One week from today, Texas voters will select the Democratic and Republican party nominees for governor, concluding a seemingly endless primary campaign. The contest has been noteworthy in several respects, especially for the bitter battle for the Republican nomination between the sitting governor, Rick Perry, and an incumbent U.S. senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison. In the last two weeks, however, it appears that Hutchison and her other opponent, Debra Medina, have either come down with a bad case of campaign fatigue or have proven themselves to be the proverbial “six fries short of a happy meal.”
It began on Feb. 12 when Medina was interviewed by Glenn Beck on his radio show. By positioning herself to the right of Perry, Medina, a political unknown several months ago, had picked up significant support and was running neck-and-neck with Hutchison. Both were about 10 points behind Perry. Beck asked Medina whether she agreed with accusations that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Expecting her to dismiss such suggestions as the fantasy of nut-job conspiracy theorists, Beck was taken aback when Medina instead answered, “I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There’s some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there.” After the interview, Beck told his listeners that Medina’s response should disqualify her as a credible candidate. When Glenn Beck calls you out for crackpot inclinations, you know that you have entered political wacko-land.
The next day, as if to show that far-out musings should not be confined to the Republican contest, Farouk Shami, one of the two major candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, pretty much echoed Medina’s views. In an interview with Dallas TV station WFAA, Shami, in response to a similar question, opined, “We still don’t know who killed John F. Kennedy, who’s behind it. Will we ever find the truth behind 9/11? It’s hard to make judgments. I’m not saying yes or no because I don’t know the truth.” In the span of 24 hours, two of the five major candidates for Texas governor had become card-carrying members of the political lunatic fringe. Ever since, their poll numbers, especially Medina’s (Shami never polled higher than 10% against the overwhelming Democratic frontrunner, former Houston Mayor Bill White), have steadily dropped, evidence that the electorate deserves more credit than it is often given.
What is it about outlandish conspiracy theories that seem to attract those on either side of the political spectrum? There is not a scintilla of evidence that the 9/11 tragedy was anything other than what we know it was: a shocking surprise attack on the United States by forces loyal to Osama bin Laden. To suggest that America’s political leadership had advance knowledge of the attacks or supported or was complicit in their commission is a grotesque defamation not only of those who rallied the nation in the traumatic aftermath of 9/11 but also of the American troops now engaged overseas to ensure that such a calamity never again occurs.
For many, conspiratorial suggestions are conveniently employed for a variety of reasons: explaining away implausible occurrences, questioning official viewpoints, or advancing political positions. More than 46 years following the tragedy that occurred about five miles from our campus, nearly half of all Americans still believe that John F. Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy. They cannot bring themselves to believe that a lone nebbish, a losers’ loser the likes of Lee Harvey Oswald could have been responsible for extinguishing Camelot and its young, charismatic president who, together with his telegenic family, had captivated America and much of the free world. In the eyes of these conspiracy theorists, forces much greater and more sinister (e.g. the Mafia, the CIA, the FBI, Lyndon B. Johnson, the Cuban government or any combination of the above) must have been responsible for one of the most tragic episodes in our history. This in spite of the absence of any credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald was the culprit. Incredible as it may seem, there are those who maintain that the Apollo moon landings of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s were staged on a giant Hollywood-like set to give the impression that men had actually walked on the moon. Many suggesting American complicity in 9/11 would not believe George W. Bush if he claimed that the sun rose in the east and set in the west.
While our constitution gives us the right to promote whatever goofy notions come to our minds, it is incumbent upon the rational electorate to reject those candidates whose judgments are as unsound as those recently on display in both gubernatorial primaries. Texas voters should do their duty next Tuesday by voting for the candidate of their choice–except for anyone named Medina or Shami.
Nathan Mitzner is a junior risk management insurance major. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].
