Heartache: Tea Party candidate in Texas a 9/11 truther; Update: Medina responds

posted at 12:15 pm on February 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Six days ago, the big news out of Texas was that Tea Party activist and gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina came within the margin of error with Kay Bailey Hutchison, who barely clung to second place against incumbent Rick Perry. Today, Glenn Beck suffers heartbreak when Medina more or less cops to being a 9/11 Truther as well as a “constitutional conservative” candidate. “I think some very good questions raised have been raised in that regard,” Medina replies when Beck asks whether she believes that the American government was in any way involved in bringing down the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Medina says she won’t take a position on a question where “good questions have been raised and haven’t been answered,” even though they have been answered for years. Beck and the others in his studio can’t quite believe their ears:

This is the same way Ron Paul has played footsie with the Truthers for the last few years as well, and it’s not uncommon among Paul followers. Given the fact that conservatives demanded that Barack Obama remove Van Jones for essentially saying the same thing — something Beck doesn’t hesitate to point out — shouldn’t conservatives rebuke Medina for the same thing? Beck jokes about french-kissing Rick Perry after hearing from Medina and calls him a “good-looking man” in comparison, so he’s already given his answer to the question.

I’d say that Medina’s hit the apex of her political career today.

Update: Medina has issued the following statement:

I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.

The question surprised me because it’s not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.

The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it’s Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that’s the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.

No, the question wasn’t whether people “have the right to question our government.”  No one is locking up Truthers for asking foolish questions and spinning conspiracy theories.  Play the audio again, and you will hear Beck ask a specific question: do you believe that the government was involved in the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11?  Medina’s answer was “I think some very good questions raised have been raised in that regard.”

If Medina believes that, then she hasn’t paid attention to the answers that have long been in the public domain.  If she doesn’t, then she’s terribly inept at handling media interviews.  Either way, Medina’s responsible for her answers and their implications, not Glenn Beck or anyone else.  Any candidate who thinks that a nutcase conspiracy theory about the US government destroying the WTC is within the realm of reasonable speculation is a candidate that richly deserves the obscurity she will shortly enter.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

Do you have something substantive that you want to add, or is sounding stupid the heights of your rhetorical ambitions?

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM

All your argumentitive posts making the same point bury the discussion. You’ve made your point. Other people may have something else to say. Be mature and let them do it.

BTW loved the insult – did I used to be married to you?

Venusian Visitor on February 12, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Is Sarah Palin a truther too? In this clip she says she supports reopening the 9/11 investigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPDbmQmV6O8

nyrofan on February 12, 2010 at 11:07 AM

He did not provide anything and your idea that dual citizens should be eligible to be President is insane.

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

One trait I have found in almost all birthers, is rampant xenophobia.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 8:52 AM

LOL. You think that disallowing dual citizens to be President is xenophobia? You’re out of your mind. You must have a very low opinion of our Founders. What does sovereignty mean to you? Nothing, I see.

Are you claiming that an ineligible person can take the oath and have it be valid and operative? Really?

neurosculptor on February 11, 2010 at 5:38 PM

If congress rules him eligible, he’s eligible.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:00 AM

That’s beyond stupid. Constitutional eligiblity is point of fact, not opinion. A 25 year old is NOT eligible, no matter what Congress says. That is just a point of fact.

In your opinion, all mathemeticians are better lawyers than the lawyers?

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Mathematicians are better thinkers than lawyers. Yes, without any doubt, at all. Just look at any standardized scores or tests that you want. I would tell you to talk to mathematicians and judge for yourself, but your level is too low to make such judgments.

The law, as a logical construction, is a total joke – and you don’t need a law degree to listen to moronic Commerce Clause and General Welfare arguments (by ‘smart lawyers’) and know that arguments which give the federal government unlimited power within the framework of the Constitution (built to specifically limit federal power) are patently ridiculous.

But, I guess such arguments make sense to you. Of courses, you think that having a President with formalized split allegiances is a great idea and, somehow, you’ve gotten it into your pea-brain that the Founders agreed with you. Too funny, really.

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Learned much from you in reading your points about AGW. You have considerable knowledge of the issue. Profession? Passion? Both?

rukiddingme on February 12, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Passion, and being involved with the issue since the early 90′s.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM

did I used to be married to you?

Venusian Visitor on February 12, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Do you live in Tampa?

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:31 AM

LOL. You think that disallowing dual citizens to be President is xenophobia?
neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:08 AM

It’s pretty much the dictionary definition. Especially when multiple experts in the area explain to you that you are wrong.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Mathematicians are better thinkers than lawyers.
neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Not just stupid, but arrogantly stupid. I would love to see your average mathemetician try to argue a case in front of a jury. And no, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not married to one, and I don’t play one on TV.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM

RINO in Name Only on February 11, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Mike was being sarcastic. He doesn’t believe Medina is a “truther” any more than he believes Michelle is.

Stick to the Constitution and Kirk Conservatism, that’s it! Follow it, we save the country.
Sapwolf on February 11, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Sounds good to me! Kirk was anti-war:

…As prominent neocons sat horrified in the audience, Kirk described the members of this “political sect” as “often clever, but seldom wise.” He went on in this vein, citing a letter from a prominent Pennsylvania historian of conservative sentiments who described the then newcomers from Manhattan’s Upper West Side as “selfish and uninstructed radicals and progressives, wishing to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson. … A feeling for the land, for its conservation, and for the strong modesty of a traditional patriotism (as distinct from nationalism) none of them has.”

Certainly the author of The Conservative Mind would have been aghast at the sight of the neoconservatives at the helm of the United States, rampaging through the Middle East. He rightly avowed, again in that famous Heritage lecture, that while the neocons had been alert to the dangers posed by international communism, “they have been rash in their schemes of action, pursuing a fanciful democratic globalism rather than the national interest of the United States; on such occasions I have tended to side with those moderate Libertarians who set their faces against foreign entanglements…”

That crack earned him unremitting enmity in certain quarters: the truth hurts. Kirk had the neocons’ number, back when they were just a minor carbuncle on the general body of the conservative movement.[...]

For Kirk and for Taft, war “was the enemy of constitution, liberty, economic security, and the cake of custom.” It had to be the very last resort, not only because it “would make the American President a virtual dictator, diminish the constitutional powers of Congress, contract civil liberties, injure the habitual self-reliance and self-government of the American people, distort the economy,” and “sink the federal government in debt”…

Rae on February 12, 2010 at 11:34 AM

4 posts in a row. Better stop before I get accused of spamming again.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:34 AM

LOL. You think that disallowing dual citizens to be President is xenophobia?

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:08 AM

It’s pretty much the dictionary definition.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Dude, I am going to assume that you said this as a big joke, because otherwise you are proving that you have not a clue as to what xenophobia means.

BTW, you are aware that many nations don’t allow dual citizens to serve in any of their elected positions? Aren’t you? … probably not …

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Mathematicians are better thinkers than lawyers.

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Not just stupid, but arrogantly stupid.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Laughable, Mark. Truly.

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Hey Mark, how xenophobic is this:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

Pretty xenophobic, isn’t it? By your definition (or whatever joke dictionaries you use) this is the worst sort of xenophobia imaginable. We are bad, bad, nasty country, aren’t we?

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM

NOT a Truther – Mike Church Interviews Debra Medina

Complete Audio of the Interview Here.

And yes, we got a Straight answer and Ms. Medina would not be considered a 9/11 Truther.

Rae on February 12, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Dude, I am going to assume that you said this as a big joke, because otherwise you are proving that you have not a clue as to what xenophobia means.

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM

It means that you have a deepseated fear of those who are different from you.

Which you display in spades.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Laughable, Mark. Truly.

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM

That you believe that all mathemeticians are smarter than all lawyers, most definitely is laughable.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 12:48 PM

It’s called fundamentalism Mark.

dakine on February 11, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Van Jones is a fundamentalist? Whodathunkit?

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Pretty xenophobic, isn’t it?

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Not xenophobic, nor is it relevant.

You are the one who keeps claiming that even the slightest exposure to other cultures makes someone unfit to be president.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 12:48 PM

If she’s not a Truther, why did she attend a Texans for Truth meeting in December?

SnarkVader on February 11, 2010 at 9:24 PM

She didn’t. She held a town hall with another politician, Sheriff Richard Mack, and the town hall was touted on the Texans for Truth website, just as they tout “Tea Party” assemblies on same site.

I have yet to hear her say what Van Jones and the other Truthers say — that the Federal Government was responsible for 9/11.

What I have heard her say is a thread which runs through Southern Politics to this day — that she strongly supports states rights as a counterbalance to the Federal Government. Being a strong federalist myself, and being a firm believer that the laws governing our Constitutional rights should be uniform across all the states, I of course disagree with her. That said, her position is a valid political one which does not mark her as a “crazy” — just in my book as a misguided southerner who doesn’t remember history. And as the entire south is peopled with millions who think likewise — and which thought crosses racial, religious, and ethnic boundaries — it’s not a thought to be scoffed at — although I disagree with it.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Is Sarah Palin a truther too? In this clip she says she supports reopening the 9/11 investigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPDbmQmV6O8

nyrofan on February 12, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Very good clip. In reality, at least half of Americans are at least skeptical of the official story of 9/11, even if they won’t infer that Bush definitely ordered the attack. I think because it seems just too convenient to many people that they want to start the Iraq War and then this magically happens.

I’m not a “9/11 Truther”, but I can see why most people doubt the official story on this. Some people (not me) just have to wonder if the Feds are really inept enough to ignore every warning sign.

So even Palin calling for another investigation is significant because she is supposed to be the queen of the GOP and the next George W. Bush candidate. It’s a bipartisan feeling that people aren’t getting the whole story, and even Palin joined in on this. Just asking questions doesn’t make one a “Truther”.

The Dean on February 12, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Pretty xenophobic, isn’t it? By your definition (or whatever joke dictionaries you use) this is the worst sort of xenophobia imaginable. We are bad, bad, nasty country, aren’t we?

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM

No, this is not xenophobic — it is nationalistic. It is motivated by the belief that a citizen — and, in particular, an office-holder — must put the well-being of his or her nation before that of all others.

Phobias are an unrealistic (in psychological terms, morbid) fear. A nation is a group of people united by a common set of beliefs. It is natural to assume, if you want to join a nation, that you should affirm that you willingly accept its beliefs.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM

That you believe that all mathemeticians are smarter than all lawyers, most definitely is laughable.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 12:48 PM

If you think that you have properly identified the quatifiers in my statement, then you are worse than I thought (which is pretty friggin’ bad). Mathematicians would laugh you out of the room. Lawyers would probably tell you that you have a soaring intellect.

Keep digging, Mark.

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Van Jones is a fundamentalist? Whodathunkit?

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2010 at 12:48 PM

I guess you’re being sarcastic, but whatever. Fundamentalism, as I’m sure you know, is not limited to the religious. If Van Jones is indeed a Truther who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, then he is indeed a fundamentalist in that regard. Fundamentalists cling to entrenched positions and ideologies which fly in the face of all logic, reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.

dakine on February 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Mark’s dictionary says that you are in xenophobia denial :)

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Let me get this straight Professor. Mathematicians are smarter than lawyers. You are a mathematician, so you’re smarter than, let’s say, Justices Scalia and Roberts and Ted Olson and Prof. Tribe. Whatever analysis you’ve done regarding Article 2 of the Constitution would then obviously be superior to their respective analysis. Do I have this right so far? if any or all of these lawyers opine that Obama is constitutionally eligible to be POTUS, then they are blithering idiots. Is that your position?

dakine on February 12, 2010 at 1:34 PM

I’m not a “9/11 Truther”, but I can see why most people doubt the official story on this. Some people (not me) just have to wonder if the Feds are really inept enough to ignore every warning sign.

So even Palin calling for another investigation is significant because she is supposed to be the queen of the GOP and the next George W. Bush candidate. It’s a bipartisan feeling that people aren’t getting the whole story, and even Palin joined in on this. Just asking questions doesn’t make one a “Truther”.

The Dean on February 12, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Exactly. Like all government commissions, (see Pecora, and the current Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission) priority number one will always be to deflect blame and criticism away from its own incompetence. The 9/11 Commission was no different.

And it’s not as if the U.S. government has never given anyone a reason to be suspicious…

Rae on February 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Butter Medina up; she’s toast.

BTW, Ron Paul has been a far bigger truther suck up and Glenn Beck has been sucking up to him for years.

Sergeant Tim on February 12, 2010 at 2:11 PM

BTW, Ron Paul has been a far bigger truther suck up and Glenn Beck has been sucking up to him for years.

Sergeant Tim on February 12, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Not true. Paul has went on Beck and said it was “preposterous” when asked the same question.

The Dean on February 12, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Are you aware of how many of the 9/11 commissioners side with her??

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?ref=opinion

http://kathleenmckinley.com/2010/02/11/debra-medina-just-screwed-up.aspx#comment-2816891

Muse Doctor on February 12, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Is this the Republican Purity Test Now?

How utterly ludicrous. The GOP is a joke. Trying to smear Medina based on this will backfire, fools. The American people are as sick of Republicans as they are of Democrats. It’s about trust in government, not “trutherism.” Medina should have restated Beck’s pathetic line of questioning as an issue of “trust in government” writ large; she didn’t, that was her mistake.

But, to make Beck’s questioning the test of purity for “conservatives” ONLY TRIVIALIZES CONSERVATIVES.

We have serious problems in this country, but what do conservatives do? Smear a candidate based their 9/11 “purity test.” It’s is the most PATHETIC, base and ill-advised smear tactic evah!

mountainaires on February 12, 2010 at 2:43 PM

mountainaires on February 12, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Shunning a Truther is not smearing them. It’s recognizing that they are stupid. Anyone who doesn’t automatically disavow the governments involvement with 9/11 is too stupid to vote for.

Jaynie59 on February 12, 2010 at 2:48 PM

dakine on February 12, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Ah. Another person who doesn’t understand quantification and the meaning of general statements. You are brilliant. Give yourself a B+.

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Keep digging, Mark.

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 1:23 PM

I’ve already got you buried, why would I need to dig any further?

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 4:24 PM

The Dean on February 12, 2010 at 1:19 PM

There is much skepticism regarding the explanation of how govt came to miss all the signals. But this doesn’t equate to any skepticism regarding who did the act.

Why am I not surprised to find out that Dean is also a troother.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM

neurosculptor on February 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I love the way some people declare themselves smart, merely because no one else can see the unicorns in the yard.

MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2010 at 4:27 PM

So even Palin calling for another investigation is significant because she is supposed to be the queen of the GOP and the next George W. Bush candidate. It’s a bipartisan feeling that people aren’t getting the whole story, and even Palin joined in on this. Just asking questions doesn’t make one a “Truther”.

The Dean on February 12, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Exactly. Palin said the birth certificate (eligibility issue) is fair game, and in that clip she says she supports another 9/11 investigation.

Perry better distance himself from his campaign buddy Palin if he intends to make this a campaign issue. If this torpedo fired by Beck/Perry at Medina destroys her campaign, then it should destroy Sarah Palin as well. Medina said yesterday that she has never made 9/11 comments, it’s never been part of her campaign, or even discussed at her dinner table. Sarah Palin made her comment publicly, but I don’t remember it becoming an issue.

nyrofan on February 12, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Lawrence O’Donnell: “George Bush INVITED 9/11.

Debra Medina: I don’t have all the evidence Glenn…there have been very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence on that.”

With LOD, he was saying that Bush neglected his job or performed poorly or was an idiot but with DM she is suggesting that the government was directly complicit in 9/11 which is ludicrous.

There is a major difference between the two.

technopeasant on February 12, 2010 at 7:18 PM

technopeasant

OTHER people following Perry’s friend Beck have said what Medina meant, CONTRARY to what Medina said and reiterated. She is not a truther. She does not accept government propaganda on face value. So far as 9/11 is concerned, Medina has clearly stated it has nothing to do with her candidacy or with her platform.

Beck put words in Medina’s mouth with total disregard for what she clearly stated. Immediately following Beck’s smear job, the Texas radio station KLIF that hosts his show as well as Fred Thompson’s show, the local radio host took a Texas phone survey asking callers responding whether they thought Medina’s campaign was ruined. The unanimous decision from callers was that Beck was the lose, not Medina, and that they agreed with what Medina had to say about not taking everything that government officials say as completely accurate.

Perry’s campaign has been exposed by the Dallas Morning News for smearing the Tea Party as “kooks” by posting stupid entries as if Medina’s supporters.

Austin business owners strongly support Medina for Texas Governor.

Governor Perry failed to address the Constitutional Rights of American citizens, not only with his mandate to vaccinate everyone regardless that long term affects are totally unknown and immediate permanent paralysis, stroke and death are known side affects of Gardasil. Perry denied all the fundamentalist families outside of Eldorado any communications with eachother having forcibly removed all non-adults into state custody, many for months in non-legal hygienic and social standards of living, everyone traumatized. And Perry REFUSED to speak with any parent.

Perry has also sold out tax payers and citizens rights for his own profit accepting kick backs while private property is being condemned for his globalist interest trans-America-corridor through Texas to strengthen NAFTA interests that seriously injure the standard of life for most Texans and enables greater illegal immigration with all the associated costs to tax payers and corruption of elections in Texas and America. Perry has had 10 years to rescind his own corrupt measures in TxDOT, or at least to provide transparency. But he has taken all measures to cover his corrupt @ss while padding it at tax payers’ expense.

maverick muse on February 15, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9