Debra Medina, new star of America's right, is firing up the race for Texas governor

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Lytle is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it kind of town, one of hundreds that dot the vast flat ranchlands of southern Texas. A smear of houses by the main highway between San Antonio and Laredo. Population: 2,383. The first streets only got paved here in the years after the second world war. A sewage system took a little longer, not being built until the 1960s. In short, Lytle, Texas, has never been big enough to have much impact on the politics of the Lone Star state. And few Texas politicians have ever paid much attention to it.

Until Debra Medina, that is. When Medina breezed into Lytle's community hall the locals found themselves confronted with a Texan version of Sarah Palin. She wore a sharp scarlet skirt suit, librarian-style glasses and a puffed-up hairdo. More than 60 Lytle residents had gathered to meet her, a hefty turnout on a weekday at 11am for a Republican primary election in the race to be Texas governor. Medina has become a political phenomenon in Texas. Emerging as a genuine star of the rightwing populist Tea Party movement, she delivers a fiery message of slashing taxes and the abolition of almost all forms of federal government, and issues dire warnings that President Obama is taking America down a slippery slope to Soviet-style communism.

It's working. Previously unheard of by the vast majority of Texans, Medina has set the race for governor on fire, upsetting the primary contest between the incumbent, Rick Perry, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Those gathered to see Medina in Lytle loved her. Young and old, men and women, Latino and white, listened with rapt attention as she outlined her agenda and asked them to back her in this week's first round of voting. If she can beat Hutchison into second place, she can secure a runoff against Perry. That would raise the possibility – distant but real – of a Tea Party activist capturing the government of the second biggest state in America. The Tea Party movement would have gone from being a bunch of ragtag protesters to heading one of the largest single economies in the world. "If we can change politics as usual in Texas, then we can change politics as usual across America. This is not just about Texas, but about changing the whole country," Medina told the Observer before addressing her supporters in Lytle.

She is not alone in that ambition. Across America other extreme candidates have emerged on the Republican right to challenge familiar party figures with a fiery mix of Tea Party-inspired populism. In Arizona, Senator John McCain is facing a tough re-election fight against a former congressman, JD Hayworth, who has expressed public doubts as to whether Obama was born a legitimate American citizen. In Florida the moderate Republican governor, Charlie Crist, is lagging badly in his own primary election to rightwing challenger Marco Rubio, who has the backing of local Tea Party groups.

On the right of US politics, this is big stuff. Instead of forcing mainstream Republicans to woo them for their votes, the rightwingers are now bidding for power. It is an attempt at revolution that could have huge meaning for America and the world, especially given the disastrous showing of Democrats in recent polls and elections. Medina knows this. After her speech she ended with a plea to her audience. "We can win this race," she said, then held up her hand and squeezed two fingers together. "It is this close."

Later that night, at a firemen's association hall in the much larger city of San Antonio, Medina's face stared down from a huge screen as she delivered a long policy monologue. To her audience she was the very antithesis of establishment power: a heroic revolutionary, out to destroy government and bring power to the people. "She is not a career politician. Everything she is saying will make Texas better than what it is," said Sergeant Shawn Mendoza, 30, a veteran of three tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. A few minutes later the flesh-and-blood version of Medina entered the hall. She got a standing ovation before she had said a word.

She began her stump speech again, still wearing the outfit she had in Lytle. But when it comes to speeches Medina is no Sarah Palin. She has no need to write on her hand to remember her talking points. Instead her speech was a complex walk through her extreme anti-government philosophy, citing sources as varied as the Austrian school of economics, St Augustine and modern French philosophers. She said she wanted to get rid of property taxes and allow Texans to do whatever they wanted with anything they owned, whether that was dig for oil or build an extension. There was, she said, no constitutional basis for a federal Department of Education or an Environmental Protection Agency or the Federal Reserve. Texas should assert its rights almost as a nation-state, controlling over its own National Guard units. The disdain for government was visceral. The American way, she said, was simple. "There are two rights essential to freedom: private property and gun ownership."

Such thoughts find fertile ground in Texas. This state has always had a swaggering, independent streak and a dislike for too many laws. Medina was born on a farm near the small town of Beeville in south Texas. She speaks with a homely Texas accent and worked as a nurse before entering politics at county level in the 1990s. Her bid for governor was largely ignored by the media as she crisscrossed the state for 13 months, visiting small town after small town. Gradually she crept up in the polls and forced her way into the televised debates, where she performed strongly. Campaign money began to pour in. One poll puts her as high as 24%, just behind Hutchison and within reach of catching her and forcing Perry into a runoff.

Medina believes she is not really in third place, citing the fact that the polls only telephone previous Republican primary voters, whereas she is bringing in thousands of new supporters. "I feel fantastic. I think we can win this," she said in Lytle.

Only once has Medina slipped up – in an interview she gave to the conservative radio host Glenn Beck. On his show Medina was asked if she thought the US government might have had a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. She replied: "I don't." She then went on to expand disastrously upon that answer. "I don't have all the evidence there… I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that," she said.

Those comments provided ample ammunition for her political rivals. Her march forward in the polls was halted and some of her advances chipped away. The only time Medina appeared unnerved in Lytle or San Antonio was when a woman in the audience mentioned the Beck interview and asked her if she was a "Truther", in reference to the conspiracy theory that the government planted bombs to blow up the World Trade Centre. Medina looked flustered and started to answer before saying suddenly: "No! No!" and moving on to a new question.

But such areas are the home ground of the Tea Party movement. At almost any Tea Party event it is easy to meet Truthers or Birthers or those who believe Obama is a closet Stalinist or a Nazi or a Muslim fundamentalist or indeed all three together, no matter how blindingly contradictory such beliefs are. In San Antonio one member of the audience wore an Oath Keepers T-shirt. Oath Keepers are a group of veterans, soldiers or police officers who fear their own government is about to attack the American people or round up conservatives into concentration camps. The oath they have sworn to keep is to refuse to obey such orders. That sort of thing remains a fundamental problem for the politicians from the Tea Party seeking high office.

Calvin Jillson, a political scientist at Dallas's Southern Methodist University, believes the Tea Party can be understood as the latest in a long line of explosions of political rage in America. They include the Populist party that won elections in several states during the 1890s recession and the millions who voted for Ross Perot's presidential candidacy in the 1980s. "These things happen but they burn out like a prairie fire. We are in the middle of it right now but when the economy picks up it will fade away," Jillson said.

Yet the crowd in Lytle could not see any sign of economic recovery. Their rage did not feel like it would fade away. "I'm so mad, it's like chewing nails," said Lytle businesswoman Priscilla Squires, 60. She saw this week's primary as the start of fundamental change in America, while the experts say Medina's Tea Party will crash against the barricades of the ballot box. They are probably right. Yet Texas has always been a little different. "I don't think a Medina win is likely," said Jillson "But nothing is impossible. This is Texas after all."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/2...ra-medina-texas

[Peikko 1,575]

I think the article explains the phenomena very well. it's an easy sell after all, no to taxes and no to government telling me what I can and can't do in my own home/town/county/state. The fact that that is meaningless in a modern society is beside the point.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think the article explains the phenomena very well. it's an easy sell after all, no to taxes and no to government telling me what I can and can't do in my own home/town/county/state. The fact that that is meaningless in a modern society is beside the point.

The teabagger agenda here is to essentially upend what it means to be a modern society.

[Peikko 1,575]

The teabagger agenda here is to essentially upend what it means to be a modern society.

You can't have cities with out having structure - that's a nonsense so, as I say, it's very easy to tap into that particular psyche, it's not easy to fulfil those type of campaign promises and maintain modern societal structures. I don't think most people who want to get rid of 'taxes and interference' also want to live like 1800 pioneers, not in any meaningful way.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You can't have cities with out having structure - that's a nonsense so, as I say, it's very easy to tap into that particular psyche, it's not easy to fulfil those type of campaign promises and maintain modern societal structures. I don't think most people who want to get rid of 'taxes and interference' also want to live like 1800 pioneers, not in any meaningful way.

The electoral base for this kind of politics lies outside the cities.

[Peikko 1,575]

The electoral base for this kind of politics lies outside the cities.

I don't doubt it, but regardless cities will not cease to exist if they manage to elect one of their own and they wouldn't much like it even if they did. Whether they recognize it or not, they benefit from the society that they despise.

Alternatively, one of their own will turn out exactly the same as all the rest of the politicians, faced with making unpopular decisions for pragmatic reasons. She's an intelligent woman, so presumably she is saying all this ####### just to get elected.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I didn't read the article because it's a Guardian UK article based on a local candidate, so highly doubt they know everything about her.

Medina isn't for getting rid of all taxes, she's for getting rid of property taxes and then raising the sales tax rate.

Her point is quite valid is you really think about it and it comes down to private property rights. How in the hell can you always have to pay taxes on your home/land that YOU own and have it taken away from you if you aren't able to pay those taxes.... That's the overall point she makes. Essentially, if someone can always take it away, then you don't 'own' your home.

I have argued on the side of not getting rid of them because of what those taxes pay for. Also in Texas, we don't have a 'state' property tax. The only thing the state does is regulate how an individual county is allowed to ask for those taxes, but none of them go to the state itself. That's a big misconception here.

Another thing is it's an empty promise. The governor of Texas has no real power other than their Veto pen on things like this. With taxes it would take action by the legislature in addition to a constitutional amendment here in Texas, which in turn would have to be voted on the people. It's not exactly an easy process to change that kind of law... So people can support it all they want, but it probably won't be able to happen.

Honestly, I would LOVE for the US Government to be modeled after Texas.... not necessarily in the sense constitutionally, but in the sense that our state legislature only meets bi-yearly and only for emergency sessions. On top of that, they only make like $6000 when they are in session. It's not a 'rewarding' job. I like it because it keeps government out of our lives except when necessary. My biggest complaint about Washington it they over-legislate because they are bored out of their damn minds and have nothing better to do. If they do nothing, people look at them as doing nothing and wasting their money... Take away their large salaries and the time they spend there, and we'd solve some of the problem....

[Peikko 1,575]

If you didn't read the article, you can't comment on the points raised by the article whether or not your points are valid in and of themselves

Edited February 28, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you didn't read the article, you can't comment on the points raised by the article whether or not your points are valid in and of themselves

Oh I read it after and they felt the need to call Medina "extreme" plenty of times when she's nothing of the sorts. I suppose in the UK they wouldn't understand our politics in Texas, but that's to be understood.

Texans are and always have been pro-State's rights. Anti-Federal Intervention.... mostly because we can take care of our own ###### for the most part.. People can call that 'extreme' all they want, but that's Texas and who we have always been and why many across the nation in a sense are 'jealous' if you can even call it that.

It'd be a bigger blow to the United States if Texas were no longer a part of it, than it would be to Texas itself.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you are not standing in the middle, it can be very difficult to recognize where extreme lies.

Suggesting that the US needs Texas more than the Texas needs the US is not an opinion that stradles the middle ground.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you are not standing in the middle, it can be very difficult to recognize where extreme lies.

Suggesting that the US needs Texas more than the Texas needs the US is not an opinion that stradles the middle ground.

Dude is fuсking insane

Take out the big cities in Texas and all that's left is mile after mile of nothing. Just dust and ignut rednecks.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you are not standing in the middle, it can be very difficult to recognize where extreme lies.

Suggesting that the US needs Texas more than the Texas needs the US is not an opinion that stradles the middle ground.

and that's your fine opinion, but I highly doubt you could prove otherwise.

Dude is fuсking insane

Take out the big cities in Texas and all that's left is mile after mile of nothing. Just dust and ignut rednecks.

and that shows your ignorance, but you can keep ahead with it.

90% of our land in Texas is privately owned. No other state in the union can say that and especially with a land mass as big as ours, that's damn impressive. So if you think 'government' of the US has been a big factor in everything here, you'd be quite wrong.

Downtown Fort Worth is a prime example. It's on privately owned land and many areas that the city semi-owns are owned through contract in which the City must obey the rules to keep the land otherwise it goes back to the family that owns it.

We have a legislature that gets full of spending morons at times, but we do just fine as a state for the most part, even out in the middle of nowhere that you people like to demonize so much.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

and that shows your ignorance, but you can keep ahead with it.

[Peikko 1,575]

and that's your fine opinion, but I highly doubt you could prove otherwise.

and that shows your ignorance, but you can keep ahead with it.

You doubt it? I think it is pretty simple. The middle ground in terms of the relationship between state and federal government is pretty much the status quo, maintaining the independence of states within the status of the federation. The extremes are, cessation of states (The US needs Texas more than Texas needs the US) and elimination of state status - not sure anyone is advocating that within US politics but it is the other end of the spectrum.

[Darnell 8,478]

Good For Her !

I'm tired of the other candidates, Ms. Medina already has my support.