Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Wendy Davis Surfaces

In two recent interviews, the defeated Democrat discusses what went wrong in 2014.

By Comments

Ap | Eric Gay

When last we saw Wendy Davis in the media spotlight, she was conceding the governor’s race on election night, having lost to Greg Abbott by 20 points.

Since then the former city council member and state senator from Fort Worth has remained mostly out of public view, as is customary for losing candidates and especially those who lose so decisively.

But this week we’ve seen the beginning of Davis’s public reemergence, in friendly interviews with Rolling Stone and MSNBC.

So, what has she been up to? Davis is reportedly launching some kind of effort to get more young women involved in politics. But the headline quote from the Rolling Stone interview was about the future: “I do hope to run again. … I have no particular path in mind at this point. I am simply keeping myself open for opportunities that make sense.”

I suppose that isn’t surprising. Politicians are often reluctant to rule out another run for office. Still, unless she wants to serve in the Texas House or return to the Fort Worth City Council, it’s not clear what race she could plausibly enter. Even her old Texas Senate seat—now held by Republican Konni Burton—would be a tough win for her. Running for governor again or another statewide office would seem a fool’s errand. At the moment, Davis’s political prospects in Texas are pretty bleak.

But the quote in Davis’s Rolling Stone interview that really caught my eye was this one (italics are mine):

There are several things I would do differently. When you get into a race of that magnitude – and it was my first experience on a platform of that magnitude – you tend to have to rely on a team of people around you to help shape everything you do, from your day-to-day logistics to your speeches to your priorities and your messaging. And I felt like as the months ticked by, my voice was getting lost. I can’t really – and certainly don’t – point fingers at anyone for that. It just happens to be a side effect of that size of an organization, and the quickness with which we had to put an organization like that together. But I do believe that women wanted to hear more from me on that issue. We sort of assumed, well, everyone knows where I stand on choice and on reproductive autonomy – let’s move on to other issues so they can see the other priorities I have as well, like public education, for example. But I think people really did want to hear more about [reproductive rights] in the election, and I certainly want to talk about it. It’s been one of the most freeing parts of losing the election and not being an office-holder or a candidate right now: I can focus on exactly the things that matter to me, and spend my energies doing that.

Davis isn’t the first candidate whose voice got lost in a campaign—whose actions and statements seemed to contradict who they were and what they stood for before the race. In fact, it seems to happen quite often to losing candidates, especially those running their first statewide or national race.

It happened to Rick Perry. In 2011 a voter in Iowa asked Perry to name the books that have shaped his life, and the candidate talked about Friedrich Hayek, who famously wrote “The Road to Serfdom.” I’m sure that’s perfectly fine reading material, but does anyone really think that Hayek shaped Perry’s life or wrote his favorite book? Of course not. Instead of giving a human answer, he went with what was en vogue at the time, what he thought might poll well, what his consultants probably told him meshed with his campaign message. It was clear then that Perry was finished.

We saw it happen to Davis too. In the fall of 2013, just weeks after declaring her candidacy and months after her famous filibuster, Davis suddenly stopped using the word “abortion.” At times she had to contort her rhetoric to avoid saying the word—even when talking about women’s health issues. (This happened most hilariously when Davis gave a speech marking the one-year anniversary of the filibuster, which in the Davis campaign’s revisionist history, wasn’t about abortion but about taking on “Austin insiders.”)

It seemed clear that some consultant had decided abortion didn’t play well in Texas, so the word itself became verboten.

Now, I’m not saying Davis should have made abortion a central part of her campaign. Abortion was never going to be her main issue. That’s not the point. But it’s rather incredible that she wouldn’t even use the word—as if Texans would suddenly forget Davis’s position if she never used the A-word.

Davis always faced long odds. There was little she could have done to win the race. But if you’re likely going to lose, why not lose being true to who you are?

She shouldn’t have been afraid to talk about abortion. From the Rolling Stone quotes, it seems she now realizes that.

Why do candidates subjugate themselves to consultants? Campaign staffers are supposed to help take what a candidate wants to say and figure out how best to say it, package it and sell it, and whom to say it to. The best candidates know who they are, know why they’re running and what they want to say. Ted Cruz in 2012 is a good example.

But when candidates let consultants go beyond messaging and strategy, and allow consultants to tell them what to say and what not to say, well, that’s the first sign a campaign is doomed.

Why does this happen? Why do smart, accomplished politicians allow their campaign staff to obscure their voice? Is it a lack of confidence or rookie mistakes? It baffles me. (If you commenters have any theories—or first-hand experiences—on this, I’d love to hear them.)

Meanwhile, if Davis does run for office again, perhaps she’ll do things a little differently next time.

Related Content

  • Asshattery

    Battleground Texas did Wendy Davis in. And they did so in so many ways, not just in taking 50% of her campaign donations off the top.

    • WUSRPH

      I am not sure of just what roll Battleground played in her campaign….Did it actually get into the decisions on campaign strategy, tactics and issues or did it concentrate on registration and GOTV? If she let it direct her in the former, she made a major mistake.

      • Vik Verma

        Battleground Texas was basically the field campaign

        • WUSRPH

          Then they might be due some of the blame for the way that turned out, but that would not make them responsible for the way Ms. Davis ran her campaign….But it is always nice to have someone else to blame….Helps you sleep better.

          Based on her own comments (as reported above) she was like Rick Perry in 2012—in over her head in something for which she was not year ready.

  • Roland Ramirez

    I also think she allowed Battleground Texas get too involved, they were from Texas and didn’t know about Texas politics. I think when she does run again for office she’ll have more if not total control of her campaign. She shouldn’t shy away, that’s how politics are becoming now. It’s working for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Donald’s leading his parties polls and Sanders is gaining in his. Whether we agree with either side we gotta admit, it’s working for them.

  • ThelmaTodd

    She’s a crazy idiot, that’s what really went wrong.

    • Sky Mirror

      And that would make her unique in Texas politics?

  • WUSRPH

    It is fairly clear that Ms. Davis would have felt better about her campaign (and perhaps even its outcome) had she made more of an issue of “reproductive freedom”, however, it is even clearer had she done so, it would have made no difference in the outcome of the election. Her position on that issue was well-known and was continually referred to in the media reports of the campaign, whether she talked about it or not.

    Her basic problem was that she never had a chance in the first place. The political trends in Texas are just too strong the other way for any Democratic candidate to win on the statewide level…..and that included more than qualified candidates such as Mike Collier who among other things won the support of most of the state’s major newspapers.

    The “best campaign” Ms. Davis could have run would have been an “educational campaign” in which she talked about both the advantages that Texas enjoys AND the major problems it faces that threaten its future. She would have lost none-the-less, but she might have moved a percentage or two closer as part of the long-long-term effort that is going to be required to break the GOP stranglehold on major offices in Texas.

    Of course, the multi-millions spent against her (much of it not readily observable but thru this medium) made it almost impossible for her to even get the attention of most voters. As such, she spent a good deal of the campaign just trying to suggest to the voters that there might be some reason for them not to consider Abbott….but to consider someone else instead. The effort also failed.

    Some suggest that Ms. Davis’s attacks on Abbot actually hurt her campaign. I tend to doubt it, although I must admit that during the campaign I advocated on this blog a campaign that included attacks on Abbott’s record and positions….however, I also said it had to be balanced with “and this is what I would do” …..The sad reality is that none of my suggestions or those by JJ and others would have made any difference.

    • Unwound

      she would have lost regardless, but she might have been able to close the gap some had she run a smarter campaign

      • WUSRPH

        I am just not sure that anything could have improved the outcome much. Things were just too stacked against the Democrats…including the touching personal story of the GOP candidate. She might have been able to educate, but I still think there would have not been that much difference in the vote… maybe a percentage point or two. And, I think concentrating on reproductive freedom would have not even accomplished that. She got the vote of all those who make pro-choice their priority issue. It is possible that she could have made it a top priority issue for more but not enough to make any difference.

      • Jed

        she would have lost worse if she talked about abortion.

        still say she should have run for us senate (where as a bonus that is a non-topic).

        • Unwound

          im not saying talking about abortion would have helped at all, to the contrary. but her campaign was poorly run regardless

    • John Johnson

      Wendy needed moderate Repub’s and Independents to vote for her as those in Senate District 10 did twice. They did not.

      During the campaign, had these people shown early on, through polls and public addresses that they were supporting her, apathetic and passive Dem voters might have gotten fired up.

      Her filibuster might have energized the hardcore abortion advocates, but while vocal, this group is also relatively small. Battleground Texas took this devisive campaign message to the masses and ignored all the core reasons that people in Dist 10 loved her…her history of protecting the Texas consumer, regardless of political persuasion. Since the “proof is in the pudding”, all they had to do was point out the bills she had filed during her two terms in office. They were comprehensive, timely, neither “liberal” nor “conservative”, and because the Repub’s did not want her star growing any brighter, they squashed most every one of them.

      Residing in Dist. 10, I had big hopes for her and supported her aggressively. They were crushed by her decision to ride abortion to the forefront. I think many of us ran back toward the “conservative” side when this happened. Lobing gay rights or abortion grenades into the middle of moderates, who have come together from both sides to find a way to assimilate, quickly sends all sprinting back toward their respective bunkers.

      This is what Wendy’s filibuster did. If you check her record, she never once, up to that point, ever initiated so much as a word out of her office I am aware of regarding either gay rights or abortion.

      I hope she does run again. I think she has much to offer. This time, I want her to once again find her own voice and stick to the issues that made her so popular to the diverse constituents in her senate district.

      • JJ surely you realize Windy’s abortion filibuster hurt her with voters.
        She knew it and refused to say the word abortion at the end of the campaign.
        You have to know the DNC through battleground Texas was orchestrating their agenda through her campaign and it cost her.

        • John Johnson

          No doubt about it. She should have stayed away from abortion, gay rights, and anything having to do with Obama, Pelosi, Reid or Kerry. In Texas, standing too close to any of these means certain political death.

          • WUSRPH

            But from her own comments she wanted to run on reproductive rights…..not the way you wanted….she felt it was that important.

          • John Johnson

            No, she didn’t “want to”. She might be saying that now because of where she wants to go from here, but back then “she did not want to”.

            The filibuster thing fell into her lap. Dewhurst was pushing his agenda, Zaffarini and Davis fought it. They tried to compromise, but Dewhurst would have none of it. Davis was the Dem’s shining light and she held up the banner. She never would have except for the fact that she was convinced by others that this was her “opening”…the Dem’s opening….and her opportunity to jump into the spotlight.

            If it was so important to her before all this, we would have heard her say so…she would have been fighting the Republican’s efforts to totally clamp down on abortions the years she served as Senator. Nary a word from her on this topic….until Dewhurst shoved it in their faces.

          • WUSRPH

            You give other Democrats too much credit for Ms. Davis’s actions…The decision to filibuster was hers alone…..Many Democratic senators did not want her to filibuster as it would simply force a special session which could end no other way than with the passage of the anti-choice bill. My sources in the Capitol have told me that both of her filibusters were against the advice of a majority of her Democratic colleagues. You act like she was pushed into doing something… She made a free choice….HER CHOICE.

          • Jed

            if she hadn’t done those filibusters, we wouldn’t be talking about her at all. except as another state senator.

            is this the implicit claim here? that she would be better off as a state senator? i bet she would disagree.

            also, too, a filibuster can serve symbolic value, even if the numbers are irrevocably against you. her constituents should expect no less. win or lose, davis made two significant statements about issues that are central to the democratic platform when no one else was doing much of anything.

          • WUSRPH

            Agree, without the filibuster she might still be a middle-rank state senator, especially since her record on passing major issues was weak. (Maybe it was the issues; maybe it was a combination of things, but it is true). The filibusters made her known and gave her a chance to move up…They accomplished nothing in legislative terms. The fact that she made them was important both for the issues and for her political status. Had she been willing to be a worker-senator for the long-term she might not have made them since they, in some ways, poisoned her relationship with a number of senators from both parties.

          • WUSRPH

            In my experience around the Leg. members introduce three different categories of bills:
            —–bills they realistically expect to pass (often local or somewhat minor bills or, if not, something with strong public and political support);
            —-measures they would like to pass but which they know will be very difficult (often major changes in a program or “consumer protection” type bills); and
            —-bill they know have no or virtually no chance to pass that they introduce either to “make a statement” and “draw attention to a cause” OR because they want to curry favor with groups who support the measures and create a political image for themselves.
            When a member consistently introduces a large number of the third category, other members begin to question such thing as the bill filers’s :
            —political common sense and ability to see what is possible; and/or
            —the possibility that the filer is more interested in the publicity and political brownie points they can rack up then passing legislation.

            Such a member is often thought to be more of “a show horse” than a “work horse” and is not thought of too highly by their colleagues.
            I will leave it at that.

          • Jed

            you would rather she implemented the democratic agenda through legislation, rather than symbolic statements? me too. but there’s the small matter of the party being a superminority in both chambers …

            come on.

          • WUSRPH

            I will let the numbers tell you which of categories of senators she fell within—work horse or show horse—someone who wants to get something done or someone is more concerned with PR.
            —-Davis was one of 7 senators who introduced over 100 bills in her last session….BUT
            —-Davis was number 30 out of 31 in the percentage of her bills actually heard by Senate committees. (2nd lowest).
            —-Only 37 of her bills were heard by Senate committees, only 23 were reported by those panels.
            —JJ would tell to tell you that her failure to get hearings on more than two/thirds of the bills she introduced was because GOP chairs were trying to hurt her political career….BUT
            —Davis had the same problem with getting hearings when the chair was a Democrat (Whitmore gave her hearings on 3 out of 11 referred to his committee; Zaffirini did not give her a hearing) and was treated best by Van de Putt, Deuell, Taylor and PATRICK.)
            Virtually all of her bills that were not heard were the kind of measures that JJ finds to be of most value—and virtually all of them were DEAD upon filing as anyone who had worked in the Senate for 30 days could have predicted.
            Does this suggest the record of a senator who is seriously trying to pass legislation or is it the record of one who either just wants to make gestures and symbolic statements or, I would hate to say, is it the record of a senator who is more interested in the PR obtained from filing measures that have no chance of passage for the political gain and brownie points that can earn them?

          • John Johnson

            All of Davis’ bills were comprehensive and on-the-mark. Lower utility bills?
            Lower insurance rates? More oversight? Vet aid? Equal pay for women? Have you
            ever looked at them?

            Rep. leaders like Sen Fraser hated Davis. Who else
            in the Dem ranks was getting press and raising Dem hopes? You don’t let a tiger
            out of its cage; puddy cats are allowed to roam free. Regardless of merit,
            nothing she proposed was going to get consideration.

            Furthermore, I
            marvel at your condemnation of someone doing what they think is right, even
            though their efforts stand scant chance of being successful. This is more of the
            “go along to get along” attitude you espouse; more of the “do it our way…do it
            the old way…this is how we do it” philosophy you constantly push as
            “proper”.

            Why do you think people are fed up, Mr. Expert? You just don’t
            get it.

          • WUSRPH

            I just let the numbers speak for themselves. Sorry you did not like the story they tell.

            Making a gesture or filing a bill to promote a cause is fine….even when you know it has no chance of passage. My bosses did it many times. BUT filing bills with the primary purpose being PR and brownie points is not.

            The important distinction is between working legislators doing all that is possible to promote the public good as they see it and show horses whose major concern is their own political advancement.

            The GOP had just as much reason to want to hurt VDP as she was much more frequently spoken of as a potential statewide candidate….but somehow she got more than 50% of her bills heard.

            Of course, blaming others for not passing bills that you knew were never going to pass is a perfect way to build your image as a fighting progressive.

            P.S. BYW Fraser, who is the villain in your little excuse, actually treated Ms. Davis better than several other committee chairs. He heard 40% of the her bills referred to his committee (2 of 5) and reported both. Even Patrick heard 46%. But the big bad Republicans were out to get her. Duncan, the least partisan of the Republican chairs, on the other hand heard only two of the 10 bills by Davis referred to his committee. I guess he really had it in for her.

          • John Johnson

            I repeat. None of her bills were fluff. The reason she submitted more than others is because she hit the ground running, unlike so many who get there and don’t know squat. Frazer made sexist, condescending comments to Davis, and is the reason I singled him out. There were others as I alluded to. You and your pedant ways have to add on something that adds nothing to the argument. She was treated poorly because she was smart and capable and being talked about, along with the San Antonio twins as the next, best hope. VDP was in the secondary tier. I also find it odd that you old establishment types just don’t get it. Party affiliation makes no difference either. You, a Dem, are defending the status quo, just like all the Repub dinosaurs in DC are doing now against the TP’ers and Cruz. The public is rallying around them. You can’t see it; you don’t understand it. You are one of them.

          • WUSRPH

            I never said any of her bills were fluff. Most were not. They were just DOA and she knew it when she filed them.

            I have to be careful not to go to a horse auction with you when we are looking for a good, steady work animal. You clearly will fall for the Show Horse every time.

          • John Johnson

            That’s what you think people want in a politician??? A plodding, workhorse? They want someone that does their bidding and is smart enough to do it without a bit in their mouth or constant observation. A smart horse; a loyal horse; an independent horse. That’s why Davis was so popular with her constituents. You, on the other hand, like the Brimer and Frazer and Whitmire types who are members of the “Dear Old Fraternity” which you were part of for so many years. It must really irk you to see the general population catching on to how this has all worked for so long and showing their disdain for it in current polls. You can’t see it; you can’t smell it; you are part of it. Accept it. It’s the truth.

          • WUSRPH

            A show horse is one in it for themselves who carefully nurtures the image of being all you describe. You feel for the PR snow job but cannot admit it…You thought she was the answer to the world’s problems. Well, they don’t get solved by the show horses…..what progress that is made is made by those who are more than an image…Never had any use for Brimer or Fraser and only on occasion for Whitmire…Again you make assumptions that are straight out of your bias and not based on any facts.

          • John Johnson

            My point is, Blowhard, that you are in love with the system. A stinky, broken, inefficient, system. I did like Davis, and when she veered off course, I broadcast my objections here, and to her personally. Not sure why you have such a sorry attitude about her. Maybe it is just because I have stated that I supported her, and why an eclectic group of people in Dist 10 liked her, too. That doesn’t register with you. She was an anomaly. She didn’t fit the mold; she didn’t go-along-to-get-along…she was a trouble maker. Didn’t kowtow. Caused some poor old legislators to have to come back for a special session. Rocked the boat. Didn’t kiss butt. That’s why I like her; why you dislike her. It is why I really don’t respect you very much…a storehouse full of knowledge with a bloated sense of self, and a rose colored, myopic view of a system that stinks and needs cleaning up. That about sums it up from this end. Tag on if you must. I’m through.

          • WUSRPH

            I had not much use for her because she was so clearly a manufactured image and a show horse. You bought the image. People who had to work around her soon saw thru it. If you have to have someone to believe in there are a lot more authentic people you could consider. As to my being in love with the system. I respect the system when it functions the way it was designed to…I disdain it when—as in Washington DC today—it is distorted by factionalism and political opportunism. But, unlike you, I still believe in representational government with all its flaws.

          • John Johnson

            Go away. You just don’t get it. You are blind to it. You are part of it. You are proud of it. You shouldn’t be. We, too, believe in “representational government”, however the “flaws” you refer to have invaded the entire system and made it corrupt and dysfunctional. Time to clean up; time to get to a point where “Everyone does it” is not an acceptable excuse.

          • WUSRPH

            It is remarkable how much like the Troll you are becoming every day—especially when it comes to making up things that other people are supposed to have said. Once more and for the very, very last time since it is a waste of good time…I have never said that “everyone does it” is an excuse for anything despite your repeated totally false claims that I have. What I have done is explain how things were done….not excuse them. You, however, are congenitally unable to distinguish between an explanation and an excuse. And you will continue to be……I challenge you to find any such occurrence in any of my posts.

          • John Johnson

            Hahaha. You defended Paul when he defended Ogden with that excuse years ago, and have used it several times yourself, by responding with “so and so did it back in ’09”. That is “advocating” in my book. As for slobbering over Wendy, you seem to forget that I am just a single vote in Dist 10. She was elected twice when you and Paul were predicting defeat. She could have won it a 3rd time. Her constituents from her city council days liked her, too. She kept us apprised, was not beholding to special interests, and gave us nothing not to like. She made mistakes in her campaign for Gov. I say her biggest was listening to others and changing her message. You just want to argue because you don’t like me. If, right now, I said this print is black, I would get a debate out of you. Knock it off.

          • WUSRPH

            Again you make up things people are supposed to have said….I made no prediction at any time about Ms. Davis’ races in her district. Whenever I was asked I said I did not know enough about the district to be able to make a judgment. However, I do question whether she could have been re-elected a third time. The district had been changed specifically to make it much harder for her to win….That is one reason why she was looking around for something else to run for…

            Of course, she kept you apprised…..any good politician does that….a show horse does it even better because it is going to be virtually all they can point to when the time to count up positive achievements comes.

            As to whether the type face is black.. .If you say so.
            As to your congenital inability to distinguish between an excuse and an explanation….I doubt it is curable…but I don’t intend to live with it so it really makes no difference to me.

            As to whether I do or do not “like you”….I have never thought about it…..I exchange with you…that is the extent of our “relationship” like or dislike do not come into it.

            Good bye.

          • John Johnson

            Finally!

          • John Johnson

            Well, she made a choice, no doubt it, but Texas Dem’s were not who I was talking about. Cecile Richards, whatcamacallit at Anne’s List? and folks from the DNC had more to do with it than anyone you reference IMHO. I am still in touch with her, on occasion, but we have not discussed this. I’ll ask her.

          • WUSRPH

            never mind

          • John Johnson

            Yeah, that was a stupid question.

          • WUSRPH

            not really. I believe in personal responsibility. If she decided to do something, it makes no difference who “encouraged” her. The responsibility—and the blame—belongs solely to her. The same applies to all of us when we make decisions.

          • John Johnson

            Where are you going with this? I said right after the filibuster that she made a mistake.

          • WUSRPH

            But you also tend to attribute her decision to make that filibuster on the encouragement she got from others and you have blamed the running of her campaign on her advisers, etc.

          • John Johnson

            I have always said she made a mistake in listening to the wrong people and getting involved with the abortion issue, and for not sticking with her established issue priority pattern. You want to simply say it was all on her and had nothing to do with outside influences. I don’t care to continue rehashing this.

          • wessexmom

            Wendy Davis never would have run for governor in the first place if not for “the abortion issue” and her related filibuster! And she made a huge mistake by listening to her handlers and not making women’s access to repro healthcare in general a big part of her campaign. It’s what brought her to that point and her base of women supporters were disappointed.

          • John Johnson

            You know what I will continue to question about your “it’s OK…it’s been done that way for a long time” reasoning? You give all of us a prime example here of what I have been railing about for years, and what you are hearing from many these days…including Jed earlier today. A statesman, or stateswoman, does not kowtow to pressure, or “go-along-to-get-along”. They follow their convictions as Jimmy Stewart did in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. You might want to go back and watch it again. Who’s playing your part in that movie?

          • WUSRPH

            Harey Carey.

          • John Johnson

            See above.

          • John Johnson

            Nope, that doesn’t fit at all. He cheered what Stewart was doing; you just criticized Davis for not listening to those who wanted to make nice, not make waves, and avoid the inconvenience of a special session. Obviously, you see yourself differently from how others do.

          • Indiana Pearl

            She lost the batlle, but her cause will win the war. Americans don’t want a theocracy.

          • WUSRPH

            The problem is that many Americans also do not want to see “babies killed” and are very easy to influence with the kind of propaganda now being used against Planned Parenthood. Most favor pro-choice “in principle” but many are bothered by it “in action” especially when it is pictured in a distorted and explicit way.. The theocrats are able to use this to their advantage.

          • don76550

            I think you mean pro abortion. Pro choice is inaccurate since the murdered baby never had a choice

          • WUSRPH

            Pro-choice accurately reflects that one favors letting a woman make her own choices….anti-choice wants to substitute the state for her conscience and decision making abilities.

          • don76550

            Again, what was the baby’s choice? People like you will tell any lie to achieve your goal of murdering a baby.

          • wessexmom

            Here’s an idea: ALL the men who pontificate about de-funding PP, restricting access to abortion and eliminating contraception coverage should have to bear ALL the unwanted babies in the world–Seriously, If we can put a man on the moon we should be able to put a womb in a man, by golly!
            Until then, STOP TALKING! Unless, that is, you are PERSONALLY willing to spend the time and money required to feed, clothe,house and educate one of these babies for 18 years.
            If you really want to run on returning to a time when women were denied access to birth control and abortion (which is legal, by the way) then by all means, BRING IT ON! Seriously. you’ll never know what hit you.

          • don76550

            No lady, we are not going to stop talking about souless moral invalids committing infanticide. I see no difference between you butchering babies and Nazis butchering Jews.

          • wessexmom

            Whether you talk or don’t talk, you’re not going to repeal ROE v. WADE. Period. American women won’t stand for it and you can’t win a presidential race in this country without their vote. That’s the facts JACK; Jill has spoken.

          • don76550

            How unfortunate your mother didn’t share your murderous views. Then you would have been in a garbage can where you belong.

          • Fantasy Maker

            Propaganda or would that be an irrefutable fact ?

          • WUSRPH

            Lot of differences between a fetus and a baby….One, for example, can survive outside, the other cannot.

          • Fantasy Maker

            Medical technology has advanced eons since Roe V Wade

          • WUSRPH

            There is still a point before which the fetus is not viable…it may be sooner than it was in 1972, but it still exists.

          • Vik Verma

            She stayed away from all of that, with the exception of gay rights. As for abortion, the filibuster was going to tie to that regardless

          • John Johnson

            My point was that she stayed away from it for all the years she was in public office…until Dewhurst pushed abortion at the end of the session.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Was that a plan on Dewhurst’s part to force her hand?

          • John Johnson

            Not necessarily hers…not even Democrats, per se. It was more about him firing up his base, I would think. The filibuster was an ancillary result.

          • WUSRPH

            Dewhurst had promised the anti-choice groups that the Senate would pass the bill.. He was concerned about how it would affect him in a contested primary (including with Patgrick) if he failed. Plus some of his consultants (relatively poor ones in my view) had told him that there was no guarantee that the governor would call a special session if anti-choice was the only issue. That is why he made sure that the other two important pending bills were not passed before abortion was taken up. If they also did not pass it would force the governor to call a special and give him another chance with the anti-choice groups. Her fellow senators tried (successfully) to cut off the filibuster in order to give the Senate time to get to the other bills before midnight….but the chaos in the chamber and on the Floor made that impossible.

          • Indiana Pearl

            As I recall, Dewhurst played fast and loose with the timer and ignored LVP. This makes constituents very cross.

          • WUSRPH

            A minor parliamentary point…If I remember correctly (and my memory is failing) the previous question had been moved. That cuts off all debate, including recognizing LVP. The proper procedure was then to proceed immediately to a vote. That was what the Chair was trying to do….And, yes, there was some uncertainty about the clock…..All in all, a disgraceful performance by the majority of the senators, GOP and Democratic alike. The whole night was mishandled….It is one that those times that those talking about the procedures and policies of the Senate to new members and staffs will completely ignore in their remarks and, if asked about it, will express distaste for everything that happened. That is not the way it is supposed to do

          • Indiana Pearl

            We are in free fall for the next couple of years.

          • don76550

            Being against the gun rights of Texans didn’t help her at all. We vote on that issue.

          • John Johnson

            Yep…against it and then for it if I remember correctly. She made mistakes. No doubt it.

    • don76550

      Only to a democrat does “reproductive freedom” equal murdering a baby.

  • Voters are tired of being lied to by the democrat party.

    “Today’s Democrats are liars.”

    http://www.wbdaily.com/uncategorized/americans-must-face-fact-todays-democratic-party-evil/

    • Kozmo

      ZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz…..

      • TexBear

        Charliey right. Voters dont want lies from Democrats. They want lies from Republicans. Funny voters!

        • Yes that is exactly what the article said. Obviously you cannot read or spell.

          • WUSRPH

            As usual, you distort the figures and rely on a source known for its slant….I used the same data source, from the year before, to show that more than 40% of those coming to Texas were coming from states as conservative or more conservative than Texas—hardly a great flow of those fleeing liberalism. In fact, less than 4% came from the liberal Northeast, where the conditions you incorrectly describe are alleged to be most prevalent.

          • Indiana Pearl

            It’s about equal – Texans are moving to California vs. Californians moving to Texans.

          • WUSRPH

            You are right…both states are the source of the largest number of immigrants from a single state to move to the other state. We wind up with a few more of them but they get plenty from us. You are one of those rare ones as less than 2% (1.66%) of the people moving to Texas in the year I sampled came from Indiana.

          • Indiana Pearl

            This is an article, somewhat simplistic, that shows the shifts:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/upshot/the-growing-blue-state-diaspora.html

          • WUSRPH

            The more simplistic the better for the Troll.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Thinking is hard.

          • Jed

            well there are 49 other states. so 2% give or take is about right.

    • Jed

      pretty sure that website is a parody.

      right?

  • Kozmo

    I hope she runs for public office again. We could use her voice back in the Lege. Perhaps she’ll consider going back to her roots and work on behalf of the people of Ft. Worth. As someone weighing a move there from Austin, I’d sure appreciate having her as my representative, senator, or councilwoman.

  • Indiana Pearl

    My grand daughter attended the statehouse rally for Wendy when she was three years old. She is the new face of Texas. Get ready.

    • Jed

      you mean the filibuster rally?

      i was lucky to be there, but didn’t get into the chamber.

      closest i’ve ever been to democracy …

      • Indiana Pearl

        Yup, with her parents. Despite reports to the contrary, no human waste products were thrown.

        • WUSRPH

          Ah, you cut the Troll off from making that charge before he could do it……He will believe it anyway…or at least say he does.

          • Indiana Pearl

            There were lots of families there.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Could it be compared to the Cruz government shut down that cost tax payers $25 billion?

            Hold onto your wallets, folks. Cruz is about to cheat you again.

          • Jed

            yeah there were kids all over the place. i’ve never understood why so many people are so quick to condemn what was essentially a peaceful protest in the capitol building. not sure why that isn’t a good thing, considering what usually goes on there.

          • yawl talking about when democrats threw a temper tantrum laying on their backs, stomping their feet and crying at the top of their lungs until it costs the tax payers a special session?
            I believe the voters spoke about how they felt about such childish actions costing them millions in a special session when they went to the polls and voted against Windy.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I’ll believe first-person reports.

      • WUSRPH

        Hate to disagree…but I thought BOTH the Senate and the audience (sic) disgraced themselves that night.

  • The prez sezs to Hillary…

    “Obama then responded, “There is nothing I can do for you one way or another. Things have been set in motion, and I can’t and won’t interfere. Your problems are, frankly, of your own making. If you had been honest . . .”

    http://joeforamerica.com/2015/09/hillary-obama-call-off-fing-dogs/#

    My question is, “can democrats not lie?”

  • Dems lose a friend in John Boehner, lemme see who;s gonna replace him? How about Tx Rep Louie Gohmert?

    http://gohmert.house.gov/

  • I’m fairly certain Windy lost because she’s a dem, not because she was a woman or incompetent or a liar simply because she was a dem.

  • don76550

    Wendy Davis did Wendy Davis in. Real Texans want no part of what this left wing looney tune stands for. Now the liberal democrat whackos can whine, moan, pee their pants all they want to but when Texas voters seen what she stood for she lost by a substantial margin. Good Riddance.

  • Phredde

    Maybe, just maybe, what helped doom Davis was that she was exposed to the voters as a hypocrite and a user. Her “mom clawing her way through Harvard” narrative blew up, as did her “lived in a trailer with her daughter after her first divorce” story. She might be a brilliant lawyer, and she was the Left’s darling. But some folks look askance at someone who goes to Harvard on the dime of a second husband, who raises your daughters while you’re at school, and then you leave him the day after he pays off the last of your Harvard loans – with money that he got by cashing in his 401k accounts. There are names for people like that. They aren’t nice names, and such people don’t endear themselves to the voters. Just a theory as to part of the reason why her support dropped like a rock once the truth seeped out.

    • Jed

      not a very convincing theory, but it is vicious, so there’s that.

      did her support drop like a rock, or was it always essentially right at the 40%+/-3 democrat number? is there really anything to diagnose? she is a democrat, she lost like every other democrat.

      her only sin was in not completely and singlehandedly reinventing texas politics in a year …

      • Phredde

        And you don’t provide a convincing critique of my theory. You describe it as “vicious,” but what facts that I presented are not demonstrably true? She did spin exactly the narrative I described. When her narrative was fact-checked, it fell apart. Vicious or not, that is what happened. Then Davis, a Harvard-educated attorney, tried to blunt the issue by saying, effectively, that she should have been more precise. Looking up Davis’s actual words is left for an exercise for the reader. More precision would have meant telling the truth, and the truth was not very appealing as a story of victory over hardship.

        To say that her only sin was not reinventing Texas politics suggests a refusal to acknowledge that, just every once in a while, voters expect their leaders to have a modicum of personal integrity. I would offer Hillary’s current nosedive even among her own Democratic supporters as another example of the phenomenon. Again, just a theory.

  • Jay Trainor

    Wendy, as a once strong supporter of yours, let me urge you to find something else to do besides politics. Your campaign was a disaster; poorly planned. poorly managed and you distorted your past – leaving Wayne to beat you up but the Abbot folks would have anyway.

    You had your shot. There’s more to life than politics. Best of luck.

  • Fantasy Maker

    What went wrong is she supports killing of babies, period.