I’ve tried to stay out of the Gardasil debate. It’s not one that furthers the aspirations of the GOP presidential field, except for one thing. The Gardasil debate is really about crony-capitalism and the effects of such corporate influence on a politician’s decisions.
Michelle Malkin has written a very comprehensive piece about the issue. You can read her post here and I would strongly encourage you to do so. I will leave it to her to inform you about the major points of that concern.
It seems that every politician greases the wheels of his or her campaign with the support of “special interests”. What is never said, however, is how that support turns into special favors extended by the politician to the “special interests” once the politician is elected to office.
This is not a mystery to any of us and we have known or suspected that these relationships have existed over the course of our lifetimes. Unfortunately, this practice is no longer a $100 bill passed to a candidate in a handshake. It has taken on immense proportions that bring to question the idea of whether or not a candidate is truly representing his or her constituents, aka, the voters in the politician’s district.
We have sat back and watched as candidate after candidate, including presidential candidates, have coddled and encouraged those relationships. We have watched a culture of “crony capitalism” take hold of our representatives until we are no longer considered to have a voice. Our voice has been dismissed because it does not lend itself to a dollar figure that our representatives will consider.
Enter the Tea Party on the heels of Sarah Palin’s nomination as John McCain’s running mate and McCain’s failed presidential bid. What was it that she said that fired up the base? What was it that suddenly propelled John McCain’s candidacy to the forefront of the 2008 campaign? At the time, I don’t think we really knew. There was just something about her message that resonated with us.
I believe that Sarah Palin brought her “subliminal” message to the forefront of the Tea Party’s collective consciousness during her speech at the Indianola Tea Party event. Newt Gingrich saw it and recognized it in an interview with Greta van Susteren after the CNN/TeaParty debate:
Newt backed up his interview with this Tweet:
I really soured on Newt when he made his ridiculous comments about Paul Ryan’s budget. But now, he’s starting to get my attention again. I don’t think he has a chance at the nomination, but I’m beginning to think that he’s positioning himself as a potential VP candidate.