For those interested in observing how the Tea Party movement might translate into a political party, the Texas gubernatorial race provides a somewhat startling preview of what might lie ahead. In a Republican race probably heading to a runoff between two established Texas political powerhouses: current Governor Rick Perry and current Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Tea Party candidate is actually managed to draw respectable levels of support. A recent University of Texas/ Texas Tribune poll shows Debra Medina running third, trailing Senator Hutchison by only 2% points (Perry is taking 45%, Hutchison 21%, Medina 19%, with 16% of likely primary voters undecided). Possibly more shocking though, is that when asked if the race were contested between Medina and probable Democratic nominee (and former Houston mayor Bill White), Medina runs in a dead heat with White (36%-36%).
Medina’s success is shocking political watchers. Amongst her controversial views, Medina not only promises to protect gun rights, but on her website, states that:
protecting freedom requires that the people be well armed. Government cannot protect us from violence, we must defend ourselves. Texans must not compromise and must not surrender their right to keep and bear arms. We must not only nullify federal laws that threaten that right
Medina is also running on a platform that focuses on “restoring sovereignty” from the federal government:
Texas must stop the over-reaching federal government and nullify federal mandates in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, industry, and any other areas D.C. is not granted authority by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Besides these positions, Medina also has an affinity for conspiracy theories. Last week, Medina told Glenn Beck she believed there may be some legitimacy to the theory that the government was responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, stating that “some very good questions have been raised in that regard.” Medina also wonders whether the President was in fact born in the United States.
In a state that is rapidly trending blue as the demographics shift toward Hispanics and the major metropolitan areas grow, Debra Medina is doing the unthinkable: making Rick Perry – who last year suggested Texas might secede from the Union – look moderate. Perry will likely still win this race, however Medina is dragging the Republican candidates to the right at a time when the Republican party in Texas needs to be preparing to move to the center, Medina’s success in such an elite Republican field may be an ominous sign of what is to come in Republican primaries throughout the country.


































Daughters_of_Texas // Feb 18, 2010 at 9:26 am
You do not have your facts straight as a journalist.
FACT: Medina does not have an affinity for conspiracy theories. C’mon.
FACT: She did not state that there may be may be some legitimacy to the theory that the government was responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
Sarah Palin, a Rick Perry supporter and spokesperson has said more on this topic than Debra Medina ever has: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQpn0aR8kl0
Break the real stories and quit being a hand-puppet for the GOP.
NH // Feb 18, 2010 at 1:37 pm
“Besides these positions, Medina also has an affinity for conspiracy theories.”
As usual, LIES.
Rick Perry is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Can you say NAFTA and how he benefited from that while pretending to be a fan of the 10th?
Go Medina! Let’s get all the incumbent GOP dead wood out, Perry included.
aDude // Feb 18, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Let me get this straight – in one of the reddest states in the Union, at a time when Democrats aren’t looking strong nationwide, a Tea Party person can’t do better than dead even with a Democrat?
This is progress?
JonF // Feb 18, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Re: Can you say NAFTA and how he benefited from that while pretending to be a fan of the 10th?
Last I checked the 10th Amendment does not say that the federal governmment does not have the power to make treaties with foreign governments, or determine the tarrif (if amy) to be levied on foreign goods.
I am certainly willing to hear a case made against NAFTA on practical grounds, but I can’t entertain any nation that the federal goverment lacks treaty or tarrif powers.