Is Medina Out?

Debra Medina has made fantastic strides in her run for governor of Texas, jumping from 4% in the Rasmussen poll in November to 12% in January.  Compared with her opponents, she seems to be the most liberty-oriented candidate in the race.  While Kay Bailey Hutchinson voted for the $700 billion bailout bill, Governor Rick Perry supports the NAFTA Superhighway, or Trans-Texas Corridor, which will no doubt utilize eminent domain to force people from their homes and businesses.   According to her website, Medina claims to be a major proponent of property rights, state sovereignty, cutting taxes and spending and ensuring an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

But according to Hot Air, The Right Scoop and some others on the center-right, her campaign is now dead in the water.  Why is that? Because she did not give a yes or no answer to Glenn Beck when he asked, “Are you a 9/11 truther?”  Here was her response:

“I don’t have all the evidence there, Glenn,” Medina replied. “So I’m not in a place – I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There’s some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there so I’ve not taken a position there.”

He then asked if she would disavow people on her campaign team that held such a theory.

“I’m certainly not into mind control or thought policing people,” Medina said. “I don’t see us having a team of radical individuals, if you will.”

I personally do not believe the government is smart enough or capable enough to have pulled off what many of the so-called “truthers” claim they have.  Although that’s not to say I’d put it past them.  I also think the “truthers” tend to scare people away from the liberty movement and detract from important things we should be talking more about, such as the need for having much less government.  But while Medina didn’t claim not to be a “9/11 truther”, she didn’t say she was one either.  And while she may not be the perfect candidate, she is definitely the best candidate in the race for Governor of Texas, by far.  Just take a look at her opposition.

Since the interview on Beck’s show this morning, she has since come out and tried to better explain herself:

I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.

The question surprised me because it’s not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.

The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it’s Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that’s the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.

Ok, so she may have made a blunder with her answer on Glenn Beck. But it seems to me that she was just trying to be honest, and she’s most likely not used to having to play politician.  She should have just said “no”.  But considering the fact that she represents the ideals of liberty more than her two opponents, should we really be so quick to write her off?

6 Comments

amanda, February 11th 2010 | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized

If You Don’t Want the Government in Health Care, You Must Not Have a Heart

Isn’t that how the argument normally goes?  If you don’t want the government to provide health care for everyone, you must not care about people? Why don’t we take it a step further and name anyone a jerk that doesn’t want the government to ensure that every man, woman and child has food to eat, a house to live in and somewhere to work?  Shouldn’t the government be in charge of making sure we all have everything we need?  Well, I guess that depends on whether or not you believe that government should be able to take what it wants, when it wants, from whom it wants.  We all know that the government doesn’t make any money of its own (ok, it prints money, but it can’t produce wealth), so how would it provide all these things?  By taking wealth from its citizens of course.  I don’t know about most people, but I always thought it was wrong to just take what you want from others against their will.

Besides, if we create government run health insurance, there is much evidence to suggest that it will make everyone in this country worse off.  Despite what most people know about free markets, I think we all can agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, right?  If we allow the government to come into the market with a taxpayer subsidized insurance option, it will put most other companies out of business.  That means less choices for us.  Most people, except the rich who can afford better, will be stuck with a government insurance plan.  Remember where government gets the money to pay for all of this. That’s right, the taxpayers. Is that an unlimited supply of money? Of course not.  That means the government will only have so much to go around.  What will they do to make sure they can give a little bit of care to everybody?  They will limit what we can use the insurance for.  How could they not?  They do not have unlimited sums of money! It has already begun happening with the new US Government Task Force increasing the recommended age for mammogram screenings. Think that’s not the beginning of the government trying to save money?  I would ask you to think again.  And if you truly believe the task force is right in its recommendations, I’d like to know if your feelings would change had it been Bush in the White House.

Where a private company has to make a profit to stay in business, the government doesn’t. Does that prove that business owners are just jerks trying to make a profit? No. It shows that a private business has to ask for your money, the government just takes it.  In order for the private sector to get people to voluntarily give up their income, they have to offer something people want in return.  They have to give good service, offer good products and do a good job (so long as they have competition), or they risk going out of business.  The government can just take money from the taxpayers when it needs to, so there is no incentive to offer the best service or the best price or the best product.  Why should they?  It’s not as though the Post Office will go out of business if it loses money.  As a government agency that enjoys no competition, it is able to “borrow” from the taxpayers to get necessary funds. The bottom line is this:  when companies must compete with each other and have to rely on profit to stay in business, they have no choice but to give consumers what they want.  Government relies on their guns and prisons to get what they want from people.  If you don’t want to pay them, you go to jail.  Simple as that.  If you don’t want to buy from a private business, you don’t have to.  If you need a product or service in the free market, you have many choices to choose from instead of one.

We need more free market choice in our health insurance options.  The government has done a great job of stifling competition, which has created the high prices we see today.  We must stop that from happening if we truly want better and more affordable health insurance.  Free choice, lower prices and better options?  Now that is where the heart is.

No Comments

amanda, November 24th 2009 | Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized