Why Wendy Davis’ lies might matter, according to Chris Cillizza of the WaPo
Because they might end up hurting her chances in 2018, by which time the demographics in Texas could favor a Democrat:
By running now, Davis effectively reserves her place at ”” or close ”” to the front of the line in future statewide races. (This happens all the time in both parties; Ed Gillespie is running for Senate in Virginia this fall with at least one eye on running well and losing but being first in line for governor in 2017.)
Unless, of course, Davis is seen as running a sub-par candidacy. And that is where the danger in these résumé questions lies for Davis. If the campaign is dogged by stories about her bio and her star ”” which is ascendant at the moment ”” is viewed as tarnished in some real way, then her ability to reserve that place at the front of the line is far less certain. And, remember that both Julian and Joaquin Castro as well as a slew of other ambitious, young Texas Democrats are eyeing Senate race in 2018 and 2020 as well as the governor’s race in 2018.
What Davis then needs most of all is not to win ”” although that would be nice for her and her supporters ”” but rather to be seen as having run a creditable campaign that continues to elevate her star status. Allegations like these about her résumé, if they persist and/or lead to other problems with the campaign, are perilous to that perception.
Otherwise, no big whoop if a Democrat runs on a resume that he/she has misrepresented to an alarming degree.
And by the way, WaPo, the word allegations in that last sentence is incorrect. An allegation is “a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.” The corrections to Davis’ resume are facts, facts which she has not even denied once they were publicized. They are merely inconvenient truths.
For Democrats, their formula for success is that the movement comes first, which means The Narrative comes first. Candidates are just avatars or, if you prefer, heads of the hydra. So she is not primarily judged by them on her individual merit to govern effectively, but rather on her utility to further the movement.
You can call me any name in the book, M-F or whatever, but you damn well better not call me a Democrat.
We can take heart that the media is widely discredited and low in the ratings. Chris Cillizza? Big deal.
It does bring a point. With opponents like this, does one compromise? They are like tar on your shoe. Do you compromise with tar on your shoe? Or do you get rid of it. Completely. Do you imagine it has a certain “right” to dirty your kitchen floor? Do you allow persons with “just a little tar” inside your house? Not to mention what they might do to your carpet or couches.
The Wendy Davis story might remind people that Hillary has a related story of using a man to get ahead.
2014 is going to make 2010 look small, tiny, and a mere precursor.
I don’t receive a gov’t check. Do you? How will I vote?
I had health care. I don’t now. How will I vote?
I’m a retired gov’t worker. My pension is reduced. Will I vote?
I’m an unemployed worker whose unemployment benefits have run out. Will I vote?
It’s our time. Vote, hit the streets, don’t worry about the RINO’s. Can’t do anything about them anyway. We can’t control them. We control our money and our activism. When we are in control, then we wills squeeze their balls. And squeeze we will.
waitforit: “We control our money and our activism. When we are in control, then we wills squeeze their balls.”
Yep. The Right needs to internalize the fundamental concept that the Left has already applied successfully: the origin point is a proper Marxist-method activist popular movement, not the candidate.
The movement carries the candidate. The movement defines the candidate. The movement is why the candidate will be effective in office.
You want candidates who reflect your values and will uphold or advance your preferred norms? Then make a movement that’s effective enough so that candidates will join your movement, depend on it, and conform to it.
The Marxist-method activist game is the only social-political game there is.
People on the Right reflexively prioritize and focus on the pros/cons of this or that candidate, when that’s not how to play the game. Movement first, non-stop, and always is how to play the game. The candidate who wins is an avatar who’s beholden to the movement.
* The candidate who wins is an avatar who’s beholden to the movement THAT WINS.
The movement carries the candidate. The movement defines the candidate. The movement is why the candidate will be effective in office.
Not sure I agree with this because, unless I misunderstand you, it completely dismisses the idea that the candidate himself/herself counts. Obama in 2008 was magic — why else did the Democrats rush to him and so coldly push Hillary aside?
The candidate counts as an avatar. On individual merit, Hillary > Obama.
But Obama is a better avatar. Obama wasn’t magic in 2008. Obama was the personification of a movement. The GOP had no movement. The better movement won.
Add: If this helps, an avatar is like a company rep. A company rep is required to be competent in his or her own way, but not in ways we traditionally associate with choosing a presidential candidate.
WaPo columnists don’t like “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, nor, I suspect, the “so help me God” part.
Was Obama in 2008 really “the personification of a movement”? How can you personify something if you misrepresent it? He certainly didn’t sell himself as what he really represented. There were indications, of course, of his true intent but it was hidden from view by the media.
And I still say it was the uniqueness of his candidacy — first African American president — that was indeed magic.
And another bit of evidence about our tolerant democrats, and perhaps another nail in Davis’ political coffin:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/01/23/caught-on-video-wendy-davis-supporters-openly-mock-greg-abbott-for-being-in-a-wheelchair-n1783613
Ann, 4:08 pm —
He was the personification of what knowing lefties knew in their heart he was, which was a politically correct leftie all the way.
Low-information voters needed for him to be vetted, which he wasn’t, but those in the know, both lefties and righties, knew from the get-go what he was all about.
The enemedia knew what he was all about, which was why they not only didn’t do the vetting job, which could be excused as incompetence — except that they actively assailed anyone who did attempt a little vetting, and that was because they (the enemedia) were also in the know, politically correct lefties, and they were protecting The One’s sorry little butt.
The “uniqueness of his candidacy” helped sell the low-information voter, many of whom wanted to demonstrate that they had transcended racism [and also oppose the unpopular George Dubya Bush retroactively], but it was all part of the narrative propunded by those in the know. And that narrative had to be protected from serious vetting.
He certainly didn’t sell himself as what he really represented.
He represented the Left’s evil. What else did he need to do?
Obama didn’t create the CULT OF OBEDIENCE to evil. The Left was already running that cult and con before his birth.
The core principles of a candidate mattter far more than the message imagined by some of the above who seek a hallow victory. Hyping the ‘message’ over the substance of the candidate’s core principles produces Boehners and McConnells and McCainiacs who become entrenched and never break a sweat over basic principles because they spend all of their energy on maintaining their position to dispense pork and gain time before the microphones. Without principles you get corruption, cronyism, and ultimately collapse.
Reagan & Thatcher come to power because they had core principles and they were not willing to sacrifice those principles upon the alter of ‘electibility’.
I understand the Girl Scouts have Davis right up there as an amazing woman to be emulated. Probably before the latest news which is not news in Texas got to the rest of us.
We’ll see what they do next about it.
There is a parallel group starting up, iirc the American Heritage Girls–something like that, along with a parallel group for boys. Not likely to be putting Wendy Davis up for “amazing”.
Or perhaps the Girl Scouts think this is even better.
My XRAM–extremely random access memory–came up with the 1998 school shooting in Jonesboro, AR. Heroic teacher Shannon Wright. Looked for honors in the Girl Scouts or NEA. Didn’t find any. Possibly any whose search mojo is superior to mine could find some.
It is, of course, possible Ms.Wright was pro-life and a straight shooter, either of which would have disqualified her.
MJR: “it was all part of the narrative”
That’s it. To begin conceiving how to win the Presidency, think first in terms of winning the contests of activist popular movement, The Narrative, and Defining the Zeitgeist.
Establish that foundation, then add the candidate.
Ann,
I’ve been an activist, so I could recognize the clockwork. Obama’s ‘magic’ as brand was planned, manufactured, maintained, and protected.
For argument’s sake, set aside magic vs movement for Obama 2008 and consider Obama’s re-election in 2012. If Hillary > Obama, then Romney >>> Obama. The 2012 victory by Obama was all about the movement.
parker,
It’s not either/or. To clarify, I’m not saying the choice is either a proper Marxist-method activist popular movement or a well-qualified candidate.
I’m saying the primary requirement, the origin point to win the Presidency, is an effective movement. The origin point is not the candidate, no matter how well qualified he or she is.
Certainly, the GOP can – and hopefully will – field a well-qualified candidate, but even the best GOP candidate needs to be carried by a movement to defeat the Dems/Left movement.
In fact, the primacy of the movement helps guarantee that the GOP candidate will hold true to your preferred principles. Note again what I said:
“The movement defines the candidate. The movement is why the candidate will be effective in office.
You want candidates who reflect your values and will uphold or advance your preferred norms? Then make a movement that’s effective enough so that candidates will join your movement, depend on it, and conform to it.”
Right now, you’re reliant on the possibility that the right candidate will emerge, resist all environmental pressures to change, and somehow reform the whole American social-political environment via his personal power, and save America messianically.
One, that’s not realistic. Two, that’s powerless and passive.
A proper Marxist-method activist popular movement that is first, always, and non-stop allows you, along with people like you, to take charge and hold the candidate accountable to your preferred principles because the candidate will be beholden to the movement, and not the other way around. A movement actively helps and empowers the candidate in real terms to make changes.
A movement that is powerful in its own right – and not limited by design to electing a candidate – means the candidate is accountable to the movement after elected to office. That won’t mean he or she is totally in your control while in office, but enough so to maintain course on the direction you want.
The Tea Party whines and complains about the GOP while providing no effective movement to the GOP to act upon the Tea Party’s wishes.
President Obama has done nothing on his own. Everything done on his watch that you protest has been done through an effective movement.
To win the game, you need to play it.
Richard Aubrey: “There is a parallel group starting up, iirc the American Heritage Girls—something like that, along with a parallel group for boys.”
You recall correctly. ‘kit’ mentioned them a few days back.
FYI:
American Heritage Girls (alt Girl Scouts)
http://www.ahgonline.org/
Trail Life USA (alt Boy Scouts)
http://www.traillifeusa.com/
When I talk about a proper Marxist-method activist popular movement, that’s not limited to boxed-in political activity routed through some registered, boarded PAC. Praxis reifies in many forms.