In an interview last night, Sarah Palin backed up Michele Bachmann’s charge that Rick Perry’s decision to sign an executive order mandating sixth grade girls to get the HPV vaccine appeared to be an example of “crony capitalism.”
“That someone, as Michele Bachmann pointed out, was Governor Perry’s former chief of staff, who then went to work for a drug company who made the drug that would be required of the Texan government to mandate that, that our young daughters would have to be inoculated against potential disease from the company that his former chief of staff was lobbying for. That’s crony capitalism,” Palin told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren last night.
“That’s part of the problem that we have in this country, is that people are afraid, even within our own party, to call one another out on that,” Palin added. “True reform and fighting the corruption and fighting the crony capitalism is a tough thing to do within your own party. You have to go up against the big guns. And they will try to destroy you when you call them out on the mistakes that they have made.”
Palin said Bachmann would possibly “get crucified” by some Republicans who would see her charges of crony capitalism as violating Reagan’s 11th commandment. Emphasizing that restoring trust in federal government depended on eliminating “back door dealings,” she praised Bachmann’s efforts.
“How are we ever going to reform the system and be able to restore what’s good and fair and right about America unless we do hold one another accountable? That’s what Michele was trying to do,” Palin said.
Palin also stressed she was opposed to the vaccine itself, not just Perry’s decision to mandate it by executive order.
“Remember when the media went a little bit crazy and demanded to see my 25,000 e-mails that I had written during my term as governor. In those e-mails, there is proof of there that the issue arose while I was governor of Alaska. And the e-mails reflect my — my principle there was, No, government, stay out of the lives of family decisions like that, and do not tell a parent that their daughter must be immunized,” Palin said. She was referring to a 2008 e-mail where she wrote, “I would not propose govt mandating anything like shots for our kids.”
Speaking about her reaction at the time, Palin indicated she had been startled by Perry’s decision to push for the vaccine mandate.
“And there had to have been something to that whole issue because it just didn’t sound like Governor Perry,” she recalled. “Governor Perry was, you know, the proverbial anti-government type of maverick there in Texas, and yet on this issue, he decided that he was going to know better than a parent was going to know in terms of what the health care or health benefit would be for their teenage daughters. So I knew there was something to it.”
All politicians - including the non-establishment, freedom fighting Bachmann and Palin - accept contributions from people and organizations that might financially benefit from the policy positions they take and legislation they promote. If those who support tax cuts - whether individuals or companies - contribute to Bachmann's campaign, is she guilty of crony capitalism?
Sure, all politicians take contributions that might be linked to a policy decision later on. But I think the reason Palin's charge rings true is that the position Perry took is directly opposite the political persona he is trying to portray.
The whole "I want to make government as inconsequential to your life as possible" does not exactly match the "I want the government to give your young daughters an STD vaccine". Just sayin'
Don't forget that Perry is a 10th Amendment champion. You've left out a word, federal; He wants to make the federal government as inconsequential in your life as possible.
It's pretty clear that he believes that the states enjoy robust police powers, except when it comes to Romneycare, I guess.
Perhaps Palin in her critique of Perry might be of some use after all. And the charge of cronyism is not dependant on the actual campaign contribution. It is the fact that Perry instituted this policy at the behest (presumably) of his former Chief of Staff that was now the lobbyist for the drug company that directly benefited from the policy. It's not the money, in this case, that we have to follow. It is the relationship.
So Perry got some bad advice from someone he trusted, he acted on it, got it trouble for it, backed off and apologized. As far as I'm concerned, case closed.
What continues to bug me is that Palin, Bachmann and others keep mischaracterizing what Perry did. He did not "require" little girls to get a "government injection." Perry's order simply added this vaccine to the list of all the other vaccines that kids need to get when they go to public school, AND it let parents opt out of the requirement. Parents continued to have a choice.
I don't mind Republicans calling out other Republicans when they've screwed up, but I do mind it when Republicans lie about other Republicans.
Agreed. Palin and Bachmann are not helping their own cause or the cause of freedom by looking to score cheap points and stay in the limelight. They are both getting tiresome quickly. Do something positive or get out of the way.
So you are not concerned with the connection of the drug company to Perry through Perry's former chief of staff (who is now the lobbyist for the drug company in question)?
I'm not a Palin fan, but I do think there's a major problem with "crony capitalism" and it's rotting our entire system.
The connection with Merck and Perry's chief-of-staff may be a complete coincidence, but let's be honest, if this was a Democrat, we'd be pretty irate at the idea of making a $300 shot mandatory for every young girl to protect against a type of cervical cancer brought on by an STD that affect less than 1% of the population.
I love Palin, but I find her argument that she was "opposed to this kind of thing" as governor, and that her e-mails show that, is a bit of a stretch.
A lot of her supporters have claimed that she meant Merck came to her to push the vaccine, and she told them "hell no". But that isn't what she was saying at all.
Her e-mail was in response to the BoEducation deciding to add Chicken Pox to the list of mandatory vaccines. There is no way to tell from the e-mail chain whether Palin was specifically saying she wouldn't have mandated THAT vaccine, or if she is saying she would never mandate ANY vaccine.
Her words: “I would not propose govt mandating anything like shots for our kids.” certainly suggest she opposes mandatory vaccine programs. But is there ANY evidence that, as Governor, she ever submitted a proposal to stop them? No. She never spoke against them, she never lobbied to have it stopped.
Just this one e-mail where she, in response to a chicken pox vaccine which she thinks is dangerous, she points out that SHE HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER, and that she will do nothing to STOP the mandate, but her spokesperson should let people know she doesn't stand for "mandating shots on our kids".
Meanwhile, as others have noted, she wasn't opposed to kids getting Gardasil. Under her watch they set up a taxpayer-funded Gardasil vaccination program for those "innocent kids" that Bachmann says will end up mentally retarded because of it.
I totally agree with her about "crony capitalism" in this case -- the revolving door where people get jobs with companies so they can lobby to protect their companies from government regulation, or use government regulation to build their market over their competitors.
The answer isn't to eliminate friends, or lobbying, but to limit the power of government so there's no point in the lobbying. Perry supports limited government. Palin supports limited government. I just don't know if Palin actually supports eliminating mandatory vaccinations altogether or not, but I don't believe her actions suggest she does.
This is Ms. Palin's "grisly mama" brand of "fighting", i.e., making provocative comments from the a venue, in this case, of Ms. Van Sustern's Fox show, where she's free to drone on without challenge. With very rare exception, everything she's commented on since she left office in 2009 has been through facebook, twitter, speeches before the adoring faithful and Fox News, venues that don't require her to respond to any contrary views or actual facts.
Does anyone really believe the "I haven't decided yet" excuse? Like other observers, I think she's scared to death of debates and wants to let as many go by as possible before she--if ever--enters the race.
So if Palin is so outraged and upset by what she sees as Perry's "crony capitalism" re. Gardasil, why did she endorse him against Hutchison and campaign with him in Texas, long AFTER the whole Gardasil business had been resolved?
This is exactly the same kind of self-aggrandizing attack against a conservative Republican that Palin launched at Allen West when he voted for the final debt ceiling bill, and it is exactly why I said then, despite having been one of her biggest fans and boosters, that she had lost me for good.
Either she is courting controversy in order to boost her media profile or she is trying to keep any other candidate from gaining traction until she finishes playing Hamlet and announces whether she is in or out of the race. Either way, it is self-serving, destructive and unprincipled.
All politicians - including the non-establishment, freedom fighting Bachmann and Palin - accept contributions from people and organizations that might financially benefit from the policy positions they take and legislation they promote. If those who support tax cuts - whether individuals or companies - contribute to Bachmann's campaign, is she guilty of crony capitalism?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDitto to what Jenna said.
This kind of attack is exactly what you'd expect from The Nation or Mother-Jones. It's despicable.
Perry has his problems, but to allege that he signed this order because of "crony capitalism" is absurd in the extreme.
I realize that we're entering the prime season for ridiculously unsupported and hyperbolic language, but this year it seems particularly bad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, all politicians take contributions that might be linked to a policy decision later on. But I think the reason Palin's charge rings true is that the position Perry took is directly opposite the political persona he is trying to portray.
The whole "I want to make government as inconsequential to your life as possible" does not exactly match the "I want the government to give your young daughters an STD vaccine". Just sayin'
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't forget that Perry is a 10th Amendment champion. You've left out a word, federal; He wants to make the federal government as inconsequential in your life as possible.
It's pretty clear that he believes that the states enjoy robust police powers, except when it comes to Romneycare, I guess.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseback it up there hoss, perry has no problem w/ mass. passing romneycare, he has even said as much. he would never support it in Texas though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps Palin in her critique of Perry might be of some use after all. And the charge of cronyism is not dependant on the actual campaign contribution. It is the fact that Perry instituted this policy at the behest (presumably) of his former Chief of Staff that was now the lobbyist for the drug company that directly benefited from the policy. It's not the money, in this case, that we have to follow. It is the relationship.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Perry got some bad advice from someone he trusted, he acted on it, got it trouble for it, backed off and apologized. As far as I'm concerned, case closed.
What continues to bug me is that Palin, Bachmann and others keep mischaracterizing what Perry did. He did not "require" little girls to get a "government injection." Perry's order simply added this vaccine to the list of all the other vaccines that kids need to get when they go to public school, AND it let parents opt out of the requirement. Parents continued to have a choice.
I don't mind Republicans calling out other Republicans when they've screwed up, but I do mind it when Republicans lie about other Republicans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed. Palin and Bachmann are not helping their own cause or the cause of freedom by looking to score cheap points and stay in the limelight. They are both getting tiresome quickly. Do something positive or get out of the way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you are not concerned with the connection of the drug company to Perry through Perry's former chief of staff (who is now the lobbyist for the drug company in question)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not a Palin fan, but I do think there's a major problem with "crony capitalism" and it's rotting our entire system.
The connection with Merck and Perry's chief-of-staff may be a complete coincidence, but let's be honest, if this was a Democrat, we'd be pretty irate at the idea of making a $300 shot mandatory for every young girl to protect against a type of cervical cancer brought on by an STD that affect less than 1% of the population.
Perry is going to sink in the polls from this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRun off, Sarah, run off.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love Palin, but I find her argument that she was "opposed to this kind of thing" as governor, and that her e-mails show that, is a bit of a stretch.
A lot of her supporters have claimed that she meant Merck came to her to push the vaccine, and she told them "hell no". But that isn't what she was saying at all.
Her e-mail was in response to the BoEducation deciding to add Chicken Pox to the list of mandatory vaccines. There is no way to tell from the e-mail chain whether Palin was specifically saying she wouldn't have mandated THAT vaccine, or if she is saying she would never mandate ANY vaccine.
Her words: “I would not propose govt mandating anything like shots for our kids.” certainly suggest she opposes mandatory vaccine programs. But is there ANY evidence that, as Governor, she ever submitted a proposal to stop them? No. She never spoke against them, she never lobbied to have it stopped.
Just this one e-mail where she, in response to a chicken pox vaccine which she thinks is dangerous, she points out that SHE HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER, and that she will do nothing to STOP the mandate, but her spokesperson should let people know she doesn't stand for "mandating shots on our kids".
Meanwhile, as others have noted, she wasn't opposed to kids getting Gardasil. Under her watch they set up a taxpayer-funded Gardasil vaccination program for those "innocent kids" that Bachmann says will end up mentally retarded because of it.
I totally agree with her about "crony capitalism" in this case -- the revolving door where people get jobs with companies so they can lobby to protect their companies from government regulation, or use government regulation to build their market over their competitors.
The answer isn't to eliminate friends, or lobbying, but to limit the power of government so there's no point in the lobbying. Perry supports limited government. Palin supports limited government. I just don't know if Palin actually supports eliminating mandatory vaccinations altogether or not, but I don't believe her actions suggest she does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is Ms. Palin's "grisly mama" brand of "fighting", i.e., making provocative comments from the a venue, in this case, of Ms. Van Sustern's Fox show, where she's free to drone on without challenge. With very rare exception, everything she's commented on since she left office in 2009 has been through facebook, twitter, speeches before the adoring faithful and Fox News, venues that don't require her to respond to any contrary views or actual facts.
Does anyone really believe the "I haven't decided yet" excuse? Like other observers, I think she's scared to death of debates and wants to let as many go by as possible before she--if ever--enters the race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo if Palin is so outraged and upset by what she sees as Perry's "crony capitalism" re. Gardasil, why did she endorse him against Hutchison and campaign with him in Texas, long AFTER the whole Gardasil business had been resolved?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is exactly the same kind of self-aggrandizing attack against a conservative Republican that Palin launched at Allen West when he voted for the final debt ceiling bill, and it is exactly why I said then, despite having been one of her biggest fans and boosters, that she had lost me for good.
Either she is courting controversy in order to boost her media profile or she is trying to keep any other candidate from gaining traction until she finishes playing Hamlet and announces whether she is in or out of the race. Either way, it is self-serving, destructive and unprincipled.