Replies

Oh she answered all right, with hem/haw, side-step, "Well, I've never taken a public stance but several good questions have been raised ..." -- Beck in no way sandbagged or *gotcha* questioned, he mentioned on the air several days ago that he was noticing her surge in the gubernatorial race, was intrigued, said he wanted to get her on the show, after that, he (and Pat) got emails and according to him this morning, tweets that warned him she was a truther.

If she is not, has never had this thought in her head whatever as she claims now, why not say so in answer to Glenn? Why not question why he is inquiring, find out some Texans have sent him email, demand to know who they are, investigate her own self to see if the emails are coming from Perry or Hutchison supporters trying to smear her? Why keep promulgating the notion as Glenn asks more specific questions instead of resolving the issue??

As an former employee of a bank, FBI training included instruction that if you were ever held up, you were to immediately go to the employee lounge, separate yourself from others, do not speak to anyone, no contact whatever until law enforcement has debriefed you so that your recollection of events, your description of the perp is not colored or changed by the opinions/observations of others. In the situation here with Medina, it comes under the first thing out of your mouth, especially when you are caught *unawares* as she claims, is the most accurate. Once time has passed, you think things over, second, third thoughts, others have input, then the answer changes, accuracy can (and ought to be) questioned.

Was Glenn NOT to inquire considering the topic? After he hears her less-than-satisfactory answer, was he supposed to ignore it, ask the next question on the list? He has zero to apologize for, if anyone does, it is Ms. Medina for talking over him time and time again, for using the time he was giving her as a sort of campaign stump, monologue rather than dialogue.