questions about Perry

[jasmin]

While I like some of the things Perry stands for and what he says, there are some questions.

While I detest the popular media and un-thinking people's immediate cries that he wants to 'take away our rights' I do question if he understands the rationale behind repeal of the 17th amendment. While he returns conversations to the core issues, those the nation really cares about, he stumbles around just enough to make me wonder if he really understands the issue or is just trying to appear to be THE conservative, tea party candidate.

I question his conservatism. While he has an enviable record of job creation, he was a democrat previously. I distrust politicians from both sides who change sides for political expediency. While there is some evidence he was conservative in the dem party, as a dem, he not only supported huge tax increases, but chaired the Gore campaign just a few short years ago. The polarity of views from Gore to the tea party should raise skepticism of if Perry is for real, or just saying whatever is necessary to get the position he wants.

I also question his signing of the pro-life pledge, especially the statement "to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services." In most public statments, Perry says abortion laws are a state issue, yet here, he would make it a Federal issue. This pledge is horribly naive with no common sense applied for real-life situations. Because social issues and views are far secondary for a Federal candidate, Perry's own views on abortion are of no real concern to me. However, how he implements these views on the national stage are of concern. Once again, I believe he signed the pledge to be the tea party candidate, not because of his personal views. Will he really sign and advance pro-life legislation, considering that there is never a clean bill? Will he really only assign positions to those who are pro-life, even if the position has no bearing on this issue? To do so is short sighted and not what is right for the nation. Oh, and don't forget, prior to signing this pledge in 2011, Perry supported Gulliani, a strong pro-choice advocate.

 

[Bubble Burster]

O

While I like some of the things Perry stands for and what he says, there are some questions.

While I detest the popular media and un-thinking people's immediate cries that he wants to 'take away our rights' I do question if he understands the rationale behind repeal of the 17th amendment. While he returns conversations to the core issues, those the nation really cares about, he stumbles around just enough to make me wonder if he really understands the issue or is just trying to appear to be THE conservative, tea party candidate.

I question his conservatism. While he has an enviable record of job creation, he was a democrat previously. I distrust politicians from both sides who change sides for political expediency. While there is some evidence he was conservative in the dem party, as a dem, he not only supported huge tax increases, but chaired the Gore campaign just a few short years ago. The polarity of views from Gore to the tea party should raise skepticism of if Perry is for real, or just saying whatever is necessary to get the position he wants.

I also question his signing of the pro-life pledge, especially the statement "to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services." In most public statments, Perry says abortion laws are a state issue, yet here, he would make it a Federal issue. This pledge is horribly naive with no common sense applied for real-life situations. Because social issues and views are far secondary for a Federal candidate, Perry's own views on abortion are of no real concern to me. However, how he implements these views on the national stage are of concern. Once again, I believe he signed the pledge to be the tea party candidate, not because of his personal views. Will he really sign and advance pro-life legislation, considering that there is never a clean bill? Will he really only assign positions to those who are pro-life, even if the position has no bearing on this issue? To do so is short sighted and not what is right for the nation. Oh, and don't forget, prior to signing this pledge in 2011, Perry supported Gulliani, a strong pro-choice advocate.

Conservatives MUST NOT allow abortion to become an issue. It is a liberal ploy to steer the conversation away from the real issues and thus split the party, and handing victory to Obama. DON'T FALL FOR IT.

 

[Vagitarian]

O

Conservatives MUST NOT allow abortion to become an issue. It is a liberal ploy to steer the conversation away from the real issues and thus split the party, and handing victory to Obama. DON'T FALL FOR IT.

Correction: The Republican Party MUST NOT allow abortion to become an issue if they want to have any chance - the abortion issue isn't a liberal issue, as SPN very correctly pointed out, it's Perry's brand of conservatism's and suspect at best. BTW, SPN, that was a pretty good post, I'm actually going to read it again. As I see it, balanced budget is the #1 issue right now - and it should be for ALL registered Dems, ALL registered Republicans & ALL registered Independents like myself. Why would any sensible conservative candidate risk the financial underpinnings which are criticall, on any other issue?

 

[Bubble Burster]

Correction: The Republican Party MUST NOT allow abortion to become an issue if they want to have any chance - the abortion issue isn't a liberal issue, as SPN very correctly pointed out, it's Perry's brand of conservatism's and suspect at best. BTW, SPN, that was a pretty good post, I'm actually going to read it again. As I see it, balanced budget is the #1 issue right now - and it should be for ALL registered Dems, ALL registered Republicans & ALL registered Independents like myself. Why would any sensible conservative candidate risk the financial underpinnings which are criticall, on any eother issue?

Your version is better than mine. Ith pisses me off when people think abortion is an important issue. Dems had two years of super majority to pass an abortion bill, and they stayed away from it. Too much of a hot potato, even for Washington's resident whacko, Nancy Pelosi.

 

[jasmin]

Your version is better than mine. Ith pisses me off when people think abortion is an important issue. Dems had two years of super majority to pass an abortion bill, and they stayed away from it. Too much of a hot potato, even for Washington's resident whacko, Nancy Pelosi.

To be clear, the issue for me is not abortion. The issue is what Perry really believes and how much is posing for the demands of the tea party. The secondary issue is how he would convey his beliefs into policy on the national stage.

The question relates to his credibility, not the abortion issue.

 

[thehairyfiddler]

I know that Merck lined his pockets....whenever, he as governor, mandated 11 year old girls get their Gardisil shots.

 

[jasmin]

I know that Merck lined his pockets....whenever, he as governor, mandated 11 year old girls get their Gardisil shots.

How does the tea party accept that with their general view about abstinence and sex ed? Many families objected to the vaccine for girls this young because of (misguided) beliefs that this would encourage sexual activity.

I objected to giving the vaccine to girls this young, in a broad application, because the vaccine is very untested in the long term, this age was outside the norm for the large study groups published, and there is no answer on if or when a booster is needed - and if an 11 year old girl is vaccinated, then becomes sexually active at 19, is she still protected? Further, there is no evidence the vaccine prevents mortality from cervival cancer any better than routine pap smears as we are not a third world country and I strongly objected to Merck's scare tactics trying to sell this as a cancer prevention.

Further, how does the tea party accept this government intrusion on people's individual choices and lives? I think this is more important than light bulbs.

 

[thehairyfiddler]

How does the tea party accept that with their general view about abstinence and sex ed? Many families objected to the vaccine for girls this young because of (misguided) beliefs that this would encourage sexual activity.

First off Spoony, you are to be commended for number 1, starting this thread and giving an analysis than is counter to your own general political views. And number 2, for your response here in particular.

I have a real problem in Perry mandating this policy....as he was the first governor to do so. A much better policy would be to mandate to his Texas citizenry to educate themselves on the issue...not force them to partake. For someone who is so outspoken about oversized government, he sure did piss in the wind on this one.

I objected to giving the vaccine to girls this young, in a broad application, because the vaccine is very untested in the long term, this age was outside the norm for the large study groups published, and there is no answer on if or when a booster is needed - and if an 11 year old girl is vaccinated, then becomes sexually active at 19, is she still protected? Further, there is no evidence the vaccine prevents mortality from cervival cancer any better than routine pap smears as we are not a third world country and I strongly objected to Merck's scare tactics trying to sell this as a cancer prevention.

Another outstanding point. Whereby the data that Merck has presented is compelling, we have seen over history that secondary side effects can rear their ugly head a few years down the road. In a free market society, the individual should make the call on whether or not to take these painful shots....not the federal gov...nor the state gov...nor the local government.

Further, how does the tea party accept this government intrusion on people's individual choices and lives? I think this is more important than light bulbs.

The real tea party is not only dead against Gardisil vaccines....but is dead against a lot of things FDA....and or pharmaceutical.

With a little research, one can see that Merck lined his political pockets with campaign dollars....with the quid pro quo clearly the understanding here.

Do I blame Perry for what he did? No more than the other politicians from both parties that do the exact same thing.

It's all crap...and a systemic disease. All the more reason for people to set aside their own partisan views....and investigate what Ron Paul stands for.

 

[thehairyfiddler]

Correction: The Republican Party MUST NOT allow abortion to become an issue if they want to have any chance - the abortion issue isn't a liberal issue, as SPN very correctly pointed out, it's Perry's brand of conservatism's and suspect at best. BTW, SPN, that was a pretty good post, I'm actually going to read it again. As I see it, balanced budget is the #1 issue right now - and it should be for ALL registered Dems, ALL registered Republicans & ALL registered Independents like myself. Why would any sensible conservative candidate risk the financial underpinnings which are criticall, on any other issue?

Oh I think the abortion issue should be discussed. Is it the most important issue? No it isn't. However, the fact is.....today, more Americans are pro life than pro choice. As a Republic, the people should want to know where a candidate positions himself on the issue.

My advice to any candidate who is pro life...he...or she....should preface their view as being outside of the realm of religion....as there should remain in place a separation of church and state...as stated in the Constitution.

Where you, my buddy Doc, and several others on the left make their mistake....viewing pro life people as only "religious fanaticals". Well I'm sorry.....whenever the plurality of our countrymen now hold a pro life view, then the body politic encompasses far more than "religious fanaticals".

Whereby I am certainly a Christian, my pro life view has nothing to do with my Christianity, but everything to do with the macabre practice of killing the unborn. No other mammal on earth does such a thing.

 

[Pale Horse]

....as there should remain in place a separation of church and state...as stated in the Constitution.

.

Huh?!?!?!

 

[I Love America]

Whereby I am certainly a Christian, my pro life view has nothing to do with my Christianity, but everything to do with the macabre practice of killing the unborn. No other mammal on earth does such a thing.

One of the most brilliant things you have ever said. Remember, casting all abortion foes as just religious nuts serves two purposes for Doc.

 

[Vagitarian]

One of the most brilliant things you have ever said. Remember, casting all abortion foes as just religious nuts serves two purposes for Doc.

Actually EXCELLENT posts by both SPN and Hairy. I sell vaccines (not that one) and over the years my company has had one project after another focusing on state mandates. They try to push for a state mandate for kids entering daycare, a state mandate for kids entering grade school, here's a state mandate for 11 yr old girls and they'd like a state mandate for Meningoccal vaccine by 18 years. And what do these mandates accomplish more than anything else? $ale$ dollar$. And guess which state is always the first to issue a mandate? Texa$.

It's the good-ol'-boy way of business - more than likely conducted on the golf course.

 

[jasmin]

Well Hairy, I started this thread simply because of my growing questions about Perry. While I make no secret of the fact I detest obama and want him out of office, we have to be smarter this time around. We cannot vote in someone on hype and excitement, but need some real substance behind them. I understand no candidate will likely emerge with no skeletons in their closets, that no candidate will likely agree with any of us on every single issue, but when there is an overwhelming flow of questionable information, as there was with obama, it should be discussed. We cannot dismiss these questions without examination because there is too much at stake. Whoever takes over the reins has a huge job ahead of them and there must be more in their record than the image they craft for voters.

At the end of the day, even with politicians as the measuring stick, I don't trust this guy. So far, no one has provided information to prove this feeling wrong.

 

[tinkrbelle]

How does the tea party accept that with their general view about abstinence and sex ed? Many families objected to the vaccine for girls this young because of (misguided) beliefs that this would encourage sexual activity.

I objected to giving the vaccine to girls this young, in a broad application, because the vaccine is very untested in the long term, this age was outside the norm for the large study groups published, and there is no answer on if or when a booster is needed - and if an 11 year old girl is vaccinated, then becomes sexually active at 19, is she still protected? Further, there is no evidence the vaccine prevents mortality from cervival cancer any better than routine pap smears as we are not a third world country and I strongly objected to Merck's scare tactics trying to sell this as a cancer prevention.

Further, how does the tea party accept this government intrusion on people's individual choices and lives? I think this is more important than light bulbs.

I am in total agreement here. I had a gyn tell me that cervical cancer is extremely rare, and that women only need pap smears every 3-5 years(depending on circumstances). I reufse to give it to my daughters and let them be guinea pigs. Furthermore, I am mad that I even let them get the chickenpox vaccine- it was fully untested and now the unwanted side effects are begining to surface.
Both the pap and guardasil are just another hype and way for corps to make $$$$.
Both the dems and repubs talk out of both sides of their mouths whenevrer it is convenient for them-- and $$ talks in ALL cases-- they are all bought by Corporations.

 

[tinkrbelle]

Actually EXCELLENT posts by both SPN and Hairy. I sell vaccines (not that one) and over the years my company has had one project after another focusing on state mandates. They try to push for a state mandate for kids entering daycare, a state mandate for kids entering grade school, here's a state mandate for 11 yr old girls and they'd like a state mandate for Meningoccal vaccine by 18 years. And what do these mandates accomplish more than anything else? $ale$ dollar$. And guess which state is always the first to issue a mandate? Texa$.

It's the good-ol'-boy way of business - more than likely conducted on the golf course.

And now they are mandating that all high schoolers get their whooping cough booster before they allow them back to school. Don't even get me started on vaccines- did you know that in Europe the kids are only given 1/2 the vaccines as our american kids?
On a side note, did you know that the schools can require vaccines, but can't enforce the policy? I was reading an article about how many kids are enrolled in schools with no vaccines.

 

[jasmin]

I am in total agreement here. I had a gyn tell me that cervical cancer is extremely rare, and that women only need pap smears every 3-5 years(depending on circumstances). I reufse to give it to my daughters and let them be guinea pigs. Furthermore, I am mad that I even let them get the chickenpox vaccine- it was fully untested and now the unwanted side effects are begining to surface.
Both the pap and guardasil are just another hype and way for corps to make $$$$.
Both the dems and repubs talk out of both sides of their mouths whenevrer it is convenient for them-- and $$ talks in ALL cases-- they are all bought by Corporations.

I was not aware the chicken pox vaccine had problems surfacing. We gave it to the one child who managed to not get chicken pox during childhood. We felt chicken pox was not a major concern for a young, healthy child but knew it can be much more serious for a young adult. The one who didn't get it, despite being exposed numerous times, was vaccinated just prior to starting college. We have to avoid becoming anti vaccine nuts, but also have rights and responsibilities as parents to weigh pros and cons before vaccinating. In my childhood, my parents only gave the MMR vaccine to the boys as mumps could cause sterility but there was questionable need for girls. Now we know that you want to have had rubella or be vaccinated before pregnancy.

 

[tinkrbelle]

First off Spoony, you are to be commended for number 1, starting this thread and giving an analysis than is counter to your own general political views. And number 2, for your response here in particular.

I have a real problem in Perry mandating this policy....as he was the first governor to do so. A much better policy would be to mandate to his Texas citizenry to educate themselves on the issue...not force them to partake. For someone who is so outspoken about oversized government, he sure did piss in the wind on this one.



Another outstanding point. Whereby the data that Merck has presented is compelling, we have seen over history that secondary side effects can rear their ugly head a few years down the road. In a free market society, the individual should make the call on whether or not to take these painful shots....not the federal gov...nor the state gov...nor the local government.



The real tea party is not only dead against Gardisil vaccines....but is dead against a lot of things FDA....and or pharmaceutical.

With a little research, one can see that Merck lined his political pockets with campaign dollars....with the quid pro quo clearly the understanding here.

Do I blame Perry for what he did? No more than the other politicians from both parties that do the exact same thing.

It's all crap...and a systemic disease. All the more reason for people to set aside their own partisan views....and investigate what Ron Paul stands for.

" Ron Paul stands for" I like Ron Paul- the rest of the politicians are just trying to make us sheeple.

 

[tinkrbelle]

I was not aware the chicken pox vaccine had problems surfacing. We gave it to the one child who managed to not get chicken pox during childhood. We felt chicken pox was not a major concern for a young, healthy child but knew it can be much more serious for a young adult. The one who didn't get it, despite being exposed numerous times, was vaccinated just prior to starting college. We have to avoid becoming anti vaccine nuts, but also have rights and responsibilities as parents to weigh pros and cons before vaccinating. In my childhood, my parents only gave the MMR vaccine to the boys as mumps could cause sterility but there was questionable need for girls. Now we know that you want to have had rubella or be vaccinated before pregnancy.

3 problems surfacing: 1) childern vaccinated who get chicken pox as teens have gotten very sick. 2)Doctors don't know when to give a booster- but say a booster is needed. 3)Shingles have developed in some who recieved the vaccine.
I am not an anti-vaccine zealot, but I do believe in not overvaccinating. WHile we really don't know all the consequences of vaccines, but some theories that have surfaced are alarming, including the one that there is a high insidence and increase of autoimmune diseases and researchers believe it might be becuase of our bodies have been exposed to so much less, that they attack the immune system.

 

[jasmin]

And now they are mandating that all high schoolers get their whooping cough booster before they allow them back to school. Don't even get me started on vaccines- did you know that in Europe the kids are only given 1/2 the vaccines as our american kids?
On a side note, did you know that the schools can require vaccines, but can't enforce the policy? I was reading an article about how many kids are enrolled in schools with no vaccines.

My understanding is the reason highschoolers are needing a booster is because of some parents taking an extremist view and not vaccinating their kids at all. Whooping cough has experienced dramatic increases in some areas as a result. However, young adults have fewer serious consequences from whooping cough, but they are who exposes young kids who are the greatest risk of death. Whooping cough is considered one of the most contagious diseases so vaccination makes sense. The exception to that is if your child had a severe reaction to the series as an infant. Sorry, this is not one I would skip.

 

[jasmin]

3 problems surfacing: 1) childern vaccinated who get chicken pox as teens have gotten very sick. 2)Doctors don't know when to give a booster- but say a booster is needed. 3)Shingles have developed in some who recieved the vaccine.
I am not an anti-vaccine zealot, but I do believe in not overvaccinating. WHile we really don't know all the consequences of vaccines, but some theories that have surfaced are alarming, including the one that there is a high insidence and increase of autoimmune diseases and researchers believe it might be becuase of our bodies have been exposed to so much less, that they attack the immune system.

Very interesting information. I think our entire culture is too dependent on taking a pill or shot for everything.