Earlier this week, late-term pro-abortion filibusterer Wendy Davis claimed, quite improbably, that she is “pro-life.”
According to Sandra Sanchez, Davis is already backtracking on that improbable claim.
Sanchez writes that she attended Davis’ events in the Rio Grande Valley, and that these events were marred by amateurism and gaffes. Sanchez also writes that Davis tried to do something that is impossible: She tried to take advantage of her infamous filibuster, while simultaneously distancing herself from the abortion issue itself.
As Davis held court with supporters and a tiny contingent of controlled media, things got strange.
After six minutes, the media was herded into a dark area of the hut where we had 10 minutes to ask her questions to which she reiterated all of the above, with still no mention of women’s reproductive rights. So when I stated that women have been a big part of her base of support and asked whether she was trying to distance herself from the abortion issue, or to quote The Brownsville Herald, was “pro-life,” she looked at me and shook her head. But before she could articulate, her new press aide Rebecca Acuña jumped in and said “that comment was taken out of context.”
The context of that remark is that Davis was campaigning in a heavily pro-life area that she knows she will need to vote for her or she has absolutely no chance of winning. So she claimed to be “pro-life” and then proceeded to wrench the the term until all meaning was lost. That’s the context of Davis’ claim to be “pro-life.” It was an obvious lie that few politicians other than Barack Obama would even attempt to pull off.
Davis is now having trouble both defending and distancing herself from that lie.
And that’s probably why I was shocked and disappointed when her press aide, Acuña, called and woke me at 11:30 p.m. that night asking that The Monitor retract a headline on an online article that referenced Davis’ “pro-life” position. She then tried to backpedal and said her comments weren’t for publication, although they were made during a public media briefing. After the media briefing, Acuña did speak with some journalists on background but that was not the case when she jumped in during the open media conference.
Aside from not retreating from the issue that made Davis a household name, Acuña should also know that with political stakes this high you can’t cry “background” retroactively to the media.
Perhaps Davis will now claim the Monitor’s story hurt her brain, and sue it.
This report isn’t coming from someone who already opposes Davis, by the way. Sanchez has high hopes for Davis, says she had been “craving” to support Davis, but is finding her campaign disappointing so far, to the the point of questioning whether Wendy Davis is really ready for prime-time.
Perhaps pink tennis shoes, media air and vapidity aren’t enough to propel one to the governor’s mansion.