Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Texas governor hopeful Medina appears to endorse, then disavows theory that government was behind Sept. 11

Sept. 11

Voters love amateur politicians. Unvarnished! Unscripted! Throw that caution to the wind!

It’s kind of like a new romance, all full of wide-eyed wonder -- until one of those uh-oh moments. Debra Medina, the Lone Star phenom, is now learning that painful lesson.

As noted here earlier this week, Medina -- a registered nurse, small business owner and first-time political candidate -- has surged from nowhere to become a serious force in the Republican race for Texas governor.

Since that report, several more polls have come out, suggesting Medina could push past Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the former front-runner in the March 3 primary, and force Gov. Rick Perry into an April runoff. Then she ventured Thursday onto Glenn Beck’s nationally syndicated radio show, which is not exactly a lion’s den for a "tea party" favorite like Medina.

Beck asked whether she believed the government had any involvement in the 9/11 attacks. “I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard,” Medina replied. “There are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I’ve not taken a position on that.”

Whoops.

Medina quickly issued a clarification, disavowing the nutty theory. (In a similar vein, she told KAVU-TV in Victoria earlier this week that it was “healthy that people are asking questions” about whether President Obama is an American citizen and eligible to be president.)

The 9/11 retraction came too late. Perry and Hutchison both pounced and...

... issued statements condemning their newly relevant rival. An “insult” to Americans who lost their lives and to a fellow Texan, President George W. Bush, said Perry. “An affront to the men and women who are sacrificing their lives to root out the terrorists in Afghanistan and around the globe,” said Hutchison.

Just the night before, in an interview with the Ticket, Medina was asked if she was up to the scrutiny that was sure to come with her increased prominence. “Absolutely,” she said, between sips of hot tea with lemon. “And you know why? Because it’s not about me, or what happens to me. It’s about writing good policy for the state. So if the policies that I’m advancing can’t stand up to some scrutiny, then they don’t need to be passed.”

 Yes, but -- there are things like judgment and personal beliefs that many voters weigh in choosing a candidate. Medina called a news conference Friday and said she was taken by surprise and misspoke on Beck’s show.

“I could have done that better and I’ll endeavor to be a little more articulate in the future,” she said.

Medina then blamed the ensuing controversy on Perry and Hutchison, suggesting she was a target because of her rise in the polls. “I’m doing some damage,” Medina said, suggesting her rivals were trying to “make sure we get out of the way.”

The question now is how much damage Medina has done to her campaign. Some analysts see the bottom falling out, which could be good news for Hutchison -- unless Medina supporters turn to the more conservative Perry.

Polls give him a decent shot at winning the 50% he needs to capture the nomination outright. But there are more than two weeks left until the primary. (Early voting starts Tuesday.) Two weeks ago, the idea of Medina finishing ahead of Hutchison seemed like, well, one of those nutty conspiracy theories.

-- Mark Z. Barabak

Click here to receive Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item all day every day. Or follow us @latimestot. You can also go to our Facebook fan page to follow.

Photo: Associated Press.

 
Comments () | Archives (15)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Texans love the idea of freedom. She has my vote!

If you're looking for me, you'll find me on the barricades surrounding Debra Medina.

Adrian Murray
President, Fort Worth 912 Project

just released the Project Glenn Beck jump started has turn on Beck and endorsing Debra Medina. If you believe ANYTHING the federal government says entirely you are under a rock and a shill aka healthcare, bailouts, wars, Al CIA-da we are in perilous times and Debra is bringing fear to the Neo-Con Republicans Debra Medina for FREEDOM.

It’s such a shame that people don’t have the mental fortitude to see things as they REALLY are. These are “button” words. They’re used to elicit a response from you and rob you of your critical thinking. Beck uses “truther”, Sean Hannity uses “conspiracy theorist”, Chris Matthews “racist”, Bill O’reilly “Pinhead”. All these are just words that elicit a negative response without having to go into any serious discussion. The words out…the decision is made, end of discussion. And you come to their desired response just like Pavlov’s salivating dogs. Debra is the most principled candidate. Go through youtube and listen to her. Her stance has been unwavering: freedom, private property ownership and gun ownership. The establishment now fears her; in fact, they’re scared to death of her. She’s about to unseat 2 titans. That sends a very big statement to others that freedom is within their grasp if they would just get off their butt and reach for it. The establishment can’t have that and they begin the usual tactics. And it is really sad, that just about everyone is falling for it. It’s this loss of critical thinking that that has doomed our nation. You’ve let others make your decisions for you without truly doing your own research and study.

Medina should have provided the list of questions that Beck could and could not ask beforehand, like all off the professional politicians do.

That being said, you go girl!

Barabak's hit piece was to be expected. The venerable LA Times could not reproduce an objective AP article treating a 9/11 Truth incident on 2-12 without following up on 2-13 with a blanket attack ridiculing and demonizing anybody who questions the official 9/11 narrative.

The LA Times reporters’ true challenge would be to read what their foreign colleagues have been writing on 9/11. Just a few months ago, a flurry of detailed articles on the spectacular structural failure of the twin towers appeared in major newspapers in Japan, New Zealand and Australia, as Richard Gage, AIA, founder and president of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, toured the area and presented his "Blueprint for Truth" conference.

Since this comment would give the readers ideas that stray away from the official 9/11 faith that the LA Times has been defending so valiantly, let us bet that it will not be published. In fact, reading the comments published so far, it is a safe bet that the majority of proposed comments have been dismissed, not for obscene or threatening content, but for bringing to readers important information related to 9/11 that the LA Times has worked so hard to keep away from them.

But again, the damage may have been done. Discerning readers will have little difficulty reading between the lines of Barabak’s prose, wonder why a heavy-weight politician would show any respect for “nutty theorists,” find that the LA Times’ archives hold precious little explanatory information on the 9/11 events, go search elsewhere, and realize that the LA Times is somehow censored.

Love,

Cudos to Medina who is fresh enough and bold enough to state the obvious PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS & REPRESENTATIVES NEED TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS FOR THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT. Whether there are questions about 9/11 or Obama's eligibility to be President.Would a Professor in College call a student a whack job for asking the question? I saw Beck state that Ivan Jones should step down because he was a 9/11 truther and then he mocked Birthers.When my son's friend tryng to give me all these "facts" how Bush was involved in 9/11 I had no answers for him except: Do you really believe that Bush was that diabolical? Someone somewhere needs to post the questions people ask with the answers without calling someone stupid for asking. I went to FactCheck and saw the "proof" which then led to commenters posting other questions that had me realizing that that so called proof really raised flags. Reading comments only stirred more of a curiousity. WHY WOULD OBAMA PAY LOTS OF MONEY TO HAVE HIS 'LONG FORM' BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND COLLEGE RECORDS SEALED. As POTUS aren't those records supposed to be a public record...didn't they just unseal Sarah Palin's husband's own personal emails?..If personal records are for public viewing shouldn't our President have his records made public?

Tea Baggers is the cwaaaaziest peoples.

Like most corporate media, LA Times continues the same chastisement of truth as was seen by those who opposed the Iraq war, back in 2002. You get labeled "unpatriotic" if you don't go along with the official lie.

Actually, it's the other way around, as Robert Stevens so eloquently states in his response to Glenn Beck:

http://www.robertstevens.org/We-are-all-911-Truthers.html

Way to go, Medina! You're only being attacked by those who haven't seen all the evidence, and the media who continue trying to cover it up. It's too late though, the rest of the world is not censoring it, so it's only a matter of time.

Call me old school, but I like to see all the data prior to dismissing anything as "nutty conspiracy theories."

I believe they called this "critical-thinking" in college?

Mr. Barabak, you need not look far to see that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission were frustrated with the obstruction of their investigation.

May I suggest you have a look at this article from the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

If the 9/11 Commission feels they were not given sufficient data, and if the American people feel they were not given sufficient data, then why would Debra Medina disagree with them? She seems to care more about the concerns of the American people. Are you proposing that she should be more concerned with the potential damage that this could do to her campaign?

It's sad that I have to resort to reading the New York Times, rather than the newspaper of the city that I live in.

To believe that President Obama may not have been born in Hawaii is not evil. It is within the realm of possibility. To believe that our own government would be willing to murder thousands of Americans for any motivation is pure evil. To even believe for a moment that it is a possibility takes the most absurd arguments and gives them legitimacy.

I was listening to the Beck interview and found Debra Medina to have no credibility; even before the 'truther' question. She sounded far too mechanical. Voters need people they can really trust in office. People who may have such a visceral hatred for our former President that they would be willing to believe a hate-inspired theory should not hold public office.

TruthTeller:
I'm not sure I understand what hate-inspired theory you're referring to, nor do I see any correlation to 9/11 truthers. From what I have read, all they are asking for is an independent reinvestigation of 9/11. Is that so evil or hateful?

The fact that you actually entertain the words of Glenn Beck makes me question your credibility. He flip-flops like pancakes. The fact that you question Medina's credibility based on Glenn Beck's demonization of her makes me question your credibility even more so.

You shouldn't allow people like Glenn Beck to trick you by eliciting a negative response from you. Think a bit more critically...research. If the data is insufficient, then how can you draw any conclusions?


Come on, guys. We truthers know the truth. 1. A cruise missile was fired by the army and hit the Pentagon. The actual aircraft full of people was dumped at sea including the kamikazi crew and pilots. 2. Flight 93 didn't crash in Penn, it was shot down by air force fighter planes. 3. The two towers and tower 7 (for good measure) were loaded up with explosives and demolished because, you know, just flying planes into them wouldn't have been enough to justify going and taking Iraq's oil. Even though Iraq has full sovereign control over their oil fields, that's beside the point. 4. President Bush ordered it all to happen and the military, those killers they all are, gladly just went along with it. 5. Bush made zillions in profit from it all. Just don't ask me how, we're still working on that.

This lady is a shill for the Dems.

Mark Z Barabek and his ilk don't have the skill or fortitude to do any real investigative journalism. If he did he might actually learn the truth about 911. He might actually dig deep enough to see that the NIST report is full of fraud and deception. He might even simply look at the footage from that horrendous day and see with his own eyes that WTC building 7 was demolished by controlled demolition.
That the explosive top down destruction of WTC buildings 1 and 2, that left nothing but shattered pieces was not a simple collapse due to fires.

Truth IS the authority-Authority is not truth.

The whole foundation of the 911 Truthers suspicions are based on the fact that the twin towers came down in what looks like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Also suspicious is that WTC Tower 7 also came down after owner Silverstein told firemen they could "pull it."

Too many people have seen what controlled demolitions look like for the government to deny it and tell people they are wrong. It's rather like adding insult to injury by questioning their intelligence.

In doing so, the government has lost their credibility on this issue. Why cover up controlled demolitions if these were terrorist actions? If terrorists can fly planes into buildings, can't terrorists disguised as Muslim maintenance crews plant charges into buildings to bring them down in controlled demolitions?

The government has some 'splainin' to do. If they found planted detonators and charges after the fact in WTC 7 and found it easier to "pull it" rather than remove it, surely the time to come out and say so is NOW. I could see where they would not want the economy to come to a standstill for several months because Americans would be too panicked to go into work until every single office building in the country had been checked.

But by not addressing these questions and trying to ridicule people who bring it up, they are making themselves look very complicit in the loss of freedoms and intrusions on privacy many Americans have had to endure as a result of the Patriot Act not to mention a very costly two-front war that was already based on very questionable intelligence.

I will be voting for Deborah Medina. Her refusing to jump on the bandwagon and dismiss people with very valid questions does not mean she is any less qualified to serve as governor than Kay "Bank Bailouts" Bailey-Hutchinson or Rick "Toll Roads" Perry. The choice of either KBH or RP is NO CHOICE AT ALL. And I resent the attempt to use the 911 Truther issue used as a patriotic cattle prod to force me in that direction.


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: