Because of the semantics involved defining the beginning of life, there are a lot of differing reasonable defendable opinions. It always devolves into hyperbole; as it will here, now ...10,9,8,7.....
because viability hasn't moved on the dot, and is still around 24 weeks. Better and more relevant question, why is it so easy to characterize pre-viability abortion bans as unconstitutional, and against the spirit of American jurisprudence on the topic? http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/05/ninth-circuit-strikes-down-arizona-20-week-abortion-ban.php# ^well, duh
I'll admit to being unfamiliar with much of legislative stance outside of the abortion and education filibusters. I intend on reading up on her positions before both the primary and general elections. That said, at this point I'd vote for a bear riding a unicycle if it demonstrated the ability to have one progressive thought or ideal. A democracy isn't enriched by one-party domination and a Legislature incapable of seeing shades of gray.
Remember those end of the world prophesies you had? Your Mitt Romney projections? Wendy will probably lose, but she has a better shot at winning than the bat **** crazy stuff bouncing around in your head has of coming to pass.
There has been no progress in Texas. After 2010 the Democratic Party in Texas was in ruins. Democrats in Texas can't compete. Trust me it can't get worse than it is now. They may vilify her and tear her down but that's better than what we have now currently. You have to try and lose over and over before you finally win. Republicans went through this story over and over in the 60s and 70s until John Tower became Senator (and later Bill Clements became Governor) Democrats have to start trying again and Wendy Davis running is the first step in that process.
And who would that be? The answer is No one. There is no one who can win that's a democrat. You have to lose before you can win. This is why the Democratic Party is in ruins. We keep waiting for some non-existant cnadidate instead of supporting the ones we have. So Republicans then keep running up the score every election as a result. The longer we wait to refuse to support our candidates, the more comfortable voters become with a 1 party state since they dont even see a second party trying to win. Democrats haven't had a Democrat win statewide since 1994. To put that in perspective, that is the LONGEST streak in the United States. Even states like Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, the Dakotas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, etc.. all have elected Democrats to statewide office after 1994. Democrats have to start trying before they can even dream of winning. A winner wont just show up magically.
gee is right on. She's a national name now and reminded everyone that there are indeed Dems in Texas. If she wins, that is great, but the real mission is to improve the standing and organization of the party and move Texas towards purple.
I feel you. And, I browsed briefly to see what the usual suspects were doing and you're right that the Democrats probably don't have anyone better. So they may as well run with Davis. But, I was hoping for a viable alternative to Abbot which we apparently won't be getting. But, I can't help her; I probably wouldn't even vote for her.
The reason she's a good candidate to run is that she will draw national money to somewhat counter the massive good ol' boy fund that runs Texas.
Geez, I voted for White in the last election, Kinky before that...but if she wins - I may not have a candidate I like at all from either side.
I prefer my Governors with working appendages. Say no to Abbott. He is an Abborttion of a politician and a human being. I CHOOSE WENDY.
Its unfortunate that the filibuster has such a negative impact on voters who otherwise would have voted for her. If you look at her work in the Senate and even the Fort Worth City Council, she's done a lot of good work. There's a reason why she's the only Democrat in the Senate representing a Republican district. (Obama got destroyed in her district)
