Rick Perry’s New Endorser: New Hampshire “Sold” Adopted Kids to Homosexuals

Meet the Texas governor’s eyebrow-raising new allies in the Granite State.

Texas Gov. Rick PerryThe Bakersfield Californian/ZUMAPRESS.com

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Rick Perry snagged the endorsement of 27 New Hampshire state legislators on Wednesday, passing fellow GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has endorsements from just 9 Granite State lawmakers. The Texas governor’s campaign was quick to brag about this ally-recruiting coup. “We are honored to have the support of these men and women who represent and understand the sentiments of voters across the state,” said Paul Young, a senior adviser for Perry. But some of Perry’s new supporters have made headlines for the wrong reasons—including for claiming New Hampshire “sold” children to gay couples and for slamming college students as “transient inmates.”

One of Perry’s New Hampshire endorsers, state Rep. Al Baldasaro, sparked an outcry in 2010 when he compared adoption by same-sex couples to child trafficking. New Hampshire passed a law in 2008 permitting unmarried same-sex couples to adopt children. Afterward, Baldasaro testified before a legislative committee that New Hampshire “sold each kid to a homosexual couple that’s not married for $10,000.” Baldasaro later apologized, called the statement “a bad choice of words,” and claimed he was referring to federal money received by the state to cover adoption costs.

Another Perry endorser, GOP state Rep. Gregory Sorg, publicly supported a bill that would ban college students from voting in elections in their college towns. (The bill drew large opposition from New Hampshire students, the League of Women Voters, and the secretary of state.) But it was Sorg’s description of college students that caught the eye: He disparaged them “transient inmates…with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce,” the Union Leader reported.

GOP state Rep. Ralph Boehm attracted headlines in January when he voiced opposition to New Hampshire schools adopting new national curriculum standards. Boehm said the standards, which would ensure a minimum base of knowledge in math and English at each grade level, amounted to more overreach and meddling by the federal government. (The US Department of Education didn’t develop the standards, but it urged states to sign on.) “It comes down to local control and unfunded mandates,” Boehm said, according to the Nashua Telegraph. “It’s causing local districts to spend money on learning what the common core is, and it’s also going to cost additional money for new books and stuff like that.”

And finally there’s GOP state Rep. Kenneth Weyler. In a March debate over cuts to state mental health institutions, Weyler claimed mental care providers want sick people to be “patients for life” and suggested that slashing funding could somehow cure the mentally ill. “By cutting the amount of help we’re willing to offer, we’d like them to discover that some of these people can be cured,” he said, according to the Concord Monitor. “You shouldn’t keep them just so you can keep your revenue coming in.”

Putting these legislators on an endorsement list could have been a vetting mistake. But Perry needs all the support he can get in New Hampshire. A Suffolk University-7 News poll released Wednesday showed Mitt Romney with the support of 41 percent of respondents, putting him a commanding 27 points ahead of the next closest Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Perry recorded only 8 percent support, although he fared better in a mid-August poll by the right-leaning Magellan Strategies. In that poll, he placed second with 18 percent, still trailing Romney, who took the top spot with 36 percent.

Perry isn’t the first presidential candidate to court controversial New Hampshire conservatives; in June, Mother Jones reported that former candidate Tim Pawlenty’s campaign organized a party at the house of a conservative activist who called President Obama “a jungle alien” and climate change “bullshit.” But as the Texas governor battles Romney for the hearts of New Hampshire Republicans, he’ll no doubt woo more lawmakers to join his cause. After all, New Hampshire’s state Legislature, at 424 members, is the largest in the nation—and the endorsements of some 250 Republicans are still up for grabs.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate