
Debra Medina, the Tea Party activist who has been polling strong in the Texas Republican gubernatorial primary, appears to have just gotten herself in some serious political trouble -- indicating during an appearance on Glenn Beck's radio show that she could potentially be a 9/11 Truther, or is at least open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job by the government.
"I don't have all of the evidence there Glenn so I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that," Medina said. "I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard, there are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that."
After the interview, Beck then ruled out any idea of supporting Medina. "I think I can write her off the list," said Beck, also adding: "Let me take another look at Kay Bailey Hutchison if I have to. Rick [Perry], I think you and I could French kiss right now."
(Via Politico's Ben Smith)
Michael A
February 11, 2010 1:54 PM
Oh brother. The wingnuts are going at each other to see who is loonier? The b-movie actor's war on education is paying dividends in bizarre ways, torpedoing repuke candidates. It's karma.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drv
February 11, 2010 1:54 PM
Another one of these passive/aggressive questioners. "I'm not saying I believe it but there are good questions out there. I think we should investigate it."
She doesn't have the guts to come out and say what she thinks but she wants to get all the benefits as if she had. And, of course, she can,at the same time, deny she ever supported the idea. Nice. Spoken like a true pol.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Transfixed
February 11, 2010 2:06 PM
So what's the big deal - very good questions HAVE been raised about 9/11, she has a valid point there.
I'm sorry, but throwing out the obligatory 'slanders': wingnut, kook, loon etc. just don't cut it anymore when it comes to 9/11. There are very real, and very relevant facts surrounding the attack that do indeed need to be investigated further. The only people who still think that Al-Qaeda acted alone are those who haven't bothered to study the evidence. One would be a fool to claim that "Bush did it", but I know of no one who makes such claims. There are very powerful forces behind our government and banking industry, and if you don't know how much power the Bilderberg group or the Council on Foreign Relations have, then you simply have no right to judge someone for continuing to ask questions about 9/11.
It's not "in the past", and we should not "let it go". Why do you think the Bush Admin. fought so hard AGAINST an investigation, stalled for 440 days before allowing one, and then tried to install Henry Kissinger as the head of it?
So many questions, very few answers. And sadly, people are too high on their faux-intellectual horse to allow anything but "kook" to come out of their mouth when the subject is brought up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
February 11, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to Transfixed
The actual 9/11 Commission ADMITTED that the Fed Gov't wasn't telling the entire truth so I would tend to agree with her there. We DON'T have all the evidence and I doubt we ever will. Too much secrecy, side deals and backroom talks for me to EVER trust the Feds in ANYTHING.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
February 11, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to Transfixed
9/11 "Truthers" ARE kooky. Yes, it really is that simple. And I don't have to sit around and listen to someone blather on about how the moon landings were faked, or how HAARP is a secret weather weapon, or that chemtrails are a government project, or that 9/11 was an inside job just to prove how 'open-minded' I am.
Believe me, I've actually tried doing all the above at one point or another, and I learned my lesson. If people are dead set on ascribing anything they want as a super-duper conspiracy, they're going to, and they'll cite any number of hokey authorities while doing so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FromTexas
February 11, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to Transfixed
I think the article's point is that she just questioned the Bush administration's lone talking point - terror. She indicated Bush and his crew were the terrorists. Agree or not, that is political suicide for a republican - even a teabagger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cliff Hendroval
February 11, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to Transfixed
Back in 1976, when we were seniors in high school, some buddies and I went to a presentation by the local John Birch Society. That's where I learned that the Bilderbergers and the CFR actually run the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joel3000
February 11, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to Transfixed
There are very good reasons to question the official government story of 911.
At best, Bush was criminally incompetent in his defense of our nation. At worst they collaborated with and even sponsored the attacks. There is a large middle ground between the best and worst cases. In any event, the most devastating terrorist attack of all time on US soil should have been an occasion for deep examination of security apparatus and policies. That is the obvious thing to do when such a breach occurs. And yet, it didn't happen. We had an investigation, but it was politically crippled.
The questions of the 911 families are a good place to start. They are entirely sober and rational. No lazer beams required.
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
It is a lot of fun to cast aspersions at anyone who dare question the official story on 911, I used to do it myself. However given the extensive usage of 911 to justify everything from wars to spying on US citizens, it is the fools who leave it unquestioned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jim H
February 11, 2010 2:09 PM
I see the writing on the wall here. In another year or two, the new history will be that the Obama Administration orchestrated the 9/11 attack.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
February 11, 2010 2:10 PM
Of course! The Obama admin helped the terrists kill all those God fearing white Christians because he is a secret Muslim AND a racist Black separatist Christian. Thank God George Stephanopoulis and ABC News had the courage to tell the American people that 9/11 happened on Obama's watch!
Seriously, my guess is she saw the Stephanopoulis 'interview' and being an uninformed hillbilly she thought it true and determined this would be a big hit with the Tea Baggers who also aren't smart enough to know anything about history. I'm not sure she's wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pstamler
February 11, 2010 2:10 PM
I rest my case.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
February 11, 2010 2:14 PM
A Republican candidate who is too conservative crazy for Glenn Beck? Isn't that a logical impossibility?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
February 11, 2010 2:28 PM
When you're crazier than Beck, you should probably be confined.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
February 11, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
When you're crazier than Glenn Beck, you are probably next in line for an hour-long talk show on Fox News!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
February 11, 2010 2:42 PM
Glenn Beck and Rick Perry french-kissing?
Ouch. Need to go scrub my retinas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TBender
February 11, 2010 3:11 PM
She did walked that back with a statement on her website, but still...
This actually showed her unpreparedness for the spotlight of running a state-level campaign. I don't think she realized she's no longer running in just Wharton County, but the whole state of Texas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
February 11, 2010 3:15 PM
She's running for office in Texas - this sort of insanity guarantees her victory. Rational thought is punished in Texas, the only thing that will save Perry is if he actually succeeds from the Union now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TBender
February 11, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to VictorLH
Her winning the primary would almost cinch the general for White.
I say almost only because this is Texas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wimomma
February 11, 2010 3:27 PM
As someone who grew up in Texas and still depends on funds from Texas, and still has most of my family in Texas. It is Nuts and Crazy in Texas. The liberals I know in Texas feel she is the best chance of sanity. I can not express how freaking crazy that is......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 11, 2010 4:27 PM
When you turn loose the crazies, you can never count on them not coming back at you.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loose+cannon
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
February 11, 2010 4:39 PM
Where have these fine, upstanding perfectly rational---*snort*snort*
BUHAWHAWHAWWWWW!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ariseatex
February 11, 2010 4:42 PM
I checked in on one of the Texas A&M message boards to see what the response was. I just finished up there, and most of what people outside the state have heard about how conservative it is is true. What I'm seeing, though, on the boards is an overwhelming "Wow, I'm no longer voting for her." There's a few people who have clinged on to her long-winded "apology" (where she basically just said the question caught her off guard), but most are saying that anyone SHOULD HAVE responded with an emphatic NO, even knowing relatively little about the details of the conspiracy claims. The fact that she didn't, to them, says more than the farcical apology did.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darkrhyme
February 11, 2010 5:09 PM
Teabaggers are by definition crazy assholes, so yes, it is probable that she holds wacky beliefs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RuckMaker
February 11, 2010 6:32 PM
So . . .
Why DID good ol' George W. sit in that classroom reading a story about a goat after being notified America was under attack?
Why did GW later claim he saw the first plane's impact on TV when there was no live coverage of that event?
Why was the 9/11 Commission totally UNinterested in who funded the attack?
Why did several of the terrorists who supposedly hijacked the planes later turn up alive?
Why were several of the devoutly Muslim terrorists seen drinking booze in stripper bars on the nights just prior to the attacks?
Why does Osama bin Laden look so remarkably and noticeably different on the videotape where he claims responsibility for the attacks?
Why exactly did WTC Building 7 collapse?
Why was there no mention at all of Building 7's collapse in the official 9/11 report?
What exactly did WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein mean in that TV interview when he said that due to extensive damage to Building 7, a decision was made to "pull it" ?
Why did so many eyewitnesses, including emergency response people with extensive knowledge of the subject, say they heard explosions shortly before each tower fell?
Why did Tower personnel talk about HUGE explosions in the basements of both buildings long before any plane wreckage could possibly have gotten down there?
Why was all the wreckage carted away and sent overseas for recycling so soon after 9/11 and before it could be carefully analyzed?
Why wasn't the 911 Commission allowed to see the wreckage?
Why wasn't the 911 Commission provided with accurate blueprints of the towers?
Why are there so many conflicting reports about precisely when NORAD was notified about each of the 4 planes going off course?
Despite the facts that 1) it's standard procedure, 2) it's been done many times in the past, and 3) there was more than enough time to do it, why didn't jets intercept ANY of the 4 planes?
Why did Cheney, Rice, etc. all express huge shock and surprise that terrorists would fly planes into buildings when there was a huge training exercise dealing with precisely that scenario IN PROGRESS on the morning of 9/11?
Why were the videotapes from every single security camera near the Pentagon which showed the impact confiscated and why has only one ever been released?
Why was there still red hot molten metal in in the Tower basements so long after 9/11?
............
Oh, those silly, crazy "Truthers" . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dschwarz
February 11, 2010 11:21 PM in reply to RuckMaker
So many bogus assertions in your comment, I can't deal with them all. I will say this. I was an eyewitness. I was at Ground Zero immediately after the planes hit and I was there when the towers collapsed. There were no "huge explosions in the basements" before the plane wreckage hit the ground. There were no bombs. The 9/11 terrorists flew 2 jetliners into the twin towers, and the resulting fire and explosions caused the buildings to collapse. 9/11 truthers are full of sh-t.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jk
February 11, 2010 10:20 PM
Why, as of 2-11-10, have 1030 architectural and engineering professionals (that's degreed professionals, many w/ PhD's) signed a petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation?
Find out at www.ae911truth.org/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?