“Epic One-Woman Filibuster Blocks Radical Anti-Abortion Legislation In Texas” – ThinkProgress
“Sen. Wendy Davis mounted a successful old-school, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style filibuster to stop a bill dramatically restricting women’s access to abortion” – CNN
“No words seemed to do justice to the hundreds of thousands of gut-wrenching, careful syllables Senator Davis spoke, unaided, as she made her way through hours of filibustering this myopic legislation” – The Huffington Post
These are just a few of the compliments that the mainstream media and left wing bloggers showered on Wendy Davis in the aftermath of her now famous (or infamous?) filibuster. At the time, Davis was a fairly unknown state senator from Fort Worth who harnessed her charisma and communication skills and spoke her way into the spotlight.
Today, Davis is no longer that little known senator with strong convictions and pink tennis shoes. Today she is a candidate for governor of the second largest state in the union.
The left has hailed Davis as the long awaited democratic gubernatorial candidate who actually might have a shot. But is Davis really the strong, tough, progressive leader they’ve been waiting for?
If she is, why did she sue a newspaper in 1997 citing mental health damage due to an op-ed criticizing her campaign strategy? The Editorial was published by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and focused on negative campaigning by Davis in a 1996 city council election. Davis distributed fliers informing voters that her opponent had failed the Tennessee bar exam several times before passing it. What Davis failed to mention is that her opponent had earned a doctorate, spoke three languages and attended Harvard Law School.
In 2000, the case was dismissed in a 3-0 decision by the Texas 5th Court of Appeals. The court expressed that they “cannot conclude a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive the statements as defamatory.”
True libel is a crime and is wrong. But true libel occurs when a falsity is published that damages an individual’s reputation. The key word there is falsity. Damage to a reputation alone is not grounds for libel. A free press allows journalists to publish the truth, even if it isn’t flattering to a politician. Essentially, Davis’s feelings were hurt because she said mean things about someone and then was called out for it. Liberal logic.
When you put yourself in the spotlight people will critique you, Senator Davis, and if you don’t like that perhaps you should forfeit your political ambitions. Is it conceivable that Davis really was offended by the piece? Sure, but she comes out looking like a bully who can dish it out but can’t take it. If we turned to lawsuits every time our egos were damaged, many of us would spend our entire lives in and out of the courtroom.
Senator Davis’s lawsuit is indicative of her politically correct ideology. The argument goes something like this, “If I don’t like your opinion, I have the right to silence it.” How very inclusive and tolerant! Davis’s brand of cantankerous, ultra-sensitive liberalism has no place in the capitol of a state like Texas.
So why should the average liberty-loving American care what Davis says or does? Texas is a seemingly solid red state and this election isn’t exactly in the forefront of most people’s minds right now. It’s easy to write her off as a summer sensation that will fizzle out in the red sea that is Texas politics. The source of donations that poured in during the days following the filibuster suggest that such a prediction seems reasonable. By the end of June, Davis received 15,290 donations and only about 4,900 were from Texans. This means about 68% of Davis’s initial wave of donations came from outside of Texas. While the battle may very well already be lost for Senator Davis, liberals across the country evidently don’t seem to think so.
Democrats nationwide are invested in this election because they get it. They fully understand what’s at stake. A Davis victory could set the stage for a blue or at least purple Texas, a dream they’ve had since Ann Richards moved out of the mansion in 1995.
Are the goals of Battleground Texas and Organizing for Action finally going to reach fruition come November 4th, 2014? Could the future of Texas have a lot less Abbott and Cruz and a lot more Davis and Castro?
While the GOP chorus assures constituents that there is no need to worry, poll numbers may suggest otherwise. Attorney General Abbott, the leading GOP contender is only leading Davis by single digits.
It’s too soon to tell if the left can successfully pull this off, but I will say this, and I don’t make this type of prediction lightly, if Texas turns blue the Republicans will not win another national election for a very long time. If the democrats gain Texas’s 38 electoral votes and add them to the traditionally blue states, a GOP victory is simply mathematically impossible.
Wendy Davis’s election as governor would foster a new norm in Texas. We must be alert to the reality of what would befall us if we were to ever lose the state that has become a beacon of hope to conservatives across America. Texas is a fertile ground for strong values, fiscal responsibility, job growth, and gun rights. There are endlessly wonderful things about this state and it’s diverse population but Wendy Davis could change all of that. Come 2014, a Governor Davis would not just be an issue for the lone star state but for the entire country. If Texas turns blue, we all turn blue.