Medina vs. Perry - A Discussion on Strategy and Open Thread

Yesterday morning I was composing a post cautioning the TEA Party crowd and Independents on voting for unknowns with no voting records for Governor of Texas, when I received The Peter Morrison Report. What's interesting is, Peter and I are almost at odds, but in a good way. So today, I've decided to put both of our arguments out there and let you help me make up my mind. I plan to vote for whomever gets the nod, but I think I may have something to offer by way of strategy.

Both views after the jump...

First - THE PETER MORRISON REPORT:
(I omitted the summary to get straight to the article.)

The Texas primaries are rapidly approaching, and as we get closer to the March 2nd date, the race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination has changed dramatically in just the past few weeks. Debra Medina, a virtual unknown in Texas, has come out of nowhere to throw a real monkey wrench into the race. Late last year, her support was in the single digits. By late January, a Rasmussen poll showed her as the choice of 12 percent of Texans, compared with 43 percent for Perry and 33 percent for Hutchison. Because of her rising numbers, she was included in the  statewide televised debate on January 29th.

Since her strong performance in both the first and second debates, her support has skyrocketed. In fact, according to a February 9th poll by Public Policy Polling, Debra Medina has now passed Kay Bailey Hutchison. The new numbers are Perry at 42 percent, Medina at 25 percent, and Hutchison at 23 percent. Medina's rapid rise in support changes everything for Texas conservatives, and now we have a real opportunity to send a message to both Austin and Washington, and to make it loud and clear - we're fed up with career politicians and politics as usual, and we want true conservatives representing us. Therefore, I'm strongly urging Texas conservatives to vote for Debra Medina on March 2nd. Let's look at the candidates briefly to see how I arrived at my position.

Rick Perry has a well known track record, which means we know what we're getting when we vote for him. Unfortunately for conservatives, his track record is very uneven, and he has a tendency to campaign as more conservative than he actually is.

It's true that he has done a lot to keep the Texas economy strong in the middle of the worst recession in decades. That's a real positive in his favor. So is his record on moral values; he
opposes abortion and the legalization of gay marriage. On other important issues Perry has either talked out of both sides of his mouth, or has let us down completely. He pushed for the Bush
bailout. He led the fight for the Trans Texas Corridor. During the last presidential race, he endorsed the most liberal Republican running, the far-left Rudy Giuliani.

He also tries to straddle the fence on illegal immigration, and hasn't done much to prevent it. Possibly worst of all, in 2007 he ordered that sixth grade girls be given dangerous vaccinations for venereal diseases without their parents' consent. Rick Perry is a mixed bag, at best.

Many were encouraged last year when Perry made some controversial remarks in favor of state sovereignty and secession as a last resort to federal abuses. However, I have recently learned that
Perry was a 2007 speaker and attendee at the super-secret Bilderberg Conference in Istanbul, Turkey:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-perry_31tex.ART.State.Edition1.43b926a.html

I doubt that the speech he gave there on federalism and state-federal relations shared many similarities with his recent campaigning on state sovereignty.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but it's well known that this group is a private, secret meeting of the top echelons of the globalist elite. A primary reason to invite any politician to address their group is to vet him for higher office. Texas Monthly claims Perry has his eye on the White House in 2012. It's not encouraging to true conservatives that he flew halfway around the world to hobnob with a powerful group opposed to everything we care about as patriotic Americans.

Kay Baily Hutchison? Frankly, there are almost no good reasons conservatives should vote for her. She voted for the Bush bailout, after first denouncing it. Like many other politicians, she's
talking fairly tough about illegal immigration right now, but she's been in the Senate for nearly two decades, and the problem has only gotten worse. She certainly hasn't made a name for herself as a forceful opponent of the immigration invasion that is overwhelming our state.

The one thing she is best known for, and is quite proud of, is pork barrel politics. One watchdog group says that Hutchison is responsible for an incredible one out of twelve of the billions of
dollars spent in federal earmarks since 2005. She's not even slightly embarrassed about this. "Why wouldn't I fight for Texas?" Hutchison said to the Dallas Morning News. "I'm proud of my effectiveness. To be hit for being effective for Texas is puzzling."

On traditional moral values, Hutchison is even worse. She openly supports Roe v. Wade and keeping abortion legal. For that reason alone she shouldn't get our votes; imagine the kind of judges she would appoint to fill possible vacancies on the Texas Supreme Court.

Finally, there's Debra Medina. We may not see eye to eye with her on every single item, but she certainly agrees with us on the vast majority of issues. It's true that she doesn't have a long
political resume, but that's fine. Career politicians are killing this country, and it's time for some true outsiders to clean up the mess they've made.

Outside of politics, though, she's well known and respected in her community. Married for nearly 30 years, she's a Christian who owns a small business, and home schooled her children. I conducted a lengthy interview with her back in December, and I was impressed with the answers she gave.

It's obvious why she's gaining in popularity - she's for less government spending, getting rid of racial preferences, cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, state sovereignty, free market
health care, 2nd Amendment rights, less government regulation of the economy, and most important of all, she's strongly pro-life. When I asked her when human life begins, she didn't mince words: "Human life begins at conception."

Subsequent to that interview, the more I found out about Medina, the more I liked her. For example, she recently told the Dallas Observer that all property taxes in Texas ought to be abolished:

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/01/debra_medina_tells_us_why_prop.php

Not reduced, not appraisals reformed, not Robin Hood, but eliminated, gone; just close down all of the appraisal districts because they're not going to be needed. Think about it: why should
we have to pay 2-3% "rent" to the government just to own our home or land? Rick Perry wanted to steal your land to build toll roads, while Medina wants to restore true property rights.

This is not to say that Medina is perfect on all the issues. I personally have low expectations that she will do anything more than Perry or Hutchison on the problem of illegal immigration. In
my interview with her, she said she supported a border fence in "densely populated urban areas only."

This means that none of the three gubernatorial candidates support a complete border fence. In 2006, Rick Perry told the Texas Border Coalition that building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border was a "preposterous idea" and that "the only thing a wall would possibly accomplish is to help the ladder business." In 2007, Hutchison used a voice vote in the U.S. Senate to personally gut the Secure Fence Act (SFA) that would have provided for a border fence.

The bottom line though is I believe Debra Medina is the best of the three GOP candidates for governor. Many Texas conservatives share this view, but up until now, have been reluctant to back her. They've been afraid of splitting their votes between her and Rick Perry, allowing Hutchison to win. With Medina's astonishing rise in the polls, and Hutchison's collapse, that's no longer a concern. Now that there are three viable candidates, it's going to be virtually impossible for anyone to get 50 percent of the vote, which means there will be a runoff, and there's no risk of "wasting" your vote by voting for Medina.

If Debra Medina comes in third, she won't be in the runoff, and conservatives can back Perry. But if enough of us vote for Medina on March 12th, she could easily come in second, and then the runoff would be between her and Perry. If that happens, Texans would finally have a chance to elect a real conservative to the office of governor, instead of always settling for the lesser of two evils.

Scott Brown just gave the establishment the shock of their lives by winning Ted Kennedy's old seat in the Senate. Now it's our turn here in Texas, and we can send an even bigger message by voting for Debra Medina on March 2nd.

To summarize:

1. Many had legitimate concerns back in December that Medina was nothing more than a protest candidate not running a serious campaign, and voting for her was a wasted vote that would benefit the greater of two evils: pro-abortion Kay Bailey Hutchison.

2. Polls now show Medina is a serious candidate, tied with or even leading Kay Bailey Hutchison. The concerns about wasted votes are now irrelevant. Medina is a serious candidate who could win.

3. No candidate has enough votes to win outright on March 2nd. There will be a runoff. Rick Perry is so far ahead in the polls he is guaranteed to make the runoff.

4. Since Perry cannot win outright and will make the runoff anyway, voting for him on March 2nd is a wasted vote that will make no difference. However, a vote for Medina could make all the difference in the world.

5. Even if you think Perry would make a better governor than Medina, voting for Medina and humiliating Hutchison, a sitting US Senator, with a third place finish would be a beautiful coup de grace for conservatives looking to send a message to the party's elite in Austin and Washington. You can still vote for Perry in the runoff if you want. Even if you're a committed Perry supporter, Perry is in a better position to win a runoff against Medina than Hutchison.

6. If Medina makes the runoff, regardless of whether she wins, it will be a message heard round the world, comparable to the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. This will do wonders for Medina's name recognition and could even set her up to pursue a less competitive state office in a subsequent election. If you're worried about Medina's lack of experience, then let's at least put
her in the runoff where she will enjoy notoriety such that she can run for a smaller office in the future and win to get that experience.

7. For these reasons, I think all conservatives should strongly consider a vote for Debra Medina in this year's primary election. It's a no-lose, no-risk proposition.

***Last minute update***

I had originally put this report together in the middle of last week, scheduled for Friday release. After Medina's interview with Glenn Beck last Thursday, I decided to postpone release until I
could more thoroughly think about the issues. My thoughts:

A. For those who don't know, Medina was asked by Beck if she believed the government had any involvement in the 9/11 attacks. She gave a poor answer and the impression that she does possibly believe the government had some involvement in 9/11. She later clarified her response in a press release, but the damage was done.

B. I consider conspiracy theories to be a waste of time because most of the time they're wrong and they don't accomplish anything because they make people feel powerless. The globalist elites push their agenda through consensus, because it's in their interest to do so, not because there's some grand conspiracy.

C. We don't have any new poll numbers post-Beck on Medina, and of course it will be interesting to see what the polls say later this week. I don't expect the impact to be all that significant. Outside of DC and NYC (where Beck spends his time), the federal government is not seen as a Deity Who Can Do No Wrong, and Medina's views are not nearly as shocking to the average Republican primary voter as they are to Washington insiders.

D. The worst thing that can be said about Medina concerning this issue is that she trusts the federal government even less than Glenn Beck. That's not necessarily a bad thing for a governor if we want someone who will stand up for state's rights. On the other hand, Perry still wants to steal our land for toll roads and forcibly vaccinate our daughters for STD's, while Hutchison still
supports killing unborn children and wears her Washington "Pork Queen" title proudly. Which of these issues is least significant on principle?

We conservatives claim we are tired of professional politicians. Yet I see too many people willing to throw Debra Medina overboard because she gave a non-professional response to Glenn Beck. Do we want someone who tells us what we want to hear or a person of principle? I still recommend a strategic vote for Medina for the reasons outlined above, for Medina and Perry supporters alike.

Sources:

http://www.examiner.com/x-30789-San-Antonio-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m2d10-Debra-Medina-is-changing-minds-with-astonishing-poll-results-of-likely-Texas-GOP-voters
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Medina-invited-to-appear-in-The-Belo-Debate-81994852.html
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/02/06/6hpv.html
http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080821120743.aspx
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101807dntexperry.17bf40158.html
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/006987.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120706dntexperry.e08679.html
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/scott_stroud/64187727.html
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/30085729.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100909dnmetearmarks.3ed6311.html
http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2004/july04/04-07-08.html
http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2004/07/marriage-and-submission.php
http://www.medinafortexas.com/issues.php
http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/2008/10/perry-joins-wit.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/12/19/the_incredible_disappearing_border_fence
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4383332.html

The Peter Morrison Report
http://www.PeterMorrisonReport.com
http://www.facebook.com/morrisonreport

Thanks to Peter for the fine research and commentary.
I'm sure you'll agree that Peter puts a lot of heart, thought and effort into his  articles.

NOW FOR THE ROBOT...
Less research, more gut feeling.

By Longhaired Conservative:

As far as I'm concerned there are two front-runners for Texas Governor, and the race between Perry and Medina has me asking questions (Kay Bailey Who?).
First, who is truly best for Texas at this moment in time. Secondly, will Medina hurt the TEA Party movement if she gets elected and fails? (Much like Obama is tearing up the Democratic Party, Medina could cast a long black shadow over the TEA Party candidates if she doesn't perform well or if in fact she turns out to be a loony conspiracy theorist as some have said lately). The third question on my mind is, can a weaker Republican candidate (Medina) beat Bill White, who will most surely be the Democrat candidate? Don't underestimate White. As liberal as he is, he's got a good track record in Houston to build on.

Let's just say, I'm suggesting caution in electing people who we have no voting record to reference for judging policy. How will she handle the pressure from both sides of the aisle when the two parties inevitably come knocking on her door with seemingly impossible problems and compromised convoluted solutions? Does she have any political allies in Austin to turn to for guidance? I would want a set of trusted confidants if I were her. I think in reference to the Glenn Beck question and her subsequent handling of it, she and her team are ill prepared for surprises. In fact, I think she is too vulnerable. Texas is as big as many countries. We are considering electing, in essence, a political newcomer to what is in effect a national stage. Let's be cautious.

As an alternative, let me suggest a more patient approach. I would urge TEA Partiers to first get started on a local level. Establish policy positions and back them up with voting records. As a matter of fact, this is already happening.

While they are serving in the smaller offices is the time to establish political ties for runs on larger issues and offices. For instance, Medina's idea for abolishing the state property tax is a grand idea that I am all for. Where is she going to find backing for it in the Austin establishment? Nowhere. I wager the thinking there is too ingrained for such radical change. She needs allies where I don't think she has them. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Besides these reasons, Medina may have already burned the Republican bridge when she sued the Republican Party in Wharton. Why would they help her get any of her policies implemented? They have nothing to gain by letting a newcomer just waltz into the Governor's mansion and start changing anything but the drapes. I think she'll be held back by a lack of allies in the Republican party and could get so frustrated to show any sign of progress that she reaches across to the aisle to strike some crazy deal just to show she did something.

I believe the TEA Party needs to establish itself locally and build from there. Truly grass roots. If it doesn't, it will be infiltrated too easily by people who are pretenders, Pied Pipers and snake oil salesmen.

Think of it as a chess game. This is going to be a long battle, so we need to position our players on the board, not bring out the queen before we're ready to strike.

I think Medina and others like her would best be suited to run for State Senators and Congresscritters. Get to know the system and learn how best to change it. Be whistleblowers in the House and the Senate when the corruptocrats bring in the back room deals. Help the up-and-coming TEA Partiers when they arrive and then launch to Governor with a track record of
votes and a group of elected officials to back their agenda.

One last thing. If a candidate for Governor of Texas can't speak out strongly against illegal immigration and make an outright call for deportation of all illegal's and to finish the border fence, then I'm reluctant to jump ship and vote for an unknown.

Comments are open. Any thoughts? Keep it clean, please.

Read more...

Tea Baggage: Debra Medina a 9/11 Truther?

Hmmm...


Commentary all over the net.
Ace of Spades HQ thinks Truther,
The Classic Liberal thinks maybe not, just for two.
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit weighs in.

On Glenn Beck right now, he's saying that some Texans are glad he asked the question, some are angry that he asked it. Why get mad about a question? Questions are good. That's why we have primaries, to expose and inform.
Personally, I wish I could take some of Medina's policy positions and implant them into Perry's mind. Can I get Spock over here for a "Vulcan Mind Meld" please?

Read more...

Debra Medina Interview‏ - Candidate for Texas Governor

NOW FEATURING:

The Peter Morrison Report has graciously granted the Robot permission to republish his in-depth interviews with Texas political candidates and insightful commentary on issues close to those of us in Texas and Southeast Texas in particular. The Peter Morrison Report will also be featured in a new sidebar on this site along with other sites of importance to Texans and to the S/E portion of the state as we get ready for the 2010 election cycle.  Thanks Peter. Here is the first installment:

A few weeks ago the Peter Morrison Report was contacted by the Debra Medina campaign. She is a Republican candidate for governor here in Texas. An interview came out of that discussion.
To be fair, I have also contacted the campaigns of the other three declared candidates: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Larry Kilgore and Rick Perry. If they agree, each will be featured in a future report so you can make an informed decision in March.

The interview consists of a question followed by the candidate's unedited responses. Let's get to it:

Peter Morrison Report: What do you see as the top challenges facing Texas, and our next governor?

Debra Medina: Texas, like all of the United States, is facing unprecedented economic challenges. Property taxes, excessive regulation and broad use of eminent domain authority all but destroy private property ownership. Couple those concerns with a
growing dependence on federal largesse, a high unemployment rate, additional school property tax buy down and diminishing sales tax returns and you quickly realize that the state of Texas must cut spending drastically and restructure tax in order to relieve the drag it places on the economy.

PMR: In your opinion, what are the causes of the terrible setbacks the Republican Party suffered in 2006 and 2008? How do you think we can reverse this trend?

DM: Failure to walk our talk. We must elect officials who follow the strict interpretation of constitution and govern in a manner consistent with our party platform. Recognizing that politics is corrupting and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Texas Republican Party should adopt a rule unilaterally establishing term limits as an additional eligibility requirement when seeking a place on the primary ballot for all state officeholders i.e., state representatives, state senators and all state-wide officeholders.This would serve to protect not punish Republican office holders.It would keep them beholden to the people they serve and remove incentives to be "bought and paid for" by special interest groups seeking to use the law to gain favor in the marketplace.

PMR: What are your major differences with Rick Perry, and why should conservative Texans support you over him?

DM: I recognize that the family is the building block of a free society and that parental rights to manage that family as they deem must be aggressively defended.  It is not the role of the government to usurp that right even when the government thinks it knows best. Rick Perry only wants you to manage your family until
he doesn't like what you do, then he will use the mighty arm of the great state of Texas to swoop in and mandate healthcare or take your children.

I recognize that private property ownership and gun ownership are essential elements of freedom.  I will fight to curtail eminent domain authorities and will certainly recognize the duty to protect the sovereignty of Texas rejecting any attempts to cede our land to foreign interests.  I will advocate the ownership and skilled use of weapons so as to increase safety and security in our state.  I will not, as Perry did, cavalierly throw tax money at psychological counseling following the next tragic shooting in our state as though that will help solve the problem.  I recognize that the protection of life, liberty and property must begin with us. We
must be prepared to defend ourselves. In our earliest days as a country, Noah Webster recognized, "the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, of any pretence, raised in the United States."

I recognize that the central banking system in the United States is incapable of maintaining a stable economy.  I recognize that the market is the best regulator of the economy where inefficient businesses are allowed to fail and are held responsible for those failures.  I recognize that Texas assets must be protected and that just as nations such as China and India are moving away from the dollar, Texas must move a portion of our assets as well to protect those assets and protect the Texas economy.  I will not sit idly by and wait for Washington D.C. to protect Texas.  I will not, as the
Governor did with his "what recession" remark discount the suffering in Texas as many are unemployed and struggling.  I will recognize that people not government care best for people.  I will resist efforts to make the state the benefactor of the hurting and needy - families and businesses alike. 

PMR: If elected, what concrete steps will you take to deal with the invasion of illegal immigrants which is transforming Texas?
DM: Texas must press the federal government aggressively to secure our border.  Meanwhile, however, we can not simply wait on Washington D.C. to act.  We must develop stronger working relationships with border county sheriffs to support and augment their efforts to secure the border to insure that all traffic enters Texas through a legal port of entry.  These efforts should involve coalition building between state and local law enforcement, allocation of funds for equipment and personnel and enhanced deployment of State Guard and volunteer corps along the southern border.

Texas must also protect the economic interests of her citizens by challenging federal mandates into healthcare.  The cost of providing "free healthcare" to anyone who asks has forced many hospitals from market-driven profitable enterprises to
public-dependent (tax funded) facilities.  Texas' healthcare providers must be allowed to set their own charitable service policies.  Texas should fight to overturn the federal EMTALA provisions and return to the state oversight of our healthcare
industry.

PMR: What is your stance on the Voter Photo ID bill from the last session?

DM: Do not believe photo ID will serve to prevent illegal voting until and unless the issuance of photo ID is restricted to U.S. citizens and legal aliens.  Texas currently issues drivers licenses to individuals who admit to being in our state illegally.  We
should work instead to tighten voter registration requirements and to insure that the voter rolls are accurate.

PMR: Do you support sanctions against employers that knowingly employ illegal aliens?

DM: Yes.

PMR: Do you support a border fence?

DM: Only in areas where local law enforcement acknowledges that it will help in their efforts to secure the border.  In discussions with these individuals believe that is in densely populated urban areas only. 

PMR: Do you believe that local governments and law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce immigration laws?

DM: No, believe that immigration law enforcement is clearly the purview and responsibility of federal law enforcement.  Do believe that we, local governments and law enforcement, must enforce the laws that we have.  Do believe that  individuals convicted of a crime in Texas should be deported if they are here illegally. 

PMR: As governor, would you encourage localities in Texas to enforce immigration laws?

DM: Will work closely with local law enforcement to identify where and if state law needs to be strengthened to address this issue. Would not advocate local law enforcement becoming "federalized."

PMR: Do you support Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona, who has vowed to keep enforcing immigration laws even though the feds have ordered him to cease and desist?

DM: Appreciate Sheriff Arpaio's efforts to insure law and order.Appreciate his leadership in enforcing law and protecting citizens in his county in spite of "you can't do that" opposition.  Agree with Sheriff Mack regarding the role of the county sheriff, "We must start at home, in our counties, in our own 'spheres.' We must erect the barriers and keep those at bay who would confiscate bank accounts, guns, land, property, and children...You cannot shrink from that duty merely because the violator comes into town with a three piece suit and a fancy attaché case." 

PMR: In August, you posted an article called "Latinos and the GOP" on your campaign website, which many conservatives would find troubling. You seemed to be criticizing Kay Bailey Hutchison for voting against Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, and saying that her vote will make it harder to attract Hispanics to the GOP. Yet Sotomayor is a hard core supporter of affirmative action and quotas, as well as gun control. This seems inconsistent with your stances on personal liberty and the right to bear arms. Can you explain what you meant?

DM: Kay Bailey Hutchison was absolutely correct to vote against Sotomayor; the problem I was addressing is that the GOP has treated Latinos so poorly for so long that George Lopez was able to characterize this as a racially motivated "no" vote instead of a "no" vote based on the fact she was the wrong candidate on the issues.  Texas Republicans have for years claimed to be working hard on "minority outreach" and yet we see no indication of any meaningful relationship with or participation of Hispanics in the Republican Party.  Because there is no true relationship between the party and the Hispanic community in this state, all action is viewed along strictly racial lines.  People are social beings, we crave belonging to a group.  Texas Republicans must recognize that there are many areas where we share common ground with Hispanics. We must purposefully and genuinely reach out to this group (and to other groups) where there is a high likelihood of shared value.  We must teach and we must engage...or Hispanics will continue to block vote straight ticket democrat...and in just a few years when that voting block alone comprises in excess of 50% of our population, conservatives will be forever a bygone relic in the Texas public square.  There is no room for compromise of values and ideals; there is plenty of room to talk so that we are heard - that includes speaking the language (or, in my case, at least making sure my message is communicated in Spanish), getting into the community, meeting people where they are and where they live. 

PMR: In that same piece, you went on to say that the GOP must start considering the reaction of the Latino community when it comes to illegal immigration and border security. You even refer to these as "Latino interests." It's hard to understand this as anything but a call for the GOP to back off on these issues. Could you please clarify what you meant?

DM: By ignoring our law, we've contributed to a climate that has hurt the state and no area more so than the Texas border.  A new culture of lawlessness exists along the border and an area which was once a paradise of productive farm land has become economically depressed and in some areas quite desolate.  We must enforce the
law, but we should see this as an issue of law, not an issue of race.  We must stop allowing it to drive a wedge between cultures.That doesn't help anyone. 

This issue is a polarizing one because we've allowed it to travel along racial lines, rather than directed the dialog along state sovereignty and economic lines where it belongs.  We would not be at odds with fellow Texans if the debate were kept in proper perspective:  The state of Texas and the United States have a duty to protect our sovereignty.  My comments were not a call to back off on these issues.  They were anything but.  I said we can not be indecisive.  We've not taken a position; we've not stuck to a position.  Meanwhile, the social and economic divides along the
Texas border have grown wider; the crime rate climbing, the drop out rate among Hispanics remains alarmingly high and is predicted to stay there.  Until and unless, Republican leadership is willing to make a concerted effort to address these issues and others that are uppermost in the minds of the Latino community in this state,
we are likely to see that block vote continue straight ticket Democrat.

PMR: You support the growing movement among states to reclaim our sovereignty from the federal government. What actions would you take to strengthen this trend, and to reclaim more sovereignty for Texas in particular?

DM: In particular, I have already taken steps to lead the charge against the socialization of health care presented by the Obama Administration. I have consulted with the Attorney General's office. I have called on the citizens to lobby their representatives for special session of the Texas Legislature to prohibit enforcement. I am also looking into the legal process of suit against the federal government on constitutional authority to stop this legislation, whether it be injunction or class action.

PMR: Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit secession? If so, where?

DM: I find no prohibition to secession in the original content of the U.S. Constitution but understand that historically, secession has led to war. I prefer taking steps to declare our sovereignty as stated in the Texas Bill of Rights and nullification of federal authority on constitutional grounds. 

PMR: Do you support the concept of state nullification of federal law?

DM: Yes

PMR: There is currently a move to hire hundreds of additional state employees to administer the food stamp program in Texas. Supporters say that there's a backlog resulting in some people experiencing long delays in getting approved. Where do you stand on this?

DM: I will not grow state government.  Our state has a debt of $31 billion. The inefficiency of government, whether it be federal or state, has gotten out of hand as leadership has been taken over by entrenched career politicians.  Running a state is a business and should be handled as a business. We must use sound business and management practices to correct inefficient use of resources.

PMR: What additional taxes or tax increases, if any, would you support and under what conditions?

DM: I support the elimination of all property taxation and prefer a broader based sales tax that would decrease the present sales tax percentage and allow property owners to own their property without the danger of losing it to any government agency. I do not anticipate supporting any tax increases.  I support shifting responsibility for government to counties and cities - closest to the area where the service is delivered and allowing/forcing the revenue to be derived there ie., altering the 6.25:2% sales tax allocation so that more of the tax stays local.

PMR: Do you support the franchise tax?

DM: No, the franchise tax is nothing more than an income tax imposed on businesses.

PMR: Do you support any sort of race-based preferences (i.e. affirmative action)?

DM: No, under the rule of law, in a Constitutional Republic, all citizens are equal and should not receive unjust preference to the detriment of others.

PMR: Do you support the continuation of preferences in state spending being given to Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs)?

DM: No, the decision to patronize business should only be the decision of the consumer, through a free market economy and should not be based on preferential treatment.

PMR: Do you support extending concealed carry rights to Texas universities?

DM: Yes, the Second Amendment insures the right of law abiding citizens to carry a weapon for the protection of the innocent.

PMR: Do you agree with Harrold ISD's decision last year to allow board authorized individuals who have undergone specified training and have their concealed carry permits to carry concealed weapons on Harrold ISD school campuses?

DM: Yes, the Second Amendment insures the right of law abiding citizens to carry a weapon to protect the innocent.

PMR: When does human life begin?

DM: Human life begins at conception.

PMR: When does a baby get human rights?

DM: A human baby receives rights from the creator at conception.

That's it for the Debra Media interview.  I appreciate her taking the time to answer my questions and urge all Texans to carefully consider their options in the March 2nd primary.

The Peter Morrison Report
http://www.PeterMorrisonReport.com - Sign up for newsletter
http://www.facebook.com/morrisonreport

Read more...