Rick Perry & next week's debate

About the debate & Perry... but first I would like to quote one of the repub candidates who characterized the juvenile move by the dems to have the prez make a political speech when the repubs have a televised debate. I think it was Cain who said this is "political mischief". Good description, but I think it comes in a little lower down to the level of grade school boys' tricks. And Rush Limbaugh is right on this also - Boehner is a wimp (my word) if he allows a political campaign speech to be given at a forced "joint session" of congress.

OK now for the debate next week. The question to watch for isn't whether the only woman candidate will "submit" to her husband [trust liberals to twist even holy writ for their own purposes]....

No, the question that may or may not be asked is about Rick Perry and his mandating Gardasil vaccinations to grade school girls as Texas governor. When I discovered that just recently [I don't follow Texas politics], a number of questions came to mind, and I started some cursory research. Up comes the gardasil controversy.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033410_Rick_Perry_Big_Pharma.html

Part of why citizens should watch for this question next week is that for the moment, the mainstream media is avoiding mention of this. IMHO, the mainstream media likes Perry, for several reasons - he was a Democrat, and they think once a dem, in his heart, always a dem. And the Gardasil thing kind of, sort of, supports that. But why are they not asking about that in the never-ending chattering-class bla bla discussions prior to the debate? Now to be fair, it appears that Perry is backing away from what he did as governor, but he will have to do better than saying his administration should have had better "conversations" with the public. Forced vaccinations are anathema to any and all
Republicans I have ever met.

Personally I like Perry (on a personal level mainly), but I would have to see some REAL repentance over this Merck/Gardasil thing on his part. And I would have to hear some convincing explanations as to his apparent ties with Big Pharma. Back to why the MSM is giving him a pass on this, and why they may not even allow the Gardasil queston to be asked in next week's debate -- I'm not exactly sure, but think the "powers that be" IN BOTH PARTIES are scared to death of a Michelle Bachman or Ron Paul as the nominee, and as in 2008 are trying to make sure the republicans nominate somebody with lots and lots of baggage. They are going to bash Perry over the head with this Gardasil thing eventually - but will they give him a pass in next week's debate? In other words, like Big Brother House on tv - is the debate going to be rigged, from the "moderators" standpoint??? We shall see

No votes yet

as I had some questions about this issue myself. Before I dive in though, I hope you won't mind some friendly advice. When researching a candidate, issue, etc and the article opens with a quote from Alex Jones...run away. Far, far away. I'll save my opinions on the NaturalNews article for some editorializing a little later.

Instead of cutting and pasting the stories or trying to paraphrase pieces and parts I think you would find important, I'll just provide the links and hope that you take the time to read through the articles.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/08/16/rick-perry-and-the-gardasil-d...

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/08/17/more-on-perry-and-gardasil/

And just in case you have any other questions about the various hit pieces put out on Perry (including the whole Democrat thing), give this one a read.

http://www.redstate.com/izoneguy/2011/08/14/seventeen-17-things-that-cri...

Look forward to hearing your thoughts...

Now to the article you posted. So part of the reason you don't hear much of this outside of liberal blog/news sites is that the other contingent of people pushing this story are the Alex Jones/Black Helicopter types who in addition to thinking 9/11 was an inside job, also think that pretty much every vaccine requirement is a nefarious plot cooked up by the military industrial complex.

I see that you mentioned forced vaccinations being the anathema to any and all Republicans you've ever met. When you do run into these "Republicans", do they provide any examples of what they consider a forced vaccination? Measels? Polio? Pertussis?

Two websites I check regularly are rense & natural news. I think I stumbled on the Perry/Gardasil item at rense. I don't follow or read Alex Jones, for several reasons. BUT if you are going to demonize him (which most liberals and establishment republicans do for their own purposes), you are going to have to produce some proof - not this kind of guilt by association that you have done above to silence any questions about Perry [or any candidate].

There are many many articles out there about this Perry/Gardasil/Merck deal, which smells to high heaven, and I am basing that on the several other articles I have read on the big pharma connections here. I don't post 3, 4 or more links on one posting, because interested readers are not morons and can access information via google or bing on their own, and make their own judgments. The issue of forced vaccinations is a HUGE topic, not just for political conservatives. That actress whose son is autistic, along with THOUSANDS of other parents blames vaccinations for her son's illness. Jenny ... can't recall last name is a liberal Democrat. My best friend, whose son got some prescribed vaccinations years ago as a child, woke up the next day newly unable to walk, and he was in this condition for months afterward. He had lingering health problems for years after that.

You have not addressed one fact about why it would be legitimate for ANYONE to force 6th grade girls to be vaccinated with gardasil. Force by law - not allow parents to make a choice. You have not acknowledged what anyone familiar with the risks of various vaccinations knows - that you can GET THE DISEASE FROM THE VACCINATION. I didn't find that out from the internet. I watched a PBS documentary on the polio vaccines (both live and killed (salk) virus types) maybe 20 or so years ago. One of the real-life examples they documented was a grandfather who contracted polio from changing his grandson's diaper. The child had received the live virus vaccine just days before. I have been inerested in this topic ever since.

Perry has some explaining to do. And I hope he doesn't discredit himself by blaming Jones. For the moment he has backed away from what he did.

when trying to address incoherent rambling with some absolutely ridiculous assumptions? I guess we start with Alex Jones since he really isn't all that pertinent to the discussion and easiest to dispatch.

I don't follow or read Alex Jones, for several reasons. BUT if you are going to demonize him (which most liberals and establishment republicans do for their own purposes), you are going to have to produce some proof - not this kind of guilt by association that you have done above to silence any questions about Perry [or any candidate].

Ridiculous assumption #1 - Liberals and establishment republicans demonize Alex Jones for their own purpose.

  • No one needs to demonize Mr. Jones, he beclowns himself very well on his own. And why only liberals and establishment republicans? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of regular democrats and republicans that have a problem with this guy as well. We may actually have bi-partisanship here.

Ridiculous assumption #2 - not this kind of guilt by association that you have done above to silence any questions about Perry [or any candidate]

  • Exactly where did I presume guilt by association? All I did was suggest other points of reference for research since the article you provided stepped on it's credibility right out of the gate. And since when did suggesting other points of view because the initial point of reference could have a credibility question turn into trying to silence dissent on an issue?

There are many many articles out there about this Perry/Gardasil/Merck deal, which smells to high heaven, and I am basing that on the several other articles I have read on the big pharma connections here. I don't post 3, 4 or more links on one posting, because interested readers are not morons and can access information via google or bing on their own, and make their own judgments.

If there are many, many articles you've used to base your opinion on Perry's "big pharma connections", don't you think that referencing them would help support said opinion? Not to mention it is probably the responsible thing to do as well. And while some of us crack on wolfman for cutting and pasting entire articles when a link and small summary would suffice, at least we know he's not making stuff up.

The issue of forced vaccinations is a HUGE topic, not just for political conservatives. That actress whose son is autistic, along with THOUSANDS of other parents blames vaccinations for her son's illness. Jenny ... can't recall last name is a liberal Democrat.

Ridiculous assumption #3 - The issue of forced vaccinations is a HUGE topic, not just for political conservatives.

  • I've got a sneaking suspicion that the issue of "forced" vaccinations is really only a "HUGE" topic to that particular, for lack of a better term, interest group.

As a parent of young children, I feel like I should tread carefully regarding your reference to Ms. McCarthy and the "THOUSANDS" of other parents who claim childhood vaccinations cause autism. Because if put in that situation, I would be looking for and wanting answers as well. Unfortunately though, Ms. McCarthy and others continue to believe in and push fraudulent research to make their case.

You have not addressed one fact about why it would be legitimate for ANYONE to force 6th grade girls to be vaccinated with gardasil. Force by law - not allow parents to make a choice.

I don't believe I ever claimed the mandate was legitimate/necessary or one that I was entirely comfortable with. I believe it is one of many issues to weigh when considering Perry's candidacy. Mind you when weighing this issue, I will also consider the fact that he has since admitted the mandate was a mistake and that when issuing the mandate, a parental opt-out was also included.

Perry has some explaining to do. And I hope he doesn't discredit himself by blaming Jones.

Ridiculous assumption #4 - And I hope he doesn't discredit himself by blaming Jones.

  • I'm not even sure how to respond to this or how you would even come to that conclusion.

Before I pose a question though, I feel like I should at least remind you of something you said a little over a week ago.

Now of course, Rick Perry could pick Rubio for VP and we could have a real blowout next year. (I can dream can't I.)

I couldn't agree more. Perry/Rubio would absolutely trounce the clowns currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania. But has Gardasil changed that dream for you? And if so, is it because you are against all mandated vaccines, some mandated vaccines or just vaccines altogether?

But Dr. Wakefield's research is a side topic & I'm not going to get drawn into that conversation. I'm familiar with how online trolls try to muddy the waters. I cut my teeth on World Net Daily's very rudimentary posting board in 2000. I've seen and heard it all before. Therefore, I post strictly for the lurkers, not to "win" an online argument. Readers can research and decide for themselves.

So here is a link about Merck and how they tried to ram mandatory gardasil through. It's long but fascinating:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14401

And my friend whose son had the frightening reaction to vaccinations? Her adult daughter was laid off from Merck a few years back - and the mother wasn't even aware of Merck's skulduggery until recently.

And yes, this gardasil thing is a game changer for me. I still am a Rubio fan and heard the McLaughlin Group actually mention him as a potential VP candidate. Thought that was my own idea. As to Perry and the campaign, if he pulls ahead and is the nominee, if this gardasil baggage isn't disposed of in some way - the media will wait until around the middle of next year and lambaste him with it - becuse in the end they want Obama for another 4 years. Ron Paul is the best candidate anyway, but the media and establishment Republicans pull out all the stops to shut him up. It will be an interesting campaign year, but I see the Republicans about to blow yet another national election.

between autism and vaccinations, but now that I bring up Dr. Wakefield...or should I say Wakefield (probably not appropriate to call him a doctor anymore), it is suddenly a side topic "for online trolls try(ing) to muddy the waters." Unfortunately, that isn't quite how it works. It is generally of some importance when the individual who is primarily responsible for introducing a controversial theory and research is found to be a fraud.

On a related note, I should thank you for confirming a suspicion I had when reading your intial post...this really doesn't have anything to do with Rick Perry or the upcoming debate. It was just window dressing for you to peddle your anti-vaccination/big pharma/trans-national corporatist conspiracy theories. And of course you are well within your rights to do so, just don't expect to not get called on it.

But since Perry was brought up, I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on him as well. No matter how much you want this Gardasil thing to be an issue, it will almost certainly die (or at least become an afterthought) after the primaries. Why you ask? Because it really only has traction in the Republican party where there is always the ongoing concern about the role of government in our day to day lives. The leftist media hacks may try to use it as an attempt to sway independents, but in my opinion, that would be a risky venture as it would force more attention to Obamacare as well (and I'm guessing that probably polls much, much worse). And though it goes without saying, my guess is independents and the like will be much more concerned about things like jobs, the economy, the debt/deficit, etc.

Anyway, are you sure you are even a Republican? I know we don't all think alike or support the same people, but I don't know any Republicans who reference works/groups that lead with Alex Jones quotes (NaturalNews) or that are funded by the Tides Center and led by someone who was the senior researcher for the book The Impeachment of George W. Bush (CorpWatch). And just in case you weren't aware, the Tides Center is a "non-profit organization in the United States which provides fiscal sponsorship to progressive groups." Conspiracy theories and a liberal group trying to foster "democratic control over corporations" (CorpWatch's own words)...I think you may have the wrong party.

Farmergal take the weekend off. Turn the radio off take a few deep breaths and reflect what's really important in life. Rick Perry is another Bush red neck cowboy who's better suited to clearing brush on the Texas ranch than sittin in a high foluten Washington Whitehouse with flush toilets!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

cutting and pasting. At least that would require a small amount of research from which you may discover that the Perry and Bush camps aren't all that friendly.

Farmergal here's why Perry has an inside advantage. He is Presidential. Now Romney has that same trait but Romney won't get the support of the Tea Party which means he can only win the primary in a long and drawn out primary like last time.

Perry can win independents and Tea Party which is why he scares Democrats. Additionally he's someone that establishment Republicans could support as well which is a quality Bachman and Palin don't have.

There are some still in the race that I wonder why at this point. They are primarily Santorum and Huntsman. Their campaigns highlight was their announcement speech. Gingrinch is holding on but makes noise with each debate which is why he can stick around. Unfortunately for many on here Paul has never broken the 15% mark and still won't and that means he should wrap up his campaign instead of becoming the reincarnate of Harold Staassen or Lindon LaRouche. Ron Paul however would be a GREAT Treasury Secretary or Dept of Ed Secretary.

I find it funny that the media hung on for Sarah Palin to make an announcement this weekend and again she puts them off telling them "she'll make a decision later in the month". She likes stringing them along and they take the bait every time. In truth her negatives are too high to even get the nomination and she's doing too good of a job raising money doing what she is now. She'd be a GREAT RNC chairwoman.

Right now Perry is the clear front runner. He's got the Tea Party support. No one questions his conservative credentials. He can raise money. Unless he screws something up (I doubt it because they've already tried sabotaging him and he's had some great comebacks that make good soundbytes) he will most likely win the nomination.

MikeyA

.. on your part, MikeyA. I read it first time yesterday. Then an interesting thing happened. My new flat screen tv receives 2 analog channels (grainy but very watchable) - channels 48 and 68. 68 being TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network), I hadn't been able to get channel 68 for several years with my old analog television. TBN, of course, is a huge organization.

So, last evening TBN had Rick Perry on for an interview and some clips of the prayer gathering he spoke at. I will grudgingly admit I was impressed. I am an evangelical Christian (the friend I cited above re her son - we attended the same church and Bible college over 40 years ago). But I am very suspicious and skeptical, particularly of the mainstream (or lamestream) media, on any topic or candidate. I thought they were for Perry, and I had not heard him say anything very powerful on LSM broadcasts.

The American Spectator opines that the media is definitely not for Perry:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/01/open-season

He is very impressive. Ron Paul is still my favorite, but RP doesn't know how to FIGHT, unfortunately. I have not voted for either of the 2-party prez candidates since GHWB in 1992. I had found out waaaay too much about the Bush family and McCain, of course, is a liberal. So if I vote for Perry next year, that will be the first 2-party candidate I will have voted for in 20 years. I hope he makes it interesting at the debate tonite.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.