WaPo: Perry Got More Than $5000 From Merck

Via Hot Air, some of that there crony capitalism that I've been talkin' about.

Perry’s gubernatorial campaign, for example, received nearly $30,000 from the drugmaker since 2000, most of it prior to his decision in 2007 to order young girls to obtain Merck’s vaccine against the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Actually, it was $28,500 I've read elsewhere, the "bulk" of which came before the 2007 decision, but no one defines what "the bulk" is. Why don't they include the actual figure, since they have all the numbers in hand?

Why, it's almost as if they're being intentionally vague and rounding up wherever possible. Note that happens again, here:

Merck has also given more than $355,000 in donations to the Republican Governors Association since 2006, which was the year that Perry began to play a prominent role in the Washington-based group, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Ah-he-hem, and that figure is "since 2006," that is, until the present day, and Perry's EO was retracted long, long ago (it never went into effect), so why does Merck continue donating? And, further, why does the media not give us the actual figures again, but instead resort to this helpfully-vague dating terminology ("since 2006")?

The RGA, by the way, supports all Republican gubernatorial candidates, so Rick Perry's "piece" of that sweet sweet Crony Capitalism pie is about, what, one 25th of that figure?

If you think Perry was bought that's fine, but I seem to remember a lot of allegations that Dick Cheney started the War in Iraq "to increase his Halliburton stock value," and to "help his friends at Halliburton," and I remember these allegations being dismissed with a laugh, as there was no actual evidence of any improper influence or compromised decision-making.

But since the Divine Miss S began repeating these allegations (from that darned lamestream media), I see a lot of us have collectively dropped that attitude of "Prove it" and now take any government action made in the vicinity of a donation to be more or less proof positive of corruption.

That's fine, but... Okay, bear in mind Sarah Palin will live by that same standard, too.

Since we're flingin' all sorts of personal-benefit allegations around with no evidence, I'll note it occurs to me that Sarah Palin's monetary stream dries up if there's a conservative president.

On the other hand, if Obama stays in office, she continues to be a sought-after voice of the opposition.

And if a non-conservative (or presumed non-conservative) like Romney defeats Obama, then Palin still has her niche.

But with a conservative titular head of the party? Not as much money.

Since we're casting these sort of evidence-free allegations about, you understand.

And speaking of pickin' winners and losers like Mr. Obama over there and the crony capitalism like I've been talkin' about, a small government conservatism that certainly doesn't subsidize politically-popular failed businesses, that's what I've been talkin' about as an illustration of this crony capitalism.

CNN's Fact Check: Untrue In Parts, Misleading In Others. Crony capitalism.

Update: Merck donated $5000 to Perry for his 2010 election, long after he'd dropped the "mandate." So the amount donated prior to this was $23,500.

It is not clear why they continued making their Crony Capitalism payments to him after he dropped support of Gardasil like a hot potato.

posted by Ace at 05:07 PM

| Access Comments