PDA

View Full Version : Huff Post says Medina won by 68% then calls her nuts




Dianne
01-31-2010, 07:38 AM
h ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/tea-partier-takes-texas-g_b_442900.html

You guys might want to join in on the comments forum that follows this article:

Tea Partier Takes Texas Governor's Race By Storm

Two weeks ago, I wrote that the top Republican candidates for governor of Texas actually lost their nationally televised C-SPAN2 primary debate to a tea party upstart named Debra Medina. She was cool, calm, collected (and, of course, nuts).

Guess what? It happened again Friday night. This is getting fun.

The national media has covered recent electoral challenges by tea partiers around the country (NY, Florida, etc.), yet not the unfolding insurgency in Texas. This is odd considering that the well known repubs in the governor's race are so high profile.

After all, there's Rick Perry, the ten-year incumbent who openly flirted with seceding from the Union last summer, battling against a sitting U.S. senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison. That's good stuff, in theory. (Waiting in the wings for the fall election is the dull but competent Democrat, Bill White, former mayor of Houston.)

Perry, who succeeded George W. Bush as governor, has long courted the far right religious crowd, while Hutchison is perceived as moderate, despite sharing virtually every view with him. She has also, interestingly, secured the endorsements of Team Bush, from Karl Rove to Karen Hughes to James Baker. Perry isn't beloved by his party's establishment, it seems.

Into this mix strolls the libertarian tea partier, Debra Medina. A small-towner, she's pushing guns, guns, guns and an end to all property taxes. She's a double loon, in other words, and is eating away at Perry's base.

She wants to scotch all property tax (a plan more Draconian than the disastrous Prop. 13 in California, which was merely a roll-back), and replace the gazillions in lost revenue with massively "expanded" sales tax which she admits could rise from the current 6.75% to a staggering 14% or more. Never mind that such an increase would A/ eat the poor, B/ bust municipal and county budgets statewide, and C/ not hurt the rich in the least. This is bizarre because her supporters are hardly the wealthy class.

Medina also wants to pack heat everywhere, including at her local grocery store. Her modern read of the Second Amendment seems to be that everyone should be armed, everywhere, at all times.

The thing is, she delivers these wacky prescriptions with a sincere bedside manner and cadence that would make Dick Cheney proud, bless her heart.

After the first televised tussle in mid January, where Medina went unassailed by her fellow candidates, her poll numbers jumped from nowhere to 12-15%. That level of support, although well behind Perry and Hutchison at the moment, nonetheless puts her in position to force a runoff between them after the March 2 primary, something Perry doesn't want to happen.

One fully expected that in round two Friday night, the cutlery would come out, especially Perry's, since he clearly has the most to lose from a Medina surge. Remarkably, it didn't happen.

Again she stood toe to toe with the far more experienced pols, again she acquitted herself well (better than in the first debate, which she also won), and again Perry ignored her full frontal assault on his leadership and governance. She ignored sister Kay until a late swipe.

Can Medina generate some serious internet contributions, and fast? If so, she's a player. No doubt she's benefiting from the oily and creepy Perry, and the weak and ineffectual Hutchison. Still, that's what elections are all about.

One final note: In a "jeopardy" round of questioning, the candidates were queried about their basic statewide knowledge. Medina was asked if she knew the average salary of a public school teacher. She guessed $46,000 a year.

The correct answer? $46,100. Nothing but net, and she got to go last in delivering closing statements, too, lucky her.

Not bad, and the weekend newspaper coverage will reflect her success.

If you like politics, it's nothing short of fascinating to watch the Republican Party, and not just in the South, be taken over by its burgeoning Ron Paul wing.

lynnf
01-31-2010, 08:13 AM
let's see...... doesn't that make the Huff Post jokers the real nuts?


lynn

rp4prez
01-31-2010, 10:29 PM
Hmm.. wonder if that was a lib writing that article... *rolleyes*

disorderlyvision
01-31-2010, 10:48 PM
//

TCE
01-31-2010, 10:55 PM
Uh...Arianna Huffington actually likes Dr. Paul, since he actually is standing strong on his anti-war rhetoric and she likes the fact that far-left liberals are supporting his Audit the Fed bill. So, why all of the heat? Wouldn't they rather Medina over Perry?

On another note, don't Texans like being able to carry a gun?

disorderlyvision
01-31-2010, 10:59 PM
let's see...... doesn't that make the Huff Post jokers the real nuts?


lynn

nuttier than a squirrel turd

coyote_sprit
01-31-2010, 11:06 PM
draconian - Very severe, oppressive or strict, yes wanting to lessen the tax burden is draconian.

Romulus
02-01-2010, 06:08 AM
You know you're over the target when you get the flak.... I swear some people suffer from Stockholm Syndrome so bad that freedom does appear 'crazy'.

Dianne
02-01-2010, 07:13 AM
This is a good time to post your comments in support of Medina. The author of the article is monitoring the comment board and responding to some.

Here is an example:

Why is Medina a "loon" for advocating sales tax when a respected liberal ICON like Michael Moore can yell at a Wall Street Bank with a megaphone and be called inspirational?

Author's Response:


See Jackson Williams's Profile I didn't write about Michael Moore. His behavior -- good or bad -- has absolutely nothing to do with tea partier Medina's loopy scheme to raise sales taxes through the roof.

And the point made by some of her supporters that medicine and groceries won't be subject to sales tax is meaningless. Medicine and groceries (food items other than restaurant prepared) are already exempt from sales tax in Texas (and most other states), yet her supporters act as if Medina herself would somehow be gracing the citizenry with this economic beneficence.

As things currently stand, property taxes in wealthier neighborhoods are significantly higher than property taxes in poorer neighborhoods, simply because the value of the former is so much greater. Wiping out those taxes would not have an equal impact on rich and poor alike. It just wouldn't.

Sales tax is the most "regressive" of all taxes, and the necessary increase in sales tax to offset the gazillions in lost property tax revenue (for schools, parks, police, EMS, fire, etc.) would, as I wrote in the blog entry, eat the poor, bust municipal and county budgets statewide, and not hurt the rich in the least.