Here's an idea what to expect of Rick Perry's principles as a politician - when it comes to saving innocent lives versus his political interests. What will he do for just money issues?
There's an issue of vaccinating girls in the sixth grade against the HPV virus - which protects against the most common STD later causing cervical cancer.
Rick Perry showed himself in 2007 to be a more thoughtful, principled politician. He endorsed a policy of mandatory vaccination, with an 'opt-out' option for parents.
He felt it was important to handle the issue way to get as many girls vaccinated as possible, with protection for the rights of parents - however irrational - not to do it.
Sounds like a position a conservative politician should not have a problem with, nor a liberal. But this is Texas, and the legislature's radical anti-government ideology screamed.
They said that was big government, and it should be 'opt-in'. Perry said his policy would save thousands of these girls' lives and he stood by it as the right thing to do.
Hell, this guy isn't sounding too bad at this point in the story. The legislature voted his policy down; he didn't have the votes to prevent them from overriding a veto, so he let it become law without his signature, and issued a statement attacking the legislature on the issue. Here's what he said at the time:
Over years since, he's been attacked repeatedly by the far right - and by his 2010 opponent for governor disgracefully trying to use the issue for votes.
He's always responded to the attacks saying he did not make a mistake. Here's his years later response to one attack with the 'took a hit for the right thing to do':
So, coming to 2012, the guy has this issue showing principles, at least on something so clear an issue of life and death for people. Then he threw it away.
Hours after announcing his presidential candidacy, wanting the 'nutty right' vote, Perry flip flopped four years of his policy and said he made a mistake. Two quotes:
This shows very bad things about his unwillingness to stand up for principle when it's more than politically inconvenient, but is a presidential election issue.
If he won't stand up for what's right for he lives of 'thousands of daughters and granddaughters', what will he do for corporate corruption?
When he'll take his "challenge to look these women in the eyes and tell them, 'We could have prevented this disease for your daughters and granddaughters, but we just didn't have the gumption to address all the misguided and misleading political rhetoric."
This radical anti-government ideology is stirred up in these voters for the selfish interests of wealthy interests like polluters who don't want public interest rules.
Issues like this are a price they'll pay, and they want servants who will do as they want on pushing it. They have their man in Rick Perry - and he's better than most of the short list for having done the right thing even for a period of time, which I think most would not.
Save234
There's an issue of vaccinating girls in the sixth grade against the HPV virus - which protects against the most common STD later causing cervical cancer.
Rick Perry showed himself in 2007 to be a more thoughtful, principled politician. He endorsed a policy of mandatory vaccination, with an 'opt-out' option for parents.
He felt it was important to handle the issue way to get as many girls vaccinated as possible, with protection for the rights of parents - however irrational - not to do it.
Sounds like a position a conservative politician should not have a problem with, nor a liberal. But this is Texas, and the legislature's radical anti-government ideology screamed.
They said that was big government, and it should be 'opt-in'. Perry said his policy would save thousands of these girls' lives and he stood by it as the right thing to do.
Hell, this guy isn't sounding too bad at this point in the story. The legislature voted his policy down; he didn't have the votes to prevent them from overriding a veto, so he let it become law without his signature, and issued a statement attacking the legislature on the issue. Here's what he said at the time:
Over years since, he's been attacked repeatedly by the far right - and by his 2010 opponent for governor disgracefully trying to use the issue for votes.
He's always responded to the attacks saying he did not make a mistake. Here's his years later response to one attack with the 'took a hit for the right thing to do':
So, coming to 2012, the guy has this issue showing principles, at least on something so clear an issue of life and death for people. Then he threw it away.
Hours after announcing his presidential candidacy, wanting the 'nutty right' vote, Perry flip flopped four years of his policy and said he made a mistake. Two quotes:
This shows very bad things about his unwillingness to stand up for principle when it's more than politically inconvenient, but is a presidential election issue.
If he won't stand up for what's right for he lives of 'thousands of daughters and granddaughters', what will he do for corporate corruption?
When he'll take his "challenge to look these women in the eyes and tell them, 'We could have prevented this disease for your daughters and granddaughters, but we just didn't have the gumption to address all the misguided and misleading political rhetoric."
This radical anti-government ideology is stirred up in these voters for the selfish interests of wealthy interests like polluters who don't want public interest rules.
Issues like this are a price they'll pay, and they want servants who will do as they want on pushing it. They have their man in Rick Perry - and he's better than most of the short list for having done the right thing even for a period of time, which I think most would not.
Save234
Facebook
Twitter