorry if you saw an insult. It wasn’t ment to be, just information.

          • westcoastpatriette

            I have to admit I am coming from a really cynical place but with good reason. I am tired of being manipulated and lied to by phony politicians and I am just seeing all kinds of RINO-like elitism in Perry’s past. I don’t trust him already. But I try to keep an open mind.

          • Reg

            The Tea Party is meant to change the culture and get real about the financial condition of our government. Not build a new campaign group for more phoney baloneys.

          • gekster

            Please forgive me, but for the last couple of days I have been dealing with people who would rather trot out a persons bad qualities and totally overlook thier good qualities.
            I can’t complain, it has been by choice.
            It seams some want to come here and rip apart everyone who might look good, to score brownie points or something, I don’t kow,
            but it is very frustrating.
            They seam to relish in tearingdown who they don’t like, and not one word about who the do or might like. (I call that person a tribble)
            If they don’t like some one, how hard would it be to just say
            “I don’t like x, but I like y, and here are my reasons.
            I think the debate would go much farther, and be more fulfilling,
            if we did that, and not the shred mill we have been seeing.
            As for me, I have not picked a candidate, and when I do, I will not say.
            I want the voters to be informed about a candidate, and not vote for or against on just my say so.
            And I feel a need to stand up for candidates who get needlessly atacked
            just because it seams to be the easiest for some to do.
            And perchance dear, if you find that one candidate with no flaws at all, let me know and I just might openly support her/him.
            Till then, lets live with the minor imperfections and say why we like some one, and not fall all over ourselves trashing the ones we don’t.
            (Ron Paul is the one exception, IMHO)

          • westcoastpatriette

            I found some more documentation relating to illegal immigration and Perry today and it really has me bummed out because I really want to like Perry and I do see some good things in him.

            I won’t go into detail now but I will at another time. But just remember, you guys. Those of us who live in border states–Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California have strong feelings about this issue as we have seen first hand the horrendous damage the open- border, sanctuary, non-enforcement policies have inflicted on our states. So, don’t be surprised when other Conservatives come out strongly to confront Perry on this.

          • westcoastpatriette

            nt

          • Scope

            the biggest donor to the Ron Paul campaign in the 08 season was Google. Isn’t Google married to Obama at this time. Haven’t they been investigated in many countries, including the US, for more than overstepping their boundries with respct to privacy issues? I expect an answer to this. You all can’t run away from any arguments you have no explanation for. Answer that question? I also expect you to address the support Paul has gotten from the Texas shrimpers, because he has been “subsidizing” that industry for years, through earmarks.

          • westcoastpatriette

            So, what’s your point about Google and Ron Paul? And how is Google being investigated for overstepping their boundaries with respect to privacy issues related to Perry ramming through an executive order to pay back lobbyists and donors? I don’t like any corruption and you are talking as if I am making excuses for Ron Paul and his earmarks–which I have said nothing about.

            Are you nuts? Demanding answers for irrelevant drivel in an accusatory manner.

    • streiff

      1. those points weren’t addressed because, charitably, they’re silly.

      The CDC via the ACIP establishes which vaccines should be mandatory. Then it is up to individual states to enact laws/regs to codify which vaccines they will require. The rationale for the ACIP’s decision is linked to in the story. So the rest of your first point is pretty much a non sequitur.

      2. The Merck money is little more than bull****. He received $6K from Merck. It has received lots of press coverage. If you want to continue to peddle this claptrap you’ll have to go to dKos or TPM or someplace that wants to listen.

      • kevinsoberg

        Great they’re silly. Brilliant argument.
        The CDC recommends via ACIP, but they do not determine which vaccines become mandatory. In the state of Texas, that is the job of the state legislature. Perry’s executive order by-passed the legislative process. Why would he do that? It wasn’t as if it were going to be implemented immediately. Might it be he was hoping it would go through quietly following the election? We don’t have any other explanation because Perry took so much heat he caved in and apologized without any defense of his actions.
        The matter of his connections to Merck don’t live or die with the amount of money involved. There were other ties to the Governor’s office than through the campaign. Again ignored are his former chiefs of staff’s ties to Merck, and the influence possibly exerted through them.
        Once again, everyone wants to ignore what his actions tell us about his attitudes about the use of government power. We already have a president who tries to rule through executive order. We already have a president who has his favorite corporations.
        This is not the only instance of Perry acting favorably towards certain business interests. Government should not favor anyone over another.
        If these arguments are so laughable, then ignore them.
        BTW I’m not tied to any one candidate right now, but if I were to pick a personal favorite, it would be Thad McCotter. Brilliant, funny, well spoken, conservative.

      • Scope

        It is less than 3 individuals are allowed, by law, to contribute to a candidate.

    • streiff

      You have made an allegation that Perry committed a felony under state and federal law. Post proof that Perry signed the executive order as a payoff or retract the allegation in an unambiguous fashion.

      You have until noon Eastern to comply. If you haven’t I’ll have to assume you refuse to do so.

      • kevinsoberg

        You’re “put up or shut up” offer is invalid, and you avoid, as has everyone, the main point.
        You do not set the term of any debate into which I enter. Additionally, it is you who have libeled me with you accusation.

        Here are the facts:
        1) I HAVE NEVER alleged that Gov. Perry and Merck had an illegal arrangement for the direct purchase of the executive order in exchange for campaign contributions.
        2) I HAVE noted that there were legal political contributions made by Merck.
        3) I HAVE noted that two of his former chiefs of staff had connections to Merck, one direct and and one indirect.
        4) I HAVE noted that Gov. Perry acted in a way inconsistent with prior governors when he by-passed the legislature and signed his executive order.
        5) I HAVE noted the the unusual timing of the order’s issuance, immediately following his inauguration to his second full term in office.
        6) I HAVE noted the questionable status of his executive order under Texas law and the Texas constitution.
        7) I HAVE noted that there were no extenuating circumstances given as a reason for the executive order’s necessity.
        8) I HAVE noted the public’s hostility to the order, once they became aware of it.
        9) I DID NOT note that both chambers of the state legislature (both controlled by the Republicans) passed measures condemning Gov. Perry’s order.
        10) I HAVE noted that Gov. Perry quickly rescinded his order and apologized, after the public (and legislative) backlash.
        11) I HAVE noted that all of Gov. Perry’s public statements concerning his apology had to do with the nature of the order (the vaccine), and not with his legal authority to issue such an order.
        12) I HAVE noted that Gov. Perry has never admitted to executive overreach in his issuance of such an order.
        13) I HAVE questioned what this set of events (along with others) tells us about Gov. Perry’s attitudes toward executive power.

        Now that I have gone through the facts of what I HAVE and HAVE NOT said, you may either tell me where I am materially incorrect or you may offer your apology for your libel against me.
        From this point on, I would advise you to add something constructive to the conversation or refrain from entering it.

        If you don’t think lobbyists and campaign contributions have any influence over elected officials, I have some unicorn dust for sale.

        Companies and interest groups hire lobbyists for a purpose. Campaign contributions are given for a reason. If they were not in some way effective, why would they spend the money? It doesn’t make it illegal, it only makes it questionable.

        • izoneguy

          Go work off your excess energy to fight ObamaCare.

          You think Rick Perry’s mandating of shots dis-qualifies him for
          running for President?

          Then “mandating” an all inclusive healthcare plan should
          take Mitt and Obama – right out of the race.

        • streiff

          that is a sad misapprehension on your part, one that, quite honestly, I’ve been waiting to rectify.

          This is a site for the discussion of politics. It is not a site for the retailing of baldfaced lies about public figures. You apparently either can’t tell the difference or lack the common decency to relent when called to stop your smear campaign.

          So you are free to carry on this assault on commonsense some other place but you will not do it here.

          • izoneguy

            No “smoking gun” between Merck and Perry were found HPV e-mails

            The HPV files: In emails, Perry mostly absent

            In the meantime, Perry seems to have been vindicated on the question of whether he rushed into a policy other states would never embrace: The National Council of State Legislatures reports that 20 states now have some legislation regarding the vaccine.

        • Scope

          right beside the definition of arrogant. No one sets the terms of the debate that he enters! I think he just read that off one of Obama’s teleprompters.

        • Tbone

          LOL

  • jerry39

    But its not the case to my knowledge that other vaccines are mandatory and this was just one of many. Not in Ohio anyway, no vaccines are mandatory. Maybe in Texas that is the case, but that doesn’t mean much to people in other states.

    • kevinsoberg

      http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3313.67
      http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3313.671

      Above are the links to Ohio state law concerning childhood vaccinations, both under the legal pertaining to Public School Education.
      The issues I brought up were not specific to Texas. They pertain to all Americans. Do you want a President who believes he has final say (like our current one) and may rule by executive order? Can you trust a President who seems to be directly influenced by corporate campaign donations? I would hope not.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    is to take down one Great Right Hope after another by hanging seemingly RINO baggage around their necks? Farm subsidies? Stimulus? Vaccinations?

    See a pattern?

    Who is this designed to dis-spirit?

    • Reg

      About Perrys judgment and conservatism. Quit questioning motives, and drop the cult of personality garbage. Really, Perry is our great hope? I thought it was the brilliance of our founding fathers and the character of the American people. But what do I know, I’m just some guy on the internet.

      • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

        Bachman goes to #1, the smear machine digs up her RINO warts. Perry takes the lead, and the same thing happens. Rinse. Repeat.

        Do you notice who is pushing this and wonder why?

      • lineholder

        ..

        • gekster

          can’t ya tell. ;)

          • lineholder

            around RS.

          • Reg

            And I still like it. Kerry was such a tool.

            I haven’t found a good Obama one yet that I like better. I’ll take suggestions.

    • kevinsoberg

      I would hate to think I put all my hope in any one person. Ideas are important. Politicians aren’t.
      We’ve spent the last 2.5 years having to deal with the ONE we’ve been saddled with. Quit looking for a ONE of our own.
      We don’t need a messiah, we need a consistent, principled conservative. He does not have to be perfect, white or male, nor must he have a ‘perfect’ record. What he must have is integrity.
      Obama and the Democrats have messed things so much, we don’t need to settle for an Establishment guy, a squish or a corporate crony. Seize the opportunity to pick a CONSERVATIVE.
      Reagan did not get elected because he spoke well. It was the ideas.

    • Scope

      it is not only the left going after Perry. The Paulies have proven that they would rather destroy every other R candidate other than Paul. I wish people would stop saying that everyone against Perry is obviously a liberal. If you don’t recognize that the Paul supporters are out ten fold against Perry, we will be sunk. As Rush said, this guy needs to go before he destroys the entire Republican party. He, and his cohorts, have made it their goal to change the Republican party into their libertarian utopian image. Back off acat.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    so the GOP should just stay home.

    Worked in 2008.

    • kevinsoberg

      The media can report or ignore, be straight or spin it, but it cannot control your thinking.
      If a candidate has a couple of imperfections, so what? We all do. However, if a candidate has instance after instance of shady, questionable, or statist behavior, it ‘s time to re-examine your backing.
      Do not put all your chickens in one basket, or your hope in one person. None of these candidates is indispensable.
      The only indispensable people in this election are going to be us. We only need a leader, not a Fuhrer.

      • Scope

        a Fuhrer it is Ron Paul. Paul has his own utopian idea of what this country “should” be. He has been rejected time and again, but keeps coming back to promote is ideas. Think about it for a minute. Paul was asked in the latest debate if he could get his plans through the Congress. He really had no answer. He knows darn well that what he is promoting has no more a chance than the man in the moon, they are all empty promises. So, how would Paul get his plans through? Would he just appoint Czars, or sign Executive Orders in order to retool the country into what he wants it to be? How does Paul deliver on his promises other than by mandate or edict?

    • Menlo

      That is what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is claiming, and I suspect that’s how they perceive it.

      Of course, she was also claiming Obama was “in remarkably good shape” the same day his approval hit its record low.

      She really is the gift that keeps on giving.

  • kevinsoberg

    Just a thought for the Mensa members out there who think they can counter every argument against their candidate by saying it has been covered in the past. That only works for the media’s favored Democrat candidates. Reporters yawn when shown something which had been previously covered.
    It does not work for Republicans. When did they bring up GW Bush’s arrest for DWI? The weekend before the election? When did they bring up the fake AWOL papers? During the convention. Nothing ever goes away for Republicans, ab when it is brought back up, it’s as if it had never been seen before.
    So, this is our opportunity to vet our candidates. We need to go over this stuff as if it were new, and get satisfactory answers, not just excuses. If not now, we know when.

    • Scope

      which I promise, everything you have brought up, has been hashed and rehashed here, time and time again. You keep wanting to keep your talking points in the spotlight, just so if the lies, deceit, and misstatements will become the truth if you say it often enough. That is a very old, and worn out game, mostly used by the liberals. It has been scary just how much the Paulies have been willing to use the liberal tactics, even against their own. I say their own only to the point that Paul is fraudulenty using the Republican party as his vehicle. He is nothing even close to a Republican, and he is even less of a conservative. He is a fraud, that is just using the Republican party, pure and simple. He knows the Libertarian party has no chance, as was proven with his run as a Libertarian in 1988. That was when he said he was leaving the Republican party, hw had had enough of the Republicans. That was the same time he said that Ronald Reagan was a total failure as President.

      • Scope

        he again knocks the Democrats and the Republicans as being one and the same. The idiot has been in Washington for more than 20 years, as a REPUBLIAN. He has accomplished absolutely nothing, zip, zero, nada. Why has he been running as a Republican when he is so anti-Republican, and so anti-American?

    • runner12

      Perry already addressed the issue and admitted he was wrong. No candidate is perfect. There are several things that I do not like about Perry (the Gardasil issue being one of them), but there are also some things I really like about him.

      Listen, in a perfect world Sen. Jim DeMint would be running for President and choose either Senator Rubio or Senator Rand Paul for VP. But that is not our current reality.

      As I said before, we can vet oir candidates but we cannot throw bricks at one person because we are shillimg for another.

      • Scope

        rather than the constant bashing of the candidate that he doesn’t like. It’s that simple. This is not vetting. There is vetting and then there is vetting. There has been so much posted here at RS about the Gardasil issue that if you want to know about the issue you can 1) do your own research, 2) read the copious amount of information that has been posted here already. The issue has been addressed over and over again, no? The guy said that he is not satisfied with Perry’s explanation, and he is not satisfied with his apology. You don’t have to agree with any of it, but, what goal is there to keeping the issue in the limelight? You accept it, or you don’t, period. He said that he wants the issue out there yet again, because he doesn’t want it to die out. Why? Please explain why the issue has to be discussed ad nauseum here at RS?

        • kevinsoberg

          Remember when you were a kid, and you were busted for doing something you weren’t supposed to? What was the first thing you would say? It was probably “I’m sorry!” If you had a smart-alec like my father, you would have been asked “Sorry for what you did, or sorry for getting caught?” With my dad, you had better know the difference.
          Well, guess what? I want to know why Perry apologized for his actions. Was he “sorry” because people didn’t like the policy, or was he “sorry” because he over-stepped his constitutional authority as governor? There is sure as heck a difference between the two.
          Every explanation I’ve read was really a justification for his actions. He was sorry for upsetting parents, but his motives were pure. Well, I have another of my father’s favorite sayings “The road to He** is paved with good intentions.”
          So, one more time for the short-bussers, what is his explanation for subverting the constitution of Texas? Why did he think he could pass law without the legislature? What does this tell us about his attitudes about executive power, before he ascends to the highest office in the land?
          Are these really inconsequential questions, if we believe in the rule of law?

          • acat

            (cue Jeopardy music)

    • Tbone

      hire some smart people to help you string 3 thoughts together, investigate your concerns, come back here and present your conclusions for our amusement.

      As it is now, you have become as welcome a fart in an elevator.

      • gekster

        It’s not working, but he and a few others a really trying hard.

        (and if he does go away, he can stay away for all I care)

        • acat

          or if it’s modernized, and he gets paid for every day until he gets banned or gives up?

          Mew

  • kevinsoberg

    If you don’t like the answers, don’t ask the questions.
    If you don’t like the questions, maybe it’s because your answers aren’t good enough.
    If you don’t like your candidate being questioned, maybe you should get another candidate?
    If your candidate doesn’t like being questioned, maybe he should get a new career?
    When I ask a string of questions, they are all valid. You don’t get to answer one and go home. If so, you lose. One point doesn’t make an argument.
    If you can’t answer the question, better to not reply.
    Just because you gave me AN answer, doesn’t make it THE answer.
    If you don’t like the free exchange of ideas, go hang out on your candidate’s site. It’s nice and pretty and no one disagrees. Like Castro’s Cuba.

    • gekster

      Perry is lowlife scum.
      He should be tarred and feathered, hung and then shot.
      And after that, we really get mean.

      Alltogether now;
      I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :) I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :)
      I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :) I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :)
      I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :) I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :)
      I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :) I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :)
      I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :) I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :)
      I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :) I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :)
      I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :) I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :)
      I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :) I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :)
      I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :) I hate Perry, Rick Perry sucks. :)

      • gekster

        Now put your helmet on, climb on the bus, and give the laptop back to the grownup.

      • kevinsoberg

        I’ve never said I hate Gov Perry. I have voted for him four times in the general elections (once for Lt Gov).
        I don’t understand the anger directed at someone for simply asking questions. No, they have not been answered. Instead, I have been belittled for asking them, and my motives impugned.
        I’ll leave you alone to wallow in your self-satisfaction. Enjoy.

        • runner12

          People have responded to you and provided you with the information you requested. You are free to disagree with it, but you do not need to keep repeating it over and over again.

          If you have any suggestions as to what more Perry could have said, that would be a discussion. You could even compare and contrast Perry to another candidate you feel would be a better fit for the GOP nod. These are points of discussion and debate. Simply repeating over and over again how much you disagree with Perry is counter-productive and generates no meaningful dialogue. It actually makes you appear disingenuous.

        • gekster

          You have asked the question, and are not satisfied with the answers given, And you keep spamming the same question.
          Your not happy with the answers posters have given you, you are not happy with the explanation Perry has, you are just not happy.
          And you are not being attacked, after all of that, you are being played.
          The fact that you can’t see that,
          Well, just keep asking the same question, keep refusing the answers.
          Have it any way you want.

  • ihateliberals

    seems to be the way Perry bends. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat that turn Republican but the difference of Perry and Reagan is that Regan was always the conservative and Perry is a RINO. A RINO is neither conservative or liberal they end up[ being whatever it takes to keep getting elected. I have more respect for a liberal than a RINO. At least you know were the liberal stands.

    • streiff

      If you think Perry is a RINO you probably should start hanging out at Ron Paul’s website where all those in favor of free dope, buggery, and federal pork can commisserate.

  • jkines

    http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=vaccine

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/us-measles-outbreak_n_866846.html

    Vaccination as an issue goes beyond personal choice, immunization lag caused by baseless fears only leads to epidemics of diseases easily controlled.

  • maxwell105

    First, Perry did this because of connections to Merck via someone who worked in his administration. This is why many have attacked him for cronyism.

    Second, parents should ALWAYS have the final say in whether or not their child get a vaccine. There are a plethora of reasons to refuse vaccination. There are issues of safety including problems with toxic ingredients in the vaccines such as mercury, formaldehyde, etc.

    Then there are religious reasons as well. Some vaccines are produced via human cells from aborted fetuses. MRC-5 is one cell line taken from an aborted human fetus which is used to make several vaccines such as the MMR, Hepatitis A, and Chicken Pox vaccines. The package inserts for these vaccines state that the vaccines may contain fragments of human DNA and cells from the fetus that was used. This is something most have never heard of, but those that know this often will refuse the vaccine on religious grounds.

    Overall, this gives me more reason to never vote for Perry.

    • streiff

      upthread.

      If you have evidence that this happened because of a campaign contribution or “connections” to Merck, present them. Otherwise, as you’ve alleged a felony was committed I’m going to require a complete, unambiguous retraction.

      Second, your beliefs notwithstanding, the government does have the authority to require immunizations.

      Third, your assertions about mercury are sheer idiocy.

      Fourth, Perry doesn’t run a pharmaceutical company and the MMR, Hep A and chickepox vax are required in all states.

      The majority of this I’ll let slide as the idiocy it is. You have until noon to do the retraction.

      • maxwell105

        I must have been hallucinating……..Gee..What was I thinking? Of course no politician would ever do anything out of corruption or influence from big business.

        OH! And of course mercury is never a problem. I’ll just go take a swig of it with my cereal.

        And, I must be out of my mind to think a person ever has the freedom to refuse a vaccine! I’m just totally off the wall! Of course the government can force us to do anything and everything. I must have forgotten that this is the USSR. Somehow I thought we lived in the USA! SILLY ME!

        As always you are TOTALLY RIGHT!

        • streiff

          don’t say you weren’t given a fair chance to repent.

          You can go peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

  • izoneguy
  • izoneguy