WaPo ... "Wendy Davis is almost certainly not going to be the next governor of Texas. Apparently, though, she's willing to try just about anything to alter that reality.
"Witness her new ad that begins with this visual.
... "This ad is the sort of highly risky gambit you only see from a long-shot campaign. And, as often as not, these sorts of "Hail Marys" fail miserably.
"If [it] does backfire and Davis wants to run for office in the future, you can rest assured this one will stick with her."
From Hot Air: The worst campaign ad ever? ... "Or anywhere else than Texas, too. Even the ad considered to be the most demagogic ever — the once-run-only “Daisy” ad from LBJ against Barry Goldwater in 1964 — didn’t exploit a personal disability and suggested that it was a profit-producing enterprise. The Abbott campaign also produced plenty of evidence debunking the rest of this despicable smear. Abbott’s intervention in the case cited by the ad was to defend the constitutionality of the state’s tort-reform law, which as Attorney General was Abbott’s job. His briefs never touched on whether the surgeon in the case was negligent, merely pointing instead that the law required a finding of actual specific intent to moot the limits on damages. The reason it became necessary for Abbott to intervene in the first place was because the lawsuit against the hospital and surgeon challenged the constitutionality of the tort-reform law.
"Perhaps Wendy Davis isn’t familiar with what an Attorney General does." ...
"Witness her new ad that begins with this visual.
"If [it] does backfire and Davis wants to run for office in the future, you can rest assured this one will stick with her."
From Hot Air: The worst campaign ad ever? ... "Or anywhere else than Texas, too. Even the ad considered to be the most demagogic ever — the once-run-only “Daisy” ad from LBJ against Barry Goldwater in 1964 — didn’t exploit a personal disability and suggested that it was a profit-producing enterprise. The Abbott campaign also produced plenty of evidence debunking the rest of this despicable smear. Abbott’s intervention in the case cited by the ad was to defend the constitutionality of the state’s tort-reform law, which as Attorney General was Abbott’s job. His briefs never touched on whether the surgeon in the case was negligent, merely pointing instead that the law required a finding of actual specific intent to moot the limits on damages. The reason it became necessary for Abbott to intervene in the first place was because the lawsuit against the hospital and surgeon challenged the constitutionality of the tort-reform law.
"Perhaps Wendy Davis isn’t familiar with what an Attorney General does." ...
No comments:
Post a Comment