One has to love the marketing department of Merck; somehow, they're managing to get a newly-FDA-approved vaccine marketed as a "cancer vaccine."

It's this one.

Merck, in case anyone didn't know , was a major, major funding source for Rick Perry (aka Governor Zoolander, Governor Goodhair, and Traitor Extraordinaire depending on which radio shows you listen to) during his last reelection campaign.

Rick Perry just sidestepped the Texas State Legislature and required that all schoolgirls - because one oddity about this "vaccine" is that it doesn't work for boys - receive this vaccine. By "executive order", which is the equivalent of an Imperial Decree from the Texas Governor.

There are multiple problems with this, of course. First, problems with the vaccine itself:

#1 - despite the Merck false-advertising campaign, it is not a "cancer vaccine." It is a preventative measure that protects partially against a very few HPV strains which have been linked by certain studies to later onset of cervical cancer.

#2 - Unlike the current vaccinations for children that are required by law, HPV and Cervical Cancer have two very important distinctions: First of all that they are not transmitted by air, and secondly that they are not transmitted by casual touch. The fact that it is transmitted to young children at all is brought on by the fact that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

#3 - the drug is still under patent, and no investigations as to the long-term possibilities for problems of the vaccine have been investigated yet.

Now, to problems with the way this is being done:

#1 - Merck is bankrolling campaigns to do this all across the nation. At a price of $360 per vaccination (it requires 3 shots, each spaced 2 months apart), they will make major bank already, but even MORE if they can make it mandatory.

#2 - Merck's contributions to Rick Perry, and to other people closely connected to Rick Perry.

#3 - Many parents may have moral or indeed medical reasons to NOT want their children to be given this vaccine (a child with a history of reactions to other vaccines, for example). Most parents will probably buy this voluntarily for their kids. Making it mandatory, however, completely takes away their right of choice.

Is the vaccine probably a good idea? For most teenage girls, likely so. However, there are plenty of people who will probably have serious moral, religious, or other objections to it. And while cancer is a dangerous thing and so are STD's, the fact is that the initials STD stand for something that does NOT pose a general threat to kids who are just going to school and back in the same way that Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Polio, or other things that we require vaccination for do.

One of the conditions of moving to Austin was that Camille would be able to put an OU bumper sticker on her car. I was initially somewhat concerned by this. All it takes is one drunk UT statement with a key and her car could be vandalized. UT has a lot of drunk students. Someone at her work is a fellow OU alum and assured her that she need not worry about that. She got the bumper stickers, though has not yet put them on her car.

In the Houston area, the most frequent out-of-state university bumper sticker is LSU hands down. My father-in-law was not the least bit surprised because Louisiana doesn't have the job opportunities for college grads like Texas. Houston is the city closest to Louisiana's major population centers (except Shreveport), so it would stand to reason that it would get the most beneficiaries. Similarly, Dallas is the meeting area where Camille and her college friends often congregate.

Interestingly, here in Longhornland, I see considerably more OU bumper stickers than I do LSU ones. Austin is slightly closer to Oklahoma than Houston is, but the number of OU bumper stickers I see far outstrips the difference. Norman (and OKC and Tulsa) are closer to Austin than are Baton Rouge and New Orleans, though that too is not significant enough to account for the difference. In fact, I suspect that the number of OU grads is probably not much larger than LSU grads. Instead, I am thinking that there are just a lot of OU people who made the same deal with themselves that Camille did: I'll live in Austin, but you can't make me stop disliking UT.

An interesting thing that my brother noted the weekend before last. If we all vote the way that we think we will, all four members of my family will be voting for someone different. It's not every day you can say that. Particularly for a family that all voted the same way in 2000 and either voted the same way or split 3-1 in 2004.

For those wondering, the most likely recipient of my vote will be Carole Keeton Strayhorn. It is actually a close call between her and Bell. I have tried mightily, but I just can't take Friedman seriously. Even as seriously than I could take Jesse Ventura of Arnold Schwarzenegger, both of whom ran more serious campaigns.

In the comment section of PubliusTX, I get in a brief back and forth with A Precinct Chair about what Democratic gubernatorial nominee Chris Bell should do to overcome the Republican tilt of the state. APC says that emulating a Republican won't work and I reply that being a Democrat through won't, either. I don't think either of us are wrong.

So was it always a hopeless battle? Maybe, but not necessarily. While mulling it over, I came up with I think a salespitch that might have worked if Bell had made the point early and often. Here's the pitch I would make:

Every statewide office, both houses of the legislature, and the court system in the state of Texas is lead by Republican Party. Yet with all of this power, they have squandered it on partisan initiatives, a school finance plan that nobody likes, and a legislature that has been called back to special session after special session to fail to resolve these issues to your satisfaction. Texas is a Republican state and, however much Democrats may wish it weren't so, is likely to remain that way in the future. But with one vote, you add a balance to all the power they hold. Chris Bell will work with the Republicans when they're right, but he is the candidate that will fight them vigorously when they're wrong. Texas Republican leadership has made the mistake of believing what's best for them is automatically what's best for Texas. Send Chris Bell to Austin to represent the rest of you.

I don't know, I think this avoids the major pitfalls of trying to be a Republican-lite while not trying to coast in on the sails of the minority party. Right now he's almost acting as an emissary of the Texas Democrats. The whole "Mainstream Mandate" or whateveryoucallit doesn't give anyone an idea of what he would really do or what kind of governor he would be. It may helpfully obscure his liberalish preferences from a conservative state, but without a strong impression people will assume that he is a standard Democrat, which won't work no matter how worthless the Republican is. This strikes me as one of those cases where saying that he will "fight the power" would actually be quite productive... but only after assuring Texans that he couldn't change Texas into California even if he wanted to.

Though I'm leaning in the direction of a particular candidate - or at least I think I am - I don't know who I'm going to vote for next month.

Rick Perry (R)
Pro: He's stood pretty firm as an anti-gambling governor. From what I understand he got there somewhat opportunistically, but there is little sign that he will budge on this issue of considerable importance. His first two years had two major accomplishments: he didn't buckle and raise taxes as did Republican governors from across the country (I didn't expect that kind of spine from him!) and he helped get Houston speed limits back above 55mph when our own mayor was treating the federal requirement as though it had come down from the Almighty Himself. And, on the whole, issue-for-issue I probably agree with him more than I agree with any of his rivals.
Con: Since his 2002 election, he's been a pretty lousy governor. He's had six years with Republicans controlling everything and everything is in greater chaos than it was when Bush had to work with the Democrats to get things done. Then, when faced with his greatest opportunity to revamp school finance, he did it in a way that pleased nobody and to which the upside is already being negated. And he missed a prime opporunity to implement appraisal caps.

Chris Bell (D)
Pro: Bell was a very solid Houston City Councilman. I wish he were serving out his third and final term as the mayor of Houston. He was a Democrat, but one more focused on solutions rather than partisan ideas.
Con: Something in Bell changed when he lost his mayoral bid. Somewhat bitter that Republicans lined up around the unimpressive Orlando Sanchez solely due to his partisan affiliation, he got the idea that Republican voters were out of his reach and stopped doing anything - except maybe support for Israel - that would lead us to support him again.

Carole Keeton McClellan/Rylander/Strayhorn (D/R/I)
Pro: She is by far the least offensive person in this race. She's alienated or been alienated by both parties, so she would govern as an independent in a way that the state would probably benefit from.
Con: She'll likely be a Republican or Democrat before her term. Her constantly shifting political stances would probably have her shifting into the mainstream thinking of whichever party she does re-join. It's disconcerting to vote for someone that could, by the end of her term, be a standard-issue Republican or a standard-issue Democrat.

Kinky Friedman (I)
Pro: He's interesting. He seems rather straightforward in his views to the point of offending some. He will take some positions that none of the others would dare. He is unambitious politically and I believe he honestly wants to do what is best for Texas, not his party or his political career.
Con: I don't know what positions, really. As with Strayhorn, I don't have a solid idea of what kind of governor he would be. Unlike with Strayhorn, neither party would be vying for his loyalties because both parties would likely realize that it would be more headache than it is worth even for the governorship. Ultimately, while I believe he wants the best for Texas, I don't believe he has the slightest clue what that might be.

Most of it, for me, comes down to whether how much I do not want Rick Perry to be Texas's longest-serving governor. If I determine that his defeat is paramount, I will vote for the most promising competitor, which at this point would probably be Chris Bell, who is least ideologically acceptable to me at this time. If I take a more nuanced view and accept that there are worse things that Governor Perry 3.0 or if the polls demonstrate conclusively that he will win (which is harder to do in a race like this than a standard two-person race), then I've got to decide which of his opponents I would find most preferable and "vote my conscience."

I really, really wish John Cornyn or John Sharp were in this race. Heck, at this point I would take Tony Sanchez.

It's been interesting reading conservatives over at the Lonestar Times beginning to embrace the candidacy of Kinky Friedman, though not surprising. Astonishingly, in the four candidates for the Governor of Texas, conservatives don't actually have a whole lot of options. They have a lousy governor, a comptroller that has been a thorn in the side of the party, a Democrat, and of course Kinky.

Nor that the establishment left has begun to take aim at him. Every vote for Kinky is one that Democratic nominee Chris Bell would have a pretty good chance at getting.

What surprises me most is how many liberals seem to be unwavering in their support for the eccentric Jewish cowboy. The number of Kinky bumper stickers I've seen out here outstrips all other candidates combined by a factor of ten.

This is a serious election, people. This is not a case of an invincible or doomed incumbent. It's the story of an unpopular governor that is about to get re-elected at least in part because a large number of would-be detractors are wasting their time with someone that wants to name Willie Nelson as their energy czar. Whatever chance Kinky had of being the Jesse Ventura of the race ended when the pox-on-both-houses vote was itself divided by Carole Keeton Strayhorn's entrance as an independent.

Meanwhile, I have yet to hear what is so wrong (from a Democrat POV) with Chris Bell, the guy that's actually a Democrat. The main argument against Bell is that he can't win. To the extent that's true, it's at least in part because Democrats have refused to back him, opting instead for Strayhorn or Friedman. If Chris Bell were ideologically unpalatable I'd understand, but he's more consistantly liberal than Friedman*. If Friedman honestly, seriously had a better chance at getting elected I would understand that, too. But the biggest obstacle Bell faces is Friedman... and the second, the rightward tilt of the state, is a problem that Friedman shares.

Six years ago, enough liberals rallied around Nader to keep Gore from conclusively winning Florida. They've been kicking themselves for it ever since as 'sticking it to the man' ultimately cost them a lot of ground on a lot of issues they held dear. It would behoove liberals not to repeat that mistake. I appreciate what they did in 2000, don't get me wrong, but this is one Republican I would quite like to see lose, dangit.

This whole election manages to reinforce my belief that political belief and action is derived as much from self-image as it is the an evaluation of the issues and a desire to enact change.

I am against the establishment, therefore I will vote for the anti-establishment candidate. To heck with everyone else.

* - In fact, Kinky has been suspiciously non-liberal in the last couple of weeks. I almost wonder if he sees the effect that he's having on the race and has decided that he needs to take more votes from Republicans and send some Democrats back to Bell.

A while back I noted an opinion piece that ludicrously suggested Rick Perry as a candidate for a Vice Presidential slot. Heaven help us, the Dallas Morning News nearly devoted an entire article on the subject:

Perry political adviser Dave Carney declined to talk about anything beyond the current Texas race. But as a measure of the effort to market Perry on the national stage, the governor and Carney met last year with a top Washington operative to discuss writing a book to showcase the governor's conservative bona fides.

Gov. Rick Perry has made a number of out-of-state appearances that have heightened his national profile. "There have been a lot of conservative leaders and politicians who have been successful as book authors, starting with Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich," said Craig Shirley, whose firm markets books for major political figures.

Shirley said he had lunch with the governor and Carney, where they discussed the process of writing, publishing and promoting a book.

"When they came to me, they already had the idea of writing the book," he said. "I offered some suggestions about topics and publishers and things like that."

He said Perry - who succeeded Gov. George W. Bush in 2000 when Bush became president - would have strong appeal among national conservatives because of his views on taxes and social issues.

Shirley added that it was clear Perry wanted to win re-election first before publicly expanding attention beyond Texas.

I suppose this solves the mystery of where the aforementioned opinion writer got the idea that Perry was a natural consideration for VP: From Perry's henchmen.

Rick Perry will likely be re-elected this fall because he is the luckiest politician I have ever seen and for little other reason. Four years ago he faced off against a fractured Democratic rainbow coalition that (surprise, surprise) didn't sell with moderate white voters. Two years before that he got the governorship cause the governor was promoted to president. He got the lieutenant governorship because he was a Republican and Republicans did not lose in 1998. He came the second closest to losing, though, right after Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn. Strayhorn, of course, is one of the three opponents Perry has this year in a four-way race, the other two being a one-term congressman and a Jewish country musician named Kinky. He may well get re-elected with under 40% of the vote.

I wouldn't even be mentioning all this. Last time I was pretty concise because I considered the whole thing too absurd to actually comment on.

Whatever one thinks of the competence of Bush as president and even if they didn't agree with a lot that he did in Austin, they should be able to agree that he was at least an effective governor. Whether you liked them or not, things got done. I would question whether or not Perry could lead a bunch of kindergardeners to the playground.

And even if Rick Perry were competent, he's a friggin' white, male Republican from Texas! If there is anything -- anything -- that he would actually add to a ticket, I would love to hear it. If the GOP presidential nominee is so weak that Perry would prove to be an electoral asset, stick a fork in it because the election is done.

[via Adrianne]

Glenn Reynolds approvingly links to this Salena Zito column about how the Republicans have lost their way. It's an article I'd be inclined to agree with, were it not utterly disconnected with reality:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is steadfast about governing responsibly, which translates into consistently facing resistance when balancing fiscal policies with social concerns. His maverick approach to remaining true-blue has earned him a solid reputation with conservatives. Beltway-types look to him as perfect vice-presidential material, despite his disdain for elbow-rubbing.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican, briefly considered running against Perry in 2006. Faced with a daunting primary against a truer Republican, she quickly backed down.

I'm sorry. What?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is steadfast about governing responsibly, which translates into consistently facing resistance when balancing fiscal policies with social concerns. His maverick approach to remaining true-blue has earned him a solid reputation with conservatives. Beltway-types look to him as perfect vice-presidential material, despite his disdain for elbow-rubbing.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican, briefly considered running against Perry in 2006. Faced with a daunting primary against a truer Republican, she quickly backed down.

That's... one way of reading Perry's polling numbers. Something vaguely resembling reality would be another.

Vice President? The man couldn't win an open senate seat at this point.

If he's the future of "true" Republicans, the heaven help us all..

There's apparently a group of lefty political activists called the Austin People's Legal Collective.

Disregarding everything else about the group, I cannot imagine a more ominous, creepy name a group can give themselves than People's Legal Collective.

[via Chris]

Now that most of the travel plans are nailed down, I can officially announce my return to Texas!

A week from now I'll be on the plane. I'll be going on the 10th and returning on the 21st. Unfortunately, I'm not going to have nearly the time to do everything that I want to do. I have a roadtrip or two planned for while I'm down there.

It's going to be anything but relaxing, but it'll be awesome!