Skip to comments.Video: GOP candidates for governor spar in The Belo Debate
Posted on 01/29/2010 7:58:57 PM PST by jsdjason
"DALLAS (AP) U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and political activist Debra Medina ganged up on front-running Gov. Rick Perry on Friday in the final televised debate before the March 2 Republican primary."
Medina won the online vote asking who won the debate with 97% of the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Oops, left out that this was the TEXAS GOP Primary race in the thread title.
Wow. I didn't watch the debate, but that's impressive for a newcomer, and someone's who's the dark horse in this race.
The intensity of her supporters is far greater than the 2 RINOs, that may explain it. But, the fact that she was the only one that didn’t dance around the questions may have won some her some support too. Perry and KBH constantly dodged and changed the subject. Whether you like Medina or not, you probably know where she stands on the issues.
I know KBH is a RINO but is Perry too? He’s been governor for like 70,000 years and showed up at a few Tea Party rallies is all I know about him. And he has governor hair.
I heard a couple of times she tried to do a little dancing herself. She may not be as skilled at dancing...yet.
(I’m a cynic..forgive me.)
Tea Party groups are supporting Medina. Perry is a sleazeball behind closed-doors from what my political friends in the Rep. Party of Texas tell me. They also tell me that Medina is the most principled person they know.
Perry is a big cheerleader of Texas’ greatness, but the cold-hard reality is that Texas will be facing an economic crisis similar to California’s in the next 2-3 years if course is not changed, i.e., spending cuts, etc.
Contrary to popular belief, the tax structure in Texas is not the most fair. Property taxes are sky high, the business tax is a job-killer, and on top of that we have the sales tax. Medina wants to have revenue raised strictly off a state sales tax.
Perry and KBH have completely ignored Medina so we have no idea where they stand on her ideas.
Oh wow, I didn’t know that. I’d figured your tax structure was similar to TN’s, which is primarily sales tax, since y’all don’t have an income tax either. Will we keep KBH’s senate seat at least?
I’m really proud of Debra tonight; she undoubtedly won over even more supporters with her performance.
As was the case with the other debate...
Rick’s performance again suggested that he probably wishes there weren’t any debates (or even a campaign for that matter)...
Kay’s performance proved once again that she doesn’t actually want the GOP primary voters to know where she stands on most of the issues...
and then there was Debra answering the questions bluntly (the exact opposite of Kay) while trying to make sure everyone knew exactly where she stands on her signature issues.
Since anyone can go online and vote, no guarantee the Medina voters live in Texas or saw the debate.
Could be Democrats doing a push poll knowing Medina doesn’t stand a chance against a Dem.
“and he has governor hair” . . .
LOL, and that’s the truth !
Ron Paul supporters!
It’s similar to the 92 election with Bush. Clinton and Perot. Governor Perry may not be exactly what I want but I fear KBH would never stand up for Texas against the Washington elite. Democrats will support Medina simply to take votes from Perry and guarantee KBH wins.
You got it!
Medina doesn’t stand a chance against the Dems? If you look at the internals of the last Rassmussen poll Debra - who still had a very large number of respondents who didn’t know who she was yet - was only 4 points behind the very well known and (supposedly) centrist Democrat former mayor of Houston Bill White in a hypothetical matchup.
When the wins the Republican nomination and the general election campaign begins the 30% or so who haven’t even heard about her yet will get to know her and then she’ll have a very, very good chance of defeating Bill White... especially since by then she’ll have lots of money as the Republican nominee.
Think about this folks. It’s entirely possible that after the debate tonight Debra surges over the next two weeks like she has over the last two weeks (and like Scott Brown and Doug Hoffman did once they got some publicity, grew their name recognition, and began to really feed off the tea party momentum in the waning days of their campaigns) and finds herself with a realistic shot at getting into the runoff. And when this happens... she will have done it with 1/30th of the money of her two opponents.
If Debra wins the Republican nomination the only thing that will keep her from having a very good chance of becoming the next Governor of Texas is the GOP establishment.
Eh, quite the contrary. I’d be shocked if we elected a democrat over a pile of manure.
“Democrats will support Medina simply to take votes from Perry and guarantee KBH wins”
The Texas Republican primary doesn’t work that way. A vote for Medina DOES NOTHING WHATSOEVER to help KBH win... because KBH needs a majority of the votes to win now matter how the rest of the votes are distributed amongst the other candidates.
Let me say it another way. Voting for Debra Medina in the primary does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help KBH reach 50%+1 of the votes because every vote for Medina means KBH needs even more votes in order to get to 50%+1 of the total votes cast.
The absolute worst case scenario you are looking at - if you kind of like Medina better than Perry but your #1 fear is KBH winning - is Rick having to defeat Kay in the runoff without having to worry about Debra siphoning away votes on his conservative flank.
People keep bringing up Ron Paul—I don’t get that. I’ve never heard that she has had any affiliation with him, and his Libertarian party sure isn’t giving her any money—that I know for for a fact.
But there is much about her I will have to research before she gets my vote. (before you suggest I check out her website I need to say that I do as much independent research as possible.)
I would like to see more of the speech in which she addresses secession. She kind of laid that off on a response to Perry. It sounded to me like she was on board, from the clip.
I will have to look at the numbers for a consumption tax vs property tax (although I like the idea). But will that bring enough tax dollars to operate on?
There are several items I want to check into...but I won't bore you.
One of my favorite moments of the debate was when cornered about the ads KBH is incessantly running about the TCC..she admitted it was the sentiment that lived on. KBH will not get my vote unless the choice is between her and a Dem. And it will hurt.
I fear Medina could well pull enough voters from Perry to force a run-off. And I don't think she can win today.
One more thing...in the first debate she said she was for the legalization of drugs.
My personal feelings aside...how do you think that stance will play with most Texas voters?
The way they presented that speech of Debra’s from the “sovereignty vs. secession rally” was a total hit job. If you listen to the very next two lines she says AFTER where they stopped playing the clip she says that she’s not in favor of secession (which was a pretty brave thing to do in front of an audience of many people who are), as we haven’t tried the more moderate means of nullification and interposition to defend Texas’ sovereignty yet.
It was a very clear distinction she made in her speech - being in favor of nullification and being against secession. The way they edited that clip - in conjunction with the question that went along with it - was so dishonest and manipulative by the debate people that it made me want to jump into the TV screen and give them a piece of my mind. They absolutely knew they were lying about Debra the way they set that up... but I believe that was their intention all along.
Regarding your other question, she didn’t go so far as to actually say that - although I would assume she’s obviously more open to having that debate based upon her response (or at least she’s more honest and/or more willing to admit to being open to having that debate) than the others.
My gut feeling as a conservative Texan who hangs around other conservative Texans all the time is that it’s probably a non-issue for the vast majority of voters as #1) we’ve got other issues that are way higher priorities that we’re all focusing on right now, #2) it’s not anywhere on her radar screen either, and #3) I suspect way more of us conservative Texans than are willing to admit it in “respectable” circles secretly believe at the end of the day that it’s just not the proper role of government (especially the federal government) to dictate what grown adults may choose to consume... even if our dumb choices are personally destructive.
Note: I’m talking about the views of self-described conservatives... not self-described libertarians here.
Indeed, because that's definitely the number one issue on the top of everyone's mind here in Texas./sarc
Do I believe the edit of the clip was intentional? Perhaps. That's why I want to see or read more of her speech. That is the advantage of the internet.
I actually think tonight's debate was far superior to the PBS debate. The panel did a good job of throwing tough questions at all three people.
I’m just looking at the logistics.
Texas struggled with gambling. Do you really think most voters will vote for a governor that promotes drug legalization?
He@#, we could have had Kinky..at least he can play some decent music. ;)
including=including delay of 10th Amendment...
including=including delay of 10th Amendment...
From Texas Alliance For Life:
DALLAS—In the second Republican gubernatorial debate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was once again asked explicitly whether she supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. She answered, “No.”
Like those who argue for “making abortion rare” but stand by legalized abortion, Hutchison holds the contradictory positions that limits on abortion are good, but the legalization of abortion should not be overturned.
“At the gubernatorial debate, Senator Hutchison contradicted herself. You cannot be pro-life and support Roe v. Wade,” says Joe Pojman, Ph.D., executive director of Texas Alliance for Life. In 2003, Hutchison showed her support for legalized abortion by voting for a resolution that stated, “It is the sense of the Senate that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned.” (See Senate Roll Call No. 48, 108th Congress, 1st Session.)
Gov. Rick Perry, on the other hand, is on the record as both supporting limits on abortion and supporting overturning Roe v. Wade.
“Texas needs a leader who is consistently pro-life,” continues Pojman. “Unlike Hutchison, Governor Rick Perry has never given an inch to the life-threatening precepts of Roe v. Wade.”
Texas originally passed a law protecting unborn children from abortion in the Nineteenth Century. This law was struck down by Roe in 1973. Today, more than 80,000 abortions per year are performed in Texas (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/VSTAT/vs08/t33.shtm).
Gov. Perry has passionately supported laws protecting unborn babies and their mothers. Perry supported the Woman’s Right to Know Act (2003), the Prenatal Protection Act (2003), the parental consent law (2005), and funding for alternatives to abortions (2005, 2007, 2009).
In addition, Gov. Perry has also strongly endorsed public funding for adult stem cell research. He has opposed embryonic stem cell research, which has developed no treatments or cures and requires the destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cells have been used to successfully treat more than 20,000 Americans and more than 70 different conditions or diseases. Sen. Hutchison, on the other hand, has twice voted to use federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos.
This is completely false. She has NEVER said that she wants drugs legalized. She said that she believes that drug policy should be discussed, which includes the possibility of legalization. For all we know she might personally oppose legalization. If you’ve seen her quoted otherwise I’d love to see a link.
I bet most of the people on this forum has more in common with Ron Paul than they do Scott Brown, yet Paul is continually bashed while Scott Brown is hailed as the new savior.
No one will agree with you 100%. You should look for that person that agrees with you 80% of the time. I’m pretty sure I agree with Medina 80% of the time or more.
It was an hour debate...I'm not going to post the whole thing.
If you can give me proof to the contrary...?
He went to the bilderbergers meeting a few years ago, and a local Texas paper even published an article mentioning it.
I imagine he has presidential aspirations.
He forced that horrible vaccine on young girls too. Some FREEPERS call it the “freedom for sex shot”. lol.
Property taxes are sky high
You aren’t kidding. They are insane!!!!
Medina doesnt stand a chance against a Dem.
I heard the same crap about Chris Brown...
You are flat wrong. Here is a link to what you’re referring. I challenge you to find the words “I believe in legalizing drugs” in her answer. You’re clearly misstating her position. All she said was that if she was governor the policy of drug enforcement would be discussed.
And really, what is the problem with discussing it? The current drug war has been far from effective. Drugs are available everywhere. That’s a fact. Clearly something needs to be changed if we’re going to pour so much money into fighting the drug war.
Even if she was for legalization, that’s about the only thing that I could find that I might disagree with her on, and like I said above, I’ll vote for the person that I agree with 80% of the time (Medina), rather than the 2 RINOs.
Here’s the link you’re referring to. Watch it again.
Oops, the question begins at 4:00. Here’s the link again.
Perry and KBH constantly dodged and changed the subject.
KBH and RP are both establishment, machine politicians from the pre-Tea Party era. Like all machine politicians, they just don't get it. They're lagging behind the curve, and probably won't ever truly catch on. It's all business as usual for them, no matter how loud the Tea Partiers yell.
Medina, on the other hand, is obviously a product of the new rebellion that's sweeping the nation. She definitely gets it. Even if she fails in her bid for the governorship, she'll have contributed something of a shot across the bow of the state machine apparatus. They'll be on notice that we're coming for them.
Although she doesn't articulate she is for legalization, her comments infer very clearly that she is.
It is fairly obvious. As I stated upthread, Texas had a hard time voting for parimutuel betting (with a huge, wealthy lobby behind it) and the lottery. If casinos ever come to this state, I will faint.
I am interested in logistics. (my personal feelings aside)Do you honestly believe Texas would consider voting for a gubernatorial candidate that even entertains the idea of “discussion” of drug legalization?
Or would you prefer a Dem governor? As I have also previously stated, I need to research some of her other opinions before I jump on board.
You’re “inference,” is just that an inference. I could just as easily infer that she is not happy with the RESULTS that the dollars spent on the drug wars have gotten, and that she would like to restructure the drug laws to get better results, WITHOUT legalization. She did not CLEARLY say that she was for legalization.
She is the only candidate that gets the role of government. If you watched those debates and come to the conclusion that you want to vote for Perry or KBH over Medina then I guess I am to the right of you because I see her as the clear choice.
Bringing in the casinos would be awesome!!! That way I don’t have to drive to Louisiana and more business comes to Texas!
This is an awesome video of her presser after the 1st debate.
Call me a nutjob, but I do think that Ron Paul makes a very good argument FOR legalization. After all, prohibition of drugs is government suppression of a person’s freedom. We also have laws that prohibit murder, and everyone agrees that their are justifiable reasons for doing so, but you know what, it’s handled by the states. Why shouldn’t drug laws be handled by the state?
Paul says that alcohol and nicotine are just as much a drug as marijuana and I agree. Should be prohibit alcohol and nicotine? Many people will counter that people should be free to drink or smoke a cigarette, but that they shouldn’t be allowed by the state to smoke marijuana because marijuana is a “gateway” drug. Well fine, but let’s have a discussion at the state level before we spend $100s of billions of dollars on the drug war.
And who is benefitting the most from our failed drug wars? You guessed it, the drug cartels. So really, the drug war is a “gateway” to a breakdown of the border. I’m just saying that we SHOULD discuss the drug war as Medina has said.
Call me a cynic, but politicians seldom say anything “CLEARLY”. It is sort of like a doctor learning to scribble a prescripion. Ms. Medina is new to the game and not so scribbly as KBH or Perry. You took her comments one way..I took them another.
I don’t see her as the clear choice at this moment. Like I said..I want more info on her. I’m not looking for a “Scott Brown Moment”. Perry is not Ted. Just because Ms. Medina is new and unknown does not necessarily make her my choice.
Thanks for the link and have a great evening (or morning)!
(Just for the record, I would love the revenue and convenience of casinos in Texas...but I’m not gonna hold my breath.)
Sarah Palin will be campaigning for Rick Perry.
I wonder if she knows about Perry’s ill fated plan to force girls to the get the HPV vaccine which assumes they will have sex as teenagers.
I don’t think that’s Sarah’s agenda.
Perry took pharma industry money laundered through a group called Women In Politics.
Perry backed off the plan when opposition rose up.
An online vote with that much of number is more likely to be influenced by supporters voting multiple times rather than a snapshot of whom people think won the debate.
Do you think that legalization is even remotely possible? I don't, so it's a non-issue. We need to restrain our state government lest we become the same kind of economic and social basket case we see in CA.
Personally, I favor legalization because I disfavor the assaults the war on drugs has made on our Constitution even more. They've used the WOD to assault the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments for decades now and I'm tired of reading supreme court decisions that further erode our rights in the name of an unworkable project that was demonstrated decisively during prohibition to lead to more crime and a bigger police state.
Legalization won't make me take drugs, any more than the ready availability of alcohol has made me a drunkard. I tire of the nanny state and its ever-increasing scope.
I like your post. I’m beginning to wonder what the negative effects of legalization would be if the current WOD is having little effect arguably. Prohibition on alcohol did nothing to stop alcohol consumption. All it did was make the mob richer. Although they operate in foreign countries, the drug cartels are a modern day mafia.
Like you, no I don't. I am not arguing the pros and cons of legalization. Or the nanny state, which I abhor.
I am looking at the comments made on the subject. To me they are the issue. Ms. Medina could very well alienate the conservative voter base in the state by even “entertaining” the thought. And by doing so, we could end up with KBH. I don't want that.
I am simply looking at the logistics of her campaign and the ideology of the majority of her voting base.
As I have stated, I have not decided to vote/not vote for Ms. Medina. I just want more info than what she has said at the two televised debates I have seen and what is on her web site.
For starters look up Debra Medina's column 'Latinos and the GOP'
'Its a shame isnt it, that Republicans continue to ignore Hispanics especially here in Texas?' Debra Medina
'Ignore them', Mrs Medina? Since when? What more do you want? Or shouldn't we ask?
Who is going to think more about Latino families? Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchison or me, who has a Latino family? (Medinas cultural heritage is German and Bohemian.)
She told a colleague last month in an e-mail. Being married, however, to someone with a Mexican American heritage, I certainly embrace the culture. But before she explained that, she told my colleage, who had asked her whether she considers herself Latina: Id not consider myself anything other than a wife and mother, a nurse and a patriot. I believe we too often get into race when its immaterial.
No, Thanks, Mrs Medina.
She is also running Spanish ads. Hello Mrs.Medina! If they cannot speak English then they have no business voting IMO. When they learn English then let them vote. Assimilate. Learn English. Appreciate all America gives you.
So Im sure she is blowing a lot of hot air just like Obama did just to get elected. Running those ads and saying what she has, tells me the border issue is just a try to get votes for herself.
No, thanks, Ill stick with ol RINO Perry. Texas has remained in better shape than almost any if not all of the states in the union under Perry's watch. As someone said, 'he's the devil we know'.
The motly crew running for governor is laughable; a MUSLIM, a trecherous RINO woman* (Hutchison) and a woman with questionable loyalties
*Feds Have Built Only 32 Miles of 700 Mile Double-Border Fence Originally Mandated by Congress One reason DHS has been able to do this is an amendment that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R.-Texas) slipped into an omnibus appropriations bill that Congress passed on December 18, 2007. Hutchisons amendment put a loophole in the fence law that allowed the secretary of Homeland Security not to build the fence Congress had mandated the year before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.