Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, September 30, 2016

Texas state senator Wendy Davis continues to stoke gubernatorial speculation, hinting on Monday that she may challenge Republican attorney general Greg Abbott in the Lone Star State’s 2014 gubernatorial election.

Speaking at a National Press Club luncheon in Washington D.C., Davis declared that “I can say with absolute certainty that I will run for one of two offices: my state senate seat, or for the governor.”

Davis, who became an overnight political superstar after her 10-hour filibuster to block a restrictive anti-abortion bill from passing through the state senate, later expanded on her comments to Politico.

“I’m still trying to decide, but I do think people are ready for a change from the partisan, very fractured leadership we have in Texas,” Davis said.

“I think you can’t let too much more time get away because it’s a big race,” she added. “I gotta get my final decision made soon.”

Davis is easily the strongest of the potential Democratic gubernatorial candidates, with a solid favorability rating and more than $1 million in the bank after a big fundraising boost in the wake of her filibuster. Still, she would be a huge underdog against Abbott, the likely Republican nominee. According to a recent Public Policy Polling survey, Abbott leads Davis by 8 percent in a hypothetical gubernatorial matchup; additionally, Abbott’s $20 million war chest would give him a massive financial advantage over the Fort Worth Democrat.

Texas’ current governor — and Davis’ frequent adversary — Rick Perry announced in July that he would not seek a record-breaking fifth term as the state’s chief executive.

Photo: Light Brigading via Flickr.com

  • Dominick Vila

    Go for it Wendy!

    • CPAinNewYork

      Dominick:
      I’m getting the feeling from your slavish devotion to Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren and now your advocacy of Wendy something-or-other in Texas that you’re “pussy whipped” when it comes to national politics.
      Don’t you think any men are appropriate for office?

      • Susan Dean

        The current state of the world has been created by men. It’s more than time for a change. Dominick is not expressing “slavish devotion,” merely good sense.

        • CPAinNewYork

          If the world has to be changed because its current state is perilous, then the solution is to get the best people to do it, be they male or female. Saying that men have failed, so let’s let women run things is stupid.

          • Susan Dean

            Just which men would you recommend?

          • BillP

            Susan from past comments of CPA he seems to have a bias against women. In a prior comment he stated that he despised the wives of Eliot Spizter and Anthony Weiner along with Hillary Clinton. I’m not sure why he despises them.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Why not ask me if you had that question, instead making the smarmy remark to Susan Dean?

            I despise them because after multiple instances of infidelity, they stuck to their husbands. I suspect that they accepted those gross insults because they liked the limelight.

          • BillP

            I believe you meant stuck with not stuck to their husbands. Why any person decides to stick with their spouse/partner after an act of infidelity is totally up to them. There could be numerous reasons but you choose that they liked the limelight? What limelight has Eliot Spitzer’s wife been in? Huma Ambedin and Hillary Clinton have their own limelight because of what they have accomplished.

          • CPAinNewYork

            “…because of what they have accomplished.” What are those accomplishments?

          • BillP

            Well Hillary was elected US Senator from NYS twice and served as the Sec of State for over 4 years. That’s not a ad start, is it? There is also a good,chance she could become the 1st woman president. Huma Has worked on Hillary’s staff while she was Sec of State. I suspect you have an issue with strong women.

          • CPAinNewYork

            I have an issue with bullshit, especially political bullshit. You and other Hillary backers refer to the positions that she’s held, but not to what she accomplished in those positions.

          • BillP

            You don’t have an issue with bullshit, you have an issue with women in politics and possibly everywhere. You come across as a bitter old man, the bitterness filters through in your every comment.
            Hillary’s accomplishments include getting into and graduating from Yale Law school, if you don’t think that’s an accomplishment then you try to. As previously stated Hillary was elected to the US Senate twice, the 2nd time the Republican Party had to find a sacrificial lamb to run against her. As a new and junior Senator from NY she worked on numerous committees that sponosored legislation. You can look that up yourself, I’m not your assistant. As Sec of State her role was to go to countries all over the world to rebuild relationships. You can take that as an accomplishment or not, I suspect your bitterness will overwhelm you.
            You may want to try easing up on your bitter comments and get a life.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Wrong. My issue is with bullshit and with bullshit artists like you.

            Hillary Clinton is adept at getting herself elected, but she’s light on accomplishments. She seizes a position only as a stepping stone to something else. As a New York senator, she was another carpetbagger, like Robert Kennedy.

            Kennedy did nothing for New York. Hillary did nothing for New York. But, she does have bullshit artists like you telling all who will listen that she has wonderful accomplishments. I’ve asked some women why they want Hillary as president. They said because she’s a women and it’s time to try a woman. I think that’s an honest answer, but a stupid reason.

          • BillP

            That’s it let all of that anger and bitterness out. I guess Hillary is the only one to have ambition and use public office to forward themselves, not like any male politicians. As for carpetbaggers she or RFK didn’t invent this, you forgot to mention James Buckley as a carpetbagger too. Every comment you make just furthers your image as someone who can’t deal with women gaining power. If ths makes me a bullshit artist, so be it. Better that than an old bitter man that can’t accept change.

          • CPAinNewYork

            I don’t have any bitterness, but I am angry at the politicians who come into New York to “get their ticket punched,” only to leave for another position at the first opportunity. I’m also angry at people who favor Hillary Clinton for the presidency because they think that we need to try women in the position. I think that’s a bizarre reason.

            Why these people have centered on Hillary Clinton is beyond me. She’s heavily tainted by accusations of financial fraud and by some involvement in why Vincent Foster committed suicide. She is married to an outright sleazebag who subjected the nation to international ridicule by his sexual liaisons while president. She should have divorced him. Her failure to do so shows me that her moral and ethical standards are low.

            Her actual accomplishments as New York’s senator and as Secretary of State are nonexistent. The spinmasters working for her haven’t come up with anything substantive because there isn’t anything substantive there. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

            When you reduce the whole issue to its essentials, the impetus seems to be coming from women who just want to see us have a woman president, regardless of her credentials and ultra liberal men who should know better. I guess they figure that the time is ripe: If we just elected a black man for president, why not a white woman? I still can’t get over her crying during the 2008 campaign. Is that how she’ll handle the presidency when things get rough? Cry?

            We are in trouble as a nation. Our national legislature is in gridlock and we don’t seem to have much available in the way of quality people as presidential contenders. We’ve had this situation in the past and got by it. I hope that we are able to do it again.

          • BillP

            You seem to value major accomplishments as a criteria for being elected president. Can you tell me what major accomplishments GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush and Barrack Obama had prior to their election to the presidency?
            The world was hardly upset with the US during Clinton’s presidency. More likely they could believe a country would spend some much time and effort on the Monica issue.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Because of their lack of accomplishments, I voted against Clinton both times, against Dubya the second time, because I saw what a piece of crap he is and Obama the first time because he had nothing going for him. Bush 41 was a combat veteran of WWII, had headed the CIA and was opposed by ultra liberal Democrats, whom I despise.

            As to Hillary Clinton: She’s a crook, probably had some involvement in Vincent Foster’s “suicide,” was a total failure as senator for New York because she did nothing except get her ticket punched and was a failure as Secretary of State because she again did nothing noteworthy or positive. To the contrary, she screwed up on Benghazi.

            Basically, I hate her guts. She and that piece of garbage that is her husband should sink into the slime of history.

          • BillP

            So I not sure if you voted “for” anyone in those elections. You list Bush 41 credentials as head of CIA , isn’t that as appointment not an accomplishment? I respect Bush 41 for his combat duty but how is that a qualification for the presidency?
            As for Hillary you call her a crook but offer no proof, she has never been convicted on any illegal activity. She “probably” had some involvement with Vince Foster’s suicide, again you offer not proof just conjecture. I don’t care whether you like Hillary or not. You are making claims against someone and use some indecisive terms like “I suspect or probably” . Until you have concrete proof you ought to refrain from such baseless accusations.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Congratulations on a pathetic attempt at humor.

          • Susan Dean

            I assume this was intended as a response to my question about the male candidates you would prefer. It was a serious question, not a “pathetic attempt at humor.” I would really like to know.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Know what?

          • Susan Dean

            Which male candidates you would recommend, of course.

          • CPAinNewYork

            At this point I like Biden, as I feel that he would continue Obama’s policies, especially those that relate to the Middle East, i.e. no American troops in countries that are experiencing civil wars.

      • highpckts

        We have given men a thousand chances to do the right thing and they continually fail!! Pussy whipped? I doubt it!

        • CPAinNewYork

          Who’s “we,”? Women? And who determines what the “right thing” is? women?

          The world has progressed since the Cro Magnons came on the Earth, so if men ran things in that first 35,000 years, they haven’t done such a bad job. Their performance isn’t perfect, but who says that having women run things will be any better?

          I think that your historical perspective is distorted and is just an excuse by you to see a woman president.

          • highpckts

            “We” is the people! Men have done a lousy job! Women have had to fight for the vote, fight for jobs, fight for equal pay! I am not saying that a woman would do a better job, but just maybe one would but if left to the “men” they wouldn’t have anythng to do with it!

      • Dominick Vila

        Judging by our presidential record, and the number of male candidates planning to run for office in 2014 and 2016, there is no shortage of male candidates among us. I prefer Clinton and Warren because I respect their courage, admire their intellect, and because I am convinced they have the best chance of winning in 2016. I also find the fact that the USA has not had a female president or vice-president embarrassing.
        I like Biden, I think he is an honest politician, but he would be a poor candidate in 2016 and will probably lose if he is our nominee in 2016.
        Anyway, what is wrong with a female running for office and having the same opportunities as their male counterparts?

        • CPAinNewYork

          Our presidential record is pretty good. It’s not perfect, but I don’t think you’ll get perfection from women either.

          In any case, I think that the vote should go to the most competent candidate, male or female. Concentrating on electing women just because they’re women is just plain stupid.

          • Dominick Vila

            Both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren earned their right to be viable candidates, not because of their gender, but because of their personal attributes, education, and their record. The flip side to your position is that women should not be dismissed because of their gender.
            BTW, females constitute almost 52% of our population, don’t you think they deserve the same opportunities as everyone else?

          • CPAinNewYork

            I never wrote that women should be denied the right to run because of their gender. Where did you get that conclusion?

            I’m asking you and the other Clinton and Warren enthusiasts to list their accomplishments. I’ve asked this before and have yet to receive a clear answer.

          • Dominick Vila

            Hillary Clinton conducted herself in a dignified manner when she was our First Lady, she has experience as a Senator, and as Secretary of State she helped restore the international credibility of the United States. She also has the educational background, and the courage and determination to be a leader. I was particularly impressed with the way she conducted herself during the Benghazi hearings, when she managed to make Rep. Issa and his fellow Dominican inquisitors look like the medieval imbeciles they are, without resorting to immature Republican behavior.
            What I like the most about Elizabeth Warren is her courage and willingness to tackle issues that most politicians avoid like the plague. Her willingness to confront Wall Street is inspirational and suggests that she is not easily intimidated and that she has what it takes to defend our interests and our country.
            Compare their record and behavior with that of people like Cruz, Ryan, Paul and the rest of the gang. If they decide to run as a team the 2016 election will be for them to lose. I will add that the little I know about Maryland Gov. O’Malley indicates the Democratic party is on solid ground when it comes to nominating a winning team in 2016.

          • CPAinNewYork

            I like what you wrote about Elizabeth Warren, because I believe that the Wall Street bankers need to be prosecuted. She may be a good candidate.

            I’m not too happy with your description of Hillary Clinton’s “accomplishments,” though. I don’t think that “experience” as a senator and Secretary of State counts for much. What would count with me is what she did in those positions. Carrying herself in a dignified manner as First Lady is nice, but I don’t think that she “…helped restore the international credibility of the United States”. That would take a lot of positive actions that I don’t see her as having taken. I don’t recall her embarrassing Darrell Issa, but if she did that, I’m glad.

            I hope that Cruz, Ryan and Paul are on the Republican ticket in 2016, because I think that they’ll lose. However, I don’t think that the party leaders will be so naive as to put those bozos on the ticket.

            Thanks for the input.

  • Bill Thompson

    She would be governing what is essentially an insane asylum. I think her chances of being elected in either position would be slim. I hope I am proven wrong.