Slander is Murder with Words, Even When the Victim is Pro Abortion

WD2790 800x533

Don’t try to fight Satan by using Satan’s weapons.

Slander and personal malice are Satan’s weapons.

Ergo, do not use personal attacks against other people, even when they are pro abortion, pro gay marriage, or some other pro or anti that gets your riled.

Stand up for what you believe, and be willing to pay the price for doing that, even if it means that you will be the target of slander, malicious lies, and character assassination yourself. That’s to be expected if you follow Christ. These things are, after all, Satan’s weapons.

I’m not saying this in a general way. I am referring to a specific situation that is arising and needs to be put down before it goes any further. I’ve read several personal attacks on Senator Wendy Davis, the filibustering Texas Senator, now gubernatorial candidate, who rose to national fame last spring.

The way this sort of thing usually happens is that the opposition candidate or the opposition political party does “research” and comes up with these things. They don’t want to slime themselves by saying it, so they give it to their “operatives” in the field to say it for them. That way, their operative is the one who looks like a dirt bag, while the candidate or political party gets the benefit and keeps their skirts clean. This is how President Obama ran his viciously misogynist campaigns against both Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin.

These attacks on Senator Davis that are circling in the pro life blogosphere have the appearance of being plants by political actors who are using the pro life movement to do their dirty work. I would, as we say in Oklahoma, bet the ranch that the stories have their source in either the opposition political party or the opposition candidate’s camp.

This is a disgusting mis-use of the pro life movement. Not only that, but the stories being circulated about Senator Davis are not worth talking about. The ones I’ve read focus on picayune differences in a couple of dates from when the Senator was young, and — get this — complaints by her ex-husband that she never loved him and was only using him for money.

My feeling about the things I’ve read about Senator Davis is that they do not speak to her ability to do the job, and they do not reveal anything that puts the lie to her basic platform for running for office. Surely there are things in her official record as an office holder that would make a legitimate discussion about her worthiness for the office of governor of Texas.

I rather doubt that Senator Davis has performed her office in a way that jibes with the beliefs of all Texans. If her position on abortion is consistent with her other votes, she may have a number of big-city, rich-district positions that most Texans disagree with. These would be legitimate political issues that are worthy of discussion in a political campaign.

Back when I was pro choice, the pro life people attacked me mercilessly — and inaccurately — about my character, sex life, back ground, etc. They honed in on me personally and just plain made up lies about me and my personal life. Some of these lies still circulate to this day.

What they did not do was defeat me at the polls. In fact, what they succeeded in doing was convincing me, my campaign supporters and the vast majority of my constituents that they were an unsavory and dishonest bunch of people. They did such a good job of this that later on, after my conversion, when the Holy Spirit asked me to change my position on abortion, I was terrified. I knew my pro abortion friends would turn on me, and I had no idea where to go otherwise. I didn’t know any nice pro life people to turn to.

How many people have we kept trapped in their pro choice positions by this kind of behavior?

It saddens me when I see pro life people jump off the high road and into the sewer of political slime. We speak for the cause of the sanctity of human life. Most of us follow a risen Lord, Who is the Lord of all life. We defame our cause and the Lord Jesus Christ whose name we bear when we behave this way.

Senator Davis will have serious economic backing in her campaign. She will also have the well-deserved enthusiasm of every pro choice person in this country. She’s brave. She’s beautiful. She’s intelligent.

She is, in short, a worthy opponent. She could win this election.

If pro life people continue down this road of slandering her personally instead of offering voters a positive alternative, I guarantee that she will win. We need to focus on the issues that the voters of Texas care about and we need to do it in a way that is worthy of the noble cause and the innocent lives we are defending.

I am not saying that Senator Davis is going to win. I am saying that we will not defeat her in this election by sliming her.

Stop with the malice. It maims your higher thinking faculties and defames our cause. It is also a sin.

Slander is murder with words, even when the victim is pro abortion.

Do not use Satan’s weapons to fight Satan.

 

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    Here’s the problem I have with that: I’m not just pro-life. I’m pro traditional family. I’ve been known to attack politicians on the right wing for getting divorced. I’ve been known to attack even old friends over what I see as the murder of a family.

    I find it hard to separate the two- but there is a good reason for men to attack a female politician who left her husband within a week of the rather expensive education bills being paid off, and who left a young daughter to go chase an affair.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      I agree with that. I don’t know how true but if she gave up her kids to pursue a career or an affair, I find that atrocious.

      • Sus_1

        It’s not true. She did not give up her kids for a career, school or an affair.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          How come her husband got custody? That’s rare, especially in Texas?

          • Sus_1

            http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jan/30/wendy-davis/wendy-davis-never-gave-parental-role-though-she-ag/

            “Her second husband, she said, “was generous and supportive when it came to my education,” which extended to earning a degree from Harvard Law School while her two girls (one by her previous marriage) mostly lived in Texas with him. “And when our marriage ended 10 years after my graduation, he and I remained partners, sharing the responsibilities of parenting and doing what was right for Amber and for Dru,” she said. “I am very proud of our family, and of the decisions we made together to do what was right for our daughters.”

            “At our request, Jack Sampson, a University of Texas law professor expert in family law, reviewed the decree, saying by phone that it shows Davis did not give up custody in the divorce. “She’s a joint managing conservator,” he said, who agreed her daughter would primarily live in the family home with her father.”

            “On Jan. 28, 2014, the Davis campaign released letters from the candidate’s daughters. Dru Davis wrote: “My mom has always shared equally in the care and custody of my sister and me.” Amber Davis wrote that at the time of her mother’s divorce, “I was a young adult in college and Dru was in high school and to be clear, no one ‘lost or gave up custody’ of either one of us. But no matter how difficult it was, both of our parents were there for us.”

            “Outside of the legal process, it’s not uncommon for the parent who’s not the primary caregiver to be considered noncustodial, which may explain why the candidate described herself this way less than five months ago. Still, it would be incorrect to say she legally relinquished her parental role.”

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              What a mess, either way, especially to somebody who doesn’t believe in frivolous divorce.

          • FW Ken

            Manny, I’m with Rebecca on this part. There may be aspects of the divorce that bear on her character, but at this point, it’s all gossip.

            The husband was the managing conservator of the kids, though custody was actually joint. I know another situation where that was the case, so it’s not unheard of. In that situation, the woman’s only fault was that she let the man bully her.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          Glad to hear it. But she did still get divorced.

          Divorce is bad enough.

  • Leila Miller

    You can delete this but I wanted to point out a significant typo: “I was terrified. I knew my pro life friends would turn on me…” (should say “pro-choice”)

    • hamiltonr

      I’m on it Leila. You are Ray have sharp eyes. Thanks!

      • hamiltonr

        I changed it to pro abortion rather than pro choice, because I don’t see how someone who is pro choice would reject people with a different idea. Just my personal criteria. :-) Thanks again my friends.

        • Leila Miller

          Amen!

  • Ray Glennon

    Rebecca,

    Don’t post this. I think you have a typo above and wanted to point it out. See below.

    “I knew my pro life (I THINK YOU MEAN “CHOICE” friends would turn on me, and I had no idea where to go otherwise. I didn’t know any nice pro life people to turn to.”

    • hamiltonr

      Thanks Ray! I’ll fix it.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Don’t forget Obama had some operative claim that Mitt Romney had a man’s wife killed. Frankly no one single of these claim’s work, but I suspect the totality has an aggragate effect on the candidate as a person. It takes time and energy to refute them and it stunt’s the message, and for the few months of the election process does create a perception. If they didn’t work they wouldn’t keep doing it. But it’s wrong. I will never forgive Obama for sliming Mitt Romney. It worked.

    • hamiltonr

      When you opposition does this Manny, that’s on them. We are only responsible for ourselves. Having said that, I know how you feel, my friend. Been there. Many times. We are just called to a higher standard.

  • Sus_1

    Excellent post Rebecca. People and organizations lose so much credibility when they tell lies and allow inaccuracies. It doesn’t matter if they are “right” in what they believe. The loss of credibility is what people remember. The backlash against the lies is that she could be elected.

    Wendy Davis’ ex-husband and daughters have come out in support of her.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140201-as-some-called-wendy-davis-a-bad-mother-her-daughters-stepped-forward.ece

    “The News found that she divorced at 21, not 19, and lived in the family mobile home a matter of months before moving into an apartment. Her husband helped fund her education, cared for their daughters while she was at Harvard Law School and kept primary custody of their minor daughter when they divorced, while she paid child support. Ex-husband Jeff Davis credited her with making the decision that was best for their children.

    By the time of the divorce, Amber Davis was an adult. And Jeff and Wendy Davis were declared “joint managing conservators” of Dru Davis. She stated in a court filing that she wanted to remain living with her father, and Amber Davis stayed in the home as well. Wendy Davis told The News she agreed they should be able to stay in their childhood home. The divorce decree required Wendy Davis to pay $1,200 a month in child support, which she has said she was eager to do.”

    Your recent post about Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood is another example of how lies and inaccuracies hurt the cause. The GSA has denied vehemently that they are not partners and do not have ties with Planned Parenthood but because Right to Life groups say they are partners, people believe that.

    The Right to Life groups lose by doing this. If they are going to lie about this, what else are they lying about? Either their cause is legitimate or it isn’t. The lying causes loss of credibility and that’s very sad considering the issue.

    • Madzi

      Because GSA deliberately rides the fence and does, indeed, lie down with Planned Parenthood, it cannot expect that people will not associate it with organizations that promote premarital sex. I believe GSA finds it expedient on the one hand to deny and on the other to assent.
      That having been said, I agree that besmirching individuals for past behavior can come back to bite one on the scruples. Jesus told us to be as shrewd as serpents but meek as doves, which is what I believe is at the crux of Rebecca’s piece.

  • Maggie Goff

    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You *always* speak the truth. I can just imagine the barbs that come your way. Actually, I’ve seen some in the comments here. I am continuing to pray for you every day, that the Holy Spirit continues to give you the words, and the strength to continue. This was just right on today. Perfectly said and when people start up with me on this subject, I have a perfect article to show them, and then we can discuss it.

    • hamiltonr

      Thank you Maggie.

  • Ray Glennon

    Rebecca,

    Thanks for this thoughtful piece. The approach to “courtesy and civility” that you insist on in this space is certainly needed more broadly in our political discourse. And in this post you provide a timely reminder why. First and foremost, it’s the right thing to do. Second, outrageous or scandelous attacks may, in fact, help an opponent.

    Last week I read an interesting review of Ethics and the Golden Rule by Fr. Harry J. Gentsler, SJ. Gentler’s application of the Golden Rule (summarized below) directly supports the approach you correctly advocated in your post regarding Texas Senator Wendy Davis. Thank you for sharing your personal experience as well. It provides further substantiation to powerful conclusion.

    According to the Michael Swan in the Catholic Register, “Gensler’s version of the Golden Rule would have us ask ourselves, ‘Am I now willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?’ For this Golden Rule to be operative it must be applied with impartiality and conscientiousness. It’s not easy being impartial or conscientious, but the philosopher gives us a memorizable formula. If we know, imagine, test and act in precisely that order we have a good chance of applying the Golden Rule properly. Gensler calls this the KITA rule. Before acting we have to know the situation of the other person, imagine how a proposed or possible action will affect that person, test the scenario in our minds and only then act upon what our knowledge and imagination tell us…His KITA method could be taught to students as young as 12 or 13, and is relevant to those of us still prone to the wrong decision now and then 50 years on.”

    You can read the complete book review here. http://www.catholicregister.org/arts/book-news/item/17574-the-golden-rule-a-magna-carta-for-god’s-kingdom

  • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

    “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
    Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
    Who steals my purse steals trash. ‘Tis something, nothing:
    ‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
    But he that filches from me my good name
    Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed.”

    Calling it murder seems too strong a comparison, however — and perhaps verging on dishonesty. Theologically, it seems not so much the fifth commandment at issue, but both the seventh and eighth; which might make for the more persuasive argument, given that Satan is also known as “the Father of Lies”.

    • hamiltonr

      Are you planning to convert soon? Sounds almost like it! :-)

      • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

        Hah; no. What you’re hearing is the echoes of a first-rate religious instruction from my childhood — a solid CCD program, supplemented by contrasting views from a nondenominational Christian school and regular arguments with the parish priest. (Plus some irregular visits from the Bishop and some nearby Jesuits; my CCD year seems to have had an unusually high number of “live wires”, and I was not the most difficult case.) Acceptance is not required for explaining what a religion teaches, nor for presenting positions from its vantage; merely understanding — knowing the premises and being able to follow them to conclusions. Such understanding can be somewhat useful for framing arguments persuasively, however.

        Besides, secular humanism has much the same position; you might note that the quote I used is not from the Bible, but Shakespeare. (It’s incidentally delivered by one of the more vile villains in his canon, but an accurate observation nonetheless.)

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          Shakespeare was NOT a secular humanist. You might try G.B.Shaw.

          • FW Ken

            There is an interesting debate out there as to whether Shakespeare was a crypto-Catholic who wrote in code to survive the Tudors.

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              He was. The only reason why there is a debate at all is that there is a great deal of surviving English prejudice that will not admit that their greatest poet was Catholic. But even if there were no other evidence, we would know that both his father – the John Shakespeare who was mayor of Stratford – and at least one of his daughters were, at which point any doubt as to his own allegiance becomes itself the kind of faith that can believe what we know to be wrong. And think of what he said, in so many words, of the times he is supposed to have celebrated:

              For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
              The Oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s Contumely,
              The pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay,
              The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
              That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
              When he himself might his Quietus make
              With a bare Bodkin?

              Tired with all these, for restful death I cry
              As to behold desert a beggar born
              And needy nothing trimm’d in jollity
              And purest faith unhappily forsworn
              And gilded honour shamefully misplac’d
              And maiden virtue rudely strumpeted
              And right perfection wrongfully disgrac’d
              And strength by limping sway disabled
              And art made tongue-tied by authority
              And folly—doctor-like—controlling skill
              And simple truth miscall’d simplicity
              And captive good attending captain ill:
              Tir’d with all these, from these would I be gone,
              Save that, to die, I leave my love alone

              Sure, the first is a dramatic soliloquy placed in the mouth of a fictional character, though that character is the hero of the play in more ways than one. But in the second, Sonnet 66, Shakespeare speaks in his own name. Does he sound as though he thought much of the government, the morality, or the politics of England in his time?

          • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

            True, he wasn’t; but that does not preclude his words tending to be valued by secular humanists.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    You cannot argue with the fact that the judge in her divorce case gave custody to the husband – a most unusual procedure, which showed that the judge in question had reason to doubt Mrs.Davis’ fitness as a mother. You cannot argue with the fact that she said a number of untruths, and you cannot argue with the fact that the total impact of these untruths was to represent her as a pathetic and heroic victim of circumstances making her own way out of nothing at all – rather than having it paid by an older temporary husband. And sorry, you sound as though the divorced husband – who had suffered, not started, the divorce – were by the mere fact of being a divorced husband a natural and obvious scoundrel whose word can never be trusted. If believing the worst of Senator Davis – which I did long before any of these revelations, for reasons I set out, and in which you admitted I was right – is slander, then so is believing, for no good reason, the worst of her divorced husband. At this point, – sorry to be brutal – I have to suspect that your old feminist instincts kicking in without any effort to look at the evidence.

    What, for me, clinches it, is Davis’ own response. She made not the slightest effort to deny any statements of fact. If it was slander, she could have stopped it cold by releasing actual data. Instead of which, she has not only gone into a pity-me act, she has also personally insulted her opponent as a spineless rich kid who had no idea what it was like to walk a mile into her shoes. As indeed he does not, since he is tetraplegic – broken spine and no use for shoes. Ha ha ha.. Sorry, you keep on having this completely incomprehensible fellow feeling for Davis. It is not the first time that I see a thoroughly good person taking the side of someone who does not in the least deserve it, but I always find it bewildering.

  • AnneG

    Rebecca, first, in the paragraph where you talk about becoming pro life, you may have wanted to say pro choice.
    I understand what you are saying, but are you saying it is off limits to talk about a candidate’s private life? An example: a candidate running on a pro life, pro family campaign, with pictures of his family. Only, he left that wife and kids, divorced her and was living with a much younger wife at the time of the campaign. Is that ok to make public? Btw, true case and the guy is a republican.
    Senator Davis has shown an appalling lack of interest in other cases of late term abortion, such as Gosnell, his clinic and practice, his trial and concivtion. She said in an interview that she was unaware of the case. I don’t believe it. But, is that fair game?

    • hamiltonr

      No Anne, I’m not saying that. There are definitely behaviors in the private life of an individual that rise to the level that they need to be discussed in a political campaign as a matter of justice to the voters. On the other hand, just going at some one over things that are decades in their past and weren’t much of anything to do begin with, or that are entirely personal, such as whether your ex husband thinks you ever loved him, is bad business.

      I think talking about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy when her mother was running for vp was trash campaigning. On the other hand, Jonathan Edwards paying his paramour to work for his campaign while his wife was dying with cancer would certainly be a legitimate issue, striking as it does to the heart of his integrity both as a man and in fiduciary matters.

      It’s always a judgement call. But what I saw that was being used against Senator Davis was petty stuff.

      I also object to using the pro life movement as the voice to put this stuff out there. I don’t know if you “got” what I was saying about that. It’s how these big campaigns operate. They dig up dirt, and then get someone else to spread it for them because they know that whoever spreads will end up looking as bad as the dirt they’re handling. They keep themselves clean and let their “friends” get dirtied up. The pro life movement should not allow itself to be used that way.

      This leads to another point, which is, whether a certain behavior on the part of a candidate is fair political game or not, is it appropriate for the pro life movement and Christians to engage in passing it along?

      I think we need to stick to our issues and to our witness for life and for Christ and not allow them to be destroyed by politicians who are using us and our movement for their purposes.

      As for Senator Davis, the best way to beat her is with her legitimate voting record and by offering a candidate who someone that the voters want for their governor.

      It’s not all about negative campaigning, you know. You can actually win an election by getting people to vote FOR someone instead of against the other guy. I’ve done it repeatedly.

      • RAM

        The author used the word “slander”. Slander involves untruths (but everything being written about this extremist abortion advocate is true). This extremist abortion advocate is painting herself as “X”, so there is no moral crime whatsoever if people discuss and spread information that demonstrates she is “Not X”.

        [edited by RAM to comply with author's comment rules]

        • hamiltonr

          I’m going to allow this because you are new here. However, the use of the word “abortionista” is name-calling. I do not allow name-calling on this blog, not of anyone. You can make your points without this.

          Please don’t do it again.

  • Rebecca Fuentes

    It’s a good time to remember that detraction is also a sin. Just because it’s true doesn’t mean it needs repeated or publicized.

  • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

    I’m confused. What is being said that isn’t true? She did lie about being an impoverished, divorced teen mother who paid her own way through school. As has been pointed out, she hasn’t denied any of the allegations other than to smear her opponent.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      I don’t live in Texas, so I can’t and won’t follow this carefully, so I may have missed her rebuttal. But as far as I see, there hasn’t been any. Columinsts that I trust have reported the same claims. As far as i can tell, she did have her rich husband pay for her bills and then split, even giving up the kids. I don’t vote in Texas so I don’t have to try to verify the facts, but she seems like she’s guilty.

      • hamiltonr

        That’s not the point Manny. The point is that she is in favor of abortion on demand right up until birth. The point is not that she used an ordinary phrase “walk in my shoes” about someone who is disabled. That sounds like a slip of the tongue. Attacking her for it is the sort of mean-spirited gaffe campaigning that needs to stop.

        Rather, the point is that she votes for and supports the legal power to target unborn people with disabilities and kill them just because they may be crippled. That is the issue.

        Her daughters have stepped forward and said that she had joint custody and was always a part of their lives. They also say they remember living in the trailer, etc. You will never get to the end of the hatreds in the average divorce, and with a few exceptions, it’s best to just leave all that pain out of campaigns.

        Yammering about this stuff drags our cause down into the gutter and defames us. We need to be better than that Manny. We must be better than that if we are going to convert this culture, for the simple reason that the Holy Spirit is not going to honor our efforts if we persist in using the devil’s weapons.

        Pro life people get so angry over the indifference to human life that they drive off into a verbal ditch with these personal attacks over petty things. I understand this. I spent a good part of my Sabbath praying about my anger over such things.

        But I know — and you do too, if you will just think — that Christians are called to do difficult things, including foreswear ugly gossip, even about pro aborts.

        It doesn’t matter if it’s true. It’s stupid. It’s mean. And it will backfire, ultimately helping her win this election.

        Revenge character destruction — even if the particulars are true, and the object of the destruction is pro abortion — is a sin.

        The way to win an election is to give people something to vote FOR. That builds your district and your community, rather than degrading it the way these smear campaigns do.

        But we’ve become so habituated with trash campaigns and slime-ball tactics that good people cannot wrap their minds around the simple fact that they need to take the high road and stand for something good in this life rather than the darkness.

        I knew I was going to be tarred when I wrote this post. But it needs saying.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          If the facts about her marriage and her children are not true, then I withdraw my criticism. As I said I have no way to verify it. The charges seemed to have (again I don’t live in Texas so I may not be up on everything) hung out there unanswered for a long time. Colunists who I trust picked up on it. Perhaps they got carried away with momentum. As to the “walk in my shoes” slip of the tongue, that really doesn’t change votes. It just energizes people who would have voted against her anyway. Those type of slip of the tongues are fair game in politics in my opinion. It certainly seemed like a lack of empathy toward her oponent. If she apologized the issue should be over. I remember a couple of Conservative Senator candidates who made dumb statements last year about women’s issues and abortion and were crucified for it. I felt it was unfair. Politics ain’t bean bag.

  • RAM

    Lets all disabuse ourselves of the validity of the author’s faulty premise and conclusion by reviewing the classic meaning of the word “detraction”.

    The Catholic Encyclopedia is on point: “Detraction is the unjust damaging
    of another’s good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which
    that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be
    guilty by the defamer… There are times, nevertheless, when one may
    lawfully make known the offense of another even though as a consequence
    the trust hitherto reposed in him be rudely shaken or shattered…
    Journalists are entirely within their rights in inveighing against the
    official shortcomings of public men. Likewise, they may lawfully present
    whatever information about the life or character of a candidate for
    public office is necessary to show his unfitness for the station he
    seeks.” Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04757a.htm

    • gratiaplena

      @RAM: Perfect! Thanks, RAM!

  • Sally H

    Give me a break! The woman was running on a platform that declares her practically a folklore hero! She claimed she was a single teenage mom that lived in a mobile home, pulled herself up by the boot straps and put herself through university and law school to get where she is today.
    The truth is she lived in the mobile home a few months before moving in with her mother until she met her 2nd husband who cashed in his 401k to budget putting her through law school! After he made the final pymt for her accrued law school debt, she left him.

    Also, after rising to fame following her 11hour filibuster against a bill on abortion regulations INCLUDING a ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, she has the gall to call herself “pro-life” as a gubneratorial candidate!
    Rebecca, I think you are doing more harm to Texas and the pro-life battle by coming to Wendy Davis’ defense. The person who “outed” her was Wayne Slater, a liberal reporter for the Dallas Morning News. No slander has been made. And thanks to Mr. Slater TX voters know the TRUTH!
    Please stop muddying the waters!

    • FW Ken

      Well, I was going to write a comment, but Sally H said most of what I meant to say. Sen. Davis is running on this myth of the single mother who pulled herself out of the “trailer park” by her intelligence and hard work. Because that’s what she’s running on, that’s a fair topic.

      But I want to start with this whole “trailer park” thing. First, it’s elitist at best, but I work next to that trailor part, and it’s not a “trailer park”, but a mobile home development. I can show you trailor parks. Several clients have lived in them, and a friend resorted to them when broke. And what I read was that she moved into the mobile home with her mother for a couple of months until she got an apartment. Not that significant a difference, I guess, but the entire schtick is just hokey.

      I will spot her the “walk in my shoes” gaffe, but really, do you think that if a conservative made that sort of remark they would get a pass? Myself, I keep wanting to talk about Greg Abbot as a “stand up guy”. I mean it as a compliment, a very high compliment, but it’s not appropriate.

      No, I don’t think Wendy Davis is a “worthy opponent”. Her campaigns are incredibly dirty, even by Texas standards. She sued the local paper when she lost her first campaign. The courts threw it out – twice. I guess her record in the Legislature is ok. All you really hear about, besides the abortion thing, is some work she claims on education funding. I’ve probably voted for her at some point or another, but when I saw her pumping up the screaming crowd at the Legislature, cause the clock to run out on the session and force a special session, where the bill passed, as everyone knew it would.

      I don’t believe that any of these true facts constitute detraction, and certainly not slander. They are public record and reply to Davis’ own campaign claims. Nor do I believe that the pro-abortion Dallas Morning News published a hit piece based on Republican sources.

      In addition to all of that, Greg Abbot really is a stand-up guy with a good record as Attorney General. I deal with his sex offender task force and they are an excellent resource in the community.

      • hamiltonr

        Ken, why don’t you tell us more about Greg Abbot? What do you admire and respect about him?

        • FW Ken

          First of all, his own story. He got a good settlement from the accident and could have spent his life very comfortably. Instead, he worked as a lawyer, state district judge, State Supreme Court judge, and the longest serving Attorney General of Texas.

          I agree with him on the issues, as far as I can tell. What I like about the list is the relative lack of demagoguery. He states his beliefs, achievements, and interests. So far, he has shown a certain amount of class in responding to Davis’ stuff.

          http://www.gregabbott.com/issues/

          A little about 2 of his interests:

          Child Safety

          He launched the Cyber Crimes and Fugitive units in 2003, directly resulting in the arrest of more than 4,454 fugitives, sex offenders, parole violators, and other felons.

          Human Trafficking

          As chairman of the Texas Human Trafficking Prevention Task Force, Greg Abbott has worked closely with legislators, law enforcement authorities, and victim service providers to combat human trafficking across Texas. In 2013, Greg Abbott was honored to be the recipient of the New Friends New Life “Protect-Her Award.”

          Human trafficking is modern day slavery, and it a serious problem that afflicts not only Texas, but the rest of the nation. Greg Abbott will continue to crack down on this vile crime.

          I made sure to read some negative articles, which seem mainly concerned with his defending the state in cases the writers didn’t like. I might agree with them to a degree, but isn’t it the AGs job to defend the state?

          It’s fair to remember that it’s early in the season, and who knows what will come out.

          For comparison sake, here is Wendy Davis’ issues page:

          http://www.wendydavistexas.com/issues/

  • AnneG

    I do understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, gossip, slander, detraction and calumny are remembered in politics. It is also effective because so many voters have memory and listening skills of a gnat. They remember Romneys’ dog on the roof and don’t even know where Benghazi is or why it is important.
    I hope you are right that the important thing is to have a candidate you are FOR. That is the Better Way and the only Christian way. The way things are going it is very appropriate to bring up that Wendy Davis is 100% in favor of aborting babies at any point up to their birth and will not draw any lines where abortion should end. That is a pro life message and the truth and disqualifies her from eligibility for governor of Texas.
    PS I am really glad we’ve never divorced. My husband would have lots of negative things he could say that are true, though he probably would not.

    • hamiltonr

      Anne, her record on abortion is certainly a legitimate campaign issue. I’m betting she’s got a lot of things in her public record that pertain directly to her job that are legitimate issues to discuss. But even then, we need to refrain from calling her names.

      Notice that when I talked about her abortion position in another combox, I said that her position would do such and such. I didn’t say that she wanted this result. I did it that way because I don’t know what she wants or what her motivations are for thinking the way she does. That doesn’t mean that I support her in what she thinks.

      Quite the contrary.

      What it means is that I think that this lady is a living soul and that she can be redeemed and become our pro life sister. I want to convert these people. So long as she is pro abortion, I will absolutely oppose her goal to become an elected leader. However, I will not confuse her with the sins she commits, and I will not make a martyr of her to pro choice people by attacking her over side issues.

      You’re right when you say that negative campaigning works. That’s a sad truth.

      However, when pro lifers engage in it, they end up sliming the pro life movement. In the long run, it does much more harm than good, and I am only speaking from a political, pragmatic viewpoint. In terms of what Christ has commanded of us, we are called to a higher level of behavior than nonbelievers. People should know that we are Christians by the way we behave.

      What I have learned in my life is that, while these negative things may work in the short term, in the long run — and we are called to take an eternal perspective — following what Jesus commands us to do, even when it seems flat-out stupid by the world’s ideas, always wins out in the end. That doesn’t mean that it’s the easy way, or the most expeditious. But in the long haul, doing what God tells us to do ends up being the effective thing as well as the right thing.

  • hamiltonr

    Note: I’ve said enough about all this for now. I’m going to back off for a while and let you good people talk it though among yourselves.

    This is a serious issue for pro life people. It affects how our movement is perceived and our ability to convert others. It also affects in a direct way how — or even if — we follow Jesus. I believe that our first mission is always to be faithful to Him.

    Remember: Almost everyone here is on the same pro life team. Be kind to one another.

    • gratiaplena

      Rebecca: Of course, we must practice the Golden Rule, and to be kind to one another.

      But Jesus Himself wasn’t always “kind” He told it exactly like it was: He showed righteous anger in overturning the tables of the greedy, sacrilegious merchants in the Temple, he called the Pharisees “blind guides”, “hypocrites” “whited sepulchers filled with dead men’s bones”, “Satan is your father”, etc.

      There is always a time for righteous anger. Pro-Life activists have been spit on, punched, smacked, hit by cars, screamed at, assaulted, knocked down, and have never retalitated… they always have turned the other cheek. They are meek and pious Christians only trying to save babies and their mothers from the scourge of abortion.

      When pro-abortion (I take great offense at your labeling of your former position “pro-choice”) activists, supporting Wendy Davis in Austin chant “Hail Satan”, and all the other unprintable diabolical vulgarities, obscenities, and threats, then it’s time for the Church Militant to rise up and show righteous anger! Telling it like it is is NOT pretty, but it is NOT slander!

      It’s very disheartening to hear you say pro-lifers are committing murder. Yes, one who slanders (LIES) about another does great damage to the reputation of that person, but I have YET to hear ANY pro-life person slander Wendy Davis.

      As much as you hate to hear this, Wendy Davis is an agent of Satan. Yes, there’s hope for repentance, and we all should be praying for her conversion, but right now, this woman is a major accomplice with the Evil One in the Culture of Death, and demonizing pro-lifers is just going down the wrong road.

  • http://www.BR-549.com Junior Samples

    Rebecca,
    I call it “vicious truthing” and it is sometimes necessary, as in this instance, to keep the wrong person from gaining power. One example was the veterans who reluctantly exposed then Senator John Kerry’s lies about his time in Vietnam during the 2004 campaign. Would that a similar effort had worked to keep the current White House occupant from power (not that I have any love for Sen. McCain). Think how much better off we’d all be, including millions of innocent babies, those displaced by the economy & Obamacare and the victims of his drone strikes and surveillance programs had all the facts about Mr. Obama come out in time.

    • Dave

      The sad thing is, I’m not convinced we’d be that much better off. Better, yes. McCain would not have been as much of an embarrassment, practically doubled the national debt in 5 years, or started slashing away at religious freedom. That said, he’d have generally continued the train to oblivion that we have been on for quite a long time now.

    • Hank

      Subsequent investigation has not supported the truth of the Swift Boat accusations. Those accusations were made late in the campaign, when there was no time to adequately rebut them. The majority of people who had first hand knowledge of Kerry’s conduct during the war denied the truth of those accusations. Very few of those making the accusations had any direct interaction with Kerry during the war, and were motivated by animus towards his later, anti-war position and actions. Which one may well disagree with. And I do not write this as a fan of Kerry. Never cared for him.

  • Howard

    First of all, by definition “slander” means “lie”. Where the allegations are true but sinful, it is called detraction. Then there is the problem with ascribing motives to someone, something we should be very careful about doing when it comes to past or present actions but which we must consider when preparing for the likely future actions. In the case of politicians, the only basis for the trust they are asking for is the sum total of their past actions. It’s not enough to know that the politician gives a thumbs up to his party’s platform; we also need to know if the candidate shows concern for others or steps on people on his way up the ladder, whether he lies or at least obscures the truth to get his way, and what he believes in strongly enough to push even when it is not politically advantageous as opposed to what he sees as a merely convenient opportunity.

    Some people might indeed consider pointing out Margaret Sanger’s racist statements in general, including her explicit advocacy of abortion as a means to racist ends, as mere detraction. Maybe it is; her abortion advocacy was wrong with or without racist motives. Somehow, though, it seems relevant, as when St. John tells us that Judas Iscariot was a thief.

  • Ed Hamilton

    I agree that using Satan’s weapons against others is wrong. I’m not so sure that the “they” you are talking about are all simply “pro-lifers”. I think slandering a political opponent is done primarily by the opposing politician constituents. I’m sure there are exceptions to pro-life activists who are primarily good Christians.

    I also think that a discussion about how easy it is to not attack someone who is a stonewalling laws that stop the murder of the unborn. Weren’t blacks right to be angry when they marched with MLK? It certainly doesn’t help to promote the Love and values brought to us of Jesus Christ and mildness should be a mark of a Christian who needs to walk blamelessly to help attract people to His Word even more. St. Paul said not attacking right back and being good to those who persecute you will feel like hot coals upon their heads. That’s the better approach. But it sure is the human reaction to do everything in your power to defend infants being snuffed out before they see the light of day which rightfully should make us angry.

    By the way, Rebecca, I think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I can understand it though. I think there is a lot of truth to what you are saying.

  • RAM

    “Be careful not to cross the line, folks” would have been much better than the hyperbolic “Murderers!” “Slanderers!” It is ironic that the author demonizes people while claiming demonizing people is wrong. Go Figure. The only valid point the author makes is that negative campaigning might turn some people away from the pro-life truth. But that’s a matter of prudence. Not slander. Not murder.

  • Florian

    Negative campaigning is wrong, no matter who engages in it. However, saying that Wendy Davis is a ‘worthy’ opponent jumps the line. No one, no one at all, who promotes the mass slaughter of millions of human babies in the womb is a ‘worthy’ opponent. Wendy Davis won fame for standing against human life; if a Republican filibustered to stand ‘for’ life, they would have been excoriated by the main stream media. Look at how Christ Christie, Sara Palin and Marco Rubio have been and are being viciously attacked by the main stream media; all because they are a threat to Democrats – if Christie had been a Democrat, the ‘bridge’ thing would have meant nothing to the media. I’m not saying that Republicans should stoop to the vicious tactics that so many Dems and the liberal media engage in – but they have to stop playing ‘nice’ because that only loses them elections. Be strong and focused and clear…the Dems keep screaming about the Republican’s war on women when, in actual fact, it is the Democratic party engaging in a war on women through their war on motherhood …Obama had the audacity to make a statement praising Roe vs. Wade during the March for Life in Washington, saying that women should have control over their health and their bodies and that all should be granted freedom, etc…all except the human baby in the womb…Wendy Davis is not a ‘worthy’ candidate because she is intelligent and beautiful…how bizarre to claim that! But Republicans should not engage in pettiness either…let the facts stand for themselves. Sandra Fluke seems to be getting ready to run for office…this woman who demands that tax payers pay for contraceptives – some of which cause abortions…and this is perhaps another ‘hero’ of the left, a ‘worthy’ opponent…I have been a life-long Democrat until I realized how they were descending into the party of death – and manipulating Hispanics and blacks to become more and more permanently dependent upon the government therefore denying them the possibility, the opportunity, to take charge of their own lives, to have some sense of accomplishment…I will never vote according to party but according to character and accomplishments…we should really take a closer look at every candidate and vote for the better one…only in this way will we help our country and our fellow citizens.

  • markkrite

    Oh, come on Rebecca, from all that I’ve read about Wendy Davis, it was her and her cohorts that were chanting “Hail, Satan” back last summer when the Texas Legislature was trying to pass a pro-life bill; she’s kind of brought on a lot of this invective herself by her blatant actions in favor of the violent, legal and “legal” procedure known as abortion on demand, or have you conveniently forgotten that? And did you really have to add that she’s “brave, she’s beautiful, she’s intelligent”, really? You know there is a position where one bends so far backward in defense of evil that one can get an atrocious back pain for doing so. But I’m not dissing you, I just believe that you’ve gone way too far in trying to position yourself as “fair.” So I’m just saying, no harm meant. God Bless you and keep you.

    • FW Ken

      No, it was a single young woman screaming “hail, satan”, as far as I could hear in the video. Some of her supporters were shouting down Christians singing Amazing Grace in the rotunda, and her supporters, pumped up by Davis herself, shouted down the Lt. Gov as he attempted to have a final vote. The whole thing was mob rule, which should frighten any free person. But the “hail satan” thing as been overplayed.

  • littleeif

    “My feeling about the things I’ve read about Senator Davis is that they do not speak to her ability to do the job, and they do not reveal anything that puts the lie to her basic platform for running for office. Surely there are things in her official record as an office holder that would make a legitimate discussion about her worthiness for the office of governor of Texas”
    Hmm. My feeling is that they substantially change the narrative that forms the basis of her run for Governor as to her age and the duration of events in her history, financial ability and parental responsibility. These key details were deliberately altered in order to make her more sympathetic to voters she is targetting. As such they constitute a lie she tells about herself which she corrected only under duress and which goes to her personal integrity. And so are you amongst those who do not find personal integrity (good character) a requisite for holding high office? By what other means can you predict the future performance of a candidate in crises yet to unfold and perhaps unprecendented? And since when is exposing the truth in the matter of a candidate’s bad character the work of the devil? (Seems to me Scripture itself is a tool of the devil.) Not buying it. Sorry.

  • bonaventure

    If slander is murder with words, than Christ was a murderer.
    Because he called his opponents of many choice slanders.
    Which is one of the reasons why he himself was murdered.
    The truth MUST hurt sometimes.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X