Wendy Davis 2008: “There’s value in sitting back and reflecting on your own shortcomings.”
That was good advice then, and even better advice now, as she attacks others for exposure of her misleading narrative.
On November 9, 2008, The Fort Worth Star Telegram ran a profile of Wendy Davis after her election to the State Senate, A confident fighter, Wendy Davis enters a new chapter in her political life: state senator. The full article is not available online, but I found it in a database.
The article was a fairly pedestrian account of Davis’ political history, but included two interesting parts (emphasis added):
She transferred to Texas Christian University , where she met her second husband, Jeff Davis , who had served on the Fort Worth City Council in the 1970s. Jeff Davis was on the board of Stage West, where Wendy Davis’ father worked.
After graduating first in her class at TCU, Wendy Davis went to Harvard Law School . She and Jeff Davis divorced in 2003.
During law school, Davis worked summers at Kelly Hart & Hallman, and, after graduating, she landed a prestigious job as a law clerk for a federal judge in Dallas.
But she was turned down for a full-time job at Kelly Hart . Davis said early in her first campaign that she thought it was because of her outspoken opposition to the zoo’s parking plan. Her implication was that the firm was trying to silence one of the zoo’s critics rather than debate the issue.
In a recent interview, Davis said she brought up the issue with the firm in 1996 to make a point that the city needed more “process,” her watchword for getting input from neighborhoods on big decisions.
“I would articulate it a little more carefully today,” she said.
In that first campaign, Davis faced Cathy Hirt , Lee Saldivar and Jenny Phillipson . She made it into a runoff against Hirt, but lost by 90 votes. One of the keys was turnout in Ryan Place , the neighborhood where Hirt lived.
Davis later sued the Star-Telegram and former Publisher Richard L. Connor, alleging that the paper ran a series of “false and defamatory” articles to keep the zoo issue alive, including an editorial that ran the day of the runoff. A Dallas district judge threw out the suit on free-speech grounds, and Davis never got to prove those allegations in court.
Davis, now the CEO of Republic Title’s Fort Worth office, said last week that she learned a lot from her first campaign, including the need to “walk the path.”
“I thought I could just announce to all these people that I was a caring, thoughtful person, and they’d believe me,” she said.
“There’s value in sitting back and reflecting on your own shortcomings.”
Speaking more carefully and precisely in political campaigns, and reflecting on one’s own shortcomings, were lessons Davis understood at least as early as 2008.
It’s too bad she didn’t learn those lessons, as she launches a war against a reporter for the Dallas Morning News and the Greg Abbott campaign for the exposure of her personal narrative as not quite accurate.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
By Davis’ logic, it’s LI’s fault that Liz Warren isn’t Cherokee.
I’ve been wondering how Davis thought she was going to get away with these blatant lies about her life story. With Warren, it was easier. After all, how many people know the true ethnic identity of somebody else’s great grandparents? But there must be dozens, if not hundreds, of friends, family, business associates, acquaintances, etc., who knew that Wendy Davis had not lived her life as a struggling single mother, but instead had been the privileged wife of a successful lawyer.
Did Davis really think she was going to be able to run for governor of Texas without any reporters (or political opponents) looking into her background, or asking questions of the people in her life?
For someone who claims to be smart, this seems incredibly stupid.
If you’re delusional (live in an alternative reality), doesn’t that absolve someone from charges of lying?
Or, “Can a post-modernist tell a lie”?
History…being a “living, breathing account of the past”
Just remember that if her lies are spectacular enough she can go on to be an on air host at MSNBC.
“Davis later sued the Star-Telegram and former Publisher Richard L. Connor, alleging that the paper ran a series of “false and defamatory” articles to keep the zoo issue alive, including an editorial that ran the day of the runoff. A Dallas district judge threw out the suit on free-speech grounds, and Davis never got to prove those allegations in court.”
Well.
THAT tells us LOADS about this Collectivist.
First, like certain other Harvard law grads, she doesn’t exhibit ANY understanding of the law.
Second, what she can’t get by playing by the rules, she’ll seek via lawfare.
So what do they teach at Harvard Law?
It’s a shame Obama didn’t “discover” her earlier. She would have made the perfect running mate.
But vait!! Dere’s moor!! Yass dere iss….
Just a few months after her suit was first filed, Davis’ libel claim against the newspaper was unceremoniously thrown out by the Court – as Judge Martin Richter granted a summary judgment against Davis without hearing any testimony. Rather than moving on, Wendy Davis appealed the case to a higher court.
In 2000, nearly four years after her loss, Texas’ 5th Court of Appeals rejected Davis’ claim that she was libeled by the Star-Telegram during her 1996 campaign for city council. Rubbing salt in the wound, the court wrote in its 3-0 decision that they “cannot conclude a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive the statements as defamatory.”
Well, there you go…
Just as a procedural matter, the only way you introduce any “testimony” from anyone in summary judgment in Texas is via an affidavit.
Everything has to be “paper” in both the motion for summary judgment and the response.
Which does sorta present the interesting issue of whether Dear Wendy left us an affidavit in the record.
THAT could be interesting…!
So which is worse, that she lied or that the truth is she used her husband to pay for her college education and then dumped him?
AND gave up custody of BOTH her children to him (his child AND the one from her first husband)???
Oh, and comparing her to Warren, it will be interesting to see, presuming she wins the nomination if Abbott runs a lackluster “moderate” campaign like Scott Brown did.
In watching the latter campaign it was obvious that Warren would win when Brown refused to go after Warren…and in fact you see the same dynamic with Romney and Obama…
The article was a fairly pedestrian account of Davis’ political history..
So was the article in the Chicago Tribune profiling the newly elected Illinois State Senator Barack Obama from Kenya…that no longer exists.
Who knows what the truth is about Davis? The timeline and facts can be sorted out, but the narrative is the key issue. Fully expect any of the victimhood defenses: war on women, persecution for speaking truth to power, crashing the glass ceiling, blah, blah, blah.
The problem her critics will face will be the narrative. Ken Starr had to prove the sex to prove the obstruction of justice. The narrative that the MSM seized upon was that it was a witch hunt, delving in the private sex lives of consenting adults. Wrong. It was about obstruction of justice, but the sex had to be proven. Proving that Davis is a terrible candidate may include the discrepancies in her personal life. The MSM will run with any narrative that paints her as the victim.
If the GOP wants to lose the party of stupid label, it has to simplify the issue, hammer it relentlessly, and aggressively push back on whatever narrative the MSM runs.
Reminds me of the Marfa HS football player who tried to walk on at the University of Texas. Mac Brown did not get out to West Texas much and was unfamiliar with the player’s record.
“Tell me something good about yourself,” Coach Brown inquired.
“Well,” said the player,”I played quarterback for our team in my senior year. At one point I threw 38 completions in a row before a pass was tipped incomplete. I also averaged 20 rushes a game at over 8 and a half yards per carry. And, I kicked 43 extra points in a row until I finally missed one that was blocked.”
“Wow, that is impressive,” replied the Coach. “But, I am sure you have some weaknesses in your game. So, tell me something bad about yourself.”
The walkon paused for a moment before he replied. “Well coach,” he said, “I do have a tendency to exagerate.”
Let’s face it. Lying may very well be a pre-requisite for office today.
If you like your lying politician, you can keep him/her.
Well, she’s a handsome middle-aged woman with excellent posture, so there’s that.