VIDEO: CEO Ken Frazier Adroitly Handles Hectoring Wingnuts -- At Annual Meeting

I've held an internal debate, and hesitated all week -- about whether to even link to these wingnut YouTube clips -- of a right wing organization's General Counsel hectoring the New Merck CEO, at this week's annual meeting. On balance though, I think this sort of nonsense needs more sunshine, not less -- it speaks for itself toward the end of the presser (and clip no. 2). [Mr. Frazier even took the opportunity to harken back to the George Merck bon mot, at right! Well-played.]

Moreover, I think Frazier's answers are pitch-perfect. On the one side, the heckling speakers criticize Merck for supporting health care reform in 2010, as bad for shareholders (a case that's plainly not been proven). Almost comically, in the same breath, their presser criticizes the Bush era 2003 expansion of the prescription drug benefit -- even though that was plainly good for Merck shareholder interests. So -- the transparently political (and thus largely irrelevant nature) of their remarks is made plain -- do watch each; and be thankful that Merck has such an unflappable new CEO:

And finally, longer term shareholder responds -- and rises to defend Merck:



And, from the wingnut organization's presser, then:

. . . .National Center for Public Policy Research General Counsel Justin Danhof asked Frazier if Merck considered the "reputational risk" to Merck before supporting ObamaCare in light of a National Center for Public Policy Research/FreedomWorks poll showing a substantial drop in conservative attitudes toward companies lobbying for the adoption of ObamaCare(!). . .

[In response,] Frazier. . . relat[ed] an anecdote about Democrats objecting to Merck's support of the Republican leadership's expansion of Medicare Part D, the "prescription drug benefit" bill, in 2003. Conservative organizations ardently opposed that expansion. . . .

Of course, if these guys were genuinely interested in Merck's shareholder value (and not just grand-standing for some silly political point), they'd have applauded the 2003, and 2010 federal legislative packages. Wild -- these guys have way too much time on their hands.