Wendy Davis’s Campaign Takes The Low Road
The nastiest campaign ad of the 2014 cycle is here, and Wendy Davis should be ashamed of it.
Wendy Davis is out with an ad attacking Greg Abbott, the Republican nominee for Governor of Texas, that is receiving much criticism today, and which likely will go down as the nastiest ad of the 2014 campaign cycle:
Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis’ latest television ad directly references gubernatorial rival Greg Abbott’s partial paralysis — including the image of an empty wheelchair — to charge the Republican with hypocrisy.
The spot says Abbott filed a lawsuit following the accident that led to his paralysis, but then worked to limit liability to other accident victims. The Abbott campaign calls the ad a “historic low.”
“A tree fell on Greg Abbott. He sued and got millions,” a narrator says over the image of a wheelchair. “Since then, he’s spent his career working against other victims.”
Abbott was paralyzed in 1984 when, out jogging during a storm, he was struck by a falling oak tree. He sued the homeowner and eventually won a $10 million settlement. He has used a wheelchair since the accident.
The spot cites three cases Abbott worked on as a state Supreme Court justice or attorney general. In one case, Abbott’s office argued a woman with an amputated leg wasn’t disabled because she had a prosthetic limb. In another, he said a door-to-door sales company wasn’t responsible when one of their employees raped a woman. (The Texas Supreme Court ruled in the woman’s favor.) In the third, he helped a hospital defend themselves against a lawsuit after a doctor botched surgeries.
“Greg Abbott,” the narrator says. “He’s not for you.”
The Abbott campaign responded forcefully.
“It is challenging to find language strong enough to condemn Sen. Davis’ disgusting television ad, which represents a historic low for someone seeking to represent Texans,” said Abbott spokeswoman Amelia Chasse. “Sen. Davis’ ad shows a disturbing lack of judgment from a desperate politician and completely disqualifies her from seeking higher office in Texas.”
Here’s the ad:
There is, predictable, plenty of criticism for this ad being aimed at Davis from the right, but even people on thNegative ads are, of course, have a long history in American politics that predates our modern mass media. During the Elections of 1860 and 1864, President Lincoln was referred to by numerous epithets and insults, and insinuations were made about him possibly having African-American blood. Allegations regarding a child born out of wedlock hovered over all three of Grover Cleveland’s campaigns for the Presidency in the late 19th Century. And, of course, the Election of 1800, which most historians consider the first Presidential contests involving two organized political parties, was remains among the nastiest in history, as this amusing video demonstrates quite aptly. In more recent times, campaigns have made use of television to deliver incredibly negative message about their opponents. The most famous, of course, is the so-called “Daisy” ad that ran just once during the 1964 Presidential Campaign, but which helped set the tone for a Johnson campaign that sought to portray Barry Goldwater as someone who couldn’t be trusted in the White House. Many people saw the so-called Willie Horton ad, which was run in 1988 against Michael Dukakis by a group that was not affiliated with the George H.W. Bush campaign, as one of the most negative ads since the Johnson ad ran. Below, the Presidential level, Jesse Helms ran an ad during his 1990 re-election campaign that has been called among the most racist campaign commercials ever run by a candidate for office.
I’ve said in the past that there isn’t anything necessarily bad about negative campaign ads, especially when you’re talking about the kind of “negative” ads that highlight things about an opponents record, past positions, or past life that the public is not aware of. These kinds of ads perform a useful service for voters even when they come across as “attack” ads. It strikes me, though, that there is a line between that kind of ad and the kind of gratuitous attack ads that many people think of when they think of “negative campaigning.” This is especially true when these ads focus on things that have nothing to do with the race itself and instead delve in to personal attacks or appeal to base emotions that have nothing to do with the issues. For example, regardless of what one thinks of the candidates in the races affected by these ads, there was certainly something nasty about each of them, especially the ads that appealed to racial prejudices to advance a political agenda. While I would never suggest banning such ads, they do deserve to be condemned, and candidates who run them deserve opprobrium.
While Davis’s ad doesn’t do that, of course, there is something beyond the pale about using Abbott’s disability and the fact that he sought damages from the parties responsible for the injuries that caused it against him in this manner. Abbott himself has never made the fact that he has confined to a wheelchair an issue in the campaign, and it certainly hasn’t hurt him in his campaigns for office in Texas. Using it in this fashion strikes me as despicable and something of a low blow. Even the substance of the ad, which apparently attempts to draw some kind of distinction between Abbott seeking compensation for his injuries and the manner in which he has handled certain cases that came before him as a Judge and as Attorney General is bogus. In both cases, the Davis campaign is basically attacking Abbott for doing is job, nothing more and nothing less. As an Associate Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, Abbott was charged with interpreting the law as it applied to the cases before him. As Attorney General, his job is to represent the legal interests of the State of Texas in court and before government agencies zealously and with the interests of his client, the state, at the forefront of his priorities. As I’ve noted before when a similar ad was run against the Democrat running against Governor Nikki Haley in South Carolina, this kind of ad is deeply disturbing. There is, quite simply, no similarity between how Abbott acted in response to his injuries and the positions he took as Associate Justice and Attorney General, and the Davis campaign should be ashamed for putting this ad out there.
The ad is obviously being condemned on the right, but the Davis campaign is also being criticized from the left by people who are otherwise inclined to support the campaign. Mother Jone’s Ben Dreyfuss, for example, calls the ad “offensive and nasty,” and says that it shouldn’t exist. Additionally, as Aaron Blake notes, this kind of ad is the kind of desperation move that one sees from a campaign that is losing and losing badly. In Davis’s case, she has trailed Abbott by double digits in polling for months now, and the RealClearPolitics Average currently gives Abbott an 11.3 point average in the race. In other words, Davis is going to lose this race. It’s too bad she couldn’t lose with dignity.
“While Davis’s ad doesn’t do that, of course, there is something beyond the pale about using Abbott’s disability and the fact that he sought damages from the parties responsible for the injuries that caused it against him in this manner.”
No. She’s attacking him for suing over his injury and then fighting to make sure that other injured people couldn’t do the same. It’s kind of like Paul Ryan getting a good education paid for by Social Security, then trying to make sure it’s not available to the next generation. It’s like that anti-abortion legislator in the south who fights to make abortions illegal while arranging them for his girlfriends.
It is the essence of Republicanism — When it’s for me, it’s all good; when it’s for you, it’s evil.
He was doing his job as Attorney General, that’s what attorneys do. Attacking him for that, while at the same time trying to tie in his disability, is just stupid and is yet another reason why Davis is going to lose.
@Doug Mataconis: It was his job as attorney general to argue that a woman who lost a leg wasn’t really disabled because she had a prosthesis? Either he was lying then — yes, even in defense of a client lying is bad; look it up — or he was lying when he said he was disabled by the falling tree, since he is able to get around in a wheelchair.
What this ad points out is that Abbot is a loathesome creep who is part of a corrupt government which believes in transferring all wealth to a tiny elite. In this case, he is justified in sucking up ten million for his injuries because he’s one of the team — that lady who lost a leg can suck it because she’s not.
It may well be that Davis is going to lose… but attacking Abbot for being a sleazeball of an attorney general is hardly out of line.
And if a Republican put out an ad like this, you’d be condemning it.
Fortunately, not everyone on the left has those blinders on.
@Doug Mataconis: He was doing his job as Attorney General, that’s what attorneys do.
I’m fairly sure Attorneys General have a significant amount of latitude when it comes to deciding how they’re going to do that job.
Mike
@Doug Mataconis: And if a Republican put out an ad like this, you’d be condemning it.
I wouldn’t. I can’t speak for anyone else but if a Democrat was in the exact same situation, I wouldn’t be whining about how mean the Republican was being.
Of course, I have a bit of difficulty in imaging a Democrat being in the exact same situation. Being guilty of some other instance of rank hypocrisy, sure, but Democrats in politics tend not to embrace the “I got mine so screw you” ethics on display here.
Mike
Doug, this sounds like your usual attempt to divorce morality from law. I don’t see the problem with this ad. Is there a factual error? Did Abbott not collect for his own injury while working to keep others like himself from doing the same?
Even attorneys general supposedly arguing “the law” have discretion, they are supposed to show some judgment. Your outrage sounds like general ass-covering for lawyers, special pleading on behalf of your tribe. There’s nothing over-the-line here, you just don’t like it because it implies that lawyers might might be asked to justify their actions — and again, he was not a private attorney, a hired gun, he was a public employee who made specific choices. Hypocritical choices, it seems.
@Doug Mataconis: I’m pretty sure that Attorneys General are not required to make offensive legal claims, or be a scumbag.
Perhaps Abbott should be ashamed that the positions he took as Associate Justice and Attorney General were not similar to his actions when he was himself injured…
So, when is it ok to go after an attorney for hypocrisy, or do you think it is completely out of line in all cases as long as he/she is serving a client’s interests?
@Doug Mataconis: If Wendy Davis spent her career trying to keep people from getting benefits to which she felt entitled, I wouldn’t support her for a second, no matter what party she belonged to. Nice try, though — it’s always good to completely ignore all the issues and move straight to ad hominem.
Doug, your uniformly defensive responses to your readers’ criticisms make it clear that you’re not open to criticism, and not genuinely open to dialogue – from which even the holder of a bachelor’s degree in political science might learn something, but only in winning the argument by proving that you are right – hard to do, since you’re not. Fortunately, some of us on the ‘left’ don’t habe a knee-jerk need to cry “for shame” when one of “our” candidates launches a hard-hitting ad that actually draws some blood. Davis is losing not for some fatal flaw of tone-deafness, but because the Texas electors are numb-brained morons. Pardon my use of technical terminology. These are, after all, the same knuckleheads who gave us Bush, Cruz, and Perry!
If you can’t say “for shame” at this ad, you’ve lost something important.
She called him a hypocrite, and judging from the facts of this matter, she’s right. Why all the brouhaha?
Here’s an idea for a rebuttal ad: Abortion Barbie left her husband and kids behind to go to Harvard Law School. Then dumped the husband (who’d paid for her Harvard degree) and the kids for her career, filing for divorce a month after he finishes paying off her student loans. Makes promises, then runs on her commitments when she gets a better offer.
What kind of offers will get her to bail on the people of Texas?
You guys are wasting your time.
Doug doesn’t do rebuttal. He’ll make a timid attempt (he didn’t really even do that here) then move on to the next posting.
Absolutely nothing in the ad has anything at all to do with Abbott’s disability. It is about his response to the incident that caused it and his later attempts to prevent others from having the same ability to respond.
Should Davis have said “Abbott uses the legal system when it suits him but doesn’t want you to be able to do the same?”. I don’t know, but that would be a very stupid ad with no context provided.
Doug isn’t stupid though folks. This is yet another example that he isn’t.
And he isn’t outraged by the ad either. If you believe he is, then his strategy is working.
And we all know the reason why Davis is going to lose.
I live in Texas but you don’t have to live here to know that.
Doug, get over the Davis thing. You make yourself look even more duplicitous than usual every time you bring here up. And that’s not easy to do.
@Doug Mataconis: And Attorneys General don’t have a higher responsibility to the people that elected them than to a state who committed a wrong?
So, using your logic, Mark Herring should be impeached for not defending Virginia’s gay-marriage ban, right? He’s refusing to defend his client in court, right?
I also did not saw any problem with that ad. I don´t remember people writing blog posts about that despicable ad with illegal immigrants from the David Vitter Campaign in 2010.
OK, perhaps I’m missing something because those specific Abbott cases aren’t carefully spelled out here and I’m too lazy/incompetent to look them up. But I *think* we all agree that lawyers need to do their jobs in some unpopular cases, for example that accused criminals need a proper defense. In short, what’s the difference here? The system we have is that courts are generally adversarial.
Why was he out jogging in a storm?
so, a democrat took the low road ina desperate attempt to hang onto power.
Ho-hum.
one thing that confuses me, Doug is why youre acting like you’re almost suprised.
@MBunge:
Yes you would. It seems that every progressive is looking at the ad as good since it is an ad for Team Blue and progressives have begun to show all they care about is Team Blue winning.
If a Republican came out with an ad that show a Democratic Candidate arguing in favor of forced busing and mandatory diversity while sending their own children to an all white private school, progressives would be attacking the Republican and defending the Democrats.
Of course, what Wendy Davis seems to be arguing to everyone is that when Democrats win control of Texas that taxes are going up, entitlement spending is gong up, and white Republican will be footing the bill.
Count me as another who is OK with the ad. Abbott collected millions for his disability and then has the gall to work to prevent others from collecting for THEIR disability? How is that not hypocritical ?
Davis is losing because Texas is a deep red state where Jesus would lose if he ran as Democrat, especially if he went with his “blessed are the poor, woe to you rich” rhetoric. It’s too bad that Wendy Davis is running for governor in a state where being a sociopath and a buffoon are job requirements for governor. They have gone from GWB to Perry and seem to going for the trifecta with Abbott.
Whoa there. Unless the owner of the tree was out in the yard pushing it over onto him as he ran by, I think you are over the line in labeling them “the parties responsible”.
I don’t know the exact facts of the case, but I’m having a hard time imagining circumstances in which this wasn’t an Act of God and crappy luck on all sides. Accidents happen; sometimes nobody is at fault. If you have details you can provide that make it clear that he deserved to win his lawsuit (which, as you note, was settled out of court), I’d be happy to hear them.
(And no, I do not care about the parties of the parties here, nor do I think Democrats are somehow less prone to sleaze than Republicans.)
@Jenos Idanian #13: Trying to go even lower than hysterial fits about little children carrying plague coming to get you? Not this time, but I’m sure you’ll find a way to debase yourself even further. Think “finger banging” — we all know you have it in you.
Or, you know, act like a human being. The world is waiting.
@superdestroyer: “Of course, what Wendy Davis seems to be arguing”
Sure. If you’re psychotic, I’m sure that’s exactly what it “seems” like.
@Jenos Idanian #13: And when that information was turned into an attack on her character, my response “it the truth don’t make you free it’s because you don’t got no freedom comin’.” I didn’t attack the accusers, I didn’t rush to her defense, I said nothing because that sort of information is how politics works.
There’s a saying that goes “don’t cry if you’re not hurt.” You should apply it here. ,The ad will probably backfire, she’s not leading, the great republic is safe from abortion-having sluts for another four years–move on.
As usual, the libtards on this thread absolve any Democrat smear technique.
Abbott’s intervention in the case cited by the ad was to defend the constitutionality of the state’s tort-reform law, which as Attorney General was Abbott’s job. His briefs never touched on whether the surgeon in the case was negligent, merely pointing instead that the law required a finding of actual specific intent to moot the limits on damages. The reason it became necessary for Abbott to intervene in the first place was because the lawsuit against the hospital and surgeon challenged the constitutionality of the tort-reform law.
Perhaps Wendy Davis isn’t familiar with what an Attorney General does.
@superdestroyer: Correct. If the labels were reversed, you know full well what this would play out as.
and.. @John425: My guess is she knows very well, but is hopeful most who considering voting for her dont.
I watched the ad … and I shrugged. It didn’t offend me or persuade me. I felt nothing. Am I just inured to things like this now?
I would love to see the context of the cases she cites as hypocritical.
I think the ad is pretty low and shows desperation. I also don’t see this ad resonating with anyone.
@wr:
The only two questions that Wendy Davis should be asked is whether she supports a state income tax in Texas and whether all of the Democrats who are talking about changing Texas into a blue state by changing the demographics of the state support a state income tax.
If she answers honestly, she is finished in Texas politics. If she lies, all the Republicans have to do is quote all of the black and latino politicians who support Davis who do support a state income ta.
Any middle class white who votes for Wendy Davis is basically voting for their children or grandchildren to move to another state once the policies she supports are passed.
OK, which is more surprising:
1) wr is DISGUSTED that someone else would use his “if it’s true, it’s fair” rationalizing.
2) wr is REPULSED by truth.
And here’s another truth bomb for wr to get his panties in a wad over: Abortion Barbie’s most famous accomplishment is that she slowed down a bill by a couple of hours. Didn’t stop it, didn’t reverse it, barely slowed it down. Another nickname for her should be “Speed Bump.”
Here’s a radical notion: what would an actual lawyer who looked at one of the actual cases think about it? Patterico did just that, and found that the Davis ad was… to put it kindly… misleading.
I see the small minds and tortured souls of the lefties are at work again. Incredible the mind reading skills they possess in determining that “Abbot got his” so to hell with everyone else.
In point of fact the issue at hand was upholding Texas statute, specifically the gross negligence standard of conduct for liability passed by the Texas legislature, a constitutional issue. (Texas wants plaintiffs to prove intent, probably in response to trial lawyer over reach) If you have a problem with that (I probably would) then direct your attention to the legislature and work to change it. To attribute to Abbott, without a whit of evidence, the desire on his part to commit a purely venal act says as much if not more about the character flaws of the critics here as those imputed to Abbot. As for Wendy, well, her eyes don’t flash at the sound of lies.
What next? Give him a fair trial and hang him?
Sorry, Doug. That is not the ad furthest beyond the pale of this cycle.
The one that says “Michelle Nunn’s own plan says she funded organizations linked to terrorists.” is.
On the other hand, it really is no surprise that a libertarian objects to people being called on trying to pull the ladder up after they have just scaled the exact same one. It cuts too close the bone for them.
@Guarneri:
Abbott has consistently praised and supported tort reform in Texas. He is not campaigning on changing the law because it forced him to take positions against victims. He is campaigning on what a wonderful thing tort reform has been for Texas.
@Guarneri: You misunderstand. It wasn’t Abbott’s job to defend the law as written. It was his job to defend the law as liberals wish it was written.
Personally, I’m enjoying the precedents being set. I’m imagining a future Republican president announcing that personal income and corporate taxes are too high, but since he or she can’t get Congress to lower them, he’s ordering that no individual or corporation be prosecuted as long as they pay at least half of what they legally owe. Or that the standards for pollution on coal are too rigid, and no coal plants will be bothered as long as they abide by the standards of, say, 1990, just to pick a year.
After all, isn’t that within their discretion, right?
@TPF:
I suspect it has. We are in an entirely too litigious society in my view. But that is a separate issue than whether or not he took his loot and the rest of y’all be damned. That’s just small minds venting.
How about a counter-ad: Wendy Davis is a hypocrite because she made it out of the womb alive, and now campaigns against fetuses.
OTB lefty lunatic haters are totally cool with mocking the disabled. You Go haters!
@Pinky:
The accurate analogue would be Wendy Davis getting an abortion then campaigning to make abortions illegal, but I hope he follows your pretend advice and makes that commercial.
This is why the term “swiftboat” is so often misused. The problem with the swiftboat ads was not that they were extremely negative attack ads, the thing that made them beyond the pale was that they were untrue. There are days I have to wonder if conservatives, the supposedly liberal MSM, and libertarians get the concept of objective truth.
@John425: And yet here in South Carolina, our state’s Attorney General is still trying to defend the gay marriage ban, despite the fact that the 4th Circuit has ruled against it. I understand that defending a state’s laws is what an Attorney General is paid to do, but any AG worth his/her savvy chooses the most promising battlefields on which to fight. Only two things seem definite to me: the Davis ad is nasty and uncalled-for and Abbott is a power-hungry sleazebag.
@gVOR08: This is why the term “swiftboat” is so often misused. The problem with the swiftboat ads was not that they were extremely negative attack ads, the thing that made them beyond the pale was that they were untrue.
Not quite. “Swiftboating” is the term for a devastating attack on a liberal politician that happens to be true.
There’s a reason that Kerry never fully released his records or sued for defamation.
Of course, let’s be clear about the three cases the Davis ad highlights — and how she misrepresents Abbott’s position in each of them.
1) In the case of the amputee with the prosthesis, the in pretrial motions the AG’s office argued that because her prosthesis allowed her to perform her job without any modification, the ADA was inapplicable. This was one of several defenses asserted (the two main ones were sovereign immunity and that she was passed over for promotion for reasons unrelated to her disability. At trial, the state showed won after proving that the failure to promote her had no relationship to her being an amputee.
2) In the case involving the salesman who committed a rape, Abbott’s position was that his employer (an independent distributor of Kirby vacuums) was the party that should be sued for failure to do a background check on the salesman, not the manufacturer of the vacuums.
3) In the malpractice case, Abbott’s office intervened not to argue against a malpractice award for actual damages, but instead to defend a state law passed by the voters that caps punitive damages.
As for Abbott’s own award nearly two decades before the passage, the money he receives are actual damages for his injuries and the cost of his healthcare, NOT punitive damages. Such an award would still be permitted under Texas tort reform laws.
Now let’s consider how Davis has campaigned. Her campaign ads have almost all been negative attacks on Abbott because she has little in the way of accomplishment in her own time in office to qualify her to be governor, has a record of unethical activity to enrich herself and her donors via her votes on city council and in the state senate, has lied about her biography in an attempt to deceive the voters of Texas, and has positions on the issues that are out of step with most Texans. Indeed, the only thing more fake than the claims in a Wendy Davis campaign ad are her hair color and her breast implants.
@Rhymes With Right: Indeed, the only thing more fake than the claims in a Wendy Davis campaign ad are her hair color and her breast implants.
This is surprising to me. I thought she was a genuine boob. Thanks for the clarification.
But don’t bother trying to answer the Usual Gang Of Idiots with facts. They are incredibly clue-resistant.
@gVOR08:
Yeah, right. Here in IL pat Quinn is running ads against Bruce Rauner informing us that Rauner murders nursing home residents and wants more people murdered with assault rifles. That Republican Rauner guy sure is a bad guy. Good thing Quinn warned us…….
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Why are you trying to argue the facts. Any fact that does not support a progressive’s position is a hate fact and will not be tolerated.
@superdestroyer: What a shock that when the usual group of trolls, loons and obsessives that make up OTB’s right wing start talking “truth” and “facts” about a female candidate, they jump immediately to the only thing they can see as important about her — her breasts.
And if we don’t choose to rate this candidate based on how much we want to have sex with her, well, that’s “hate fact.”
You’re a lovely group.
Davis’ ad called out Abbott for being a hypocrite, not for being disabled.
Only partisan conservatives see this political ad as anything but Davis pointing out the obvious here.
@wr: I like the use of a nasty, disgusting nickname to try and convince us that her ad is nasty and disgusting. Irony truly is dead.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Let me help you out here:
But don’t bother trying to answer the Usual Gang Of Idiots with facts.
TheyWe are incredibly clue-resistant.You’re welcome.
@al-Ameda: I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I – infinity plus one!
@wr: I thought that Rhymes With Right did a good job of stating the facts (I haven’t seen them contested). It was crude of him to take a shot at her looks though, you’re right about that.
Have you heard anything about those three cases that supports Davis’s take over Rhymes’s?
@Pinky:
you’re mocking my effort to help Jenos?
I’ll just take some oxycontin and try to get over this.
@wr: Which is why, of course, my comment was simply an aside about how everything about Wendy Davis is a falsehood. Good grief– she even put out a false campaign biography earlier this year.
As for relations with Wendy — I’d sooner romance a walrus.
@al-Ameda: I disagree — and suggest you consider what even Texas Democrats are saying about it. http://texpate.com/2014/10/11/the-wheelchair-ad/
Hmm… who was on the bandwagon saying “it’s true, so it’s fair?” I count 9: wr, MBunge, michael reynolds, Gustopher, HarvardLaw92, Davebo, Andre Kenji, Stonetools, and al-Ameda.
Then someone did the actual homework to show that the ad was actually incredibly misleading and deceptive.
How many of those worthies have said anything to either rebut Rhymes With Right’s comments, or retract their earlier comments? Of the 9, so far I’m seeing… let’s see… carry the seven… round off to the nearest whole number… adjust for Daylight Savings Time… looks like ZERO.
@Rhymes With Right: “As for relations with Wendy — I’d sooner romance a walrus.”
Here’s an astonishing fact that seems to be really hard for Republicans to understand — Women candidates are not running for the position of being your f*ckbuddy. And the fact that you are unable to see a woman beyond how sexually desirable you find her just shows why your party is losing women every day.
@wr: For me, it’s the ugliness of her soul that bleeds through.
Kind of like you.
Still wanna argue that the ad is true, so it’s fair? Or you gonna just ignore how, once again, reality has stomped the living crap out of your hissy fit?
@Jenos Idanian #13: Not “it’s true, so it’s fair”. More like “I want it to be true, so it’s fair”. Or maybe “I want it to be true, so it’s true”.
@Pinky: True enough. wr’s “thought” processes are remarkably shallow. I think they’d barely qualify as a dimple.
@wr: My point – which you are too dim to understand – is that I’m not in the least interested in a sexual relationship with her. My other point is that EVERYTHING about Davis is fake – her ads, her bio, and even her looks. There is nothing truthful about her – it is ALL lies.
@wr: BTW – isn’t you standard “if its true its fair”? So why aren’t my true comments about Wendy’s fake exterior fair? I’d make similar mocking comments about a male candidate wit a bad toupee.
@Rhymes With Right: wow. Such honesty. You’re not interested in sex with a woman you’ve never met and never will. Truly, this makes you a veritable political sage.
Of course, If she knew of your existence, the very idea that you were publicly obsessing over her breasts would.make her vomit to death. But you keep on stroking, telling yourself what a man you are.
@Jenos Idanian #13: it’s true. It’s fair. You’re scum. Does that cover it all, or will you keep begging me to pay attention to you? I realize you don’t exist if you’re not annoying someone, but I’m sure mommy is free now. Run and call her a slut or something.
@Wr: Have you ever noticed that, the more your initial position falls apart, the nastier and more personal your comments get and the less you want to actually talk about the original topic?
No, of course not. I’m sorry, I forgot you’re not that self-aware. But rest assured, many others have noticed it.
So, you wanna keep arguing that the ad was true, and therefore fair, or you wanna throw some more tantrums?
@Jenos Idanian #13: Congratulations, little Jenos. You succeeded in annoying me yesterday with your vile and disgusting drooling over a female candidate’s physique so that I descended to respond to you. And I compounded that error on the college thread today.
But I have no interest in communicating with you ever again. Leave me out of your increasingly slimy attempts to get attention. You will receive no more of mine.
@wr:
Not on this thread. Maybe on another, but not here. The first sexualized comment on this thread was when you brought up finger-banging in a response to Jenos. Later, Rhymes made some crude remarks, and Jenos replied that he thought Davis was “a genuine boob”, then later said that he isn’t attracted to her. I know he gets under your skin, but you shouldn’t make stuff up. And if you have to call him a troll, well, feel free, but you probably shouldn’t do that when you’re trolling.
@Pinky: They were discussing whether or not the candidate had breast implants, and then one of them went on about whether or not he wanted to have sex with her. Maybe that seems like a legitimate political conversation to you.
Of course it’s possible you think that referring to candidate Davis as “abortion Barbie” is not a sexualized comment. Im which case it is again easy to see why Republicans do so badly with women.
@wr: I almost feel like I should apologize for offending your puritan morals and almost giving you the vapors because I took a sexualized comment by another and spun it into a non-sexual reference.
And in your stirring defense of your right to uphold your puritan standards, I see you’re so verklempt you can’t even bring yourself to discuss the topic at hand — namely, the grossly offensive and dishonest ad the Davis campaign put out. Er, “released” — “put out” has sexual connotations that might fluster you again. No, “released” or even “issued” could be considered sexual, so how about “generated?”
Anyway, too bad you are such a delicate hothouse flower that a passing crude reference by someone else gets you so aflutter with me.
@wr: Of course it’s possible you think that referring to candidate Davis as “abortion Barbie” is not a sexualized comment.
No, it’s a comment on her most notable “accomplishment” that garnered her national attention. You remember that — when she slowed a bill down by a couple of hours. My, what a great achievement that was. No wonder she’s the liberals’ darling.
@wr: Have you never heard the phrase “Abortion Barbie” applied to Wendy Davis? It’s not sexualized, except in that it refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Barbie is a popular toy. Not sexual. You could go into a toy store and ask for a Barbie, and they’d point you to a shelf. You go into a toy store and ask for a finger-bang, and, I guess, some toy stores would have something for you, but they’d be a different kind of toy store.
You said that Jenos was drooling over a candidate’s physique. You then changed it to, he was part of a conversation where neither person was drooling over a candidate’s physique. Do you wonder why some of this site’s righties aren’t impressed with some of this site’s lefties’ commitment to truth? Evidence of your error is on the very page you’re commenting on. Yet you don’t think of yourself as a troll?
@Jenos Idanian #13: The people who complain about Republicans trying to overturn Obamacare will praise Davis for her heroic stand.
@Pinky:
And the people who complain about Abbott for being a hypocrite, will praise Davis for bringing his hypocrisy to light. Interesting how that works.
@Pinky: “ave you never heard the phrase “Abortion Barbie” applied to Wendy Davis? It’s not sexualized, except in that it refers to the termination of a pregnancy.”
Actually, the word “abortion” refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Calling this legislator “Barbie” is an attempt to reduce her to obvious sexual characteristics, which is pretty typical among men who hate or fear women.
“Barbie is a popular toy. Not sexual.”
I’m pretty impressed that you’ve managed to completely miss several decades of debate over Barbie as a hyper-sexualized role model for little girls. You should google Barbie sexualization for a quick primer if you’re interested.
Now if you’re done fighting for the honor of our resident troll, may I suggest we discuss issues of more interest to anyone in the world?
@al-Ameda: I guess my point was too subtle. (I don’t think that’s ever happened before.)
@Wr: You made the accusation — I merely pointed out that I don’t have the sort of mental illness that would lead me to read sexual content into a statement about how everything from a candidates ads to her biography to her appearance is based in falsehood and deceit.
@wr: Actually, your observation there proves that you have some sort of psychological dysfunction that leads you to view children’s toys as sexual objects. I certainly hope that a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered you to stay away from minors.
@wr: Actually, YOU are the one who brought up having sex with Wendy Davis, not any of us. I merely pointed out the falsehood and deceit of Wendy Davis, from her ads to her biography to her personal appearance.
@wr: Dare I point out to you that the reference to Barbie may also be seen as one of artificiality rather than sexuality. Having tried to paint herself as having done everything on her own, the discovery of her false biographical narrative certainly qualifies as an example of artificiality.
@Jenos Idanian #13: And if one recalls, she was admired for having worn pink tennis shoes during the filibuster — you know, the color of almost all Barbie accessories.
@Pinky: My comment was hardly crude. In an examination of how everything about Davis ends up being based in falsehood and deception, I added a sarcastic jab at how even her appearance is based upon an effort to deceive others through peroxide and plastic surgery.
@wr: Oh, dear. So referring a woman as a “Barbie” is something horrid? I had no idea.
Especially since I can’t see you ever getting bent out of shape whenever people called Sarah Palin “Caribou Barbie.” Even Doug himself used the term.
@Rhymes With Right:
You took what could have been a reasonable rebuttal to Davis’ ad (assuming your facts about the cases were correct) and turned it into something crude and less compelling by feeling the need to degrade and objectify Davis. That you can’t seem to recognize why your comments are crude, says more about you than the people you are arguing with.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Referring to a woman as ____ Barbrie is sexually objectifying them, whether it is Palin or Davis. Can you really not see that? or are you to intent on point scoring against wr?
@wr:
Your arguments, particularly about trolling and ad hominem, would be more persuasive if they weren’t so laced with ad hominem attacks.
@Grewgills: I pointed out the many ways in which Davis presents a false and deceptive front to Texans. I made no crude comments.
@Grewgills: Can you really not see that?
I tend to see “Barbie” references as more of a commentary on the shallowness and vapidness and artificiality of the target. I’ve yet to see a Barbie doll with genitalia. In fact, their lack of genitalia is a recurring motif.
“Have you heard that Mattel’s coming out with Divorced Barbie? She comes with all of Ken’s stuff.”
@Rhymes With Right: I made no crude comments.
“Indeed, the only thing more fake than the claims in a Wendy Davis campaign ad are her hair color and her breast implants.”
That was a little on the crass side, but I gave you a pass under the previously-used “if it’s true, then it’s fair” standard.