Posted on 01/29/2010 7:58:57 PM PST by jsdjason
"DALLAS (AP) — U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and political activist Debra Medina ganged up on front-running Gov. Rick Perry on Friday in the final televised debate before the March 2 Republican primary."
Medina won the online vote asking who won the debate with 97% of the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
The way they presented that speech of Debra’s from the “sovereignty vs. secession rally” was a total hit job. If you listen to the very next two lines she says AFTER where they stopped playing the clip she says that she’s not in favor of secession (which was a pretty brave thing to do in front of an audience of many people who are), as we haven’t tried the more moderate means of nullification and interposition to defend Texas’ sovereignty yet.
It was a very clear distinction she made in her speech - being in favor of nullification and being against secession. The way they edited that clip - in conjunction with the question that went along with it - was so dishonest and manipulative by the debate people that it made me want to jump into the TV screen and give them a piece of my mind. They absolutely knew they were lying about Debra the way they set that up... but I believe that was their intention all along.
Regarding your other question, she didn’t go so far as to actually say that - although I would assume she’s obviously more open to having that debate based upon her response (or at least she’s more honest and/or more willing to admit to being open to having that debate) than the others.
My gut feeling as a conservative Texan who hangs around other conservative Texans all the time is that it’s probably a non-issue for the vast majority of voters as #1) we’ve got other issues that are way higher priorities that we’re all focusing on right now, #2) it’s not anywhere on her radar screen either, and #3) I suspect way more of us conservative Texans than are willing to admit it in “respectable” circles secretly believe at the end of the day that it’s just not the proper role of government (especially the federal government) to dictate what grown adults may choose to consume... even if our dumb choices are personally destructive.
Note: I’m talking about the views of self-described conservatives... not self-described libertarians here.
Indeed, because that's definitely the number one issue on the top of everyone's mind here in Texas./sarc
Do I believe the edit of the clip was intentional? Perhaps. That's why I want to see or read more of her speech. That is the advantage of the internet.
I actually think tonight's debate was far superior to the PBS debate. The panel did a good job of throwing tough questions at all three people.
I’m just looking at the logistics.
Texas struggled with gambling. Do you really think most voters will vote for a governor that promotes drug legalization?
He@#, we could have had Kinky..at least he can play some decent music. ;)
including=including delay of 10th Amendment...
including=including delay of 10th Amendment...
From Texas Alliance For Life:
DALLAS—In the second Republican gubernatorial debate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was once again asked explicitly whether she supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. She answered, “No.”
Like those who argue for “making abortion rare” but stand by legalized abortion, Hutchison holds the contradictory positions that limits on abortion are good, but the legalization of abortion should not be overturned.
“At the gubernatorial debate, Senator Hutchison contradicted herself. You cannot be pro-life and support Roe v. Wade,” says Joe Pojman, Ph.D., executive director of Texas Alliance for Life. In 2003, Hutchison showed her support for legalized abortion by voting for a resolution that stated, “It is the sense of the Senate that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned.” (See Senate Roll Call No. 48, 108th Congress, 1st Session.)
Gov. Rick Perry, on the other hand, is on the record as both supporting limits on abortion and supporting overturning Roe v. Wade.
“Texas needs a leader who is consistently pro-life,” continues Pojman. “Unlike Hutchison, Governor Rick Perry has never given an inch to the life-threatening precepts of Roe v. Wade.”
Texas originally passed a law protecting unborn children from abortion in the Nineteenth Century. This law was struck down by Roe in 1973. Today, more than 80,000 abortions per year are performed in Texas (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/VSTAT/vs08/t33.shtm).
Gov. Perry has passionately supported laws protecting unborn babies and their mothers. Perry supported the Woman’s Right to Know Act (2003), the Prenatal Protection Act (2003), the parental consent law (2005), and funding for alternatives to abortions (2005, 2007, 2009).
In addition, Gov. Perry has also strongly endorsed public funding for adult stem cell research. He has opposed embryonic stem cell research, which has developed no treatments or cures and requires the destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cells have been used to successfully treat more than 20,000 Americans and more than 70 different conditions or diseases. Sen. Hutchison, on the other hand, has twice voted to use federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos.
This is completely false. She has NEVER said that she wants drugs legalized. She said that she believes that drug policy should be discussed, which includes the possibility of legalization. For all we know she might personally oppose legalization. If you’ve seen her quoted otherwise I’d love to see a link.
I bet most of the people on this forum has more in common with Ron Paul than they do Scott Brown, yet Paul is continually bashed while Scott Brown is hailed as the new savior.
No one will agree with you 100%. You should look for that person that agrees with you 80% of the time. I’m pretty sure I agree with Medina 80% of the time or more.
It was an hour debate...I'm not going to post the whole thing.
If you can give me proof to the contrary...?
He went to the bilderbergers meeting a few years ago, and a local Texas paper even published an article mentioning it.
I imagine he has presidential aspirations.
He forced that horrible vaccine on young girls too. Some FREEPERS call it the “freedom for sex shot”. lol.
Property taxes are sky high
You aren’t kidding. They are insane!!!!
Medina doesn’t stand a chance against a Dem.
I heard the same crap about Chris Brown...
You are flat wrong. Here is a link to what you’re referring. I challenge you to find the words “I believe in legalizing drugs” in her answer. You’re clearly misstating her position. All she said was that if she was governor the policy of drug enforcement would be discussed.
And really, what is the problem with discussing it? The current drug war has been far from effective. Drugs are available everywhere. That’s a fact. Clearly something needs to be changed if we’re going to pour so much money into fighting the drug war.
Even if she was for legalization, that’s about the only thing that I could find that I might disagree with her on, and like I said above, I’ll vote for the person that I agree with 80% of the time (Medina), rather than the 2 RINOs.
Here’s the link you’re referring to. Watch it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2P17JGioTU
Oops, the question begins at 4:00. Here’s the link again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2P17JGioTU
Perry and KBH constantly dodged and changed the subject.
KBH and RP are both establishment, machine politicians from the pre-Tea Party era. Like all machine politicians, they just don't get it. They're lagging behind the curve, and probably won't ever truly catch on. It's all business as usual for them, no matter how loud the Tea Partiers yell.
Medina, on the other hand, is obviously a product of the new rebellion that's sweeping the nation. She definitely gets it. Even if she fails in her bid for the governorship, she'll have contributed something of a shot across the bow of the state machine apparatus. They'll be on notice that we're coming for them.
Although she doesn't articulate she is for legalization, her comments infer very clearly that she is.
It is fairly obvious. As I stated upthread, Texas had a hard time voting for parimutuel betting (with a huge, wealthy lobby behind it) and the lottery. If casinos ever come to this state, I will faint.
I am interested in logistics. (my personal feelings aside)Do you honestly believe Texas would consider voting for a gubernatorial candidate that even entertains the idea of “discussion” of drug legalization?
Or would you prefer a Dem governor? As I have also previously stated, I need to research some of her other opinions before I jump on board.
You’re “inference,” is just that an inference. I could just as easily infer that she is not happy with the RESULTS that the dollars spent on the drug wars have gotten, and that she would like to restructure the drug laws to get better results, WITHOUT legalization. She did not CLEARLY say that she was for legalization.
She is the only candidate that gets the role of government. If you watched those debates and come to the conclusion that you want to vote for Perry or KBH over Medina then I guess I am to the right of you because I see her as the clear choice.
Bringing in the casinos would be awesome!!! That way I don’t have to drive to Louisiana and more business comes to Texas!
This is an awesome video of her presser after the 1st debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.