Rush: Bachmann really jumped the shark on Gardasil

posted at 3:25 pm on September 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

After my earlier post strongly objecting to Michele Bachmann’s attempt to link the Gardasil vaccination to “mental retardation,” the response has been nearly unanimous among commenters — and as it turns out, pundits too.  The Boss Emeritus, whose rational objections to Perry’s Gardasil mandate threaten to be overwhelmed by Bachmann’s demagoguery, tries offering Bachmann some advice on how to deal with the issue in the future.  Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, concludes that while Bachmann had an otherwise strong showing in last night’s debate, she “jumped the shark” last night and today by repeatedly using an attack that Rush says deserves “shame.” 

First, Rush defends Perry to some extent on the issue, calling it a “giant distraction“:

If you want to get directly to the “jump the shark” quote and see Rush deliver it, click the image to watch:

If Bachmann’s listening, here is Michelle Malkin’s advice, in part:

After successfully highlighting Perry’s troubling abuse of executive power during last night’s debate, Michele Bachmann risks blowing it with some factually inaccurate assertions.

She’s RIGHT on the principles, wrong on some of the details.

She needs to stay on message and stick with the facts.

The Texas state legislature repealed the order (over Perry’s hysterical objections) before any girl was forcibly vaccinated.

And while individual stories of Gardasil harm may or may not be true (Bachmann cited a mother who thinks the vaccine caused mental retardation in her child while making the post-debate rounds), it’s not the primary case she should be making.

Again: Bachmann is RIGHT on the principles, but it gets dicey citing cases where individual anecdotes need to be vetted before tossing them out on TV. She came dangerously close to using the same demagogic tactics Perry employed in obstinately defending the order even after it was repealed.

The main issue for Perry’s actions were the way he attempted to impose the mandate (by executive order) and the connections to Merck, both of which are fair game. As long as critics both inside and outside the race stick to those points, it’s an effective attack.  If the debate broadens to Gardasil itself as Bachmann tried to do, Perry may not be the only governor who will have to answer questions about Gardasil itself, however.  Pajamas Media’s Bryan Preston reaches into the Wayback machine and discovers the state of Alaska cheerfully accepting federal funds in order to distribute Gardasil for free during Sarah Palin’s tenure as Governor:

The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services announced today that an increase in federal funding will make it possible for all Alaska girls ages 9 through 18 to receive Gardasil ®, the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, at no cost.

Earlier this spring, the department had said it could provide free Gardasil only to Alaska girls who met certain eligibility requirements. Since then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided additional funds for Alaska to obtain more vaccine. This boost in federal aid will enable more Alaska girls to receive Gardasil. Distribution of this vaccine to providers is just beginning, so state health officials suggest calling providers before visiting local clinics to find out if the vaccine is available.

“We are thrilled that this unanticipated funding will allow us to provide the vaccine for all eligible girls,” said Laurel Wood, Alaska’s immunization program manager. “Although we have no guarantee that this funding will be available in future years, we hope to immunize as many Alaska girls as possible while we have this unique opportunity.”

The Boss Emeritus calls this a “really, really stupid attack on Palin” in an update to the linked post above, but I’m not entirely convinced. In the same post, Michelle argues:

The point is that Perry rushed to mandate the Merck-pushed order less than 8 months after it had received FDA approval. Clinical trial and safety data was extremely limited at the time. And scientific assessments are still coming in about the long-term and synergistic effects of this and other vaccines.

If the argument is that Gardasil was not ready for large-scale usage, then it’s not just about the mandate or the connections to Merck. The same argument against the mandate also apply in this case to taxpayer funding for massive vaccinations, do they not? And in this case, it’s the taxpayers who didn’t get to decide whether they wanted 12-year-old girls injected with a supposedly questionable vaccine at their expense, for a virus that isn’t easily spread through mandated proximity such as school attendance.

It’s not a problem on the same scale as Perry’s, but it’s not an unfair question to raise, either, if Gardasil itself is the problem, as it seems it is for some Perry critics.

Update: Worth noting — Perry actually has received nearly $30,000 from Merck over the past decade. Also worth noting — that doesn’t put Merck in the top 200 of Perry’s donors during that period. Seriously.

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 3 4 5 6

It was. Perrykrishnas just desperately are grasping for whatever tu quoque is handy. Just like O-bots.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM

…and isn’t this going to be a lovely, dignified election season, with partisans of the various Republicans doing Wasserman-Schultz’s work for her…”Perrykrishnas”?

…all that’s showing through lately is 1) the candidates’ own ambition and 2) the candidates’ partisans disengaging the jacking gear on their jaws to serve their pet pols. I grieve.

…we have every right to dig, the better to choose. Outside Texas, few know Perry. Bachmann’s had a slightly longer time in the spotlight, but the more we know about her — and she seems ready to tell us what we want to know, but she doesn’t want us to, a’ la Rep. Paul — but we’re all still in “just browsing” mode, I’d hope.

In his defense, Gov. Perry may have supported these innoculations (which, as a parent in Texas with a girl coming up on the age to get innoculated, he’d have a fight getting my girl to queue up), but notice that they’re not mandated. He got push-back and thought better of it. The people spoke, he listened. His first decision was the wrong one…as are mine usually…and he changed.

Can you say that about Obama? I dare ya! “Oh, we waste the better part of a trillion paying off union thugs and following green initiatives down rabbit holes, and we get nowhere? Double down, then!”

In her defense, Rep. Bachmann found a reason to question Gov. Perry’s record and she ran with it. That’s the way I think that it should go. The candidates wrangle. In my humble etcetera, I think that it’d be wiser for us not to mix in the wrangling, but rather sit back and see where the chips land.

Let’s remember what the point of this exercise is: beat Obama.

…any one of the Republicans currently on the menu could do a much better job than that jug-eared nobody from the back-benches. Some would do a better job than others…Huntsman comes to mind…but even he, good man, would be better than this media darling….

Barack Obama: the latest symptom. The disease: feel-good-about-myself politics.

…so, he point is to beat him…that, and banish green leftist totalitarianism to the outer darkness…to sit and stew with Satan and Hitler and disco music…and watch…and wait…until, if we don’t watch what these over-paid diploma factories are ramming dwon our kids throats, we end up having to explain “stupid” all over again.

Puritan1648 on September 13, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Unless one’s from Texas, one knows next to nothing about Perry. Romney and Bachmann have been in the media spotlight for quite a while now. Just Google for info and media coverage over the past 4 years.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Thanks. I hope there is some info, since I haven’t seen anything on the blogs.

bluefox on September 13, 2011 at 8:44 PM

…and isn’t this going to be a lovely, dignified election season, with partisans of the various Republicans doing Wasserman-Schultz’s work for her…”Perrykrishnas”?

Puritan1648 on September 13, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Yeah. I like it. How long has the term “Palinista” been around and used constantly?

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Thanks. I hope there is some info, since I haven’t seen anything on the blogs.

bluefox on September 13, 2011 at 8:44 PM

You haven’t seen anything at all about Romney and Bachmann on the blogs since 2008? Come on.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Good points. I keep hearing that we have to vet the Candidates, but why is only Gov. Perry getting vetted?

bluefox on September 13, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Because he’s the one who’s been subjected to the least scrutiny, at least among major candidates. He comes in like gangbusters, and then all of a sudden people are supposed to remain forever ignorant about who he is?

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Yup, he’s the new kid on the block.

whatcat on September 13, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 8:34 PM

It was misleading. Perry gave the impression that all he or his campaign ever got from Merck was $5k.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:36 PM

No it wasn’t misleading, he was responding to a specific accusation – it didn’t require Perry listing his campaign donations by donors and amounts of donations. Mitt Romney is on the Factor now, he started out by pointing out to Bill, what their time constraints were in the debate. You might have wanted Perry to elaborate on Merck’s different contributions to his campaigns, but that doesn’t mean he was required to list his campaign donations. That’s not misleading, that’s conforming to the debate format. If you have a problem with the debate format- that would be CNN and Wolf Blitzer’s department. If they were all going to be asked to specifically name their donors, and to list their contributions to their different political campaigns it’s not a debate anymore, it’s some kind of info dump.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Heh. Over at Ace he’s taken to referring to people who are, er, “mentally challenged” as “Gardisil victims,” as in “Steven ‘Gardasil Victim’ Chu Hands Out Another $1.2 Billion in Loan Guarantees To Another Solar Company.”

That’s funny right there.

Rational Thought on September 13, 2011 at 8:51 PM

No it wasn’t misleading, he was responding to a specific accusation – it didn’t require Perry listing his campaign donations by donors and amounts of donations. Mitt Romney is on the Factor now, he started out by pointing out to Bill, what their time constraints were in the debate. You might have wanted Perry to elaborate on Merck’s different contributions to his campaigns, but that doesn’t mean he was required to list his campaign donations. That’s not misleading, that’s conforming to the debate format. If you have a problem with the debate format- that would be CNN and Wolf Blitzer’s department. If they were all going to be asked to specifically name their donors, and to list their contributions to their different political campaigns it’s not a debate anymore, it’s some kind of info dump.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Oh, come on. This is another Clinton-type thing. “It all depends on what the meaning of is is”. I’m tired of that sort of thing from whatever political figure, and I’m tired of the phony attempts at tu quoque that have exploded here today.

The impression I and probably many others came away with was that Merck contributed only $5,000 to Perry and his campaigns. That was misleading.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Heh. Over at Ace he’s taken to referring to people who are, er, “mentally challenged” as “Gardisil victims,” as in “Steven ‘Gardasil Victim’ Chu Hands Out Another $1.2 Billion in Loan Guarantees To Another Solar Company.”

That’s funny right there.

Rational Thought on September 13, 2011 at 8:51 PM

He could apply it to 2/3 of his commenters as well.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Huck is still pissed that Perry endorsed Giuliani over him in 2008.

Kataklysmic on September 13, 2011 at 8:01 PM

And by the way, the reason Perry listed in the debate last night for the Gardasil mandate was that he “always errs on the side of life”. How does one with that policy wind up endorsing the only pro-choice candidate in ’08?

Kataklysmic on September 13, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Oh, come on. This is another Clinton-type thing. “It all depends on what the meaning of is is”. I’m tired of that sort of thing from whatever political figure, and I’m tired of the phony attempts at tu quoque that have exploded here today.

The impression I and probably many others came away with was that Merck contributed only $5,000 to Perry and his campaigns. That was misleading.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM

No it is not – it was a debate last night -not an interview. Do you know the difference?

It wasn’t a one on one between Rick Perry and Wolf Blitzer. You want some kind of in depth vetting to come out for one specific candidate in a debate that included what 9 candidates? Good luck with that.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 8:58 PM

No it is not – it was a debate last night -not an interview. Do you know the difference?

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 8:58 PM

One is supposed to be “nuanced” and the other is supposed to be truthful? Give me a break. It wouldn’t take Perry any longer to say “a total of $30,000 or so” than it did to say “$5,000″.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:01 PM

I swear to God, they could find bodies in shallow graves in Perry’s back yard and there’d be people here to say it’s no big deal. It reminds me less of Obama than of Clinton.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Oh, come on. This is another Clinton-type thing. “It all depends on what the meaning of is is”. I’m tired of that sort of thing from whatever political figure, and I’m tired of the phony attempts at tu quoque that have exploded here today.

The impression I and probably many others came away with was that Merck contributed only $5,000 to Perry and his campaigns. That was misleading.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Glad you had that impression. Sad you are running with it.

But it doesnt matter – for IF the issue goes to campaign donors, industry-based breakdowns… good luck with that. What a novel 1998 idea.

Odie1941 on September 13, 2011 at 9:05 PM

I swear to God, they could find bodies in shallow graves in Perry’s back yard and there’d be people here to say it’s no big deal. It reminds me less of Obama than of Clinton.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

You are trying too hard.

Take a breath – stop inserting “Clinton” every 5 words…

Odie1941 on September 13, 2011 at 9:07 PM

But it doesnt matter –

Odie1941 on September 13, 2011 at 9:05 PM

It reminds me less of Obama than of Clinton.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

I rest my case.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:07 PM

You are trying too hard.

Take a breath – stop inserting “Clinton” every 5 words…

Odie1941 on September 13, 2011 at 9:07 PM

I did it once. I guess numbers aren’t your thing.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:09 PM

One is supposed to be “nuanced” and the other is supposed to be truthful? Give me a break. It wouldn’t take Perry any longer to say “a total of $30,000 or so” than it did to say “$5,000″.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:01 PM

No it’s not nuanced. You wanted a list of his donors, and how much they contributed to his multiple campaigns in “total” to be answered during the debate, for his answer in. He gave a specific answer, did Perry say in his reply the “Only” money Merck ever donated to him was $5,000 dollars? Perry gave an answer, you don’t think it’s was elaborate enough, blame Blitzer for not following up with another question about Merck’s history of donating money to his campaigns. It wasn’t an interview of Rick Perry, it was a debate, and Perry wasn’t the only debater.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 8:49 PM

The context was conversation about Merck & Gardasil.

Perry threw out the number $5,000, not anybody else.

The clear implication was that he had only received that amount from the company, which was false.

If he wanted to limit the conversation to a specific donation, or time frame, it wouldn’t have takent long. He clearly mentioned “$5,000″ out of “$30 million” raised.

If you want to try to make your point that this wasn’t misleading, try finding some timeframe between 2006 and 2010 (any increment you wish) in which he raised 30 mil & only 5g was from Merck.

Good luck!

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 9:10 PM

No it’s not nuanced. You wanted a list of his donors…

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Not of his donors, but of Merck’s contributions. Perry gave the impression that the number was $5k. It was much more than that.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Perry survives it and it’s Bachmann’s moment of steep decline. Politics are funny.

sherry on September 13, 2011 at 9:13 PM

It wouldn’t take Perry any longer to say “a total of $30,000 or so” than it did to say “$5,000″.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Can I get a breakdown of when those “bribes” were given?

USA today released that $5000 was in 2010… 3 years after the failed attempt at the EO.

An odd attempt at bribery; I’ve never tried to bribe someone to do something they’ve already tried 3 years after they failed. Is that common now?

Should I be donating to Fred Thompson’s 2008 election campaign NOW to convince him to run for President in 2008? Do you think my donation will be effective in getting him to win the Primary and run against whoever wins between Obama and Hillary?

What part of that $30,000 happened before the EO, and for that matter, how far before it?

Without that breakdown I have to question that number. As for the amount in 2006, i.e. right before the EO… what was it again? Oh I just saw it… oh yes, $5,000.

gekkobear on September 13, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Perry survives it and it’s Bachmann’s moment of steep decline. Politics are funny.

sherry on September 13, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Politics also changes quite a bit.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Can I get a breakdown of when those “bribes” were given?

gekkobear on September 13, 2011 at 9:14 PM

I didn’t say they were bribes.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:16 PM

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 9:10 PM

When were any of the people debating last night asked about their donors, their contributions, dates, and amounts? I did not hear Rick Perry say that he only received $5,000 dollars from Merck.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:19 PM

What part of that $30,000 happened before the EO, and for that matter, how far before it?

gekkobear on September 13, 2011 at 9:14 PM

So that $30k would have absolutely NO bearing on what Perry might have done in the future as regards Merck. Uh huh.

It just looks bad, sorry. Can’t spin it very many different ways.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:21 PM

steebo77 on September 13, 2011 at 7:10 PM

So what?

Did Alaska (under Palin) use federal funds for its health care vaccination program? Yes or no?

The answer is an unequivocal YES.

Using fome of your guys’s tactics, I could make an argument that Palin isn’t a “pure conservative” because of this. I even made the point that why would the state do this when they could so obviously afford it out of pocket from the citizenry if they really, really wanted or needed this. And you guys pounced like a pack of hungry dogs.

I’m not trying to pick on Palin. But if anyone is going to make an argument that Palin is the only “pure” or “true” conservative or whatever, it just isn’t true. I’m not trying to make this a point by point issue.

Do you guys understand this? In your fervent attacks on anything anyone says that you think paints Palin in a bad light, no one can say anything that is contrary to your belief without incurring your immediate wrath.

I like Palin. I’d vote for her if she were the nominee. I voted for McCain in 2008 just because of her.

But damn it you guys. You really need to slow your roll with some of this. You honestly do.

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 9:23 PM

When were any of the people debating last night asked about their donors, their contributions, dates, and amounts? I did not hear Rick Perry say that he only received $5,000 dollars from Merck.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:19 PM

The others didn’t mandate vaccinations. Rick Perry mentioned $5,000 and no other amount besides the total $30 million.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:23 PM

So what?

Did Alaska (under Palin) use federal funds for its health care vaccination program? Yes or no?

The answer is an unequivocal YES.

That’s not the issue. That’s a deflection.

I’m not trying to pick on Palin.

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 9:23 PM

You’re not. You’re just trying desperately to come up with some equivalence where there is none.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM

just as much evidence for crony capitalism here as there is in anything perry did….

chasdal on September 13, 2011 at 9:27 PM

I swear to God, they could find bodies in shallow graves in Perry’s back yard and there’d be people here to say it’s no big deal. It reminds me less of Obama than of Clinton.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Are you serious with this? You honestly believe this? Really?

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Do you guys understand this? In your fervent attacks on anything anyone says that you think paints Palin in a bad light, no one can say anything that is contrary to your belief without incurring your immediate wrath..

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 9:23 PM

By the way, that’s a straw man, and anyway it’s more applicable to Perry supporters. Look at the multiple pages of rationalizations and “she did it, too!” stuff here today.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Not of his donors, but of Merck’s contributions. Perry gave the impression that the number was $5k. It was much more than that.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:13 PM

When was Perry asked to list Merck’s donations to his 3 different campaigns for Governor, dates, and amounts? It wasn’t an interview – it wasn’t an interview format – if you don’t like that Blitzer didn’t follow up with a pretty easy question “Uh Governor Perry has Merck only donated 5,000 dollars to your political campaigns? You might have heard a question you wanted asked, and who knows Perry may not have hemmed and hawed, and gave a real answer in response. Who knows anything is possible. But it’s CNN, and Wolf Blitzer, they don’t operate on, you know asking specific follow up questions, and disseminating pertinent information to the viewing audience.

A friend left this comment on the debate topic last night, I think it sums up rating the CNN debate last night. “media opportunity does not = debate.”

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM

I swear to God, they could find bodies in shallow graves in Perry’s back yard and there’d be people here to say it’s no big deal. It reminds me less of Obama than of Clinton.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Are you serious with this? You honestly believe this? Really?

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Yeah, I do. Maybe not murder, but there is a gaggle here that can rationalize away ANYthing Perry might have done or will do, or lash out at the accusers. It’s eerily like the Clinton supporters in the 90s.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:30 PM

When was Perry asked to list Merck’s donations to his 3 different campaigns for Governor, dates, and amounts?

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Whew. Never mind.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:32 PM

By the way, that’s a straw man, and anyway it’s more applicable to Perry supporters. Look at the multiple pages of rationalizations and “she did it, too!” stuff here today.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:28 PM

A debate is not interview. They are two different things. If you want to blame Perry’s debate performance for CNN’s shin dig last night, have at it.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Gardasil was approved by the FDA mid-2006. Look at contributions to Perry in every year, -do we see a bump after Gardasil became available, or not?

If contributions to Perry from Merck are more or less flat over the years, that implies no connection to Gardasil. I’m not going to look it up because I don’t see this as a big issue, but maybe someone could present that data.

slickwillie2001 on September 13, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I did not hear Rick Perry say that he only received $5,000 dollars from Merck.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:19 PM

From the CNN transcript:

BACHMANN: What I’m saying is that it’s wrong for a drug company, because the governor’s former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company. The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the governor, and this is just flat-out wrong. The question is, is it about life, or was it about millions of dollars and potentially billions for a drug company?

BLITZER: All right. I’ll let Senator Santorum hold off for a second.

You’ve got to response to that.

PERRY: Yes, sir. The company was Merck, and it was a $5,000 contribution that I had received from them. I raise about $30 million. And if you’re saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended.

Let me repeat: if you truly want to prove your point, the easiest way is to find any period of time (whether 3 weeks, or 3 years- doesn’t matter) within a reasonable time frame of the executive order (maybe 2006-2010?) when Perry raised 30 million & only 5 grand was from Merck. Those were his numbers- nobody else brought those specifics up.

Good luck!

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 9:37 PM

When was Perry asked to list Merck’s donations to his 3 different campaigns for Governor, dates, and amounts

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Whew. Never mind.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Exactly, I don’t have dog whistle hearing, I can’t hear what isn’t said.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:37 PM

The vetting of Perry’s cronyism is just starting….

Reporting from Washington– The biggest political donor to Texas Gov. Rick Perry during his 11-year tenure has not been one of the state’s oil barons or cattle ranchers, but a Washington-based organization into which Perry helped funnel millions of dollars.

The Republican Governors Assn. — which Perry chaired twice — gave him $4 million in the last five years, making it the largest single source of the $102.8 million he has raised since 2001.

The organization’s donations came as Perry helped infuse the governors’ group with millions of dollars from some of his major political patrons. Out of the $217 million the RGA raised between January 2006 and June 2011, $68.7 million came from 139 donors who have also given to Perry, according to a new report being released Tuesday morning by the watchdog group Texans for Public Justice.

Nearly a third of those contributors were wealthy Texans who form the backbone of Perry’s finance operation — many of whom were not active donors to the RGA until 2006, when the Texas governor took on a bigger role at the organization.

Perry’s time at the RGA — which he chaired in 2008 and again this year until he announced his presidential bid last month — proved lucrative for all involved. Both the RGA and its counterpart, the Democratic Governors Assn., can raise unlimited contributions from individual and corporate donors, allowing them to direct large-dollar donations to embattled governors.

With Perry as its head, the group raked in money from new donors. The Texas governor gained a national platform and money for his reelections. And his major contributors — many of whom have received state contracts, grants or appointments during his administration — had another outlet to express their support for Perry.

“It seems to be all part of a pay-to-play form of pragmatic politics,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=836039&curAbsIndex=0&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%26DQ%3DsectionId%253A5217%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

idesign on September 13, 2011 at 9:39 PM

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM

And you have no idea of the comments throughout the thread I’m addressing by responding to steebo. You’re also making assumptions about me based on what? I’m not trying to equivocate anything. I’m simply trying to make a pretty obvious point – that no one – not even Palin is as “pure” as would be needed for some. I don’t give a sh!t if Alaska took federal funds or not. I don’t care about the GDP of Alaska as opposed to Texas. That people like you and steebo won’t even answer the question though speaks volumes.

I’ll answer questions about Perry or Romney or anyone. Perry is dead wrong on TTC/eminent domain/toll roads but you want to spend all night on this sh!t? If Palin got in the race, I might just swing her way for that very reason about Perry. I liked Bachmann until she let fly the stuff she did today. All I have to say about Romney is: Romneycare. I like Palin but she isn’t running, Perry is.

Its funny that I’ve seen you attack anyone on this thread on just this page who has said anything you remotely disagree with. And you’ve said it without facts and have embarked on conjecture and hyperbole why?

You honestly believe people who support Perry would excuse him murdering people and burying their bodies in his yard and you want people to engage you seriously?

You are so focused on what probably was an initial want to defend Palin from the crap she’s been dealt over the last several years but you have allowed yourself to become poisoned by your hate of anyone different than you.

Palin isn’t even running for office right now. You understand that don’t you? Right now, she isn’t a candidate.

If Palin doesn’t jump in, what are you going to do? Are you going to go full Paulbot and not vote for the Republican nominee if it isn’t Palin? If you are, you need to slow your roll with the hyper-active defense. If you’re not, then who gives a sh!t what you have to say anyway?

Jeebus…

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 9:41 PM

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Did Wolf Blitzer interview Governor Rick Perry last night, and did he question him in depth over the contributions that Merck has made to his multiple campaigns?

I thought I was watching the CNN TEA Party republican debate with 9 debaters last night. Wolf Blitzer explained the debate format before the debate started, including time allotment for responses. I missed the part where he said, there was going to be a in depth interview of Rick Perry.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Ed’s update

Update: Worth noting — Perry actually has received nearly $30,000 from Merck over the past decade. Also worth noting — that doesn’t put Merck in the top 200 of Perry’s donors during that period. Seriously.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:44 PM

The Republican Governors Assn. — which Perry chaired twice — gave him $4 million in the last five years, making it the largest single source of the $102.8 million he has raised since 2001.

Hey clueless, the GOP is a political party. Members of that party collecting money to support each other the THE WHOLE F’G POINT!

You clowns trashing Perry are sounding more like Paul Nuts every day. Look at the robo posting of the obviously deranged ddrintn. This loser’s got a psychic tick about Rick Perry. Paul Nut fever stretching to the Palinistas?

rcl on September 13, 2011 at 9:47 PM

If Palin doesn’t jump in, what are you going to do? Are you going to go full Paulbot and not vote for the Republican nominee if it isn’t Palin? If you are, you need to slow your roll with the hyper-active defense. If you’re not, then who gives a sh!t what you have to say anyway?

Jeebus…

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 9:41 PM

My husband was making Ron Paul noises before the debate last night, but it just took listening to Dr Paul’s answers to cure him of those notions LOL!

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:48 PM

rcl on September 13, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Did you miss this part? Pay to play…

And his major contributors — many of whom have received state contracts, grants or appointments during his administration — had another outlet to express their support for Perry.

“It seems to be all part of a pay-to-play form of pragmatic politics,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice.

idesign on September 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM

idesign on September 13, 2011 at 9:39 PM

I see a good fundraiser portrayed in that article.

Also, the Texans for Public Justice folks are an Austin based group who have it it for Rick Perry as well as TEA Partiers in particular and are against tort reform, nuclear waste sites, cam out against the Citizens United decision, etc.

Hardly an unbiased source for information.

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM

I missed the part where he said, there was going to be a in depth interview of Rick Perry.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Simple question: Were the numbers Perry gave (whether in debate, interview or whatever the “format” and rules Wolf Blitzer offered) accurate?

If you, Perry, or anybody else can make the numbers Perry himself offered unprompted work, take a swing at it.

Nobody asked about the specifics of his campaign donations: Bachmann obliquely referred to “thousands” of dollars from a pharmaceutical company, and Perry threw out the specific numbers.

Do they match reality? This isn’t a gotcha- type question. Is there a campaign cycle, time frame, or any reasonable interval in which Perry raised the 30 million he mentioned and only collected 5 grand from Merck?

If so, good for him.

If not, he was either lying or mistaken.

Not a difficult question to answer or understand, IMO.

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Perry survives it and it’s Bachmann’s moment of steep decline. Politics are funny.

sherry on September 13, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Isn’t it extremely interesting that Dick Swaggert, err Dick Perry oops I mean Rick Perry could make stupid and offensive comments in regards to illegal immigration during the debate, have his dictatorial decision about Gardasil declared politically survivable because he admitted he made a mistake, but Bachmann’s gaffe is somehow worse than those things Perry did? Why exactly?

If she admits her error, will the people who have forgiven Perry for his HPV fiasco say she unjumped the shark, or will they hold her to a different standard because Perry’s fascistic move happened “a long time ago”?

Bizarro No. 1 on September 13, 2011 at 10:01 PM

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 9:56 PM

You want to know the answer ask Perry – I don’t care what you believe.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Also, the Texans for Public Justice folks are an Austin based group who have it it for Rick Perry as well as TEA Partiers in particular and are against tort reform, nuclear waste sites, cam out against the Citizens United decision, etc.

Hardly an unbiased source for information.

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM

That’s not the question…

Did contributors to Perry receive state jobs, contracts or benefit finically?

If they did it’s pay to play.

idesign on September 13, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on September 13, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Will the over the top hyperbole ever end?

Yeah, the people of TEXASthe REDDEST of the RED states – have secretly re-elected a known fascist for the sake of what, exactly?

As far as the Gardisil move being “survivable”, I think he’s already proven that – during the last election cycle in Texas. But that just proves that the people of Texas are secretly attempting to foist the fascist Perry upon the country so he can forcible inject 12 year olds with fascism.

Put that in your hyperbole generator and smoke it.

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM

idesign on September 13, 2011 at 10:05 PM

No, I get your point. I do.

But one needs to be wary of where they are getting their information from. This group doesn’t seem overtly leftists from what I’ve seen, but they certainly lean that way and already have a hard-on for Perry.

Which was my greater point.

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 10:09 PM

The last remaining neuron, the one that so tenuously tethered Ace to any semblance of reality has been shot clean through; he is now free to torture himself without the restriction of feed-back from the material world.

May the Ace of Spades thrash in peace and cause bodily harm to no man nor beast.

Geochelone on September 13, 2011 at 10:11 PM

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Oh look, Spongebob is still here. I’ve been away from the computer for about, oh, four hours, and you’re still here digging. Shocking.

No I don’t. That’s ALL you do at this site. one of Ace’s little buttboy emissaries, I guess. Knock yourself out.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:31 PM

That’s what, the third ‘butt boy’ reference? Look, it’s clear to everyone you take an interest in homoerotic palaver – not that there’s anything wrong with that – but a stark word of warning: your ever-seeing Cuda doesn’t approve. Just play safe. Kay?

I don’t mean to be a pill, but could you stow the snark for a bit? (“On this blog? Never! Harrumph, harrumph!”) :-)

It’s just that my questions to UAV were meant seriously and respectfully, and I’m hoping we don’t get derailed too badly.

Mary in LA on September 13, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Hi Mary,

I don’t even know where to start. I could literally post pages of why I don’t like Sarah Palin, but I can tell you it didn’t start with the bus tour – it started from the first time I ever saw her talk. It was clear she had no training or knowledge on the national stage, but it continually got worse and worse. We all know the interviews and the famous fireball disaster answers (if you can call them that) that followed. Everything from her inane, nonsensical geographical foreign policy advantage, to her “I love the smell of the emissions” growl, makes me cringe with embarrassment.

Her constant professional victimhood, her tacky media spotlight thirst, the nauseating drama with Levi Johnston, her assassin like thirst for murdering almost every sentence, the forehead slapping gaffes that she continues to hand deliver to the media…it’s just all, all bad. Very bad.

To put it simply, I find her incredibly unqualified for President of the United States.

You-Eh-Vee on September 13, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Will the over the top hyperbole ever end?

Yeah, the people of TEXAS – the REDDEST of the RED states – have secretly re-elected a known fascist for the sake of what, exactly?

As far as the Gardisil move being “survivable”, I think he’s already proven that – during the last election cycle in Texas. But that just proves that the people of Texas are secretly attempting to foist the fascist Perry upon the country so he can forcible inject 12 year olds with fascism.

Put that in your hyperbole generator and smoke it.

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM

LOL what was hyperbolic about what I said? Didn’t Dick, err Rick himself admit he made a mistake about Gardisal?

Thank you for showing us that a bright, shiny object, in this case Bachmann’s mistake, holds your attention more than Perry’s comments on illegal immigration last night, and the fact you can forgive him for once having acted like a fascist.

Are you willing to give Bachmann the same chance to right herself that you’ve given Perry?

Bizarro No. 1 on September 13, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Geochelone on September 13, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Let me guess: You are a Palinsta?

Really Right on September 13, 2011 at 10:26 PM

You want to know the answer ask Perry – I don’t care what you believe.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 10:03 PM

(shrugs) Okay.

However, I suspect the question will come up in interviews and/or debates in the near future.

I further suspect that, should such interaction be featured in another post here, you will again be defending Perry in the comments.

Your choice, of course.

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 10:29 PM

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Of course Perry has to answer questions on this topic, and many others, too, just like all candidates must.

Really Right on September 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on September 13, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Of course I am. Why wouldn’t I be? Why do you assume I wouldn’t?

Perry apologized for his mistake. Still waiting for Bachmann. And it is jumping the shark. She had Perry dead to rights, I’ve admitted to as much in other threads today. But what she did after the debate was where she screwed the pooch.

I even made the argument earlier in this thread – why the hell are we worried about this crap when Perry has real problems with TTC/eminent domain?

And yes, your being hyperbolic with the fascist remarks. An EO is hardly fascism, not in its proper context and you know it. The people of Texas, like I said, would never stand for that and I’m sure you know that as well. So yeah, cool it already.

Just like the Lefties always tossing it around. Enough is enough.

Additionally when confronted with a quandary I always have to tell myself: who will I end up voting for? The answer is the person who is the Republican nominee going against Obama.

What about you?

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM

No it wasn’t misleading, he was responding to a specific accusation – it didn’t require Perry listing his campaign donations by donors and amounts of donations. Mitt Romney is on the Factor now, he started out by pointing out to Bill, what their time constraints were in the debate. You might have wanted Perry to elaborate on Merck’s different contributions to his campaigns, but that doesn’t mean he was required to list his campaign donations. That’s not misleading, that’s conforming to the debate format. If you have a problem with the debate format- that would be CNN and Wolf Blitzer’s department. If they were all going to be asked to specifically name their donors, and to list their contributions to their different political campaigns it’s not a debate anymore, it’s some kind of info dump.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 8:49 PM

So, therefore, Perry must be dumb like a rock according to
your theory. Perry knew full well going in that Gardisal and
his connection to Merck were going to be a problem. Therefore,
unless he is stupid, he found out exactly what they gave him
for his campaign. The difference in amounts is not a couple of
thousand. $5,000.00 versus $30,000.00 is a little bit different.
Perry said $5,000.00 because it sounded like a little amount
we all shouldn’t worry about.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 10:41 PM

A “mandate” with an opt-out is not a mandate.

Perry stance of illegals is far more serious to me than this tactical flub over trying to prevent cancer.

profitsbeard on September 13, 2011 at 10:42 PM

(shrugs) Okay.

However, I suspect the question will come up in interviews and/or debates in the near future.

I further suspect that, should such interaction be featured in another post here, you will again be defending Perry in the comments.

Your choice, of course.

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I live in Texas. I lived through the Gardasil controversy when it happened in real time. Perry said it was a mistake to use the EO to mandate the HPV vaccine. He’s not arguing with anyone – all of you are arguing with yourselves – he’s already admited it was a mistake. You all can’t take his, yes you’re right for answer – it’s a dumb tactic.

The question should be put to him in an interview why wouldn’t it? Although Ed’s already answered Merck’s donations and history in his update on this same thread, they aren’t even one of Perry’s top 200 donors.

I further suspect that, should such interaction be featured in another post here, you will again be defending Perry in the comments.

Your choice, of course.

I don’t even know what that means – people should question Perry, he’s running for President of the United States.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 10:46 PM

So, therefore, Perry must be dumb like a rock according to
your theory. Perry knew full well going in that Gardisal and
his connection to Merck were going to be a problem. Therefore,
unless he is stupid, he found out exactly what they gave him
for his campaign. The difference in amounts is not a couple of
thousand. $5,000.00 versus $30,000.00 is a little bit different.
Perry said $5,000.00 because it sounded like a little amount
we all shouldn’t worry about.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 10:41 PM

This is only September, there are more debates, and no doubt he will be interviewed. He should be asked to elaborate, you want to believe there was a nefarious intent behind his Merck response go ahead. I don’t.

Ed’s update,
Update: Worth noting — Perry actually has received nearly $30,000 from Merck over the past decade. Also worth noting — that doesn’t put Merck in the top 200 of Perry’s donors during that period. Seriously.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Some Republican women would like Sarah Palin if she looked more like Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Debbie Stabenow … expecially Republican woman who look like Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Debbie Stabenow.

bw222 on September 13, 2011 at 7:03 PM

You are so right. I know some business associate wives who are like that;
uglier than dirt, however, have an elitist attitude toward
Palin and any other good looking women. They also spend
their time spending their husband’s money and bragging about
their brand of clothing, where they are going or have been on
vacations, etc. It is annoying going out to a business dinner
with them. The men think Palin is smart and hot; also, would
likely vote for her if she were to run. If not, they would
vote for Romney.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 10:53 PM

You-Eh-Vee on September 13, 2011 at 10:12 PM

So let me see if I got this right. Never mind a person’s policy stance or any of their actual accomplishments. You simply pick a person to run the country by the way they speak? Is that the means for vetting all of your candidates? BTW, did you know Palin isn’t in the race? Even if she does get in, YOU don’t have to vote for her. Why are you so worried about her?

conmo on September 13, 2011 at 11:00 PM

The Boss Emeritus calls this a “really, really stupid attack on Palin” in an update to the linked post above, but I’m not entirely convinced

Looks like Ed is showing his true colors now..

ChuckTX on September 13, 2011 at 11:04 PM

I will vote for Perry if he is the nominee. I think the immigration issue is a bigger one for me in helping him to get the nomination.

conmo on September 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Dr. Evil – - quit doing your research
on Hot Air.

Perry has so many problems that soon it will always
only be about him….the fear I have is that Romney will emerge
unscathed because everyone will be attacking Perry’s record(s).

Let’s give you a start – research the following -
1. Gardisal
2. Illegal Immigration
a. in state tuition for illegals
b. sanctuary cities
c. not in favor of e-verify
d. some health insurance 62 miles from the border north
and south (into Mexico)- some sort of co insurance with
Mexico
3. Trans corridor
a. adjacent to highways already in use which, if built, would
have bankrupted any business adjacent to the highway.
b. control of the highway and any businesses adjacent given
to a company from Spain
4. Crony capitalism – this one will keep you going for months!

I keep a file on all the candidates. There is more, however,
it is buried in my office!

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:07 PM

To put it simply, I find her incredibly unqualified for President of the United States.

You-Eh-Vee on September 13, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Well, to put it simply as well, I find YOU incredibly unqualified
to comment on Palin.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Although Ed’s already answered Merck’s donations and history in his update on this same thread, they aren’t even one of Perry’s top 200 donors.
Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 10:46 PM

I’ve asked you at least 3 times a question you continue to sidestep:

Why did Perry bring up raising 30 million & only getting 5 thousand from Merck? Is there a time frame for which this is a true statement?

THIS is the question he will be asked, and have to answer: not whether Merck is in the “top 200″ donors, but whether his own numbers are accurate.

Is the “only 5,000 of 30,000,000 was from Merck” true or false?

Why are you dancing around this simple question so carefully?

And, if you don’t care what my opinion is, why do you keep responding to it?

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Well, if Palin doesn’t get in and Perry is the nom, who do you vote for?

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:07 PM

I live in Texas have for some years, you don’t think I haven’t read or heard just about every thing the democrats have to throw at Perry?

But good luck to you in your smearing endeavors LOL!

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Isn’t it extremely interesting that Dick Swaggert, err Dick Perry oops I mean Rick Perry could make stupid and offensive comments in regards to illegal immigration during the debate, have his dictatorial decision about Gardasil declared politically survivable because he admitted he made a mistake, but Bachmann’s gaffe is somehow worse than those things Perry did? Why exactly?

If she admits her error, will the people who have forgiven Perry for his HPV fiasco say she unjumped the shark, or will they hold her to a different standard because Perry’s fascistic move happened “a long time ago”?

Bizarro No. 1 on September 13, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Rush is wrong with his rant on Bachmann. While what she said is over the
top, it should in no way offer a smoke screen to the real issue
of Perry trying to force a mandate on the citizens who didn’t want it. If Obama did what Perry did (and he has) we
would be screaming about it. Instead, Rush and others are
jumping all over MB. (and full disclosure – I don’t think MB
is qualified to be president – however, like the fact that she is in the debates).

I am surprised Rush contributed to the bogus smoke screen.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Well, if Palin doesn’t get in and Perry is the nom, who do you vote for?

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM

I will hold my nose and vote for the repub nom. If Palin
doesn’t announce, I don’t know who I am throwing my primary
vote for. However, I live in Illinois, so you know!
I will vote regardless because I consider it my civic duty
to not only research the candidates, but to vote even tho
is means nothing because of the democratic stranglehold
ala Cook County.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:19 PM

And, if you don’t care what my opinion is, why do you keep responding to it?

cs89 on September 13, 2011 at 11:13 PM

If you want to know answers about Rick Perry – ask Rick Perry. Why make sh1t up about him when you can get the information straight from the horse’s mouth? Just what is the value of any person’s opinion on the internet on any subject? Keeping with Michelle Bachmann’s theme.

Winning an argument on the internet is like participating in the Special Olympics even if you win your still special.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:22 PM

But good luck to you in your smearing endeavors LOL!

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:15 PM

One has to research the facts, not the dem talking points.
I am sure you know the difference.

Perry has big issues and many know it. However, the repub
estab are running out of candidates. Perry may be their
last hurrah so they will protect him at all cost.

I, myself, only deal in facts. I research until I can’t
keep my eyes open – It is true that I have files on the major
candidates – well, not Santorum and Huntsman – and
very little on Newt – and heaven forbid, I have nothing on Paul.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM

I will hold my nose and vote for the repub nom.
Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:19 PM

That’s how I feel about Mitt Romney, that’s my default position if he wins the nomination. Not that Texas is going to go blue in 2012.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:24 PM

I agree with those who find Bachmann repeating “innocent little girls” and “forced to have a government injection” creepy. Like Perry was authorizing Nazis to strap them onto tables and perform experiments on them or, like someone said, making Perry seem like a pedophile. Disgusting. And uncalled for. Santorum didn’t do that.

It’s also important to remember that Perry’s wife is a nurse and I’m sure she helped influence his decision. The vast majority of the medical community was behind this vaccine immediately. I remember having about 3 or 4 doctors recommended my daughter get the vaccine when she started college, including her DENTIST. She wasn’t sexually active and I didn’t want to take any chances with a new vaccine. Now I hear some virgins have gotten the virus

Elisa on September 13, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM

I am an Independent that leans Libertarian. I am not an absolutist, there is no perfect candidate. I prefer a fiscal conservative for the republican nominee, but I sure as hell don’t want Dr Paul.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Can I get a breakdown of when those “bribes” were given?

gekkobear on September 13, 2011 at 9:14 PM

I didn’t say they were bribes.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:16 PM

But that was the clear inference from Bachman and Palin. Quid pro quo. Corruption. Dirty politics. Unfounded and uncalled for. Shame.

Elisa on September 13, 2011 at 11:31 PM

But good luck to you in your smearing endeavors LOL!

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:15 PM

One must admit, however, that Ron Paul is somewhat entertaining.
And the looks on the other candidates’ faces when he is speaking
is priceless.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:33 PM

But good luck to you in your smearing endeavors LOL!

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:15 PM

One must admit, however, that Ron Paul is somewhat entertaining.
And the looks on the other candidates’ faces when he is speaking
is priceless.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Yes but a little Ron Paul goes a long way. He doesn’t have any problem expressing his opinion, I ‘ll give him that.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:36 PM

It’s also important to remember that Perry’s wife is a nurse and I’m sure she helped influence his decision.

Elisa on September 13, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Maybe his chief of staff and his mother-in-law had more influence.

“The controversy over Perry’s decision deepened as it came to light that his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck and that his chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Rep. Dianne White Delisi, was the state director of an advocacy group bankrolled by Merck to push legislatures across the country to put forward bills mandating the Gardasil vaccine for preteen girls”.

darwin on September 13, 2011 at 11:36 PM

just as much evidence for crony capitalism here as there is in anything perry did….

chasdal on September 13, 2011 at 9:27 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27374946/ns/politics-decision_08/t/bidding-process-palins-pipeline-was-flawed/

Gov. Sarah Palin’s signature accomplishment — a contract to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48 — emerged from a flawed bidding process that narrowed the field to a company with ties to her administration, an Associated Press investigation shows.

Wow. I don’t think Palin or Perry did anything corrupt or quid pro quo in these instances. But Perry isn’t the one going around accusing others like she is.

Elisa on September 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Of course I am. Why wouldn’t I be? Why do you assume I wouldn’t?

Perry apologized for his mistake. Still waiting for Bachmann. And it is jumping the shark. She had Perry dead to rights, I’ve admitted to as much in other threads today. But what she did after the debate was where she screwed the pooch.

I even made the argument earlier in this thread – why the hell are we worried about this crap when Perry has real problems with TTC/eminent domain?

And yes, your being hyperbolic with the fascist remarks. An EO is hardly fascism, not in its proper context and you know it. The people of Texas, like I said, would never stand for that and I’m sure you know that as well. So yeah, cool it already.

Just like the Lefties always tossing it around. Enough is enough.

Additionally when confronted with a quandary I always have to tell myself: who will I end up voting for? The answer is the person who is the Republican nominee going against Obama.

What about you?

catmman on September 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Here’s what I don’t understand about people like you – you believe Bachmann jumped the shark i.e. she committed a fatal error, yet Perry’s offensive views/comments on illegal immigration aren’t/weren’t fatal in your opinion, nor was his attempt to impose his solitary will on citizens of TX’s bodies over their justifiable objections about Gardasil (sorry, that kind of behavior is inarguably fascistic to me), which I guess you consider less than fatal because he said he was sorry he did that. On what plane of reality is what Bachmann did a greater crime than those I mentioned about Perry?

The message you are sending is that Bachmann’s error, which was to repeat someone else’s testimony w/o researching it first, is a greater folly than Perry’s offenses, which you are willing to forgive/overlook. Why haven’t you been showing us that an apology from Bachmann would save her political chances the way Perry’s apparently has? Why do you believe that Bachmann can’t survive her error, while Perry can survive as a proud enabler of illegal immigration?

If you wish to say that an apology from Bachmann will unjump the shark for her, I’ll then say that you should be using a different phrase, because “jump the shark” means making an unrecoverable error.

You asked me who I’ll vote for. I’ll tell you that even if Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, or John Hunstman gets the GOP nomination, I’d still vote for the GOP candidate (nose plugged, of course!) :)

Bizarro No. 1 on September 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Wait, wait. The Fed government paid for Gard vaccinations in multiple states…and Alaska was one of them. The vaccinations were voluntary.

And this is somehow Palin’s problem?

Unless you are claiming that only Alaska received fed funding for vaccines, and then at the direct request of Palin, AND that the vaccines were mandatory, I simply cant twist my brain into the knot required to blame Palin for anything.

Bachmann isn’t the only one who has jumped the shark, Ed.

Irritable Pundit on September 13, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Thanks. Now I don’t have to write all that myself.

I knew HA had become Conservatives4Perry, but this weird Palin Connection is really disappointing coming from Ed.

Dongemaharu on September 13, 2011 at 11:38 PM

…Why haven’t you been showing us that you believe an apology from Bachmann would save her political chances the way Perry’s apparently has?…

FIFM

Bizarro No. 1 on September 13, 2011 at 11:39 PM

I swear to God, they could find bodies in shallow graves in Perry’s back yard and there’d be people here to say it’s no big deal. It reminds me less of Obama than of Clinton.

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Oh, let me try:

“Everybody makes mistakes” (if he admits to burying the bodies)

“That’s how they do things in Texas.”

“Hey, everybody does it!”

“There are bodies buried in Alaska too!” -Ed/KingGold

Dongemaharu on September 13, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Let’s remember what the point of this exercise is: beat Obama.
Puritan1648 on September 13, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Absolute.

Kenosha Kid on September 14, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Rush is wrong with his rant on Bachmann. While what she said is over the
top, it should in no way offer a smoke screen to the real issue
of Perry trying to force a mandate on the citizens who didn’t want it. If Obama did what Perry did (and he has) we
would be screaming about it. Instead, Rush and others are
jumping all over MB. (and full disclosure – I don’t think MB
is qualified to be president – however, like the fact that she is in the debates).

I am surprised Rush contributed to the bogus smoke screen.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Thank you for expressing my thoughts so perfectly (except the one about Bachmann’s qualification to be president) that I now wouldn’t have to type them out! :)

EVERYTHING you said here is obvious, and it’s disturbing that more on the Right are getting caught up in the hoopla over what really was/should have been an inconsequential comment by Bachmann. We are becoming a nation of wimps, so much so that even Rush is being affected by the contagion.

Perry needs to be kept on a tight leash. That being said, I am not too bothered with the idea of him President because I believe that his bad political wishes aren’t viable nationally. He’ll still leave me feeling slimed, though, no matter what! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on September 14, 2011 at 12:24 AM

That doesn’t mean that the FDA never approves an unsafe drug, but they at least preform due diligence before approving it. If it was FDA-approved, then it was fairly well tested.
tom on September 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM

List of withdrawn drugs

Unfortunately it often takes years before the biggest dangers are manifested. The CDC has some records of already admitted adverse effects from Gardasil, including death, at it’s site.

whatcat on September 13, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Sometimes the FDA is wrong. But you can’t really accuse them of recklessness. And if the FDA has approved a drug, you can’t really claim that a state government is jumping the gun for using it.

The better point is that all drugs have side effects, even vaccinations, and that governments should be very cautious about mandating them. How recently the FDA approved them is NOT a good argument.

MM is right about a lot, but she doesn’t have a perfect record.

tom on September 14, 2011 at 1:00 AM

But that was the clear inference from Bachman and Palin. Quid pro quo. Corruption. Dirty politics. Unfounded and uncalled for. Shame.

Elisa on September 13, 2011 at 11:31 PM

If Palin’s the nominee-I prefered Palin over MB-I was going to actively campaign for her. Not anymore. That crap she said on Greta has cost her with me. She’ll get my vote(Duh!) but that’s ALL she’ll get from me. If she runs in the primary I will actively campaign against her.
Maybe we could start a petition campaign to pressure Jindal into running.
You with me?
*sigh*

annoyinglittletwerp on September 14, 2011 at 1:41 AM

I am surprised Rush contributed to the bogus smoke screen.

Amjean on September 13, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Rush is right, it is a distraction to turn this into a whack job diatribe against the safety of vaccines and even Michelle Malkin said as much. Raising concerns about Perry’s ties to Merck or raising questions about his bypassing the legislature is perectly legitimate, but saying the vaccine makes people retarded completely killed whatever traction she may have gained. She pushed the whole “little girls” line too much as well – does she want this to be a question on whether Perry wants to hurt little girls? Her was unfocused and with the retardation line looked hysterical.

Sarah Palin focused like a laser on the Merck connection which is what Bachmann should have done.

Daemonocracy on September 14, 2011 at 2:11 AM

If Palin’s the nominee-I prefered Palin over MB-I was going to actively campaign for her. Not anymore. That crap she said on Greta has cost her with me. She’ll get my vote(Duh!) but that’s ALL she’ll get from me. If she runs in the primary I will actively campaign against her.
Maybe we could start a petition campaign to pressure Jindal into running.
You with me?
*sigh*

annoyinglittletwerp on September 14, 2011 at 1:41 AM

And what if that “crap” is true?

steebo77 on September 14, 2011 at 2:37 AM

As I understand it, Gardasil prevents 4 specific strains of HPV, which can be spread through kissing, although of course other activities have a higher risk.
Girls who make out with the boys who have fooled around, then, are potentially at risk not only for cervical cancer, but ORAL CANCER as well. (Even the boys who swear to mom and dad they’ve never done anything…)

I’m not sure what good for the conservative cause is accomplished by keeping Gardasil in its usual expensive state, not covered by copays – or by Palin had she refused to accept federal money that had already been alloted for Gardasil distribution.

I get that Perry was heavyhanded about it, but really, is this the hill you want the GOP nomination to die on?

BemusedMalkinite on September 14, 2011 at 3:13 AM

Yeah. I like it. How long has the term “Palinista” been around and used constantly?

ddrintn on September 13, 2011 at 8:46 PM

I like Perrynoiacs. ;)

powerpro on September 14, 2011 at 3:16 AM

I wear the epithet(?) Palinista with pride.

BemusedMalkinite on September 14, 2011 at 3:18 AM

I wear the epithet(?) Palinista with pride.

BemusedMalkinite on September 14, 2011 at 3:18 AM

Yes epithet, that’s the word. I had a brain freeze the other day and couldn’t get euphemism out of my head, but I knew that word wasn’t right.

Daemonocracy on September 14, 2011 at 3:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6