You are hereBlogs / John Martin's blog / Conservative Backlash Against Perry?

Conservative Backlash Against Perry?


By John Martin - Posted on 16 August 2011

That was quick. Support for anti-cancer vaccines for young girls, toll roads, and a pan-American currency are all conservative complaints being leveled at the candidate of the hour.

Now The Wall Street Journal and Karl Rove are warning voters to take heed of a Perry nomination.
 
The questions about Mr. Perry concern how well his Lone Star swagger will sell in the suburbs of Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where the election is likely to be decided. He can sound more Texas than Jerry Jones, George W. Bush and Sam Houston combined, and his muscular religiosity also may not play well at a time when the economy has eclipsed culture as the main voter concern.
 
And here's Rove:
 
 
We know the Bush people aren't fans of team Perry, but Rove might be onto something. The guy might be electable in Texas, but his brand of conservatism won't necessarily fly elsewhere. 
 
Not many voters love Ben Bernake, but the guy is a Republican and a Bush appointee, and probably shouldn't be threatened by a major party candidate:
 
 
 

If I remember correctly, it was more than just conservatives who complained about mandatory papillomavirus vaccinations. It hadn't been tested completely, and compulsory anything is viewed skeptically by both the left and the right.

 

I don't know. Most states that I'm aware of require children to have a whole slew of vaccines. 

The arguments that I remember were from the religious right, who were concerned that this would encourage teenagers to have sex. I don't remember having heard anyone on the left complain about this. I'm also fairly sure that there was an opt-out provision (at least that's what Perry has claimed over the past couple of days), so parents wouldn't be forced to have their kid immunized.

Either way, nobody on the left is voting for Perry anyway-- mandatory HPV vaccine or not. This issue is, and will continue to hurt Perry with many conservatives.

The complaint about the HPV vaccine wasn't just from the religious right, though that was definitely there.  This independent mother of a daughter who would have been in the first group who would have been vaccinated was wigged out about how this mandate of a vaccine which was not significantly tested on young children and it only prevented a few types of HPV and not all of them.  It wouldn't remove all of the chance of getting cervical cancer, just a few types of HPV which might cause it.  Most regular people were not happy for the same reasons as well as the belief that he only did it because he is buddies with Merck. 

Yes, parents could get a waiver, but it was a big effort to do it and we thought it was ridiculous to mandate it for school attendance unless the children were going to be having sex during sixth grade classes.  Chickenpox and whooping cough could be easily transmitted through casual contact at school which is not the case with HPV.  And one of my questions was why wasn't it going to be mandated for male children?  While females get cervical cancer, they are generally infected with HPV by males who are carrying HPV.

I have about one hundred more opinions about this topic.  The whole thing pissed me off royally.

Thanks to you and Tin for pointing this all out. I can't say I'm happy to hear about a governor of a major state putting children at risk to help his friends, but I'm glad that it won't just be the religious right calling him out for it.

There's nothing wrong with requiring a whole slew of vaccines. I'm quite familiar with that as I have three children (one grown now).

My problem is that the vaccine had been inadequately tested and yet was being sold as a miracle cure for what is a serious medical condition and many local governments ate that up and decided to require it on par with other required vaccines for easily communicable diseases.

I have no problem with HPV vaccine personally, and I'm sure that many others don't either. But it did seem like a step too far no matter what your political beliefs are (other than strict authoritarian).

I know that no one on the left is voting for Perry. That seems like a non-sequitur to me. I was mainly talking about the HPV vaccine.

I've heard that his support of the vaccine was due to the fact that he's been in-deep with Merck lobbyists.

Earlier this summer I checked out the Freepers to see what they had to say about Perry.  They were definitely opposed to him as a former Democrat, a Bilderberger New World Order guy.  However, with his most recent whacko statements they're starting to swing around in support.  I could imagine them agreeing with an admiring comment from a Texas Republican that "Perry has the balls to execute an innocent man."  Really something to take pride in!

Here's what Jon Stewart said about Perry last night;

"He's not George Bush on steroids," Stewart said. "Rick Perry is what happens if Lex Luther distilled down George Bush essence in a laboratory and crossed it with gun powder and semen from the finest thoroughbred in Lubbock, and then strapped that concoction onto a nuclear missile and shot it into the f'ing sun! And then, waited, waited, waited, until one day, on the anniversary of the Alamo, a solar flare, yada yada yada, Rick Perry!"   http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/jon-stewart-rick-perry-is-much-much-more-than-george-w-bush-on-steroids.php?ref=fpc

Iowa City, August 15

He is a snake oil salesman.

Yes, but he's a charismatic snake oil salesman with a knack for telling people what they want to hear. It will be interesting to see if the heavy hitters (Koch Bros, ALEC, Chamber of Commerce,etc) get behind him. If they do, he'll likely win the nomination. If they don't, it'll probably be Romney.

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.