Warning: If you don’t follow Texas politics, then you probably should skip this post. Unless, of course, you want to read about my public humiliation on network TV.
I’m not an avid follower of politics, but something about this year’s Texas gubernatorial campaign has energized me. While it could be that I get to type “gubernatorial” so many times – it simply rolls off the keyboard – the fact is that the surfacing of a viable candidate who’s not a charter member of the Entrenched Incumbents has interjected a new degree of excitement into the campaign. I’m referring, of course, to Debra Medina, who started the state’s silly season as a footnoted afterthought but who has now pulled into a statistical dead heat on the Republican ticket with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and continues to build momentum.
I was impressed with Medina’s performance during one of the early televised debates, where both Governor Rick Perry and Hutchinson viewed her primarily as a foil with which to attack each other. That tactic backfired on both of them, as she not only helped each of them make their points that the other was a doofus (that’s a sophisticated term I picked up in poli sci class at A&M), but came out looking like she had more substance than either of them.
I was impressed enough to make a small financial contribution to her campaign, something that I last did when Reagan was in office. That was early enough in the campaign that my $25 contribution stimulated a phone call from a reporter with the Austin newspaper wanting to interview me, I suspect much as one might want to better understand the motivation of someone who’s taken up flagpole sitting while watching an oncoming tornado. I declined to return his phone call (I never have entirely trusted those legacy media types).
Medina was one of the speakers at today’s Midland Country Republican Womens’ luncheon, along with Senator Hutchinson and a representative from Perry’s campaign. (Perry was in Odessa on Monday, so I guess he figured two days in the Permian Basin was one day too many.) Also on the speaker list was Representative Mike Conaway, running for re-election against businessmen Chris Younts and Al Cowan. Both Cowan and Younts did good jobs of explaining why they were running, but this is Conaway’s ‘hood and they got a polite but cool reception. One will not make up any ground trying to attack Conaway’s conservatism, despite his vote for the first TARP bailout. They tried, but Conaway went on last and calmly dismantled their accusations as he explained that vote. I certainly came away mollified.
Mike did make a point of informing the audience that while he had a Facebook page, he didn’t Twitter because he thought it sounded dumb to “twit” [sic]. That got a half-hearted laugh, but not from me. Both of his opponents have Twitter feeds for their campaigns, and Medina is also doing a great job of using hers (@debmedina) to push her agenda. (I was going to tweet the proceedings but the cellphone police shut us down. Afterward, I decided that they really were targeting actual cellphones and that I could have “twitted” my way through the luncheon.)
Then, the real show began, the reason for the packed ballroom. Debra Medina spoke first, and I have to tell you that if she doesn’t win the nomination, it won’t be because she’s failed to explain what her priorities are, and why she thinks they’re important to the state of Texas. She made a great case for why the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution allows for “nullification and interposition” of federal legislation which encroaches upon the sovereign rights of states.
Medina also unleashed a scathing commentary on Rick Perry’s job creation claims, pointing out that while it was true that Texas has had a net increase in jobs over the past year or two, they’ve all been government jobs; the private sector has actually had a small decrease.
The Perry rep and Kay Hutchinson spoke next. I don’t recall either of them directly addressing Medina’s comments or issues, although they both seemed to go out of their way to assure us that they, too, were big proponents of personal property ownership. Perry’s representative trotted out the same statistics that Medina spoke to regarding job creation, but, of course, declining to make the distinction between public and private sector employment.
Hutchinson spent most of her allotted time criticizing Perry. It was almost as if she doesn’t really believe she’s in a dogfight with Medina, but that works to Medina’s benefit. To her credit, KBH did acknowledge Perry’s role in getting tort reform passed in Texas, but hammered him on private property rights (the Trans-Texas Corridor will be Perry’s Issue That Haunts Forever, and rightly so).
Medina is what I had hoped Sarah Palin would be, but, sadly, isn’t. She’s done her homework; she’s got her agenda; she wants to get it done and then get out of the way. I came away more impressed than ever. Heck, I even grabbed a yard sign, and let the local ABC-TV affiliate interview me on-camera, and this time it didn’t seem to be a novelty interview. The Medina signs were going fast.
Yeah, I was feeling pretty cocky about being a political pundit and all, until I got home and saw the big hunk of lettuce plastered over one of my front teeth. Surely, they would have pointed that out before the interview, if it was noticeable. Surely. Well. No, they probably decided I was just having a bad dental day, and were too polite to mention it. So much for my future as a political analyst.
Discover more from The Fire Ant Gazette
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did you hear her interview with Beck yesterday? It was kind of odd.
Odd? More like a train wreck.
I didn’t hear the interview, but I’ve read the transcript (a couple of times, actually). I came away with two impressions.
First, I’ve never had less respect for Beck than I now do after hearing what I think was a pre-planned political hatchet job. I have no idea why the 9-11 Truther issue was ever brought up (despite his assertion that he got tons of email about it prior to the interview). It’s completely irrelevant to Medina’s campaign platform.
Second, I think Medina handled the question so poorly that she’s hurt her already-slim chances to get elected. This is a case where NOT being a career politician hurt her, as she was so honest that she admitted that she didn’t have all the facts, and that people ought to be able to question the government about anything. Then she fumbled around, talking about psych profiling of staff, etc. and that just made her sound evasive. Someone with more political experience would have stopped Beck short by just giving a flat “no” as an answer, understanding that nuanced answers get ignored by people like Beck.
Beck is not a journalist; he’s an entertainer. (Although, I’m no longer sure about the distinction.) Medina is not a politician; she’s a “regular citizen” with strong feelings about states rights and adherence to the Constitution. Apparently, that mixture makes for great talk-show dynamics, but neither of them benefited — nor did the voters of Texas — from the outcome.
Can you tell I have strong feelings about this? 😉
Someone with more political experience would have stopped Beck short by just giving a flat “no” as an answer, understanding that nuanced answers get ignored by people like Beck.
I listened to her and I’m sure reading the transcript doesn’t convey just how badly she bungled the answers. There is no nuanced answer to the question of whether or not she believes the US gov’t had anything to do with 9/11. It’s a straight up yes or no. And then to hedge about whether or not she’d questions staffers about it made it worse.
The 9/11 Truther thing for Beck is a big issue – it started with Van Jones and will continue with him if it’s brought up as a thought in any candidates head. For him it’s an automatic disqualification. I think I agree with him on that. Because if you believe that the gov’t had anything to do with 9/11, then I don’t want you to have any part of being in said gov’t, and why would you?
I don’t believe his interview was intended to be a hatchet job. I think he was told that she believed in the Truther ideas and asked her about it. I think he expected an unqualified no answer and was surprised at what he got instead.
Agreed, on all counts. She provides that “flat ‘no'” answer on her website, but it’s probably a case of “too little, too late.” She’s in major damage control mode today, with a press conference going on right about now to address the dust-up.