I wouldn't be surprised that Mitt is behind the scenes of this and there is talk of Rick Perry is going to run for President. I'm wondering he would run as the conservative canadate in the GOP primaries...

[Romney/Perry 2012] <<<<<<who wants to make this bumper sticker?

Two peas in a pod. Perry is the Texas version of Romney.

Hmmm. Peas in pod?

Mark Davis: Can Medina recover from unmitigated disaster?

06:47 PM CST on Thursday, February 11, 2010
(WEB EXCLUSIVE)

If I had not developed considerable respect for Debra Medina, I would not bother to offer urgent advice on how to save the political future she may have torpedoed Thursday morning.
Also Online

Talk show host Glenn Beck asked if she was a "9/11 truther" – that is, a member of the deranged community that says the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by terrorists hijackers but rather a U.S. government hungry to spark a nation to war by killing its own people.

Her answer was an unmitigated disaster. What we have to figure out now is what she has revealed. Was it just a profoundly clumsy misstep on the path of a neophyte candidate, or was it a genuine willingness to give benefit of the doubt to one of the most demented beliefs of our day?

"I don't have all of the evidence there," she answered, using breath she should have used to instantly dismiss the insane ravings of people so far gone that they believe the jetliner impacts into the towers are diabolical concoctions meant to hide the truth: government sabotage.

It got worse. "I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard, there are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there."

In the dampened quiet of the morning snowfall, two sounds rolled across the Texas prairie: the collective gasp of sensible people who thought they were backing a sensible candidate, and the sickening thud of a once-promising campaign dashed against the rocks.

Can it be saved?

Only if she stops the bleeding immediately with a tourniquet fashioned from deep humility and skillful self-correction.

That presumes that she is not in fact tolerant of the 9/11 "truth" psychosis. If she is, then she has little business in polite society, much less high elected office.

But I'm going to give her benefit of the doubt. She has not struck me as a lunatic in any other way, and we have spoken often. That leaves the only other possibility, which is the nightmare combination of an unexpected question about something she was wholly unprepared to address, leading to an unthinking ramble into unintended territory.

Problem is, given time to examine the hole she had dug, she issued a statement that contained precisely none of the contrition her supporters desperately needed to hear.

Her press release should have contained about 30 words: "I am so sorry. I was exhausted and my brain had turned to jelly. Let me make clear today and forever that in no way do I share the inexcusable conspiratorial fantasies of these people."

Instead, after offering perfunctory comfort that she did not harbor their beliefs, she said the question was a "surprise" because it is not relevant to the campaign. Wow. One hopes that someone seeking to run a state is not so easily bamboozled by a subject plucked from the topical periphery.

Then: "The real underlying question here is whether or not people have the right to question the government."

No, that is most certainly not the question. Despite its execrable views, the truther cult has every right to spew its pathological delusions. The question is whether Debra Medina has committed political suicide.

"She is not a 9/11 truther" was the single-sentence reply to the e-mail I immediately sent her campaign. Fair enough, but not good enough. Rationality requires not just a certificate of non-membership in that disturbed subculture. It requires instant and clear condemnation for a set of beliefs that are an unparalleled combination of baseless venom, stunning gullibility and juvenile stubbornness.

If she is of the proper mind on this, why did she not say so immediately? Since newcomers to the punishing world of campaigning often make stupendous mistakes, she needs to own up to this one and make it right. The people who viewed her as a worthy voice for courageous, populist conservatism are waiting.

Mark Davis is heard weekdays from 8:30 to 11 a.m. on WBAP-AM, News/Talk 820. His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com.

Well in the spirit of keeping the election about the candidates for governor and the views they themselves have considered important, here is Medina in her own words on Nullification, Interposition, and Secession from a rally August 29, 2009.

Particular interest to her choice of language starting at 3:00 (esp. 3:20)minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qO4K_wmJ94

I for one will again state, this is nonsense. But worse, it is dangerous nonsense.

Debra Medina is a Ron Paul disciple and organizer and her political views reflect the more extreme elements of that association. While wildly popular for some, once again we are looking at the rejection of the extreme notions and assertions put forward by that vocal minority. The voters of Texas will choose their poison in this race and the most recent set of polls (with Medina a more distant third) indicates that the flirtation with Medina the "unknown" will not survive the close examination of her beliefs and associations.

Good.

May God Bless Texas.

Well in the spirit of keeping the election about the candidates for governor and the views they themselves have considered important, here is Medina in her own words on Nullification, Interposition, and Secession from a rally August 29, 2009.

Particular interest to her choice of language starting at 3:00 (esp. 3:20)minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qO4K_wmJ94

I for one will again state, this is nonsense. But worse, it is dangerous nonsense.

Debra Medina is a Ron Paul disciple and organizer and her political views reflect the more extreme elements of that association. While wildly popular for some, once again we are looking at the rejection of the extreme notions and assertions put forward by that vocal minority. The voters of Texas will choose their poison in this race and the most recent set of polls (with Medina a more distant third) indicates that the flirtation with Medina the "unknown" will not survive the close examination of her beliefs and associations.

Good.

May God Bless Texas.

melopa
Good idea, since their smears have been totally discredited.
plan b not working...
back to plan a..

And lets add some name calling while we are at it too.

Ronald Reagan endorsed Ron Paul in his Congressional race and even campaigned for him.
Was Reagan being a Ron Paul disciple too?

Interview May 26, 2008

What can the party do to reverse course?

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff." But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.

Far be it from me to avoid venturing into territory where I have little clue - why change a habit now that has been such a tremendous help in developing my humility? But I also learn this way so I will jump in with both feet & hopefully avoid having them wind up in my mouth!

It appears to be pretty clear that the Founding Fathers intended the states to be able to tell the federal govt. where to get off - nullification & interposition may have a tainted history, but isn't that more an issue of how they were used than the fact that they were used?

What I'm getting at is that, in the clip you provided, Medina gave examples of nullification that included the healthcare mess that they're even still trying to force on us - several aspects of it are unconstitutional such as the fine for not having adequate health insurance. Don't the states have the legitimate right to refuse to accept such a thing?

And why should this be taken as anything more than the same kind of saber-rattling that Perry was playing with not too long ago?

Also, I realize this Clyde Wilson is a bit controversial in his own right, but what do you think of this brief interview where he discusses nullification & interposition?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson32.1.html

So Doc, are you saying then that you believe the states should submit to something like that healthcare mandate if it gets passed? At least until the national political scene gets changed around enough to do something to stop it?

What if you have a situation where not enough states object to an unconstitutional mandate to get rid of it?

How far should the federal govt. be allowed to go before a state draws a line in the sand?

The laws of the government of the United States are supreme in all the states.

If enough citizens object to those laws then it will be reflected on the national level.

States are not in the position to draw a line in the sand.

Since the Civil War the Constitution has been read as WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA (one word) and not as we the people of the STATES of america united (which is what John C. Calhoun, and the nullification group argued). The supremacy clause prevails.

The citizens of the nation are sovereign and responsible for their United government.

The only "number of states" which I believe would be sufficient to nullify the Federal governments act would be a sufficient number to alter the Constitutioon by Amendment or call a second Constitutional convention, both of which are provided under the terms of our Constitution (3/4 of States under Art. V). By the time you reach that number it is unlikely that the government would still persist in its policy. We see that roughly 55% opposition in public opinion to ObamaCare has caused its wheels to come off without the need of any State roadblock.

One cannot say the Pledge and support these doctrines. The Republic for which it stands, ONE Nation, under God,indivisible,...that word was specifically placed in the pledge as a creedal statement against the doctrine of secession. That is also why the Pledge was unpopular in many Southern states for years after its introduction in 1892.

We are E Pluribus Unum - out of many ONE.

Let us leave behind any talk of disunity. We are a nation and we cannot separate as a protest or solution to our political discontent or abuse.

Doc, where are you coming from?

indivisible,...that word was specifically placed in the pledge as a creedal statement against the doctrine of secession

Put in by a professing Socialist. How conservative of you.
Socialists, like Communists, do prefer a STRONG federal government.
To better oppress us, I dare say...

The laws of the government of the United States are supreme in all the states.

If enough citizens object to those laws then it will be reflected on the national level.

States are not in the position to draw a line in the sand.

Since the Civil War the Constitution has been read as WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA (one word) and not as we the people of the STATES of america united (which is what John C. Calhoun, and the nullification group argued). The supremacy clause prevails.

The citizens of the nation are sovereign and responsible for their United government.

The only "number of states" which I believe would be sufficient to nullify the Federal governments act would be a sufficient number to alter the Constitutioon by Amendment or call a second Constitutional convention, both of which are provided under the terms of our Constitution (3/4 of States under Art. V). By the time you reach that number it is unlikely that the government would still persist in its policy. We see that roughly 55% opposition in public opinion to ObamaCare has caused its wheels to come off without the need of any State roadblock.

One cannot say the Pledge and support these doctrines. The Republic for which it stands, ONE Nation, under God,indivisible,...that word was specifically placed in the pledge as a creedal statement against the doctrine of secession. That is also why the Pledge was unpopular in many Southern states for years after its introduction in 1892.

We are E Pluribus Unum - out of many ONE.

Let us leave behind any talk of disunity. We are a nation and we cannot separate as a protest or solution to our political discontent or abuse.

as did Lincoln the first Republican President who suspended the writ, freed private property by fiat and preserved the Union by force of arms. As did Washington, the only U.S. President to physically take the field in command of the Army against his own people to put down tax protesters. As did Jefferson when his earlier scrupples about the central government being limited to only enumerated powers evaborated in the face of an opportunity to expand the nation with the Louisiana purchase. As did Teddy Roosevelt who "took the canal and left congress to debate."

All of them ended up on Mt Rushmore and if you actually think you can make political hay out of the notion that the pledge of Allegiance is a communist plot well...good luck with that.