Is Medina finished?

[redcommander]

Can she come back from that embarrassing misstep on Glenn Beck's show of all places? Or will she fail miserably in the primary?

[Meeker]

What misstep? Normals don't watch Beck.

[redcommander]

What misstep? Normals don't watch Beck.

Yes but she proved to be a bigger loon than Beck on her appearance. Just for the record I don't listen or watch Beck, I read online about her Conspiracy gaffe.

[Sam Spade]

What misstep? Normals don't watch Beck.

Yes but she proved to be a bigger loon than Beck on her appearance. Just for the record I don't listen or watch Beck, I read online about her Conspiracy gaffe.

Linky poo?

[Sam Spade]

Checked on Free Republic (seemed the logical spot).  Basically, she said, quoting one of the posts there that sounded the clearest in terms of language on my skim:

"She could not say “NO” when asked if she believed the Federal government had a part in the 9-11 attacks. She said she did not have enough information, and that good points had been raised to support the Truther case."

This isn't terribly surprising to me since she and Ron Paul are essentially joined at the hip.  But I suspect it will be to many of her supporters or those whom she might have gotten (through dissatisfaction about Perry or Hutchinson).

Anyway, if this is the substance of what she said, she's done IMO.

Tell me if this version is incorrect, will ya?

[Bo]

Yes

[CatoMinor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SxWWVfIlYI

[Hash]

Holy sh**t, she's a retard and looney.

[Lief 🗽]

Holy sh**t, she's a retard and looney.

Just like at least a plurality of the Texas GOP primary electorate.

[Ronnie]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SxWWVfIlYI

Wow.  I'm speechless.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

My God, you are a moron.

I know I've won for sure when my opponents resort to childish name-calling.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

My God, you are a moron.

I know I've won for sure when my opponents resort to childish name-calling.

Sweetie, the revolution happened because of lack of representation, not because of taxes. The current collective teabagger hissyfit has nothing on them.

[jimrtex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SxWWVfIlYI

This is a more complete version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQuTEF9ba2s

The curious thing is I had earlier got a recorded phone call from "Friends of Kay" that had a sound-bit snippet from Beck's show where he was knocking Perry.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

My God, you are a moron.

I know I've won for sure when my opponents resort to childish name-calling.

Sweetie, the revolution happened because of lack of representation, not because of taxes. The current collective teabagger hissyfit has nothing on them.

Ah, resorting to condescension and non sequuntur now.

Checkmate.

[Deldem]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

My God, you are a moron.

I know I've won for sure when my opponents resort to childish name-calling.

Sweetie, the revolution happened because of lack of representation, not because of taxes. The current collective teabagger hissyfit has nothing on them.

Ah, resorting to condescension and non sequuntur now.

Checkmate.

I don't think you can claim victory when you have dramatically misrepresented the American Revolution for your own purposes.

First off, the American Revolution was indeed fought primarily over "No taxation without representation," (basically, if we're taxed we should have some say in our decision making process) though there were certainly other causes. This was not secession, I would argue, since colonies were not legally deemed equal to the people living in the British Isles, and therefore the government was illegitimate within the colonies, since they had no say whatsoever in many of the decisions of how to run the colonies.

Now, let's look at the Civil War, when true secession actually took place. This was fought so that Southerners could whip and own other human beings, and so the wealthy plantation owners could make more money. They also argued for the ability to nullify federal laws, despite the Constitution clearly giving Congress the right to make laws for our entire nation.

Now, for the Tea Party movement. The goal of this movement driven by upper middle class and the wealthy is to lower their taxes, since they think the government sucks. They occasionally advocate secession to meet this end. Basically, they spout off this oddly Randian ideology that is very similar to laissez-faire capitalism, and don't really care about the less well off. They merely care about their bottom line, and will go to great lengths to reduce what is probably one of the lowest tax rates for the wealthy since the dawn of the 20th Century.

Tell me, which of the first two things is the Tea Party movement actually like?

The correct answer would be the Civil War, which came about largely because the wealthy members of Southern society thought that paying people would hurt their bottom line. The Civil War, in which we also determined that nullification and secession were not legal under our Constitution. It's funny, considering that the Tea Party professes to want to go back to the Constitution, when they clearly do not accept the legal interpretation of it by the highest court in the land, which was clearly established by the said Constitution.

So, Libertas, if you are going to tell me that the Tea Party movement is anything like the American Revolution, please tell me how you are within American borders, yet do not have any sort of representation to the United States government. Please, enlighten me, I'm curious how you managed to go to this magical land of Narnia inside America where you are devoid of someone who could possibly hear your complaints and act on them, and that this isn't instead a case of someone who is whining about how the government isn't doing exactly what he wants it to do.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Hopefully.

Conspiracy theories aside, how is a governor supposed to stop the federal government from "stepping outside the Constitution," exactly?  Commandeer a tank and visit Washington?

[Lunar]

It's possible Medina is simply a completely unprepared candidate who, when confronted with something she doesn't know how to answer, waffles and gives an imprecise answer to avoid giving a substantive answer which could have unanticipated repercussions.  Look, imagine you went on TV for a political interview and had no clue about the restrictions on banks being able to engage in proprietary trading*, you know that these are serious questions, but you're not with your advisers who know how to balance what your supporters expect you to say with what you need to say to expand your appeal, so you just say it's not an issue relating to your office, you haven't investigated this issue fully yet, that both sides on the issue raise valid points, etc.  Politicians at all kinds of skill levels, when confronted with a confusing question, often just spew something they feel is generic and inoffensive.  In the case of 9/11 conspiracy, waffling and giving a non-answer isn't always the best.

She's a nutcase, but I don't think she's a truther.  Listening to the audio, she says one of the two most important elements of freedom is gun ownership (along with property ownership).  Gee, and I thought freedom of expression was generally important.

I mean, listen to the youtube video above.  What a horrible interview.  She doesn't go through the effort of providing a clear signal, it sounds like she's calling from a 1999 cell phone while riding a subway through an elevator.  She's stupid, but that's probably it.  She doesn't seem to understand issues beyond her platitudes, but that's nothing new.  Palin already endorsed Perry, and I'd bet Perry understand the issues the best of the three, but that's as tough as beating retards at speed chess, err, roping retarded cattle, um, square dancing.



* It's entirely possible that, to Medina, any question about something other than guns and property taxes, is as confusing to her as the new proprietary trading restrictions are to me.

[Lunar]

I should also add that that interview indicates one of two things:

1) Medina is likely on the stupid side of things and doesn't know what she's talking about
2) She's a crazy truther

I'd vote #1, especially considering how vehement of a denial her campaign issued of the trutherism charges in its press releases following the interview.  If she was smart, and a passionate believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories, she'd have either not said what she believes or said what she believes and stuck by it.  The fact that her campaign commented about how she was unprepared for the question but that she firmly believes the government had nothing to do with 9/11 makes me think that that is closest to the truth.  While on air, she might have been trying to think about what her nutcase supporters believe or something instead of her own beliefs or whatevsky, I'm really not sure.  The woman is clearly retarded, still struggling to find her public presence and not sure what she is doing along the way.

[SvenssonRS]

All I need to ask is this: why doesn't this kind of backdraft hit Perry when he acts like a cockpunch in front of the entire nation?

[Eraserhead]

Some stuff from RCP on the incident:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2010/02/after_quick_rise_new_scrutiny.html

Why would you run for office in the same party that you think may have essentially killed 3,000 American citizens? lol.

[The Mikado]

I should also add that that interview indicates one of two things:

1) Medina is likely on the stupid side of things and doesn't know what she's talking about
2) She's a crazy truther

I'd vote #1, especially considering how vehement of a denial her campaign issued of the trutherism charges in its press releases following the interview.  If she was smart, and a passionate believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories, she'd have either not said what she believes or said what she believes and stuck by it.  The fact that her campaign commented about how she was unprepared for the question but that she firmly believes the government had nothing to do with 9/11 makes me think that that is closest to the truth.  While on air, she might have been trying to think about what her nutcase supporters believe or something instead of her own beliefs or whatevsky, I'm really not sure.  The woman is clearly retarded, still struggling to find her public presence and not sure what she is doing along the way.

I hate interviews that have me on the same side as Glenn Beck.

Seriously, though, I understand where you were coming from earlier, but listen to her!  How can you equivocate and fence-sit on 9/11?  EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY remembers 9/11, clear as day.  I don't care how stupid you are, it's hard to believe anyone could be stupid enough to not know that saying what she said on the air is a sure-fire career killer.

[Lunar]

I should also add that that interview indicates one of two things:

1) Medina is likely on the stupid side of things and doesn't know what she's talking about
2) She's a crazy truther

I'd vote #1, especially considering how vehement of a denial her campaign issued of the trutherism charges in its press releases following the interview.  If she was smart, and a passionate believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories, she'd have either not said what she believes or said what she believes and stuck by it.  The fact that her campaign commented about how she was unprepared for the question but that she firmly believes the government had nothing to do with 9/11 makes me think that that is closest to the truth.  While on air, she might have been trying to think about what her nutcase supporters believe or something instead of her own beliefs or whatevsky, I'm really not sure.  The woman is clearly retarded, still struggling to find her public presence and not sure what she is doing along the way.

I hate interviews that have me on the same side as Glenn Beck.

Seriously, though, I understand where you were coming from earlier, but listen to her!  How can you equivocate and fence-sit on 9/11?  EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY remembers 9/11, clear as day.  I don't care how stupid you are, it's hard to believe anyone could be stupid enough to not know that saying what she said on the air is a sure-fire career killer.

But, but, but, you're still stuck within two options:

1) She is smart enough to realize the implications of her statements when questioned, and believes in trutherism, but, yet, her campaign issued passionate rejections of the conspiracy theories immediately after this interview started to drag her down in the media...which means that she doesn't believe in 9/11 trutherism enough to back it in the face of controversy.  So..she's a truther who's too stupid to realize the political implications of being a truther, but enough of a political whore to completely refute what she believes in...or...

2) She's just so stupid that in her mind, she was trying to weigh the costs and benefits of issuing a strong statement on the manner that she ended up offending far more people than if she had directly denied it.  I mean, hell, it wouldn't surprise me if she was going over conspiratorial campaign staffers and donors while coming up with her retarded unfortunate answer

To assume she is anything but utterly stupid, you have to presume she knew the consequences of her actions, which then would be refuted by her utterly giving a 180 afterwards and rejecting other peoples' conclusions from her statements.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

My God, you are a moron.

I know I've won for sure when my opponents resort to childish name-calling.

Sweetie, the revolution happened because of lack of representation, not because of taxes. The current collective teabagger hissyfit has nothing on them.

Ah, resorting to condescension and non sequuntur now.

Checkmate.

At least I can spell "non sequitur". You know, one of the reasons why libertarianism isn't popular is because most libertarians are pious douchebags. Which you have proved once again.

[Sam Spade]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

My God, you are a moron.

I know I've won for sure when my opponents resort to childish name-calling.

Sweetie, the revolution happened because of lack of representation, not because of taxes. The current collective teabagger hissyfit has nothing on them.

That's so factually incorrect, I've got to take at least one post to mention it.  Not that lack of representation wasn't a part of things, of course, but in certain revolutionaries' minds, taxes were the only reason (most notably George Washington).