stick a fork in him

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-has-deep-financial-ties-to-maker-of-hpv-vaccine/2011/09/13/gIQAVKKqPK_story.html?hpid=z2

The vaccine episode also underscores the close ties between Perry and his largest donors, many of whom have given millions of dollars to his campaigns and the RGA. In a report released Tuesday, Texans for Public Justice said that 32 percent of the $217 million collected at the RGA during the past five years, when Perry held several leadership roles with the group, came from 139 donors to his gubernatorial campaigns

[sumpnz]

You do realize that Merck didn't even make into the top 200 for campaign donations?

I don't know that much about Rick Perry but this is a tempest in a tea pot.  It's a distraction more than anything else.

Focus on his abuse of executive power with the EO mandating the vaccine, or his signing of a TX version of the DREAM Act.  Or other things like that.

[roo_ster]

You do realize that Merck didn't even make into the top 200 for campaign donations?

I don't know that much about Rick Perry but this is a tempest in a tea pot.  It's a distraction more than anything else.

Focus on his abuse of executive power with the EO mandating the vaccine, or his signing of a TX version of the DREAM Act.  Or other things like that.

Shh!  Don't confuse CSD with data when he has his "I H8 Texas" cap on.

I can think of a few reasons to be leery of Perry.  $5K from Merck is not one of them.  Neither is a conspiracy-theorist connecting of the dots tying Perry to the Bildbergers Republican Gov Assoc.

[grampster]

What's the problem?  Virtually everyone running for federal office is a corrupt/connected/shmoozed/pampered self centered person with a large ego.  If they are not so when running the first time, they will be in short order, with a few exceptions.

I never look at what they say, I look at what they do insofar as I am able.

I like Bachman.  America needs a cranky woman at the helm.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Shh!  Don't confuse CSD with data when he has his "I H8 Texas" cap on.

I can think of a few reasons to be leery of Perry.  $5K from Merck is not one of them.  Neither is a conspiracy-theorist connecting of the dots tying Perry to the Bildbergers Republican Gov Assoc.

didn't read the whole article?  hint  its not 5 k


His gubernatorial campaigns, for example, have received nearly $30,000 from the drugmaker since 2000, most of that before he issued his vaccine mandate, which was overturned by the Texas legislature.

Merck and its subsidiaries have also given more than $380,000 to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) since 2006, the year that Perry began to play a prominent role in the Washington-based group, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Perry served as chairman of the RGA in 2008 and again this year, until he decided to run for president. The group ranks among the governor’s biggest donors, giving his campaign at least $4 million over the past five years, according to Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group.

One of Perry’s closest confidantes, his former chief of staff Mike Toomey, was then working as an Austin-based lobbyist for Merck, which was in the midst of a multimillion-dollar campaign to persuade states to make the vaccine mandatory.

Toomey, who has declined requests for comment, has since helped found Make Us Great Again, a pro-Perry super PAC that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy donors. The group plans to raise as much as $55 million to help Perry compete for the GOP nomination, according to media reports.

Merck officials did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday about the company’s donations to Perry but issued a statement defending Gardasil’s safety and effectiveness.

[Balog]

If poli-critters were done every time they passed laws that benefited their campaign contributors there would be no poli-critters.

[HankB]

The HPV "mandate" was pretty much meaningless, as it was unenforceable. Governors - even TX governors - can't simply rule by fiat, and one man's word can't force people to get an injection.

So this was just plain dumb.

If you want to criticize Perry, focus on his continuing support for tuition discounts for illegal aliens, his lack of support for a border wall as one part of an anti-illegal-alien program, and his love of toll roads.

[longeyes]

The HPV "mandate" was pretty much meaningless, as it was unenforceable. Governors - even TX governors - can't simply rule by fiat, and one man's word can't force people to get an injection.

So this was just plain dumb.

If you want to criticize Perry, focus on his continuing support for tuition discounts for illegal aliens, his lack of support for a border wall as one part of an anti-illegal-alien program, and his love of toll roads.

+1

Perry looked lost a lot of the time last Monday night.  He's in danger of becoming a regional anomaly.

[sumpnz]

didn't read the whole article?  hint  its not 5 k


His gubernatorial campaigns, for example, have received nearly $30,000 from the drugmaker since 2000, most of that before he issued his vaccine mandate, which was overturned by the Texas legislature.

Merck and its subsidiaries have also given more than $380,000 to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) since 2006, the year that Perry began to play a prominent role in the Washington-based group, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Perry served as chairman of the RGA in 2008 and again this year, until he decided to run for president. The group ranks among the governor’s biggest donors, giving his campaign at least $4 million over the past five years, according to Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group.

One of Perry’s closest confidantes, his former chief of staff Mike Toomey, was then working as an Austin-based lobbyist for Merck, which was in the midst of a multimillion-dollar campaign to persuade states to make the vaccine mandatory.

Toomey, who has declined requests for comment, has since helped found Make Us Great Again, a pro-Perry super PAC that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy donors. The group plans to raise as much as $55 million to help Perry compete for the GOP nomination, according to media reports.

Merck officials did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday about the company’s donations to Perry but issued a statement defending Gardasil’s safety and effectiveness.

I didn't read that article, but have read others that apparently made similar claims.  Even at $30k they still didn't make the top 200 of campaign contributors.

Re the $380k to the RGA, how does that compare to the tenures of other governers and contributions from large corps that have benefited from policies/EO's/legislation passed in the respective state?  I haven't done the analysis myself, but I'd be shocked if it was statisically significantly different from other time periods.

As far as the lobbiest friend, how the heck do you think the vast majority of lobbiests get that position?  It ain't from being hated by all the prominent politicians.

None of this is exactly new, or surprising, and certainly not unique to Perry.  By comparison to Obama he's still a piker when it comes to this *expletive deleted*it.

[RaspberrySurprise]

Well if Merck was trying trying to buy Perry off they did a terrible job of it as after the fiasco ensued Perry apologized and admitted that he hadn't researched the issue enough and removed his order mandating the immunizations.

[Jamisjockey]

Well if Merck was trying trying to buy Perry off they did a terrible job of it as after the fiasco ensued Perry apologized and admitted that he hadn't researched the issue enough and removed his order mandating the immunizations.

How unpresidential.  As President, I hope he never apologizes for nor recinds his mistakes.  That way, he can be just like Bush and Barry.   

[makattak]

I believe Perry when he says he was just trying to save lives.

However, I look at the episode and see:

1)A man willing to ignore the legislative process because "it will save lives"
 
2)A man willing to demonize his opponents motives because they don't want to "save lives!"

3)A man who ignores all other considerations other than "it will save lives!"

In other words, all I see is "compassionate conservatism." His immigration stance fits here as well.

I've had enough "compassionate conservatism", thank you. I don't want compassion, I want the government to stop stealing from my child to pay for other people's "compassion."

[Jamisjockey]

I believe Perry when he says he was just trying to save lives.

However, I look at the episode and see:

1)A man willing to ignore the legislative process because "it will save lives"
 
2)A man willing to demonize his opponents motives because they don't want to "save lives!"

3)A man who ignores all other considerations other than "it will save lives!"

In other words, all I see is "compassionate conservatism." His immigration stance fits here as well.

I've had enough "compassionate conservatism", thank you. I don't want compassion, I want the government to stop stealing from my child to pay for other people's "compassion."

The top "frontrunners" all fit that bill.  I know who will get my vote in the GOP primary, but I think the fix is in and fully expect Perry or possibly Romney to get the nod.
Is it just me, or does Romney put off the "how dare he (Perry) challenge my turn!" vibe?

[makattak]

GAH!

And here's the article supporting my conclusion:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/in_focus&id=8354519

Look, Mr. Perry, allow me to quote another politician:

"...I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law."

Now, as I've said before, Perry is an acceptable candidate. He's not my first choice, and stuff like this only illustrates his negatives for me. (But he is the best of those running right now.)

[41magsnub]

Now, as I've said before, Perry is an acceptable candidate. He's not my first choice, and stuff like this only illustrates his negatives for me. (But he is the best of those running right now.)

I'd agree with that.  I'd take anybody currently running over McCain and of course over Obama.  It doesn't mean I'm jumping up and down with tears of joy over the candidates.

[Ron]

At this point I'm pretty confident I will not vote for Romney if he gets the nomination.

Hopefully my resolve will hold.

[longeyes]

I believe Perry when he says he was just trying to save lives.

However, I look at the episode and see:

1)A man willing to ignore the legislative process because "it will save lives"
 
2)A man willing to demonize his opponents motives because they don't want to "save lives!"

3)A man who ignores all other considerations other than "it will save lives!"

In other words, all I see is "compassionate conservatism." His immigration stance fits here as well.

I've had enough "compassionate conservatism", thank you. I don't want compassion, I want the government to stop stealing from my child to pay for other people's "compassion."

+1

Compassion has become code for soft Communism.

[Balog]

I believe Perry when he says he was just trying to save lives.

However, I look at the episode and see:

1)A man willing to ignore the legislative process because "it will save lives"
 
2)A man willing to demonize his opponents motives because they don't want to "save lives!"

3)A man who ignores all other considerations other than "it will save lives!"

In other words, all I see is "compassionate conservatism." His immigration stance fits here as well.

I've had enough "compassionate conservatism", thank you. I don't want compassion, I want the government to stop stealing from my child to pay for other people's "compassion."

The top "frontrunners" all fit that bill.  I know who will get my vote in the GOP primary, but I think the fix is in and fully expect Perry or possibly Romney to get the nod.
Is it just me, or does Romney put off the "how dare he (Perry) challenge my turn!" vibe?

I agre with both of the above.

[roo_ster]

Now, as I've said before, Perry is an acceptable candidate. He's not my first choice, and stuff like this only illustrates his negatives for me. (But he is the best of those running right now.)

Yep.

[TommyGunn]

At this point I'm pretty confident I will not vote for Romney if he gets the nomination.

Hopefully my resolve will hold.

Does this mean you will vote for Obama?  Or vote for Obama-by-proxy, since a vote for a third party candidate will help Obama?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.texassharon.com/2010/09/30/rick-perrys-patronage-nets-him-17-million/

Governor Rick Perry has received $17 million in campaign contributions from his political appointees and their spouses, according to a new report by Texans for Public Justice. One out of every $5 raised by Governor Perry since 2001 has come from appointees or their spouses


http://info.tpj.org/reports/pdf/Perry%20Patronage2010.pdf

[seeker_two]

Does this mean you will vote for Obama?  Or vote for Obama-by-proxy, since a vote for a third party candidate will help Obama?

http://archvillain.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/not-this-again.jpg?w=400&h=259

[makattak]

Does this mean you will vote for Obama?  Or vote for Obama-by-proxy, since a vote for a third party candidate will help Obama?

Ahem...

...Obama IS better than a moderate go-along-to-get-along Republican. That type of Republican will only slow our decent into the abyss, ensuring that conservatives are blamed for the collapse.

If we are to collapse, I want liberals clearly at fault. Otherwise, the rebuilding will be impossible.

Thus, unless we get a REAL conservative for the Republicans, I would prefer Obama win and complete his destruction of this nation.

...McCain only just barely got my vote. I wasn't really excited about voting for him, I swallowed my bile and did so.

McCain 2.0 (Or Dole 3.0, or GHWBush 4.0, whomever that may be, Romney is foremost in my mind) won't be getting my vote. Never again. (And if the party leaders knew how loyal a Republican I've been, they should be afraid.)

[birdman]

I'm going with the Buckley rule for this election, where my vote will go to the most conservative (from a constitutional standpoint, "social" conservatives don't fit this) ELECTABLE candidate.  Regardless of their personal views, I firmly believe that any one of the GOP candidates would be a signficant net positive vs Obama, and if the senate changes over as well, could possibly roll back some of the damage.  I think there are enough democrats and libertarian leaning GOP/tea party in the legislature to prevent any "too right wing" policies from being enacted, but without eliminating the Obama veto, any positive legislation is doomed.

Thus, regardless of who wins the GOP primary (I personally haven't decided yet) I WILL vote GOP, and I encourage others to do the same.  Unfortunately, if we don't have an ideal candidate, given the limitations congress would put on wackiness, any of the current ones would be preferable to 4 more years of Obama, if only to:
1. "stop the bad stuff" from an executive branch over-reach and roll back agency/department rules and regs.
2. Not veto positive legislation that will happen anyway, that has zero chance with Obama at the helm

Actually, at this point I would even prefer the "bag of hammers" candidate (well, provided it has an auto pen) as I think (provided Reid was gone and we got even a simple majority in the senate, and HR.1 was "revert all agency rules to Jan 19,2009") just signing everything would be sufficient.

Unfortunately ANY 3rd party votes, or even non-votes in the upcoming election will help retain Obama.

While I can see the logic in makattak's point of just accelerating the result, i don't think all is lost...you have people more interested in policy and politics now more than ever before, as they have seen what can go wrong, and perhaps that is enough to make things start trending better.  Basically, I have "hope" for "change"...in a good way, not the "change" I'll have left in my paycheck when BHO is done with it.

[TommyGunn]

Ahem...Quote from: makattak on August 11, 2011, 11:17:03 PM
...Obama IS better than a moderate go-along-to-get-along Republican. That type of Republican will only slow our decent into the abyss, ensuring that conservatives are blamed for the collapse.

If we are to collapse, I want liberals clearly at fault. Otherwise, the rebuilding will be impossible.

Thus, unless we get a REAL conservative for the Republicans, I would prefer Obama win and complete his destruction of this nation.



Quote from: makattak on August 12, 2011, 09:17:59 AM
...McCain only just barely got my vote. I wasn't really excited about voting for him, I swallowed my bile and did so.

McCain 2.0 (Or Dole 3.0, or GHWBush 4.0, whomever that may be, Romney is foremost in my mind) won't be getting my vote. Never again. (And if the party leaders knew how loyal a Republican I've been, they should be afraid.)

I guess a lot of people are anxious to cut there noses off to spite their faces......