Posted on 01/23/2014 8:30:34 AM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder
It really doesn't get any more-basic than this.
Wendy Davis has made her personal story of struggle and success a centerpiece of her campaign to become the first Democrat elected governor of Texas in almost a quarter-century.
While her state Senate filibuster last year captured national attention, it is her biography — a divorced teenage mother living in a trailer who earned her way to Harvard and political achievement — that her team is using to attract voters and boost fundraising.
The basic elements of the narrative are true, but the full story of Davis’ life is more complicated, as often happens when public figures aim to define themselves. In the shorthand version that has developed, some facts have been blurred.
Some facts have been blurred?
Yeah, ok.
Our so-called "family law" system is so badly-broken and full of perverse incentives that were the law to actually be applied on perjury and the suborning of same I'm willing to bet you could imprison half of the divorce bar along with the litigants. Much of the mud thrown in the press with regard to Davis has to do with that aspect of things, and I have a jaundiced eye when it comes to all of it, or with any so-called "reporting" on same, specifically because I've never seen an attorney or client actually jailed for perjury in this regard, it happens every single day, and any time there's gain to be had and the least bit of ethical challenge on the part of one of the litigants and attorneys it happens because there is never a penalty applied for having done so.
That which you reward you get more of. That which is wrong but you don't punish, and might result in reward is done freely. This is basic logic, and yet nobody wants to face it when it comes to family court. As a result I'm not going to touch that aspect of Wendy Davis and her history, because without reviewing all of the evidence (not just what I could dig up in a public-records search), and there's no way for anyone to do that except her and her ex, I can't judge who was trying to play games and who wasn't, or if either of them was involved in that crap. I can quite-confidently state, however, that most of the time when there's a contest like this one or both of the parties is at least partially full of crap.
With that said, however, what's known to be factual is enough to judge her fitness for public office. Specifically, that Wendy appears to have not only separated physically from her second husband to pursue her education (ok, as far as it goes, if you're a team) but ultimately left not only their biological child to him to raise alone but also her previously-born child that was not his tells me where her priorities are with voluntarily-assumed obligations to others unable to fend for themselves -- specifically, her children.
Further, it appears to be a fact that she strategically served her second husband with divorce papers literally the day he paid off her Harvard Law education, having cashed his 401k to do so.
The problem is that this is a woman who wants to have power over you, if you live in Texas, and yet her record shows that she has and will manipulate other people for her own ends, including talking an alleged life-partner into destroying his retirement on the premise, one assumes, of her future earnings as part of that partnership and then leaving him literally the day he covers the last part of the check to do so, leaving him with nothing to show for the support, both economic and personal, he provided during that time as part of that alleged partnership.
I can defend someone who acts under duress -- we all do what we have to do to survive, or, if you prefer, "you fucked me and I'm going to get whole if I'm able." But that's where it stops.
When, however, you pledge to be with someone as life partners, between the two of you there's a decision made that one of you will pursue an educational goal that should lead to much better economic prospects, the other party destroys his future means of providing for himself to further that economic and personal partnership and then you leave him the day he pays off your student loans, literally to the day, you have demonstrated you are a person that will screw anyone the instant it is to your benefit.
If you elect someone like that to public office there is not one element of anyone's personal or financial life in that political jurisdiction that is safe from being identically and intentionally destroyed by that individual for her own personal aggrandizement and profit.
In short, Wendy, you're a bitch and unfit to hold any public office.
“Wendy, you’re a bitch and unfit to hold any public office.”
Bears repeating ;-)
Like Obama, her “compelling personal narrative” is mostly a fabrication, set forth in “loose language”, and seasoned with bulls#it.
And there’s a common element: attendance at an elite university. It is no coincidence that those who seek to rule the common classes were indoctrinated at the same kind of institution, run by a previous generation of elitists. They are, after all, The Ruling Class of America.
Very nice summary...
Not only did she ditch her ex- the day after he made the last payment on her student loans, she signed over custody of her biological daughter because she might get in the way of her career pursuits. I can’t think of a more appropriate face for the Democrat Party.
Calling her a bitch is degrading the legitimate value of bitch dogs who provide puppies useful as working dogs, hunters, pets, etc which can enrich the lives of their owners.
A democrat, any democrat, on the other hand has no redeeming social value at any time in their worthless lives.
I am surprised she did not eat her organs with some nice organic fava beans..
She’s a shameless liar and an idealogue.
That gives her a great future in the Democratic party.
That's a nasty piece of work, right there. Her daughter, however, is likely better off for it.
Hard to whore around Harvard with a kid in tow.
Up to this point, I thought the author was being way too kind to Wendy, especially since her partner was left with something to show for the support he gave her: he left (or was left with) with custody of both her first child and their own child. Amazingly callous, Wendy. You should be denied any elected office and, for that matter, any position in public service.
Further, it appears to be a fact that she strategically served her second husband with divorce papers literally the day he paid off her Harvard Law education, having cashed his 401k to do so.
GOLD DIGGER
The Democrat response.....
“Yes, Wendy is a liar and gold digger who abandoned her children, but we’re pretty sure she’s a thief, too, and that’s what counts.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.