January 22, 2014

This isn't about me, this is about me being you....

A journey into the mind of Wendy Davis, who thinks people have a lot of nerve to look into her life story, which after all is only a story that exists to be a story about everybody:
The story of my life is also the story of millions of single mothers... millions of young dreamers ... millions of families.... Your stories are why I’m running....
It's the old "I'm you" routine. I remember it from election year 2010. Cue the tinkling pianos:

174 comments:

Brando said...

Ah, the smell of desperation and political campaigns under heat. "They're not attacking me....they're attacking all women!" I'm sure all women everywhere are happy to know they now have to share her struggles. They have been drawn in, regardless of where they stand.

Michael said...

Now that we understand that her children were an inconvenience and that she was eager to give their custody to her soon to be ex-husband we can appreciate her position on late term, very late term, abortion.

These inconvenient facts will not resonate with our progressive friends who are focused on her shoes and the fictional bits of her life.

garage mahal said...

Somebody is raising a ton of money in Texas.

rehajm said...

I developed thick skin long before anyone knew my name.

Apparently not.

madAsHell said...

Wendy Davis.
This is what having-it-all looks like.

mccullough said...

"Marry a sugar daddy, young single moms." I'm Wendy Davis and I approved this ad.

Oso Negro said...

"I'm you." Nope, Wendy Davis' second husband is me. My wife dumped me just when I finished paying for her Master's Degree. I got custody of our son, too.

Henry said...

They don’t have anything to offer Texans who find themselves in the same difficult situation I was in when I was young. They would slam the doors I walked through and pull up the ladders I was lucky to be able to climb.

Apparently the Republicans aren't running a dating service.

Matthew Sablan said...

So wait -- is she or isn't she a witch?

RecChief said...

looking back, O'donnell was probably more like the people she hoped to represent than Davis is of the people she hopes to represent

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Lying for personal political gain works like a charm for Liberals.....look at Obama.

SteveR said...

Yeah its sounding desperate, its not like the sum of her hardships are beyond Greg Abbott's. Poor baby

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Wendy Davis is only lying to win an election so it's perfectly acceptable.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

"Our stories, fighting to give our children a better future across Texas, are what drives this campaign every day. http://xxxxxx/WendyStory
10:02 PM - 21 Jan 2014"

And how, exactly, you ambitious, self-serving, blob of social pathology does killing children in the womb give children a "better future". It gives them no future.

Oh, but abortion's different... you say. Then howse about casting off a 14-year-old daughter (at the time she needs a mother the most) just because she's an inconvenient barrier to your self-preoccupation? Or ditching *two* husbands when they became inconvenient and you'd got what you wanted out of them?

Except abortion is worse because it kills another human, and a defenceless one at that. For the convenience of the mother. At least you're consistent Ms. Davis. Utterly disgusting, but consistent, and a liar, too.

Actually, you're correct on one count: you're a fantastic representative of tens of thousands of Democrat women.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Did Wendy have occasion to make these exaggerated claims under oath?

Henry said...

My story is your story if your story is like my story the way I make it sound like yours.

JRoberts said...

My impression is that her first response was to play the "victim card"

For years I've been saying that the definition of the modern Democratic Party is "A group of victims looking for a villain to blame and punish"

Wendy Davis is certainly a modern Democrat.

Michael said...

Garage: 12M is not a lot of money in Texas. She does not have a prayer. Even without the lies and bullshit she cannot win there. I know that it is an article of faith among progressives that there has been a sea change with the election of a far left mayor in NY, but Wendy Davis will not be the next, or the next after that, governor of Texas.

Pogo is Dead said...

Abortion + free gubmint money = women.

That's the entire argument.
And it works.

Wendy looked for money from a guy, and got it. Now she wants other women to marry Uncle Sugar.
And they will, in huge numbers.

Conservatives have the superior option for the long run, but Democrats have succeeded in turning America from its traditional long-term orientation to a short-term one.

Nothing short of disaster will fix that now.
Cue the Detroit montage.

MadisonMan said...

its not like the sum of her hardships are beyond Greg Abbott's

If you didn't know Abbott's story, her story might be interesting. (Might) But Abbott's story is, I think, very well known in Texas, and this latest letter from Wendy sounds an awful lot like whining.

Freeman Hunt said...

Instead of going to law school in Texas, you left your family in Texas to go to law school far away. No, you are not me nor are you most parents.

jr565 said...

Garage wrote;
Even without the lies and bullshit she cannot win there.

That should read " Even with the lies and bullshit she cannot win there." Her lies and bullshit.

Michael K said...

"Did Wendy have occasion to make these exaggerated claims under oath?"

Her "19 year old divorcee living in a trailer" was given under oath. But she only went to Harvard Law which, as we have seen, does not instill a high regard for truth.

Actually, Yale doesn't either if Hillary being fired from the Watergate committee staff is any indication.

Tari said...

The sound I'm enjoying most in all this kerfluffle is the deathly silence on my Facebook page ... all the progressive women I know who were going all breathy and swooning over Wendy Davis 6 months ago are utterly and completely silent. Crickets. I'm sure they're defending her in the privacy of their own heads, but not out loud. I love it.

Original Mike said...

"So wait -- is she or isn't she a witch?"

Only one way to find out. Build a bridge out of her.

garage mahal said...

If you didn't know Abbott's story, her story might be interesting

Abbott, a champion of tort reform, hired a trial lawyer and sued the homeowner of the tree that fell on him for 10 million. Who's the gold-digger here? Not very boot-strappy!

Anonymous said...

Wendy Davis is a force to be reckoned with. I love that the people here who are trying to discredit and diminish her thought Romney would win. The look on Rove's face was priceless, I predict we will see that look again on some Republican's face.

MadisonMan said...

Abbott, a champion of tort reform, hired a trial lawyer and sued the homeowner of the tree that fell on him for 10 million. Who's the gold-digger here? Not very boot-strappy!

You're right of course. He should have just divorced his wife and married a rich woman whom he could subsequently divorce one his goals had been achieved.

Bonus points if he saddles wife #2 with any kids they happen to have.

MadisonMan said...

*once*, not *one*

Sigh.

Original Mike said...

"The look on Rove's face was priceless, I predict we will see that look again on some Republican's face."

Well, the "War on Women" claptrap has been shown to work.

Laura said...

Bandwagon Sioux, perhaps Robyn Reid should run against Wendy Davis, and then may the "force be with you."

TosaGuy said...

Farce is spelled with an a not an o.

Pogo is Dead said...

"The look on Rove's face was priceless, I predict we will see that look again on some Republican's face."

You're probably right.
I bet you're also enjoying the looks on people's faces as they lose their health care and are shoved into Medicaid plans.

And when they lose their jobs, or cannot find one. I guess the unemployment rate is really about 37% Wow!

I bet that gives you a big laugh, too.

garage mahal said...

He should have just divorced his wife and married a rich woman whom he could subsequently divorce one his goals had been achieved.

Wow, you're deep into the mind of Wendy Davis decades ago. You know exactly what her motivations were and her mindset. Just like her wingnut opponents. Shocka!

Matthew Sablan said...

... The Dallas News story says she got her age wrong (21 instead of 19.)

That's a pretty big mistake. Forgetting you were married and therefore not a single mom while going through school also seems like a hard mistake to make. This isn't a requirement for "tighter" language, this is straight up sloppiness/dishonesty, mattering how generous you're feeling.

Anonymous said...

Pogo, such moribund musings, but coming from WND, it's the God awful truth, yessiree. I liked Pogo better before he was a corpse.

TosaGuy said...

The Wendy/Inga wing of the Democrat party has yet to realize that while most Americans of both sides of the issue may tolerate abortion in concept, they really wish it wouldn't happen and think little of the ghouls who celebrate its practice as their singular political issue.

Rob said...

I'm confused. Is she or is she not 1/32 Cherokee?

Pogo is Dead said...

"...this is straight up sloppiness/dishonesty"

Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.

"Personal" stories are about the desired narrative.
"My truth," not "the truth."

Thank you, college professors.
You have enslaved 2 generations by your postmodern deconstructionist Marxist agenda bullshit.

If a boy in a dress is a girl, then Wendy Davis can say she was a single mom even if she had 6 goddamn maids and 4 husbands.

The desired narrative trumps all, you h8er.

Pogo is Dead said...

Don't burn your fingers, Inga.

Here's the original Wash. Examiner piece:

Wall Street adviser: Actual unemployment is 37.2%, 'misery index' worst in 40 years

Beldar said...

The reason Wendy Davis was campaigning so hard on her supposedly hardscrabble personal history is because she lacks any record of substantial professional accomplishment as a public servant or even as a member of the private sector.

"Excuse the fact that I've never really shown any ability to do any of the things I'm promising I'll do for you if you elect me," she's saying in effect, "because I'm really cool and admirable."

Does this remind you of anyone else who's succeeded in gaining election to high office and then shown himself utterly lacking in ability to discharge it?

Michael K said...

"Wendy Davis is a force to be reckoned with."

Inga, Texas is not Massachusetts. Get a clue.
Fauxchahontas had a set of willing disbelievers to vote for her. She was also a better liar than Davis. I am astonished at the ineptitude of her campaign. Democrats are supposed to be campaign runners than governors but this is ridiculous.

Beldar said...

@Inga (1/22/14, 1:59 PM):

Are you aware that the Dallas Morning News writer whom Wendy Davis and her allies are accusing of taking marching orders from Davis' GOP opponent was also the author of a semi-famous book, "Bush's Brain," the premise of which is that Karl Rove is an evil genius who pulled all of Dubya's strings? Is that what prompted your remark about Rove in these comments?

Michael K said...

"better campaign runners..."

William said...

The meta truth is that most Democrats will forgive the lies of Wendy Davis. If they can forgive Bill Clinton his transgressions, it would be sexist not to forgive Wendy......What I don't understand is their vindictiveness towards John Edwards and Elliot Spitzer.

Michael said...

I read a mo ment ago that Wendy has punched back by proposing a law that she failed to remember is already a law and which she voted for a couple of years ago. A concealed carry law that was passed with bipartisan support. A law sponsored by a Republican.

Maybe she can say this is just the way she rolls to complete the gaffathon.

Crazy Jane said...

As for Abbott suing the owner of the tree that fell and paralyzed him, I'm with Abbott.

A big tree on our lot lost a major branch in Hurricane Sandy. Arborist said it would die. Cost to take it down -- $5,500, not covered by insurance.

We took it down. I sleep better at night for it.

Beldar said...

@ garage mahal (1/22/14, 1:58 PM), re your assertion that "Abbott, a champion of tort reform, hired a trial lawyer and sued the homeowner of the tree that fell on him for 10 million. Who's the gold-digger here?"

Is it your understanding that "tort reform" means elimination of the ability of everyone who's injured through others' negligence to seek just compensation for their injuries?

If Abbott had sued, say, the nursery whence came the seedling of the unmaintained tree that fell on him, or the maker of the running shoes he was wearing when he couldn't outrace the falling branch, or some other ridiculously outrageous (but deep-pocketed) defendant, then you might have a point.

He didn't. You don't. You're just trying, ineptly and offensively, to mock Abbott over a personal tragedy.

As it happens, since I practice tort law in the same city, I am well acquainted with the lawyer whom Abbott hired. He's superb, universally respected by both sides of the personal injury bar. There were strong liability facts, and based on Abbott's age, severe injuries, and unarguably catastrophic and verifiable economic damages, he had a strong case. The precise details of the resulting settlement are confidential, but even taking the high end of the amounts I've seen speculated about, I assure you that you'd find no one of roughly comparable prospects to those Abbott had at the time of his injury who'd be willing to trade the rest of his or her life in a wheelchair in exchange for that kind of money.

alan markus said...

Garage Mahal

Abbott, a champion of tort reform, hired a trial lawyer and sued the homeowner of the tree that fell on him for 10 million. Who's the gold-digger here?

Yeah, that's real gold-digging there - put yourself in a wheelchair for the rest of your life so you can score big bucks on a lawsuit.

Not very boot-strappy!

Shows only a progressive asshole would say something like that about someone who can't get up off his feet.

alan markus said...

all the progressive women I know who were going all breathy and swooning over Wendy Davis 6 months ago are utterly and completely silent

When the Girl Scouts come around selling cookies ask their parents/troop leaders how much of the $3.75 per box goes to the national council for things like promoting Wendy Davis as "Incredible Woman" role model and to pay the salary of their male communications director who has a side gig in a homoerotic punk band.

paul a'barge said...

Um, Wendy. Your husband got a restraining order against you.

Talk about the restraining order.
Talk about the restraining order.
Talk about the restraining order.

And one of his grounds for divorce was infidelity.

Talk about the infidelity.
Talk about the infidelity.
Talk about the infidelity.

garage mahal said...

I assure you that you'd find no one of roughly comparable prospects to those Abbott had at the time of his injury who'd be willing to trade the rest of his or her life in a wheelchair in exchange for that kind of money.

So....why does he campaign against trial lawyers and tightening of rules on civil claims in Texas? Link.

Michael K said...

"hired a trial lawyer and sued the homeowner of the tree that fell on him for 10 million. Who's the gold-digger here?"

Aside from the fact that the judgement was probably paid by homeowner's insurance, you're still a jerk for raising the matter

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Michael said...

I read a moment ago that Wendy has punched back by proposing a law that she failed to remember is already a law...

I read that, but it looked like bad reporting. There is no direct quote from Davis. Depending on exactly what she said she may have been referring to her record of supporting that law, rather than proposing it as a new law.

Anonymous said...

What's with these Democrat politicians and their fanciful back stories not getting hounded out of the Democrat party? Would the Republicans stand for such liars?

Cory Booker made up an entire person and was still elected.

Elizabeth Warren pretended to be of Native American descent and was still elected.

And now this lady.

I hope this next election cycle we get a solid conservative Republican who has some lie in his background that he has pimped for years and gets called on it and then says, "Ummm, yeah, I wanted to be more like Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren, remember all the questions you asked them about their claims?"

paul a'barge said...

@Inga: Wendy Davis is a force to be reckoned with.

Well, certainly not a force, although I agree with you the word starts with an "F" and has 2 vowels.

Michael said...

Garage. Did you not read Beldar's very crisp explanation of the difference between real and imaginary damages?

Michael said...

Ignorance is Bliss. Noted. Thanks.

Fen said...

Garage: Wow, you're deep into the mind of Wendy Davis decades ago. You know exactly what her motivations were and her mindset

Actually yes. I paid for her boobs. Even hired a paralegal to brush up her legal arguments for class. Don't believe me? Ask Wendy to do "Fen's favorite lap dance" for you.

[psst! if you pay her electric bill, she'll blow you long time]

Beldar said...

@ garage mahal (1/22/14, 3:03 PM): You aren't following me. I'll try again, giving you the benefit of the doubt one last time:

Tort reform is about reducing or eliminating abuse in the tort system. I've practiced civil law in Texas since 1980, including personal injury practice on both sides, and as both a partner in BigLaw firms and as a solo practitioner. I can assure you that there have been, and still are, abuses of the system.

But Greg Abbott's case was not one of those — not by any stretch of the imagination.

No one who supports tort reform wants to curtail the rights of legitimate claimants who are suing the appropriate parties whose negligence or other misconduct caused real injuries. So there is no inconsistency between Abbott's campaign positions and his personal history.

He's not a hypocrite. And if you surveyed the plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers who practiced before him when he was a universally respected state district judge here in Houston — I'm among them — your position would be mocked and ridiculed by both plaintiffs' and defendants' lawyers. He handled the cases before him with careful impartiality, and deserving claimants — of whom he was, once, one himself, long before he went into his wheelchair or onto the bench — were fairly treated in his court.

If you want a further response from me, you're going to have to up your game above "troll level."

Anonymous said...

I understand that the restraining order is an automatic feature in divorces in which there are children, in Texas. It was not issued because of any issues with Davis' behavior. More attempts at smearing her.

Here

SteveR said...

Inga: You don't know Texas. Davis is about as much of a force as Ann Richards was running against GWB. Which means that she is a darling of the Liz Carpenter/Molly Ivins Democrats, which is worth noting politically in Texas.

garage mahal said...

Garage. Did you not read Beldar's very crisp explanation of the difference between real and imaginary damages?

Yes. IOKIYAR.

Curious George said...

What do you call a person who exchanges sex for money. Oh, that's right. A whore.

Sorry Wendy, I am not a whore.

Michael said...

Garage. I agree that Republicans read a lot more than progressives, but what point are you making? He very respectfully repeated himself at length to explain. Why would you use a childish text phrase that doesnt fit?

Anonymous said...

Just for laughs, Beldar, I'd go ahead and read Garbage's link just the same. It's all the proof you'll ever need of P.J. O'Rourke's saying that "Life is full of irony when you're stupid."

Michael said...

Paul Z. Excellent. I did and you are right. I wish I had been as quick as you to describe the bewilderment I experienced at the link

Beldar said...

@ Inga (1/22/14, 3:14 PM), re your assertion that "the restraining order is an automatic feature in divorces in which there are children, in Texas":

That's not quite right. Throughout Texas for the last several decades, in cases in which there are minor children, there are indeed so-called "standard [temporary] orders" that have evolved (with some variation by location and judge) over time as a template for use in individual cases.

It's certainly true that these "standard orders" routinely forbid certain types of conduct that are universally deemed to be against the best interest of the involved children. It's quite common, for example, for them to include "non-disparagement provisions" — basically a provision ordering neither spouse to bad-mouth the other in front of the children — even if there's no history or particularized risk of either spouse doing so in a specific case.

I don't know whether the "standard orders" then in use in Tarrant County included prohibitions on drug use around the children, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was indeed standard.

I certainly agree that the inclusion of such a request as part of temporary orders requested by a petitioning husband doesn't prove that the responding wife was guilty of such misconduct.

The same is true of the alternate ground — adultery — alleged by the petitioning husband in addition to "insupportability." Since no-fault divorce, one need not plead or prove adultery as a justification for dissolving a marriage.

But allegations of such things as adultery and drug use are indeed sometimes made for specific reasons particular to specific cases. In particular, if one spouse anticipates a dispute over child custody, and if there are facts to at least arguably support them, then such allegations are still included in divorce petitions and/or requests for temporary orders.

I will say this: It has long been, and is still, extremely uncommon for a husband to be awarded "managing conservator" rights in Texas unless either the wife consents to that and/or there are genuine concerns about parental unfitness.

And consented to or otherwise, it is spectacularly rare for a spouse (especially a husband) to be awarded managing conservatorship of a child not biologically his or her own (i.e., from a prior relationship or marriage).

Taking Wendy Davis' ex-husband's recent statements at face value, it may indeed be that Ms. Davis magnanimously recognized that given her own prioritization between being a mom and a politician-wannabe/lawyer, it made more sense, and was indeed in the best interest of their children, for her to agree that he should have custody of all of the children.

Or it could be that that decision was also influenced, in whole or part, by her and her lawyer's concerns about what would happen if the allegations of infidelity and drug use were indeed proven to the satisfaction of the divorce court. A judicial finding to that effect would of course be spectacularly devastating to anyone's future political hopes.

Given that the custody and child support issues were (as is extremely common) resolved by consent, then, it's unlikely that anyone will ever know with any precision all of the factors considered by the divorcing spouses and their counsel. But it's a peculiar case, a statistically odd one, that at a minimum would raise eyebrows among experienced family law lawyers, and that might cause one to second-guess some of the other things that Ms. Davis has said about herself and her history.

Drago said...

Garage Mahal: "Somebody is raising a ton of money in Texas"

I'm sure the idea of dumping your child from a previous marriage and your child from your current marriage onto your current spouse while you whisk away to a top flight law school 1500 miles away (which the spouse pays for fully) and then immediately divorcing your spouse once that spouse makes the last huge tuition payment and then having those children given to the care-giving spouse whilst you galavant about is probably quite appealing to some.

Drago said...

Inga: "I understand that the restraining order is an automatic feature in divorces in which there are children, in Texas."

LOL

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Paul said...

Is she on drugs?

I mean I have never seen such a lame campaign with so many mistakes, gaffs, astroturf, etc...

Here challenger should take the advice of the great general Napoleon. "Never interfere with an opponent that is destroying themselves."

Just let her keep talking.

garage mahal said...

Garage. I agree that Republicans read a lot more than progressives, but what point are you making?

Abbott campaigns AGAINST "greedy" trial lawyers, and favors rules limiting others to do the SAME FUCKING THING he did, which was to hire a "greedy" trial lawyer in order to collect 10 million for a tree falling on him. But of course Abbott is a Republican so it's different. His award is totally legit, his trial lawyer is totally legit, and everyone else can go pound sand. You're not aware of Republican Rules by now? C'mon.

Drago said...

Inga: 'Wendy Davis is a force to be reckoned with"

Where?

When?

Under what circumstances?

Hasn't happened yet.

Won't happen in the Texas Governors race.

Go ahead, lay it out for us.

LOL

Drago said...

garage mahal: "Abbott campaigns AGAINST "greedy" trial lawyers, and favors rules limiting others to do the SAME FUCKING THING he did,"

LOL

Garage mahal, liar.

Again.

From the Dallas Morning News (no friend of Abbot's)

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/08/greg-abbott-releases-settlement-from-crippling-injury.html/

snip: "Under the new laws, courts must cap damages for punitive damages, meant to punish bad actors, at $750,000. The laws do provide for medical costs, potential lost wages, economic damages and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

Matt Hirsch, a spokesman for the Abbott campaign, said the attorney general did not seek punitive damages in his lawsuit."

Texas tort reform laws limit punitive damages.

Abbot never sought punitive damages.

Let me guess, next up garage will accuse Abbot of causing some woman to die of cancer.

Drago said...

Even in Houston Davis is being laughed at everywhere.

But we all know she is just angling for a show on MSNBC.

Which she'll probably get since the numbers can't get much worse over there.

Drago said...

garage: "Somebody is raising a ton of money in Texas."

What is it again?

12 Million?

That's a hiccup in Texas.

Beldar said...

@ Paul Zrimsek (1/22/14, 3:25 PM): I did look at the Texas Observer article linked by garage mahal. You can find the exact same content in the Texas Observer that you'd find on the websites of the Texas Trial Lawyers' Association (which represents the plaintiffs' personal injury bar) or the Texas Democratic Party. I am unsurprised that they're all incapable of distinguishing between "tort reform" and "tort abolition," and of course they always sing the same tunes in perfect harmony. They're interested in talking points, not a serious discussion.

@ garage mahal (1/22/14, 3:20 PM): Thank you for prompting me to Google a new acronym with which I was previously unfamiliar, "IOKIYAR." Unfortunately, you've failed to up your game above troll level, but rather sunk back deeper into that, so this will conclude our conversation.

Drago said...

Beldar, you are really trying to respond in a factual way to an Inga assertion?

LOL

Barking up the wrong tree there amigo.

Patrick said...

Garage, you ignore what Beldar wrote.

Why don't you explain what part of Abbott's settlement would be precluded by reforms he's proposing. There's a great deal of room between"tort reform"and tort elimination. You look ridiculous.

garage mahal said...

That's a hiccup in Texas.

And more than Abbott raised. Which is why you're seeing Republicans wallowing in the gutter.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the Texas Observer cracked me up most by implying that a state AG doing his job and defending his state's laws in federal court is somehow engaging in ambulance-chasing.

Skeptical Voter said...

Hey Wendy Davis is blonde (at least in her current incarnation and under the tender care of her current hairdresser), and she's probably straight. It would lead to a sort of yin and yang setup with Davis and Maddow.

MSNBC's total viewership would probably go up by 150% --say from 2 viewers to 3.

Drago said...

garage: "Which is why you're seeing Republicans wallowing in the gutter"

LOL

"wallowing in the gutter"

Wherein garage immediately picks up the mantle of defending Davis from those scurrilous attacks from crazed right-wingers....er..the reporter from MSNBC who never spoke to anyone from Abbotts camp about Davis' many and obvious lies and embellishments.

garage is such a good little auto-lackey.

His political betters wind garage up and off garage goes!

LOL

Drago said...

Patrick: "Why don't you explain what part of Abbott's settlement would be precluded by reforms he's proposing."

Oh no you don't!!

li'l garagie has been given his talking points and no amount of presenting actual facts will dissuade him from his mission!!

Drago said...

garage: "And more than Abbott raised"

Abbott doesn't really need to raise a dime to beat Davis.

All he has to do is show up.

Davis is that bad and actually getting worse.

Davis has pulled off a stunt that basically renders her powerless: she has been shown to be someone very few can relate to, she's been exposed as a ridiculous liar, and she's doubling down on the stupidity.

Abbott just has to lay low and marvel at the performance.

Kathy Antley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beldar said...

@ Drago (1/22/14, 3:44 PM): Thanks for posting that link to the DMN article about the details of Abbott's settlement. I hadn't seen it before, but nothing in it surprises me.

Two points about it, though:

(1) This statement is absolutely correct: "Abbott has argued that anyone in similar circumstances could reach the same type of settlement."

In analyzing the reasonable settlement value of a case like his, the threshold and most important factor would be the strength of the plaintiff's potential proof at trial of the defendants' liability. If the proof of causation or negligence were thin, that would dramatically reduce the case's settlement value. From everything I've read elsewhere about Abbott's case, though, he had strong cases that the defendants had indeed been negligent, and that their negligence had proximately caused his injuries. So the resulting discount (from risk that the plaintiff might fail to win on liability) would likely have been small.

But that's only the front-end of the analysis. The back-end, equally significant here, was the potential range of damages that a jury might have awarded. And that's where the undeniably catastrophic injury that Abbott sustained was important. No juror could have wondered if he was faking or exaggerating. His medical bills and out-of-pocket expenses, both past and future, were clear and indisputable. Based on his education, family history, and career prospects, there likewise could be no doubt that his lifetime earning capacity had been severely reduced. These sorts of economic damages are indeed still recoverable, without substantial limitations, by plaintiffs even today, after all of the "tort reform" efforts of the past two decades.

In short, any experienced tort lawyer would have recognized this as a "monster case" -- one with an objectively high settlement value -- either before or after tort reform in Texas.

(2) The figures quoted in the DMN article represent recent payouts, probably pursuant to one or more annuity policies purchased by the defendants as part of a "structured settlement." But at the time of the settlement, the "present value" numbers -- and the resultant costs to the defendants of purchasing those payable-over-time annuity policies -- would certainly have been dramatically lower than the figures in the DMN article.

The settlement, in other words, was far more favorable to the defendants than the numbers quoted by the DMN would suggest.

damikesc said...

Which is why you're seeing Republicans wallowing in the gutter.

Abbott's campaign is intentionally insulting somebody's handicap?

Abbott's campaign is falsely accusing a reporter of working for a campaign?

Really?

Can you link to that?

Scott M said...

So wait -- is she or isn't she a witch?

I have it on good authority that she weighs the same as a duck.

donald said...

I believe abbot has raised about $28,000,000.00.

Anonymous said...

"Why do you think she's a witch?"

"Because she looks like one!"

"They dressed me up to look like this."

B said...

I believe abbot has raised about $28,000,000.00.

Yup. And I understand that Davis has raised most of her gubernatorial campaign money via (and attending) out of state fundraisers. Also through the Battleground Texas outfit that in turn draws heavily on out of state contributions though it supports a more Democrat office seekers in and from Texas than just Davis.

garage mahal said...

Why don't you explain what part of Abbott's settlement would be precluded by reforms he's proposing. There's a great deal of room between"tort reform"and tort elimination. You look ridiculous.

Abbott's lawyer said most of his settlement came from pain and suffering. You tell me:

"In 1995, the Legislature capped punitive damages stemming from noneconomic losses at $750,000. Lawmakers also erected hurdles for plaintiffs who try to collect from multiple defendants.

Meanwhile, the conservative Texas Supreme Court, on which Abbott served from 1996 to 2001, began adopting tighter standards for losses that involved pain and suffering and mental anguish.

Then in 2003, the Legislature capped noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, a move that Abbott supported. That means when the medical equivalent of a freak tree accident happens in an emergency room today, people who sue the doctors face a limit on the amount of noneconomic damages they can receive. That limit is frozen in statute at $250,000 and does not have any built-in increases for the rising cost of living. Nuances in the law can lead to higher awards in wrongful death cases or when more than one health care institution is involved." Link.

Drago said...

garage is adorable when he tries to pretend he understands the talking points he links to!

Good job garagie.

You should get a cookie.

heyboom said...

re the Beldar vs. Inga/Garage debate:

To once again apply what I said the other day on another thread, one side (Beldar) is enlightened by real experience while the other side (Inga/Garage) is enlightened by a biased worldview.


Drago said...

donald said...
I believe abbot has raised about $28,000,000.00

Can't be 'cuz garage ain't seen it!

$28MM is only a start. There will be alot more where that came from, and most of it from in-state sources.

Wendy better head out to Hollywood for some of that sweet sweet tax-law sheltered Hollywood money.



Drago said...

Still waiting for Inga to enlighten us as to when Davis will be a "force to be reckoned with".

I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be a long time coming....

Beldar said...

@ garage mahal (1/22/14, 4:36 PM):

I know your comment wasn't directed at me, and I hesitate to encourage a troll who's merely paraphrasing (badly) what much smarter spinmeisters have written elsewhere, but:

Are you under the impression that Abbott's lawsuit was a medical malpractice case? That perhaps he was paralyzed by a tree limb mistakenly hacked off by a surgeon while he was on the operating table, perhaps? Otherwise your point about Texas caps on med-mal cases is spectacularly irrelevant. (I could also discuss the ways in which you're wrong or being misleading, or have been misled, about med-mal cases, but that would be overkill, I think.)

You also make an assertion about something Abbott's lawyer supposedly said about the settlement. I doubt that assertion, but I'd like to see a link to a specific quote before responding to it. Can you provide one?

John Constantius said...

I actually give credit to Garage and Inga for not trying to defend the indefensible. After 90+ comments, I haven't seen any sign of them actually trying to support what Wendy Davis has said or done.

Instead they're trying to switch the topic to Abbott, or to campaign funds raised, or they're asserting that despite all this, Davis remains "a force."

I think we should give Garage and Inga credit for NOT trying to argue that it's okay to dump your kids (including those from a previous marriage) on the ex-husband you divorced the day after he finished paying for your law school.

garage mahal said...

Drago
I remember your Romney predictions well.

If you don't, then you accept the Rasmussen and Gallup polls as being more accurate since they, in the opinion of many, are clearly more representative of how many of us perceive the electorate this time around.


Much, much more hilariousness at the link. Here

Gallup had the worst performance of any pollster in 2012. Rasmussen was near the bottom. LOL

Beldar said...

Ah -- I see what you're referring to, from the Texas Observer article:

"'The strength of this case was in the intangibles — the noneconomic items,' said Riddle, who has been critical of Abbott’s pro-tort reform stance."

I don't doubt that Riddle may have said that. But as someone who's represented both plaintiffs and defendants in such cases, I will tell you that statement is essentially meaningless, and very much not in accord with my own experience in evaluating cases.

If I were cross-examining Mr. Riddle, I am very sure that I could secure from him a grudging admission that in fact, paraplegia cases routinely depend less on "pain and suffering" for their settlement value than other personal injury cases (e.g., serious burns, amputations, etc.), precisely because the plaintiff's injury has stripped him or her of sensation. Those cases do have high settlement values, though, because of their economic damages — chiefly loss of income (past and future) and medical expenses.

It's quite funny to read the Texas Observer making arguments that defense lawyers would typically make -- lowballing Abbott's lost earnings, for example, by pointing only to his past lost earnings. In Abbott's case, given his age and the very early stage of his legal career at the time of his accident -- he was just out of school, IIRC, where he'd done very well and secured a job with a blue chip firm -- almost all of his lost earnings were in the future. Any economist analyzing his damages would so testify, and I'm quite certain that's what Abbott's lawyers argued at the time.

Seriously, can't you find better things to do with your time than accusing a paraplegic of being greedy in a case that was settled to the satisfaction of all concerned? Is that the best you can do to help poor Wendy Davis?

garage mahal said...

You also make an assertion about something Abbott's lawyer supposedly said about the settlement. I doubt that assertion, but I'd like to see a link to a specific quote before responding to it. Can you provide one?

In the link I provided, it said this:

"He had future medical costs to pay, but most of the settlement came from noneconomic losses for pain and suffering and mental anguish, said Abbott’s former lawyer, Don Riddle of Houston.

“The strength of this case was in the intangibles — the noneconomic items,” said Riddle, who has been critical of Abbott’s pro-tort reform stance."

More from Abbott's lawyer:

"Today, a claimant would not have the same benefits," Riddle said, "because they'd be limited by the new joint and several liability limitations."

Anonymous said...

Garage, :)

"....Romney will win handily..."

Drago

Drago said...

Inga: "Drago"....Romney will win handily...""

Gee, I wonder what was being said on the front end and back end of that snippet.

LOL

It's almost like you are afraid to show the entire post.

But here's one for you and garage: "secret routers"

LOL

Secret. Routers.

Secret.

Like Secret Squirrel.

Only more "router-ier"....

Anonymous said...

Wendy Davis may not win in Texas, but she has brought to the forefront what can happen nationally if Republicans and the religious right who drive them, would get into serious power. Women are listening, the woman's vote is nothing to take for granted.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

I agree that if you haven't predicted every single election accurately you can't speak with any authority about anything. No politician has ever proclaimed a pending victory, been wrong, and gotten back into public life. Obama predicted he would lose to Rush. Gore predicted the 2000 loss and hasn't been heard from since.

If you were ever wrong about anything wingers, you are wrong now.

Dumb righties.

And Science! too.

Drago said...

Wendy Davis is a liar.

Inga claims to have a "very good" memory.

Maybe Inga can provide some guidance to Wendy.

Drago said...

Inga: "Wendy Davis may not win in Texas,..."

"..may not"

LOL

Yeah.

"may not"

Inga: ".. but she has brought to the forefront what can happen nationally if Republicans and the religious right who drive them, would get into serious power."

Uh, Republicans are in "serious power" in Texas.

What was your point again?

Inga: "Women are listening,.."

They certainly are in Texas, and it's why Wendy is suddenly in even worse shape politically than she was before her many obvious lies captured the medias attention.

Inga: ".. the woman's vote is nothing to take for granted."

Then why did Wendy take it for granted and double down on stupid and accuse a lifelong liberal and MSNBC contributor of being an Abbott stooge for reporting the simple, easy for everyone to see, facts that Wendy lied about?

Dr Weevil said...

What I get from all this is that some women's votes can in fact be taken for granted: they'll vote for any pro-abortion woman, no matter how sleazy, dishonest, incompetent, and totally lacking in any qualification for the position she has been proven to be. All she has to do is be a woman, and support abortion.

Drago said...

Blogger NotquiteunBuckley: "I agree that if you haven't predicted every single election accurately you can't speak with any authority about anything."

As I repeated time and time again prior to the election, I had no idea whose raw data was more accurate.

Since I deal in statistics on a professional level, I know that the assumptions plugged into turnout models make the difference.

The only real question before the last election was whether or not the 2008 turnout model or the 2010 model would hold sway.

That's why garagie (who barely graduated from a backwater high school) can't quite grasp the higher concepts.

Given that Wendy's hilariously obvious lies have come to light, it's time to lob everything, including the kitchen sink, into the mix to try and distract from the irrefutable fact that Wendy is a moronic and shallow liar who ran as fast as she could run away from her kids and latched onto a sugar daddy to pay her way thru law school and dump him after his last payment so she could find another sucker.

So naturally Inga brings in the "war on women" thing.

What else does she have?

Drago said...

Talk about taking women for granted, Wendy's latest gambit is to say to women: hey, i'm not a liar (even though I am), I''m a woman, just like you and all of our stories are true

...especially the stories that are hilariously untrue!

That is the epitome of taking women for granted.

And Inga will lap it up.

Fen's Law.

Anonymous said...

The more they bash Wendy Davis, the better for us. They're too dumb to realize this and we Dems will capitalize on it when the time comes.

hombre said...

Igna wrote: "Wendy Davis is a force to be reckoned with."

Ah, yes, for the Ignas and her ilk, lying by a Democrat politician, particularly under oath, is a feature, not a bug.

Evidently, Davis is claiming a "new" gun possession idea in her platform. Not surprisingly, her "new idea" has been Texas law since 2011 - passed with her vote. LOL.

garage mahal said...

Since I deal in statistics on a professional level, I know that the assumptions plugged into turnout models make the difference.

And people pay you for your services? DAMN.

There is a commenter here who did correctly predict 49 out 50 states. Who was that? Oh right, me.

Mark Nielsen said...

Here's what I don't understand about Inga. She sounds reasonable when she describes what limitations she's willing to put on abortion. What she says is actually pretty much in line with my own beliefs here. I'm pro-choice in the sense that I would prefer that abortions remain legal. But I also completely support reasonable restrictions on both the timing and the methods used. (One difference between me and Inga is likely the desired fate of RVW -- I think it stretches constitutional interpretation into dangerous territory and should be struck down as being judicial overreach. But once it was struck down, I'd vote for my own state to keep the procedure legal.)

But people like Inga are all words. The Wendy! phenomenon seems to be a litmus test for this. How can a person defend her abhorrent actions and still claim to be anything other than a sellout to the abortion-above-all-else extremists? The very reasonable restrictions the Ingas of the world claim to support are blasphemy to Wendy! and her ilk. Why bother defending the liar?


Patrick said...

I actually give credit to Garage and Inga for not trying to defend the indefensible. After 90+ comments, I haven't seen any sign of them actually trying to support what Wendy Davis has said or done.

You can lie to them all you want, without consequence. All you need is a "D" on the ballot, and you've got 'em right where you want 'em. The more you lie, the more they will like you, it seems.

Anonymous said...

Wendy Davis' ex-husband says she would make a "very capable governor", lol.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I can't figure out why Garage likes Wendy Davis so much. I mean, sure, there is the infanticide, but it's not like Garage's ex paid for him to get an advanced degree.

She did take his kid though. . .

garage mahal said...

You can lie to them all you want, without consequence. All you need is a "D" on the ballot, and you've got 'em right where you want 'em.

This might have some weight if conservatives didn't look the other way when Republicans lie their asses off. Scott Walker immediately comes to mind.

Said he vcoted for Reagan.....when he was 17?
Said he dropped out of college to look after his kids.......3 years later?
Said his car was attacked in LaCrosse....hundreds of people and press were there and nobody saw it.

Anonymous said...

Why do Garage and Inga like Davis so much?

Because shit draws flies.

hombre said...

Igna wrote: 'Wendy Davis' ex-husband says she would make a "very capable governor", lol.'

Oh. That settles it then. Never mind the lying under oath.

Say, is this the same guy who got stuck for her student loans? You know, the Wendy expert?

Michael said...

Garage. Good point. But he won. Wendy wont. Otherwise an excellent observation.

garage mahal said...

I can't figure out why Garage likes Wendy Davis so much.

Primarily because she drives mouth-breathing troglodytes like you crazy.

I'm surprised a lawyer like you didn't expand on Beldar's legal writings upthread. Oh, that's right. You aren't a lawyer in real life, and Beldar is. Sucks to be you.

Anonymous said...

"I can't figure out why Garage likes Wendy Davis so much."
----------------------
"Primarily because she drives mouth-breathing troglodytes like you crazy"

1/22/14, 6:06 PM
-------------------

Precisely. :)

Michael K said...

"what can happen nationally if Republicans and the religious right who drive them, would get into serious power"

I can see an epidemic of falling tree limbs. Wow !

This thread should be preserved in amber or something. Inga and garage have outdone themselves.

Michael said...

Look, if a community organizer with zero experience can twice become our president then a lot of people like Wendy are going to be encouraged to try themselves. Fine. She has a lot more life and legislative experience than he does and did so I give her credit for trying to mount the national stage. She embellished her story pretty grossly but that won't, doesn't, bother her prospective constituents. See E. Warren. She may have botched it with her reaction but she is young. She hasn't a prayer in Texas, which she knows even if her donors don't. I promise that she would not be one tenth as bad as president than the one we have and probably twice as good as the presumptive Democrat nominee. Ditching the kids is what will do her in.

Anonymous said...

Oh don't be a sore loser Michael K. Two little liberals against all you fierce conservatives. You've made yourselves look like the troglodytes garage mentioned. Good job!

Gahrie said...

Primarily because she drives mouth-breathing troglodytes like you crazy.

This is perhaps the most assholic (assholish?) comment I have read on the internet in the past year. But something I would expect from garage or your average Lefty...they have the maturity and grace of ill mannered ten year olds.

Beldar said...

@ taj mahal (1/22/14, 5:01 PM): Here's the meat of the Houston Chronicle piece you linked:

*****

"If you had a jogger out in Houston today who was injured the way I was, that person would have access to the very same remedies I had access to," Abbott told me.

Only, that's not true....

There have been several tort reform laws passed since Abbott's accident that could hinder a victim's ability to obtain a reward similar to the one he received in 1985. For example, Abbott collected from both a homeowner and a tree company that had examined the tree before it fell.

But the Texas law governing "joint and several liability" was changed three times for all tort lawsuits in ways that made it harder for victims to recover from multiple wrongdoers, according to a tort reform database maintained by a Northwestern University law professor.

Where the law once was simple, basically making any negligent party responsible for the amount of jury award a co-defendant couldn't pay, "now it's very complicated and protective of the defense," says Houston personal injury attorney Don Riddle. "It has the effect of sometimes, the injured party does not get paid his full compensation."

*****

With due respect to Mr. Riddle (and no respect at all for Northwestern University law professors opining about Texas personal injury practice), when Riddle says, "Now it's very complicated," that is a red flag translating to: "It's a good thing nobody asking me questions today knows what I'm talking about, or they'd blow holes in my claim."

In fact the changes in Texas law on "joint and several liability" didn't do away with joint and several liability, but they have reduced circumstances that permitted windfalls — plaintiffs who essentially collected twice, or sometimes even more than twice, from different defendants for the same damages. They've also permitted juries to assign responsibility more precisely among several alleged bad actors, with corresponding consequences in the collectability of the damages those juries award.

In fact, it's not all that complicated. I suspect that what Riddle's referring to is the "designation of responsible third party" provision in the current version of section 33.004 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. But given that the defendants in Abbott's case were both named parties in the lawsuit, and that both were solvent and had insurance coverage with very substantial limits (which is what you'd expect from a homeowner and his tree maintenance service in River Oaks, the richest neighborhood in Houston), that provision would have had absolutely zero effect on Abbott's case even if it had been on the books in the mid-1980s.

Nothing Riddle says, or could say, refutes Abbott's specific assertion that on the same facts under Texas law today, a claimant like him could do just as well in court as Abbott could have done had his case gone to trial. And I have no doubt at all that even today, Abbott's case would have an objective seven-figure settlement value sufficient to fund the same size annuity payments over time that he's been receiving.

Conspicuously missing from Riddle's comments is any assertion that Abbott's personal injury claim was frivolous or abusive — either as judged under Texas laws as they existed in the 1980s or as they exist today. I repeat: tort reform is about reducing or curtailing frivolous and unfounded claims, not good ones. Abbott's claim was a good one, the very opposite of a frivolous or unfounded one. We can argue about claims on the margins, but Abbott's wasn't on the margin.

I'd make a joke now about those who're barking up the wrong tree, but someone might think I was mocking Greg Abbott. (He wouldn't think that — the man has a sense of humor and, as I said in comments on a parallel thread yesterday, he himself has never made a big deal about his disability.)

Drago said...

garage: "And people pay you for your services?"

Yes.

Better yet, my contracts are written in such a way that the client can, at any given moment, tell me that my services are no longer required and I walk out the door with no requirements on the part of the client to pay me any additional fees.

None.

It's a near zero risk for the client to retain my services and costs him/her nothing to send me on my way.

In this world, there are guys like me and then there are guys like you demanding a piece of everyone elses action simply because.

It is what it is.

Chef Mojo said...

Amusing to see garage & Inga resorting to the white noise of a whining declaration of victory before leaving the battlefield on stretchers after Beldar ripped them both apart farther on up the thread. With style and grace to boot.

We'll played, garage & Inga. Well played. Now go do some more stompy-foot victory dances.

Oh. And let's not forget a gold star for Inga using "troglodyte!" Gold stars make Inga feel so... special.

mccullough said...

Beldar,

I appreciate your analysis of the settlement value of Abbot's case, but I have to disagree on one point. His future earnings would not have been impaired since he was a lawyer. If he performed manual labor or were an athlete, his earnings would have been diminished. But, as you can see from his career, his future earnings were not damaged.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

In re: the Abbot lawsuit, the, as it turns out, divorce lawyer who was sued as it was his property from which the post oak fell on Abbott as he was running past in a jog, that 'the tree was as green as a gourd' when he , the owner of the property, looked at it earlier. This was to imply that the tree looked healthy though in fact it had rotted through. This seems to me one of those Althouse 'what he is really saying' moments as my image of the typical gourd is a yellow gourd in which case the tree would have looked to be decaying.

Drago said...

Michael: " Ditching the kids is what will do her in."

This is precisely what a couple of texas "liberal" gals were talking about today in downtown Houston where I engaged them in conversation at lunch.

I asked them if they thought Wendy's "experience" was the experience of "all women".

Of course, being Texas gals, they laughed and said something along the lines of "hand my kids to my latest husband and head off across the country for 3 years to get a degree? ha ha ha"

Not likely.

But hey, if you don't believe Wendy's story is the story of all women, then "WAR ON WOMEN" and troglodyte and other "not good stuff" too...

LOL

Drago said...

McCullough: "But, as you can see from his career, his future earnings were not damaged."

We can only see that after the fact.

At the time of the ruling, what was a reasonable expectation of impact to future earnings?

Michael K said...

"You aren't a lawyer in real life, and Beldar is. Sucks to be you."

And that makes you feel intelligent ?

Inga, just how am I going to lose in the Wendy Davis imbroglio ? After she loses, she is going to move to California and be elected governor ?

Now, there you could have a point. It always amuses me how the lefties are all about "winning and losing"

Life is not a game. Sometimes bad things happen. Even to fools.

I am not a lawyer but I have spent a lot of time as an expert in trauma, criminal and malpractice cases. I don't care about who wins or loses. I just care about the facts and that may be why lawyers from as far away as New York City and Birmingham Alabama paid me to go there to testify.

Tort reform is about abuse of the process. Alabama got the reputation as a plaintiff playground and a friend and excellent plaintiff lawyer in Birmingham told me a few years ago that it is now very difficult for a worthy plaintiff to win a med-mal case in Alabama. His firm finally got him to drop all med-mal work and he is a good guy. Cases like these killed the plaintiff bar in Alabama. Patient are now paying the price.

It's not just about winning and losing. It's about equity.

I'm fascinated by Wendy Davis because I have never seen such an incompetent campaign. That's all.

Michael said...

Drago: I get to Texas about once a month and I find the women there fierce moms. Lefties included.

What the national lefties don't get is that Wendy is really not one of them. She made a long speech on the left's most important topic but she is a Texas girl at the end of the day. They would be deeply disappointed to see her voting record in Austin. Just a guess this last part.

Drago said...

Mark N: "But people like Inga are all words. The Wendy! phenomenon seems to be a litmus test for this. How can a person defend her abhorrent actions and still claim to be anything other than a sellout to the abortion-above-all-else extremists? The very reasonable restrictions the Ingas of the world claim to support are blasphemy to Wendy! and her ilk. Why bother defending the liar?"

Because Inga, like all those on the left, really don't believe a single thing they lecture the rest of us about.

Inga would never actually vote for a candidate who espoused what she claims to believe.

Fen's Law.

Michael K said...

Maybe I should add that it is the jury pool in Alabama that has been poisoned against plaintiffs as they perceive the law has been biased in their favor.

Beldar said...

@ mccullough (1/22/14, 6:37 PM): Thanks for your kind words.

But I assure you, as a lawyer who spends lots of time in the courtroom:

If I were in a wheelchair instead of being on my own two feet, it would very definitely impair my earnings capacity.

Greg Abbott's career is indeed a testament to all that can be done by a capable and diligent lawyer notwithstanding such massive handicaps. But the success he has achieved doesn't mean his capacity for achieving even greater success wasn't impaired.

That's the kind of argument that a very inexperienced defense lawyer might make to a jury — to the utter delight of the plaintiff's lawyer on the other side. I do not think the defendants in Abbott's lawsuit would have been stupid enough to make it had his case gone to trial. It's one short step away from arguing, "We did him a favor by paralyzing him, since now he can sit still and think harder about his cases."

Whatever your career, paraplegia is going to impair your earnings potential. It might not have impaired Abbott's career as a lawyer to the same extent as a similar injury might have impaired the career of, say, a defensive back in the NFL. But try finding a lawyer who'd volunteer to sustain Abbott's injury, and you'll be looking for a very, very long time.

damikesc said...

Then in 2003, the Legislature capped noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, a move that Abbott supported. That means when the medical equivalent of a freak tree accident happens in an emergency room today, people who sue the doctors face a limit on the amount of noneconomic damages they can receive. That limit is frozen in statute at $250,000 and does not have any built-in increases for the rising cost of living. Nuances in the law can lead to higher awards in wrongful death cases or when more than one health care institution is involved."

This is likely a waste of time --- but you're unaware that PUNITIVE damages are a punishment, not compensation for a wrong, it seems.

Wendy Davis may not win in Texas, but she has brought to the forefront what can happen nationally if Republicans and the religious right who drive them, would get into serious power

They'd pass limitations you profess to support? You have said, repeatedly, you support first trimester abortions. The TX law dealt with 2nd trimester.

The more they bash Wendy Davis, the better for us.

I guess the days of "speaking truth to power" are truly over.

I love hearing that a lifelong Democrat exposing inaccuracies in a candidate's autobiography is "bashing"

Beldar said...

Further @ mccullough (1/22/14, 6:37 PM): Let me give you a specific context for my assertion about paraplegia impairing a lawyer's earning capacity.

In the mid 1980s, when Abbott was injured, I was an associate at a big Houston law firm, one comparable to the one where Abbott went to work. I did a lot of personal injury defense work.

Most of my work was at a desk or table. But not all of it.

Among my regular clients, for example, was Houston Lighting & Power Company, who was building a nuclear power plant in rural Matagorda County. To defend that client in a docket of many dozens of personal injury lawsuits, I climbed up and down scaffolds and ladders, inside and outside the containment vessels, going everywhere that the plant workers themselves had to go. Otherwise I couldn't understand what those workers were doing, and certainly would've had no hope of explaining the relevant facts of their accidents to a lay jury. I had steel-toed boots and a personalized hard hat, and needed them.

I couldn't possibly have done that job, for that client, from a wheelchair. I could have done other things; but I might or might not have been as good at them.

How much being in a wheelchair impaired Greg Abbott's potential lifetime career earnings would've been a matter for both expert and lay testimony at trial, and it certainly would've been a disputed issue. But only a very, very foolish defendant would've argued that there was no impairment. That would almost certainly have backfired badly.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

To be accurate Beldar didn't refute what I ( or my link) had to say about Texas law and restraiing orders in cases of divorce when there are children.

Beldar said...

As it's turned out in hindsight, of course, the biggest diminution of Abbott's lifetime earnings potential probably can be traced to his decision to become a public servant -- first a trial judge, then a state supreme court justice, then attorney general, and next, probably, governor. Even in a wheelchair he assuredly could have made more money as a practicing lawyer.

Did he become a public servant, and take the associated cuts in salary and income, because he's in a wheelchair? I doubt it.

But the relevant issue that would have been put to a jury was capacity. And there's no doubt that his injuries foreclosed some alternatives that could have been more lucrative, so a jury would've been perfectly well justified in compensating him for that loss of alternatives.

MathMom said...

We call Wendy "Pink Shoes" Davis Abortion Barbie here in The Republic of Texas.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

Both blond both lie both leech both from Haaavard.

Correlation is not causation even for Davis & Fauxahontas.

Seeing Red said...

Belfast, that sounds like the chick from Wisconsin. Is she blond, too? What is with this lack of diversity in the dem female ranks?

Michael K said...

"Did he become a public servant, and take the associated cuts in salary and income, because he's in a wheelchair? I doubt it."

When I was doing my training back in the late 60s, we had a pathologist who was quadriplegic. He had an electric wheelchair that he controlled with his very limited arm muscles. He was using his professional training and earning a living, probably a pretty good one. I doubt that he could have done so in a private setting. I suspect public settings are more tolerant of handicaps even now. That Abbott has surpassed this limitation is all to his credit.

One of the great physiologists in medicine was Arthur Guyton professor and chair at U of Mississippi. His is one of the great life stories in Medicine. He spent his last 60 years in a wheelchair. Few could match this. I doubt I could.

Dr. Guyton initially intended to be a cardiovascular surgeon but was partially paralysed after being infected with polio. He suffered from this infection in 1946 during his final year of residency training. Suffering paralysis in his right leg, left arm, and both shoulders, he spent nine months in Warm Springs, Georgia, recuperating and applying his inventive mind to building the first motorized wheelchair controlled by a “joy stick”, a motorized hoist for lifting patients, special leg braces, and other devices to aid the handicapped.

Seeing Red said...

Women are listening? Then just ask them if Obamacare is necessary because other advanced nations have some form of it, what's the issue with following some of the advanced nations rules on abortion?

Drago said...

Inga: "To be accurate Beldar didn't refute what I ( or my link) had to say about Texas law and restraiing orders in cases of divorce when there are children."

To be more accurate, yeah, he did.

But do continue on Texas Law.

You appear to have convinced yourself that you are quite learned in that area.

Drago said...

damikesc: "I guess the days of "speaking truth to power" are truly over."

The left never intended to allow speaking truth to lefties in power.

Ever.

Anonymous said...

You obviously did not read or perhaps you didn't comprehend his response to me Drago, but then again it's you, not surprising.

alan markus said...

Ditching the kids is what will do her in

I'm not so sure that's as big a deal as it sounds when you realize the oldest "kid" was 21 and the youngest was 15. Article at Breitbart says the youngest (Dru)was in 9th grade at the time, the oldest (Amber) was in college and moved back home. My daughter in middle school has several classmates whose fathers have primary custody - common theme is that it has more to do with where the child wants to live.

Drago said...

Inga: "You obviously did not read or perhaps you didn't comprehend his response to me Drago, but then again it's you, not surprising"

Yes Inga, your legal insight into Texas law is indeed dizzying.

Please, do continue...

Drago said...

Let me guess Inga, you have a daughter who just happens to be a Texas lawyer.

MadisonMan said...

Beldar, I have greatly enjoyed reading your expert commentary on this thread.

Thanks!

Lydia said...

Neo-neocon has a new post up with more on just how the Davis campaign has gone negative on Abbott. How anyone could support Davis after reading it is beyond me.

Bob Ellison said...

Is Wendy really planning on a media stardom?

Titus said...

She should drop out, it's fucking Texas...please.

Some of the splooge stooges returned-Dead Pogo is a major sadist, who knew?

Chef Mojo said...

Dead Pogo is a major sadist, who knew?

Sadist? Shit, Titus. I thought that was a feature in your book? Or is Folsom Street not your thing?

Tits.

William said...

I too appreciated Beldar's comments. One notes in passing that Dems wish to make Abbott's paraplegia settlement a bigger scandal than Davis's divorce settlement. I don't think that's a winning argument, but I've been wrong about such things before.......In any event one should attack Davis's marital record with caution. She looks to be someone with more ambition than character, but that's true of a fair number of people in public life. She has a shrewd eye for the main chance, but that's not the same as being a whore. If you call her a whore, she's sufficiently shrewd to play the victim card and win votes for it..

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

The girls were 2 and 8 when she left for Harvard.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I happened to work alongside Greg Abbott briefly maybe 20 years ago. He was a very focused person who neither intimidated you nor drew any attention to his physical limitations. In response to the assertion that he got too much money over the injury during this campaign, he responded 'Who do I write the check to?' to trade the money for his injury. My sympathies would be with Mr. Abbott. In regard to Wendy, it doesn't seem like anything has been taken from her. So, yes, 'my fight' has to be 'for you.' The Texas law, if I have it correctly, restricts abortions after 6 months. Is it such a burden; it seems to me that someone has had time to think over the life they have and that that they are temporarily supporting by then.

B said...

Beldar, your comments are representative of why I read blogs.

Informative and and presented with far more patience and in far more detail than either of the targets you schooled can assimilate.

Unfortunately, while I expect a lot of readers appreciated your comments as much as I, you wasted your time on those two. Neither will ever admit to being schooled or for that matter stop making the claims that you debunked.

Crazy Jane said...

Beldar prevails. I am well and truly done with bottom-dwelling members of the bar. In my most recent experience, I was informed (after the fact) that I was a member of a class that had prevailed in a case against Radio Shack -- for what malfeasance I do not know -- that had been settled short of trial.

In that case, I was eligible for a $10 credit at Radio Shack. The three named plaintiffs got $5,000 each. The lawyers got $1,000,000. So it goes.

Mr. Abbott, on the other hand, suffered the loss of his lower limbs for the rest of his life because someone did not do basic maintenance on a tree. If I were he, a runner at a young age, I doubt I would have been willing to settle for as little as $10 million.

And yet Mr. Abbott has got beyond his anger and has proven himself a worthy public servant of the state of Texas.

And here we are, arguing over whether Wendy Davis or Greg Abbott is the bigger victim, as if that were the essential issue in deciding which would be a better governor.

I find I am happier these days when I do not read the newspapers.

Kirk Parker said...

Michael,

". She made a long speech on the left's most important topic but she is a Texas girl at the end of the day. They would be deeply disappointed to see her voting record in Austin. Just a guess this last part."

Don't get your hopes up--if you think that situation will hold, I have two words for you: Kirsten Gillibrand.

Michael said...

Kirk Parker. To which I would reply. Republic of Texas.

Ritchie The Riveter said...

RE: Abbott's settlement ... making that an issue could become "interesting" for Wendy, being there is one group that greatly benefits from such settlements AND heavily supports Democrats, expecting Dems to keep the courtroom doors open for them.

"Shhh, Wendy ... don't want to upset the plaintiffs' bar ..."

Lawrence Person said...

Haven't all women everywhere ditched their husband right after he paid of their loan for Harvard Law?

Owen said...

Beldar: I echo the thanks of others. You know your subject and you care about it; and that shows in the skill and care (and patience) with which you share it. Implicit in the quality of your exposition is a rebuke to those who could have stirred themselves to make accurate, relevant, respectful comments; but did not.

Tom Richards said...

The story of my life is also the story of other women willing to marry men significantly older than themselves because of money... hundreds of thousands of free dollars to launch your career... someone to care for your children who you don't give a shit about.... I've established a pretty clear course of behavior to show why I’m running....

cokaygne said...

What, no one mentioned "she got the gold mine, I got the shaft"