In How to be a Pro Choice Politician in a Pro Life State I wrote about Wendy Davis’s famous filibuster and the reasons it would prove counter-productive to her and fellow Democrats’ efforts to transform Deep Red Texas into a purple state.
Something national Democrats and Pro Choicers—and most of the press—fail to grasp about Wendy Davis, her filibuster, and the national swoon over her, is that Wendy Davis went off the rails in Texas. Pro choice forces there and nationally—at least temporarily—have wrecked Democrats’ hopes of turning Red State Texas into something more purple.
Sure enough, she announced her candidacy for governor, and—to date—hasn’t demonstrated any feel at all for the task in front of her.
Death by tweet
On December 3, Sen. Davis thought of something brilliant to tweet:
Here’s what I thought of that:
Her lack of self-awareness is almost inspiring.
But has the press learned anything?
Then there’s the “fawning press coverage” I described in the earlier post:
They should have taken another path. They should have been more aware, both of the limits of their own political world view, and the perspectives of the majority of Texas voters.
But they weren’t aware. They were reckless (much like union-driven Democrats in Wisconsin). They reacted in the aftermath of fawning press coverage without disciplining their message. And now they are going to suffer the political consequences.
The press is still alive and active and fawning. Surprisingly, that’s true of the local press as well.
Anna Tinsley in yesterday’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Wendy Davis turns filibuster into gubernatorial bid):
“The filibuster provided her with considerable statewide and national exposure as well as generated a groundswell of elite and popular support for her candidacy,” Jones said. “The filibuster was without question a key turning point for Davis and may turn out to also be one for the Texas Democratic Party.
“Without Davis’ candidacy, Democrats would likely be looking at a poorly funded second-tier candidate heading their state-level ticket instead of a well-funded first-tier candidate,” he said.
With Davis, Democrats are looking at a highly-funded second-tier—albeit newly famous—candidate who cannot win and will spend money Democrats won’t be able to spend on winnable races.
How do reporters remain this unaware (or uninterested) in what concerns real Texas voters and the most effective ways to reach them?