Wendy Davis

Are Heroic Talkathons a Viable Strategy for Winning Higher Political Office?

Wendy Davis' Gubernatorial Run in Texas is an early test

|

Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator who became a household name this summer after her gutsy filibuster to stop Gov. Rick Perry's abortion restrictions, announced her candidacy last week to replace Perry. Democrats are giddy with excitement because Davis' star power, they believe, has given them their first real hope in nearly two decades of pulling this reliably red state into their orbit.

But Republican Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz might also want to wish her luck. Her candidacy is an early field test of their political strategy: Using filibusters on narrow issues that resonate with core constituencies as a tool for catapulting themselves from obscurity to greater political heights. But whether being a filibuster candidate can propel Wendy Davis into the governor's office will depend on her ability to overcome its rather severe downsides.

To actually win the race, Davis must broaden her appeal beyond her activist base and present herself as a moderate who doesn't look at issues from a "liberal Democratic lens" but as someone "who believes everyone deserves opportunity."

That, however, is going to be a tough sell not only in light of what she has done—but what she has not done.

She spent nine years in the city council and five in the senate, during which she dabbled unenthusiastically in garden-variety liberal causes—redeveloping blighted areas with government "incentives," public schools and pay-day lending—but her real passion was for women's issues. Besides demanding an end to pay discrimination and improving workplace conditions for women, she pushed law enforcement authorities to audit the backlog of unanalyzed rape kits gathering dust on their shelves.

Her one big foray outside of women's issues was in 2011, when she launched her first filibuster to stop Perry from slashing $4 billion from public schools. Not only was it mostly a big yawn, but as TIME's Hilary Hylton has reported, Davis represents a heavily minority—African American and Latino—district that strongly supports school choice. Had Davis pushed that, she might have become a sensation for a different reason: Having the guts to break away from her own party's orthodoxies.

That would have made it much harder for Davis' opponents to imprison her in her own cause by nicknaming her Abortion Barbie, an ugly but effective moniker that reminds general voters that she's a single-issue ideologue.

But there are bigger problems with Davis' catapult strategy. Had she followed the more conventional route of working her way up the ranks by engaging in bread-and-butter issues she could have pre-empted such attacks. She would have inevitably built bridges, making it harder for colleagues on the other side of the aisle to get too nasty. More importantly, it would have allowed her to develop a governing philosophy and sort out some existential questions in advance.

Right now, no one really knows what Davis would do once elected—not even likely Davis herself. Will she reverse her predecessor's economic policies or stick with them? Texas has an $8.8 billion surplus on a $100 billion budget. What will Davis do with it? Save it for a rainy day? Or invest it? If so, where? How much should she stick to the party line and on what issues? In the absence of a track record, Davis will have to figure all this out on the fly and define herself before her opponents define her.

This is precisely the problem that Paul and Cruz, both of whom are junior senators whose names are suddenly being tossed around as potential Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential elections, are also going to face. Paul made a name for himself when he filibustered the confirmation of President Obama's CIA nominee to demand answers on the scope of the administration's drone program. And Cruz last month went on a 21-hour talkathon to defund Obamacare as a condition for passing the budget. Like Davis, they are both playing to activists who care about one issue above all else—and hoping that eventually a broader cross-section of voters will listen.

Different candidates have different abilities to pull off different electoral strategies. But if Davis succeeds next year, she'll give them hope that this strategy is workable. If she stumbles, they might consider sitting out the next presidential election cycle and begin the long, hard, unglamorous slog up.

This column originally appeared in TIME Ideas

Advertisement

NEXT: Russian Website Posts Photo of "Snowden" Shopping

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Texas has a $100 billion budget surplus.

    Even with biennial budgeting… Wat?!

    1. The number I saw getting kicked around was more like $8BB.

      I love the way having a budget surplus is treated as if its a bad thing, a failure of leadership.

      1. The entire biennial budget is in the neighborhood of $100BB.

        So there’s that.

        1. Close enough for government work.

        2. What is BB? Billion Barrels? Texas stores it’s surplus as crude oil or what?

      2. If you read the link, it is a surplus of $8.8b. Dalmia screwed up and nobody bothered to check.

        IT LOOKS as if Texas is rich again. On January 7th the comptroller, Susan Combs, announced that the state would have $101.4 billion available for general spending in 2014-2015. At a press conference announcing the estimate, she explained that the figure was the result of broad-based economic recovery. Sales-tax receipts, which make up more than half of the state’s general-revenue funds, had come in higher than expected, after several years in which consumers had been looking down the back of the sofa for spare change. Oil and gas revenues were up, too, as big fracking sites such as the Eagle Ford Shale came online. Her estimate also included a hefty surplus: Texas would end the current budget cycle with $8.8 billion left over.

    2. Funny how reducing regulations and getting rid of nuisance lawsuits will help out on the fiscal level, huh?

  2. We covered this silly column once already. Paul and Cruz were already considered viable contenders in 2016 BEFORE their respective ‘filibusters’. No one had any idea who Abortion Barbie was before she filibustered.

    1. Yes, Cruz and Paul were already considered candidates for higher office.

      Wendy Davis (don’t be crass and call her Abortion Barbie) rose to National prominence with her successful in the short term filibuster. It was with that National prominence that she was considered a possible candidate for governor. She has a lot to prove and a lot of organizing to do. I don’t think she is as narrow in scope as the article and some posters have suggested though. However she is riding a wave of popularity based on her stand against harsh abortion restrictions and as the article points out she needs to broaden her scope.

    2. Abortion Barbie. Heh.

      She’s hot that’s for sure.

      Her politics. Not so much.

      1. She’s hot for her age. That isn’t the same thing as hot.

  3. Wasn’t she blond for the filibuster?

    1. If she’s bringing women’s hats back, I’m for her. Its the governorship to Texas, she can’t hurt anything.

      1. Women’s hats look almost universally awful. Some stetsons look good on them, though. Yeah, yeah, this is why there no libertarian womens.

        To be fair, most male hats look stupid too. Especially fedoras. Please just stop with the fedoras, neckbeards.

        1. Men going hatless was JFK’s idea, I always thought.

          The Kennedy’s tried to set a fashion for going pantsless, too, but fortunately that didn’t catch on.

        2. What are your views on pork pie hats?

          1. You’re looking pretty smart in your chicken skin suit
            You think you’re pretty hot in your pork pie hat

          2. They lie somewhere between fedoras and flat caps on the lame hat spectrum.

        3. See, I think hats need to make a comeback. They add an air of dignity.

        4. Okay, but can we keep the trilby’s? They go so well with trenchcoats and Green Lantern shirts.

      2. Exec #1: Item six on the agenda: “The Meaning of Life” Now uh, Harry, you’ve had some thoughts on this.

        Exec #2: Yeah, I’ve had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we’ve come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren’t wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person’s soul. However, this “soul” does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man’s unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.

        Exec #3: What was that about hats again?

  4. Wait a minute. Are we pretending that the election of Wendy Davis in Texas is going to hinge on whether or not people support the filibuster as a tactic? Really?

    1. My understanding is that, based on all the gubenatorial elections in TX in the 21st century, what matters is having great hair a telegenic smile, and a Rainman-like ability to count votes.

  5. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to Economy tab for more detail …

    ============== http://WWW.MAX34.COM

  6. The Democrats most hilarious delusion is that the problem is not with their policies, but rather that those policies haven’t been ranted, raved, and rammed in place.

    1. Their most hilarious delusion is that Perry or any other Republican won’t beat this women by 30%.

      1. Perry’s retiring, but I don’t see anything in the fundamentals that keeps her from getting run over by the Texas Republican Party, whoever their candidate may be. People forget that when GWB beat Ann Richards, that was the culmination of over a decade of Republican gains at the local level. The Dems haven’t started turning that around.

        1. I am pretty sure that Perry’s hair is going to run to succeed him.

          Also sure that it would beat Davis by about 8-10% of the vote.

    2. I thought their most hilarious delusion was that they were the party of civil liberties.

      1. That’s just a sad lie.

      2. OT: got into a back and forth with a liberal about being a libertarian and he said “How can you stand to be so opposed to civil rights?” I started using scary words like “NSA” and “Guantanamo” and “war on drugs” and he fell curiously silent.

    3. The Democrats most hilarious delusion is that the problem is not with their policies, but rather that those policies haven’t been ranted, raved, and rammed in place.

      They all suffer from this delusion.

      1. Read Thomas Sowell: Intellectuals and Society.
        They are for the most part, the Anointed Ones. How could they be wrong?

    4. I think you may be underestimating those who feel under-represented by the conservative Republicans in charge of the State right now. I think it is a good thing for the Democrats to have someone to rally behind. Even if they don’t win it should shake things up.

      Unfortunately there will be a lot of outside money coming in support of the Democrats and that isn’t good. That will result in a lot of outside money for the Republicans. Outside money isn’t good no matter what side it is on.

  7. Why is it “gutsy” for a Democratic party politician to be against abortion restrictions? It would be gutsy for her to be for them.

    1. Gutsiest of all would be to be pro-adoption; allow people to sell their newborns / weened babies at a profit that will cover the medical expenses of bringing the baby to term or having it removed prematurely and incubated. That plus abortion ban at around the time the fetus can be safely removed & incubated = game-changing policy.

  8. Rand filibustered in favor of human life, Davis against.

    Making her at least the second politician from that region named Davis to set themselves against human rights:

    http://www.civilwar.org/educat…..davis.html

    1. When I saw the post I immediately thought: ‘I bet someone here will try to differentiate the two on the grounds that Wendy Davis filibustered to kill babies while Cruz filibusters to save them.’

      With some modifications it is equal parts nice and disappointing to see my snarky prediction. Thanks Mr. Van Haalen!

      1. Blue Tulpa never fails…to disappoint.

        Self congratulatory and shades of BLUE – congrats!

        1. Yes, because only a ‘Blue Tulpa’could not stomach Mr. Van Haalen’s ‘baby killing’ treacle.

          1. Well, it technically is baby killing.

            1. It technically is not, it is an embryo or a fetus.

              1. You’re stealing the argument.

              2. First: an embryo or fetus is the beginning stages of a human being. Human beings under the age of like two are typically referred to as “babies”.

                Second: it is alive, therefore destroying said embryo/fetus is most definitely killing.

                Now, calling it a baby is most definitely a rhetorical device used by many anti-abortionist to elicit an emotional response. That doesn’t mean they are technically wrong, but trying to elicit that emotional response is lazy debating. And of course, acknowledging either of those things doesn’t mean one prescribes “personhood” on said fetus.

                1. I grant the killing part.

                  But a fetus and an embryo are not the same thing as a baby, either in common conversation, or in their technical definitions (for example, embryo is defined as ‘an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development’).

                  I agree substantially with your last paragraph though, in fact it largely expresses my point and better than I did myself.

                  1. But a fetus and an embryo are not the same thing as a baby, either in common conversation

                    Bullshit.

                    No woman that wants to have a baby but loses it to miscarriage refers to it as a fetus or embryo. It’s always “I lost my baby”. And good luck to you, if you are too socially retarded to show some level of empathy for her loss.

              3. It technically is not, it is an embryo or a fetus.

                It’s certainly killing *something*. I suppose it depends in large part on how inconvenienced you are by its existence as to what you call it and how hard you try to justify it.

                1. I don’t normally throw my hat in the abortion debate because it’s waaayyy too dogmatic and political for my taste – especially considering I do consider it killing something that’s alive.

                  Trying to decide when it’s “alive” always struck me as a macabre exercise. Haven’t they shown that a fetus at what, eight months, can feel pain? Or was it earlier? Whatever – it was very’duh.’

                  I agree with you Darren. Watching pro-abortionists go berserk trying to justify it using all sorts of terms like “pro-women” and “pro-choice” will never convince me it’s not taking the life of “something.”

                  Just my take.

                  1. If a homeless, starved traveler squats around my large apple orchard property, builds a shack and eats my apples, do I have a right to eject him from my land, even if I know this will probably kill him? What if the police officer I call tells me I can’t because that’s being cruel? Don’t the morals of property rights take precedence over the morals against inflicting harm? Or else store owners shooting at looters & rioters to defend their property would be committing an immoral act, as the proper way to behave would be to let them loot your store.

                    Isn’t a fetus, to a woman who doesn’t want a baby, just an unwelcomed parasite mooching off of her human property? Can a fetus too, not be “evicted” from the premises, even if such an act at an early stage would guarantee death?
                    This is part of the reason the abortion debate is so FUBAR.
                    Also, see my third option: #comment_4051163

                    1. The squatter on your apple orchard was uninvited. Except in cases of rape, embryos/fetuses/babies end up in women’s bodies as a result of a volitional act – an invitation, as it were. We’ve only had this conversation here at Reason about 9 billion times. It all comes down to at what magic moment you confer the rights of a human being on a developing human being. If you confer those rights early in the development process you’re against abortion as a clear violation of the NAP. If you confer those rights later in the development process then it’s not a violation of the NAP. It’s harder to carve out a consistent position the later you push back that magic moment though. Unless you’re also okay with infanticide (which a few of our commenters have been in these discussions).

                    2. Ah yes I forgot to mention that… that’s the reason the abortion debate is FUBAR. Because prolifers talk about life and death and murder, and that comes from a universal, innate sense of morality.

                      But do you know what else comes from an innate built-in sense of morality?
                      Fairness.
                      This is the fundamental prochoice argument even if it isn’t stated out loud. It is why prolifers will never win 100%. It may not seem like much but do not underestimate it; this is the same concept that has people instinctively despise the rich and blame them for poverty.
                      If the utopian pro-lifers would just admit the other side has a point, and admit that making something illegal will not magically make it disappear, they could become pro-adoption and use the free market and/or gov’t to reimburse pregnant women for their troubles. Why? Because women get pregnant and have to deal with it, while impregnating men do not. Unfair.
                      Like I said, this is what it all boils down to and if you think that’s a stupid reason to be pro-abortion don’t underestimate people’s innate moral outrage at unfairness. Also keep in mind not everyone considers a fetus to be a living thing, even if it has the potential to become one.

                    3. Also, both the difference between being born and unborn, and the stage at which a fetus can reasonably live in incubation as agreed by doctors specializing in these things, and the stage at which it can’t, are (mostly) black-and-white so you can’t use the infanticide/moral relativism argument which is incredibly weak.
                      In fact the before-and-after birth threshold is the most black-and-white which means the pro-abortion people have an advantage here.

                      Also, invoking NAP is pointless unless you want to argue that protecting someone from physical harm or death is more important than protecting property rights in which case you wouldn’t be able to arrest starving squatters stealing your apples; also the mere fact that someone is seeking abortion makes the fetus uninvited. The fact that a woman can get pregnant is not an invitation, just like the fatc that I cna build a shack in someone’s orchard also isn’t.
                      Also, even if you’re right you run into the Fairness problem – women suffer for mistakes made by at least one woman and one man. So long as this isn’t addressed, there will always be a pro-choice lobby.

                    4. By the way has it ever occurred to people that both the pro-life and pro-choice lobbies seem to be incompetent, when you actually think about it and gather all the pro/anti-abortion arguments?
                      If I didn’t know better, I’d swear these charities and lobbying organizations were just putting in the bare minimum to justify their existence and collect their donations.

                    5. Because women get pregnant and have to deal with it, while impregnating men do not.

                      A known risk though, which gets back to the original point about sex being volitional. Men are also legally obligated to be completely financially responsible for the child, sometimes even a child that isn’t actually biologically their own, once it is born, so on balance it’s kind of a wash. And from an ethical perspective it’s totally irrelevant anyway. Appeal to convenience is kinda weak when you’re trying to establish a legal framework for when it is acceptable to terminate a life/potential life.

                      (cont’d)

                    6. both the difference between being born and unborn, and the stage at which a fetus can reasonably live in incubation as agreed by doctors specializing in these things, and the stage at which it can’t, are (mostly) black-and-white so you can’t use the infanticide/moral relativism argument which is incredibly weak.

                      Viability of a fetus is about as grey an area as it could possibly get. Medical advances even in the last decade have fundamentally changed what constitutes a “viable” fetus. Born and unborn is pretty clear. But then you have to make a case as to what medical, ethical, moral or other differentiation there actually is between a 9 month old “fetus” when the umbilical cord is still attached, and a 1 second old “baby” when it has been severed a second later. What magic happens in that 1 second that confers human rights? If birth is the cutoff then it’s really, really difficult to make any kind of a case that infanticide should be illegal based on any actual characteristic of the fetus/baby. If you set up a contrived dichotomy based on the status of an umbilical cord without regard to the child though, yeah, that’s a super weak argument. It’s not like medical ethicists have been hotly debating that issue for 3,000 years.

                      (con’t)

                    7. Also, invoking NAP is pointless unless you want to argue that protecting someone from physical harm or death is more important than protecting property rights in which case you wouldn’t be able to arrest starving squatters stealing your apples

                      Failure to provide care is not aggression. You trotted out that retarded trope in your opening, and it’s still not valid. At least read the Wiki page on the NAP before you try to make an argument based on a tortured caricature of it.

                      also the mere fact that someone is seeking abortion makes the fetus uninvited. The fact that a woman can get pregnant is not an invitation, just like the fatc that I cna build a shack in someone’s orchard also isn’t.

                      The fact that a woman can get pregnant has nothing to do with her actually becoming pregnant. It’s not as if women standing on street corners can suddenly become pregnant as if catching a cold. Your construction is still absurd.

                      You’d do well to go read some of the previous thousand comment discussions on abortion here at Reason. They’re interesting, and chock full of much better justifications for abortion from the libertarian perspective.

                      Here again though, at the end of the day, this is what it all boils down to:

                      It all comes down to at what magic moment you confer the rights of a human being on a developing human being.
                      And we play the “my dad can beat up your dad” game justifying our respective definition of that magic moment.

                    8. this pretended unfairness is due to confirmation bias.

                      listen to 2 women who are glad they can reproduce; they will spin it like men are left out in the cold and they feel pity for them for not knowing the joy of motherhood.

                      IOW, they see the gift of life as a blessing, not a curse.

                      men dont know the trouble of pregnancy, because its beyond their capacity.

                      what is more unfair, to have an option that is difficult, or to simply not have it?

                      your sense of fairness is about as developed as a 6 year old kid’s, with all the foresight and rationality that affords.

                      and that’s not even considering how family court treats the genders, or who has the ‘legal’ control to slay the unborn.

                      unfair to women? lmao.

                    9. If someone doesn’t consider a fetus a “living thing” they don’t know much about biology. Fucking amoebas are living things. That’s a specious arguement that trys to walk around real moral choices.

                      I’m ok with a woman’s right to choose, but also have problems with Doctors like the dude in Philly who killed viable individuals right out of the womb.

                      It’s a very heated debate but outfits NARAL won’t address situation like this.Like I said before stating that a fetus is not a “living thing” is intellectually dishonest.

                    10. Can you shove a coathanger in his temple and drag him out?

                    11. Can’t tell if that’s a pro-life or a weird pro-choice joke, or just random.
                      The coathanger argument is a prochoice argument. In both camps there are many people Thomas Sowell would identify as having the Utopian Vision / Vision of the Anointed. For the hardcore prolifers this translates into thinking that making a law abolishing all abortions will make it magically disappear. Coathanger argument is the counter. Not that it matters, the prochoicers are too stupid to use it properly.
                      In any case, people need to ditch the Utopian Vision and pick up the Tragic Vision / Constrained Vision because utopian idealists have an annoying tendency to demonize their opponents and label them all as cruel idiots. See: theocrats, some anarchists, basically all of the Left.

      2. I think Texas voters (God willing) will be able to appreciate the difference.

        Filibustering is a tool.* Its usefulness or harmfulness depends on the end for which it is used, just like the usefulness of a knife depends on whether you use it to help you prepare tasty food or slit some innocent guy’s throat.

        *I know, I open myself up to the rebuttal, *you’re* a tool!

        1. You’re a towel!

  9. Democrats are giddy with excitement because Davis’ star power, they believe, has given them their first real hope in nearly two decades of pulling this reliably red state into their orbit.

    HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

    1. Even IF they somehow win the governorship, there’s no way on a ticks ass that they are going to turn the state “blue”.

      1. In twenty years if current demographic trends continue, maybe, maybe, purple.

        1. I would be okay with purple as long as they keep the fiscal sanity that they kind of exhibit right now. (As sane as you can be when you’ve got a $100B budget.)

          1. In theory purple should be the best of both worlds, policing the more extreme red and blue infringements on liberty. Unfortunately it can also mean that the few stands each team might take for liberty will be largely compromised.

            1. “Unfortunately it can also mean inevitably does mean that the few stands each team might take for liberty will be largely compromised.”

              There FIFY

        2. In twenty years, if current economic trends continue, Texan immigrants might turn Mexico red.

          1. There is certainly that possibility, I do not subscribe to the idea that ethnic groups are frozen into certain voting patterns.

            1. It appears conventional wisdom is that the more melanin you have, the more frozen your voting patterns are (and the more you can be taken for granted).

              1. Statistically speaking, this is unfortunately accurate to a large degree.

                Hispanics and African-Americans are both reliable Democrats when taken as a whole. Some more than other… Cubans-Americans v. Mexican-Americans, for example, differ quite a bit.

                Feh. I hate hyphens.

  10. A Shikha Dalmia article? And no mention of Detroit? Corrections must be made!

    Hailie Jade Scott Named Homecoming Queen of Chippewa Valley High School

    Rap superstar Eminem reportedly was on hand to see his daughter named homecoming queen of Chippewa Valley High School on Friday night but stayed out of the public view, according to parents who were at the proceedings.

    Ah, where does the time go?

    1. Is Eminem the guy who sang all those songs about his mother, or was that someone else?

      1. He mentioned his mother in a few songs, made timeless classic about killing his ex-wife, her new boyfriend, and the boyfriend’s son, and is the protege of famous west coast rap producer, Dr. Dre.

  11. The article misses what I think is the most important point: filibusters are the kind of thing that excites a base but which tends to turn off less partisan people, especially when they are seen as holding something up. I do not think that ‘rubs off’ on Rand as much because holding up a nomination for one day to an office most people cannot name is not going to be seen as ‘obstructionism’ by most (in large part because it simply will not be seen). But for Cruz and Davis I predict this will be the result.

    1. It also helps that Paul was protesting something that’s hated by vast majorities in both parties, whereas the other two are just piss-ant political operatives hammering away at their respective wedge issues.

      1. I am inclined to agree there. I would add that the topic of Paul’s filibuster was one that undercut Obama’s support with some of his base.

      2. I don’t know that ObamaCare is a “wedge issue”; certainly it is more central to the lives of more people than the political appointee who Paul filibustered. I suspect that none these people (Davis, Paul, Cruz) will be hurt by their filibuster; they simply won’t be helped along by it.

    2. Rand also succeeded in getting what he wanted, and then stopped his filibuster. IMO, it made him like committed and principled, but not extreme and obstructionist simply for the sake of obstruction.

  12. Let me redesign the heading:

    Are emotional appeals and scare tactics a viable strategy for winning higher office?

    I’d have to go with a big YES.

  13. Right now, no one really knows what Davis would do once elected

    Probably the same shit that the last Dem governor tried to pull that had her booted out so fast her head spun faster than a neutron star.

    1. 716 Hz is the record holder!!

      1. Which is probably past the break-up speed for a human head.

  14. To actually win the race, Davis must broaden her appeal beyond her activist base

    Remember the Labors of Heracles? Yeah, she should be so lucky.

    Texas has an $8.8 billion surplus on a $100 billion budget. What will Davis do with it? Save it for a rainy day? Or invest it? If so, where?

    What’s a baby-killer thief to do? Hmmm. What to do, I ask?

  15. Let’s take a step back here. At the end of the day, all Davis’s opponent needs to do is note that her famed filibuster was a stand in favor of late-term abortion. Sure, it played wonderfully with gentry liberals across the country. But, gentry liberals across the country aren’t going to be voting in the Texas gubernatorial election. And, call me silly, but I don’t really think fervor for late-term abortion is going to rouse Texans to line up behind a pro gun control Democrat.

  16. Meanwhile, Georgia Democrats have Jason Carter.

  17. Don’t look now but there are rumours Elizabeth Warren will run in 2016.

    No word on what her position is on the ‘Redskins’ “issue.”

    1. I wonder what she thinks of the increasingly virulent hobgoblin problem

  18. Paul made a name for himself when he filibustered the confirmation of President Obama’s CIA nominee to demand answers on the scope of the administration’s drone program. And Cruz last month went on a 21-hour talkathon to defund Obamacare as a condition for passing the budget. Like Davis, they are both playing to activists who care about one issue above all else
    ——-
    Lumping Paul and Cruz together, I feel, is unfair to Paul.

    Paul’s actions weren’t supported one bit by his party’s leadership; indeed, the major agitators about this administration’s actions regarding drones, NSA abuses, etc., have been the “far” right libertarians and the “far” left progressives (too bad they can’t just admit to effing agreeing on some things for the benefit of the country). Paul was risking alienating his party’s leadership (and access to money) on this stand WITHOUT the benefit of far leftists supporting him beyond this one issue due to his stands on other issues. Paul was truly risking his political future with the filibuster; something I commend him for.

    Cruz’s stand wasn’t nearly as brave. Obamacare’s end is supported by the leadership of the Republican Party — at least by words, there hardly is a politician in that Party who doesn’t support at least a partial repeal, and every element of the Republican Party coalition supported the principle (if not his specific actions). He did not risk alienating the money-men in his Party.

    1. “Cruz’s stand wasn’t nearly as brave. Obamacare’s end is supported by the leadership of the Republican Party — at least by words, there hardly is a politician in that Party who doesn’t support at least a partial repeal, and every element of the Republican Party coalition supported the principle (if not his specific actions).”

      Not sure I buy this. The Peter Kings and John McCains of the party have been pretty well on as brutal with regard to Cruz as they were to Paul. I think the key here is your assumption that they want Obamacare repealed. I’m just not so sure they do. They want to oppose it, but I’m not so sure they want to see it go away as something to oppose. That is to say, the opposition is largely pyrotechnics for the audience.

      1. The Peter Kings and John McCains of the party have been pretty well on as brutal with regard to Cruz as they were to Paul.

        Arguably moreso. I don’t remember McCain advertising how much he “fucking hates” Rand Paul.

    2. The Green and Eggs and Ham thing was also pretty stupid.

  19. The premise of this piece might ring a little more true if not for the fact that the country elected a junior senator with less than 1/3 of his term under his belt, who was known for a single-issue advocacy campaign, to the presidency. Twice.

  20. Rand Paul has hurt himself a lot more by not supporting Ted Cruz’s stand than Cruz could possibly have by insisting on it.

  21. If you’re in a state where you have to do a solo filibuster to begin with, that probably means a majority of the rest of the state doesn’t agree with you on whatever the issue is.

  22. my roomate’s mother-in-law makes $62 hourly on the internet. She has been fired for 8 months but last month her income was $19895 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read Full Article================

    http://www.Works23.Com

  23. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to home tab for Register

    ???????? http://ddp.net/g7m

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.