Quotes of the day

posted at 11:01 pm on September 13, 2011 by Allahpundit

“[C]ampaign disclosure records portray a much deeper financial connection with Merck than Perry’s remarks would suggest.

“Perry’s gubernatorial campaign, for example, received nearly $30,000 from the drugmaker since 2000, most of it prior to his decision in 2007 to order young girls to obtain Merck’s vaccine against the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

“Merck has also given more than $355,000 in donations to the Republican Governors Association since 2006, which was the year that Perry began to play a prominent role in the Washington-based group, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.”

***

“Gov. Rick Perry’s 2007 attempt to require that girls in Texas be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, commonly known as HPV, has become a political hot potato. But Dr. Ronald DePinho, the new president of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, says the vaccine is not just sound but ‘one of the great scientific advances in the history of medicine.’

“DePinho said that as a physician, as the president of a leading cancer research institution and as a father of two young girls, ‘there’s only one path here, which is to support vaccination.’…

“His recommendation for anyone who opposes the vaccine: ‘Visit one patient with cervical cancer in an advanced state.’”

***

“The Gardasil kerfuffle is really just the tip of the iceberg. The ‘crony capitalism’ charge has been made before about Perry’s ‘Emerging Technology Fund’ that served as a sort of slush fund to funnel millions of dollars in taxpayer money to his major contributors. The slipperiness with which he has handled the HPV issue suggests that Perry is willing to be flexible with the facts in covering up his cronyist tendencies.

“Perry’s attempted out on the HPV mandate is that he made a mistake and it was thankfully overridden by the Texas legislature. Whew. Can we just move on? But wait. Why was it a mistake if it was so important in eradicating cancer? Or is it just that he hates getting political heat more than he hates cancer? He also leaves out of his pandering the small detail that he fought the legislature on this kicking and screaming and blasted them for ‘overturn[ing] an order that could save women’s lives.’”

***

“In the extensive clinical studies (on more than 20,000 girls and women) that were performed prior to the FDA’s licensing of the vaccine, the vaccine was 100 per cent effective, a virtually unprecedented result. How safe is the vaccine? No serious side effects were detected; the most common side effect is soreness, redness and swelling in the arm at the site of the injection.

“In summary, Gardasil has one of the most favorable risk-benefit ratios of any pharmaceutical.

“Having spent 15 years at the FDA and having seen regulation — the good, the bad and the ugly — up close, I am as opposed to anyone (exceptperhaps Ron Paul) to non-essential government intrusion into our lives. But some interventions are good. Among those I would include vaccination against childhood diseases and compulsory use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets.”

***

“The Gardasil mandate was an unnecessary government intrusion. As Robert explains, it was not cost-effective, requiring vaccinations for every child at $360 a pop to prevent an infection that (a) may cause a usually non-fatal form of cancer in less than half a percent of women and girls, and (b) can be avoided by abstaining from sex (or, at least, unprotected sex).

“Moreover, the lack of a government mandate would not mean Gardasil was unavailable. It would simply mean that parents, rather than the state, would decide whether the child should be immunized. That is, it would be up to parents to consult their doctors and buy the vaccine for their children if they chose to do so — i.e., to borrow Robert’s point, we would not be encouraging sexual promiscuity by socializing its cost. And while there’s plenty of room for disagreement, a parent might well decide against the vaccine out of a conviction that it would undermine the parent’s encouragement of abstinence from sex. (Personally, I would not consider that a convincing reason to refrain from having my child vaccinated, but I certainly wouldn’t condemn as unreasonable a parent who came out the other way, particularly given the very low probability of infection.)…

“Gov. Perry’s Gardasil order is not trivial. Voters are entitled to weigh what it says about his small-government credentials, whether he really was chastened when the legislature overrode him, whether he grasps that this is not just a process issue, and what motivated him to do what he did.”

***

“This particular attack was an own-goal by Bachmann in every conceivable way. It plays into the anti-science meme with which the Left is trying to festoon conservatism. Her constant invocation of ‘little’ and ‘innocent’ children gives one flashbacks to Hillary Clinton and her tossing the ‘for the children’ mantra about. It was a senseless attack on Perry that played well with a segment of the debate studio audience. But it is one that makes Bachmann look extreme to the majority of GOP voters while making Perry more acceptable to nearly everyone else. If her goal was to take the lead from Rick Perry, something she can’t do even by the addition of all of Ron Paul’s supporters, she chose a suboptimal tactic.

“The real question for Bachmann is, ‘if you had a vaccine that you knew prevented your kids from developing cancer would you support it being available.’ This is all Perry did. His executive order made a very expensive vaccine affordable while at the same time allowing anyone who wanted to opt out to do so. This isn’t progressivism or liberalism. It isn’t even ‘compassionate conservatism.’ It is common sense. In fact, it is exactly what Sarah Palin did as governor of Alaska.”

***

“A Republican source sends over this unusual attack ad Kay Bailey Hutchison’s campaign made — but never released — in her bitter 2010 primary challenge to Texas Governor Rick Perry.”

***

“I would suggest to you that this issue about Gardasil and making it available was about saving people’s lives. I sat on the side of a bed of a young lady in Texas who died from cervical cancer and it had a powerful impact on me.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Dr Evil on September 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM

It never happened because the legislature didn’t allow it to happen. That’s not an argument for a Perry presidency; it’s an argument against it.

gryphon202 on September 14, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Bee on September 14, 2011 at 1:41 PM

…The vaccine itself doesn’t immunize one from all potentially harmful strains of HPV. Gardasil isn’t a “cancer” vaccination–it’s for a virus which could eventually turn cancerous left untreated…

So what? AIDS comes from the HIV Virus. Would you not vaccinate against it if a vaccine existed? Or is that an implicit endorsement of risky behavior?

Because I didn’t get them a single vaccination which they can opt to have when older which might potentially spare them one strain of an std? I guess call me a bad parent, I just don’t find it necessary.

Again, it was a personal decision weighing each vaccination out carefully after her brother had reactions to the full schedule. I take issue with mandated vaccines for diseases not caused by casual contact.

Earlier you said:

I’m not a social con (aside from abortion and personal moral positions) but I don’t like the implication, nor do I want to remove stigma or consequences from risky behavior. It’s a std-specific vaccination which, as Gryph said, differs from casual contagions. For the record, I’m also as strongly opposed to Hep B.

If your only concern was the fact that you son had experienced a bad reaction to a vaccine, I’d cut you some slack. But the fact remains that you specifically stated that you did not want to “remove consequences for risky behavior”.

So I’m sticking with my Russian Roulette comment. The fact that a vaccine exists to prevent a virus which causes STDs, and that STDs are acquired through intimate contact, and you don’t want to encourage such conduct, is not a reasonable argument not to vaccinate.

And hey, I’m strongly opposed to HepB too, but I favor vaccinations at birth without reservation. Think of Bristol Palin, who managed to get pregnant despite having a very conservative social con parents. No doubt her mother never thought this would happen. Surprise!

Note that I have a huge problem the anti-vaccine movement, which really got legs thanks to junk science about Autism.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM

The flu shot seems ridiculously ineffective, anyway.
Bee on September 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Missed this gem. Like I said, junk science.

So far. There is a long campaign to go, you know./Glad to know that these people are so precious to you that any criticism sends you into a tizzy of revenge.
Brian1972 on September 14, 2011 at 2:15 PM

I don’t mind legitimate criticism at all (and do not the irony of someone saying this to me, after having been attacked since Palin resigned as Alaska’s gov for criticizing her for one reason or another).

I do mind explicit allegations that “GOP candidates” may be engaging in corrupt behavior when those charges are made without foundation. One example is not even enough to tar Perry with, never mind the entire GOP field. Except for Sarah of course. Surely you understand the difference.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Drat: and do [note] the irony of of someone saying this to me….

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM

You don’t know there isn’t any foundation.

The vetting has just begun.

We will all learn much, much more about all of these people in the next few months, and we may not like what we see.

Such is politics.

Don’t play the victim card about having been attacked, because I have been on the opposite side of the argument since 2009 and have been attacked plenty myself.

Cry me a river.

Brian1972 on September 14, 2011 at 2:44 PM

It’s jaded and misleading and exploitative to use little girls inoculations to prevent some cervical cancers to get campaign donations.

Dr Evil on September 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM

I agree it was a bit hysterical, though I still wouldn’t write her off as a liar, lunatic or cynically opportunistic (any more than any other candidate, at least). If she were going to highlight the mandate itself, along with Perry’s other weaknesses, she might have been more effective. The rest of your comment I believe I already responded to.

Bee on September 14, 2011 at 2:48 PM

The problem is when this year’s flu virus mutates so fast, it’s no longer this year’s flu virus….
gryphon202 on September 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM

I should have elaborated, but that was my point. Sorry…rushing at the time.

Bee on September 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Bee on September 14, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Bachmann sells herself as the TEA Party’s voice in D.C. Her behavior is politics as usual (JADED D.C. insider) and I have never read or heard that the TEA party stands for anti vaccines.

The only thing I agreed with her was their is no reason forAmerican tax payer’s subsidizing illegal aliens. She could have led with the truth, and forgot about the mandate made up B.S.

This reminds me of another TEA party favorite, Sarah Palin, who tells the Liberal Media to stop making stuff up. Michelle Bachmann’s campaign team is not doing her any favors making stuff up, when the truth will suffice. There are around 25 Million Texans. Does Bachmann’s campaign team, really think we don’t know all there is to know about the Gardasil issue? Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and the commemorative coffee mug.

Dr Evil on September 14, 2011 at 3:05 PM

So what? AIDS comes from the HIV Virus. Would you not vaccinate against it if a vaccine existed? Or is that an implicit endorsement of risky behavior?

If it were mandated I’d have a problem with it. If it were an option, I’d opt out until my children were teens or older and have that discussion then. Sex ed/prevention is comprehensive and something I’ll be highly involved in as a parent…where it should remain.

Because I didn’t get them a single vaccination which they can opt to have when older which might potentially spare them one strain of an std? I guess call me a bad parent, I just don’t find it necessary.

Again, it was a personal decision weighing each vaccination out carefully after her brother had reactions to the full schedule. I take issue with mandated vaccines for diseases not caused by casual contact.

Earlier you said:

I’m not a social con (aside from abortion and personal moral positions) but I don’t like the implication, nor do I want to remove stigma or consequences from risky behavior. It’s a std-specific vaccination which, as Gryph said, differs from casual contagions. For the record, I’m also as strongly opposed to Hep B

.

If your only concern was the fact that you son had experienced a bad reaction to a vaccine, I’d cut you some slack. But the fact remains that you specifically stated that you did not want to “remove consequences for risky behavior”.

OK, I see the confusion. Let me offer a timeline: my son is seven. He had varying reactions to each immunization on the recommended schedule, as well as late onset autism (yes I realize thimerosal isn’t a cause). Reactions ranging from mild seizures to high fevers, rashes, hives, and eczema he still is dealing with. This made me begin researching additives within them and by the time my daughter was born we opted for a delayed schedule of most major immunizations required for school. We weren’t sure if it was the additives, the amount at one time or the sheer amount of immunizations entirely, but her brother couldn’t handle it.

Gardasil and HepB are dependent on sexual activity. That’s the difference. I have no illusions that my kids will be saints, I certainly wasn’t.

So I’m sticking with my Russian Roulette comment. The fact that a vaccine exists to prevent a virus which causes STDs, and that STDs are acquired through intimate contact, and you don’t want to encourage such conduct, is not a reasonable argument not to vaccinate.

No, my children would be playing Russian Roulette if they choose to engage in risky behavior, not me. I’ll be frank with them about the risks but see no reason to inject them with something else which might or might not protect them from the consequences of behavior they can already avoid or protect themselves from in other ways. Sorry for the run-on there. :)

Think of Bristol Palin, who managed to get pregnant despite having a very conservative social con parents. No doubt her mother never thought this would happen. Surprise!
Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM

As did I. I didn’t have Gardasil.

Bee on September 14, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Dr Evil on September 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM

It never happened because the legislature didn’t allow it to happen. That’s not an argument for a Perry presidency; it’s an argument against it.

gryphon202 on September 14, 2011 at 2:21 PM

It didn’t happen, and Bachmann can’t claim a mandate that never was never went into effect allowed a drug company to make millions off that very same mandate. The mandate would have had to been in effect at some point, in some manner, to make Bachmann’s statement true in any interpretation. A drug company can’t profit financially from something that never happened. But that’s not stopping Bachmann from trying to make some money off of it in the form of campaign donation solicitations. I wonder if she’s looked in mirror recently?

Dr Evil on September 14, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Brian1972 on September 14, 2011 at 2:44 PM

You don’t know there isn’t any foundation.
The vetting has just begun.

HA! Unfrackingbelieveable!!! So, you admit that Palin’s charges were unfounded yet you defend her reckless statements because she’s on a fishin’ expedition and you’re sure she (or someone) will find some cronyism somewhere? Palin was not at all specific with her missiles, and cast her net very wide to include all the “GOP candidates”. I think they used to call this “McCarthyism”: Are you now or have you ever been a Crony Capitalist?

Don’t play the victim card about having been attacked, because I have been on the opposite side of the argument since 2009 and have been attacked plenty myself.
Cry me a river.

Dude, you’re the one who’s crying, not me. I noted the irony of your remarks in good humor. In any case, I am not a victim of Palin’s reckless remarks, the “GOP candididates” are.

+++

Just found this oh so coincidentally. This is about Obama becoming a mainstream joke, but it also reiterates the points I’ve been making about Palin (and Bachmann):

I think we’ve reached that much-discussed tipping point.

The liberals, and the media (but I, as ever, repeat myself), have long protected Obama. While doing so, however, they were frustrated by him; they pushed their disappointment with him deep down.

But at some point, comes a tipping point, where you get license to say what you really think; you could keep suppressing that, but now you’ve got a justification to cut loose. (Yes, this is what has happened to me with respect to Palin and Bachmann; the mental retardation/unfounded accusations of crony capitalism were, to me, an announcement that the “Hey, guys, let’s not fiiight” rules were no longer in effect.

Not that I haven’t been willing to fight. Just glad to know I’m not the only one who is fed up with Palin’s tactics.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Not that I haven’t been willing to fight. Just glad to know I’m not the only one who is fed up with Palin’s tactics.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Not surprising that you would go to Ace, who is freaking out like a baby without his bottle.

If you are fed up with Palin or her tactics, vote against her.

Fine by me.

It is quite possible that Palin knows more about these people than you do, and I find it odd that all the other candidates and the entire GOP establishment gets the benefit of the doubt without question but Palin has been your target for TWO YEARS and counting.

It isn’t as if she doesn’t have a reason to dish out some karma to the GOP herself, you know.

What have any of them done for her? When did anybody stick up for her when she was the one and only focus of the entire Democrat Liberal Media Complex? How many of them participated in the liberal pile on themselves, while being too cowardly to put their own name to their comments to Time, or Politico, or Newsweek or ABC News?

The bottom line here is that she is pointing out to the electorate that there are some issues that need to be looked into here, this one thing about Perry being the one she was asked specifically about. Yet, as a member of the electorate you yourself not only reflexively refuse to take her sound advice, but wheel around and attack her for having the temerity to raise the issue in the first place.

Sure doesn’t sound like you are in synch with the Tea Party Movement to me. Sounds establishment defensive to me.

But hey, to each his/her own.

The voters will decide this in the end, I’m just not prepared to get in line without a fight over it.

You shouldn’t be either.

Brian1972 on September 14, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Bee on September 14, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Thank you for the clarification – your medical concerns are legit reasons, and I can certainly understand why you are reluctant to vaccinate unnecessarily. I didn’t mean for you to have to reveal a lot of personal information – my objections were based on the comment which referenced morality (“…nor do I want to remove stigma or consequences from risky behavior.”)

That being said, I hope you agree that refusing to vaccinate solely because one believes that vaccinations will somehow encourage children to engage in risky, immoral behavior is a poor reason to withhold vaccinations.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Brian1972 on September 14, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Not surprising that you would go to Ace, who is freaking out like a baby without his bottle.

I began to criticize Palin for her reckless, unfounded remarks days before I saw that ACE had similar complaints. I am heartened that I am not alone, and that after days of noting my disapproval of her actions I finally found someone whose opinions I respect who had the same impressions/reaction to her mudslinging. As for behaving like a baby, what do you call what you’re doing?

If you are fed up with Palin or her tactics, vote against her. Fine by me.

Ha! Do you know something I don’t know? She is a not a candidate right now, but is a paid pundit, and just as many of you like to criticize Karl Rove, I have the perfect right to criticize her, (and you for not providing anything approaching sound reasons to defend her statements).

It is quite possible that Palin knows more about these people than you do, and I find it odd that all the other candidates and the entire GOP establishment gets the benefit of the doubt without question but Palin has been your target for TWO YEARS and counting.

Wait! So you’re the one interested in revenge (against the eeevil ‘GOP establishment’ who must be guilty of crony capitalism or something). Pathetic.

It isn’t as if she doesn’t have a reason to dish out some karma to the GOP herself, you know.

What she is dishing out isn’t karma. She’s dishing out unfounded allegations. Does that cold dish taste good to you?

The bottom line here is that she is pointing out to the electorate that there are some issues that need to be looked into here, this one thing about Perry being the one she was asked specifically about. Yet, as a member of the electorate you yourself not only reflexively refuse to take her sound advice, but wheel around and attack her for having the temerity to raise the issue in the first place.

Sure doesn’t sound like you are in synch with the Tea Party Movement to me. Sounds establishment defensive to me.

What advice is she giving? She’s not giving advice she’s smearing the “GOP candidates”, alleging that Big Donors with “mammoth amounts of cash” inevitably lead to “corruption”. Listen up: I do not approve of crony capitalism or corruption. I do not need Palin to tell me that Obama is corrupt. She is not the first person to raise the issue against Obama, and there are volumes that have been written and will continue to be written about his corrupt, Chicago style activities so to credit her for that is preposterous. Sadly, she is the first Republican to raise the issue against Republicans without having a solid case to make. Far from it. And she has the temerity to preach against friendly fire in the same damn speech.

As for the Tea Party, please don’t drag that movement into this. Fiscal conservatism, low taxes, responsible spending and all that are not an excuse to sling poison arrows at “GOP candidates” with no solid evidence.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 4:46 PM

I began to criticize Palin for her reckless, unfounded remarks days before I saw that ACE had similar complaints.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Why don’t you ever quote the “reckless, unfounded remarks”?

Now to be fair, some GOP candidates also raised mammoth amounts of cash, and we need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect in return for their “investments”? We need to know this because our country can’t afford more trillion-dollar “thank you” notes to campaign backers. It is an important question, and it cuts to the heart of our problem.

I don’t see any problem with that other than the fact that Palin has a clear line of attack and it scares the shit out of you.

ddrintn on September 14, 2011 at 6:06 PM

ddrintn on September 14, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Are you kidding me?1 I have quoted them over and over again. Indeed I quoted some of them on this very thread.

Here’s the link to her speech, the same speech ACE also noted contains unfounded allegations. Do a search for “mammoth amounts of cash” or “big donors” or “GOP candidates” and you’ll find it. And please, don’t fail to report back with something substantial I might have missed beyond the wide net she cast. You know, some specific allegations made about a specific candidate. Thanks in advance.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 7:19 PM

And please, don’t fail to report back with something substantial I might have missed beyond the wide net she cast. You know, some specific allegations made about a specific candidate. Thanks in advance.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 7:19 PM

It was a question, not an accusation. “We need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect in return for their ‘investments’?” Sounds like a fair question to me. An your problem is it would resonate.

ddrintn on September 14, 2011 at 7:56 PM

It was a question, not an accusation. “We need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect in return for their ‘investments’?” Sounds like a fair question to me. An your problem is it would resonate.

ddrintn on September 14, 2011 at 7:56 PM

It was an accusation put in the form of a question. It’s what’s called loaded question

You tell me: How do they answer Sarah’s question exactly? Do they sign a pledge? Perhaps they take an oath promising to be good? Seriously, how the hell do they respond to this?

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 8:19 PM

fossten on September 14, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Yeah, right…Perry admits his “mistake” now that he’s running for POTUS. Not then. Not when the TX legislature stepped up and stopped him…Now…

When TPaw admitted his prior “mistakes” of supporting Man made global warming, Cap & Tax, ethanol subsidies et al as Governor of MN before changing those positions as he geared up for a POTUS run, most saw through his ruse.

Gohawgs on September 14, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Seriously, how the hell do they respond to this?

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 8:19 PM

They either answer it openly and honestly, or they keep their mouths shut… which apparently is what they’re doing.

Maybe they’ll learn that Perry’s misleading answer and obfuscation isn’t the best strategy…

Unless they have something to hide, they need have no fear. It’s that simple…

OnlyOrange on September 14, 2011 at 9:06 PM

It was an accusation put in the form of a question. It’s what’s called loaded question

You tell me: How do they answer Sarah’s question exactly? Do they sign a pledge? Perhaps they take an oath promising to be good? Seriously, how the hell do they respond to this?

Buy Danish on September 14, 2011 at 8:19 PM

No, it isn’t a loaded question. A loaded question is of the form “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Asking what sort of influence all that Big Money buys is asking exactly that. I notice Palin gets jeered a lot for not getting the big money backers, but yet when she points out that she’s not for sale and is obligated to no one but her individual supporters she gets jeered for that as well. You can’t have it both ways.

ddrintn on September 14, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Maybe they’ll learn that Perry’s misleading answer and obfuscation isn’t the best strategy…

Unless they have something to hide, they need have no fear. It’s that simple…

OnlyOrange on September 14, 2011 at 9:06 PM

That’s one long string of B.S. you have managed to string together.

Nothing to support your claims just your opinion dressed up as fact.

Dr Evil on September 14, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Dr Evil

When I see your nic, I think of Orson Welles saying this (45 to 55 seconds)…

Gohawgs on September 14, 2011 at 10:34 PM

No, it isn’t a loaded question. A loaded question is of the form “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Asking what sort of influence all that Big Money buys is asking exactly that. I notice Palin gets jeered a lot for not getting the big money backers, but yet when she points out that she’s not for sale and is obligated to no one but her individual supporters she gets jeered for that as well. You can’t have it both ways.
ddrintn on September 14, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Yes it is a loaded question! In her question was the implication that a candidate cannot raise money from “big donors” without being bought by the donor (“for sale”). God forbid they raise significant sums of support from eeeeevil corporations and individuals who have a legal right to advocate for candidates they believe will best represent them. But hey, maybe they should just take public funding and let Obama win.

And please, I beg you, stop with the “you can’t have it both ways” nonsense. I want Palin to stop tossing out unfounded, self-aggrandizing accusations of corruption. That’s it. Period.

P.S. Your assertion that she gets “jeered” for not having big money backers is ludicrous rhetoric. People calmly ask realistic questions about her ability to raise the money needed to beat Obama (because, you know, a lot of people really, really don’t like her). That is not getting “jeered” .

They either answer it openly and honestly, or they keep their mouths shut… which apparently is what they’re doing.
Maybe they’ll learn that Perry’s misleading answer and obfuscation isn’t the best strategy…
Unless they have something to hide, they need have no fear. It’s that simple…
OnlyOrange on September 14, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Nice Banana Republic you’re running there, dude. It’s the seriousness of the charge, not the accuracy of the allegation. Unnamed GOP candidates in the plural are crony capitalists who need to keep their mouths shut cause surely they’re guilty of something, and damnit we’re going to force them to disprove a negative.

Color me disgusted.

Buy Danish on September 15, 2011 at 7:07 AM

Oh the irony! Regardez this comment at the headline thread on AttackWatch:

Probably because the Republicans are only good at eating their own. The only attack watch the RNC is interested in is the attack on rubes who might upset the apple cart.
ddrintn on September 14, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Buy Danish on September 15, 2011 at 7:21 AM

Heh. Palin’s latest facebook post begins like this:

In my recent speech in Iowa, some eyebrows were raised when I took on our government’s enormous economic problems caused by crony capitalism. As if on cue, just days later President Obama selected someone who exemplifies a major crony capitalism problem to sit next to the First Lady when he delivered his “jobs plan” speech before Congress. He selected General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as his honored guest.

No Sarah, eyebrows were raised when you insinuated that “some GOP candidates” were crony capitalists but you provided no Solyandra, no GE, no nothing to back this up.

Buy Danish on September 15, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6