Victimhood as Merit: Wendy Davis Claimed ‘Mental Health’ Issues in Lawsuit

Posted on Comments

Glenn Close in ‘Fatal Attraction’: Crazier than Wendy Davis? Perhaps.

In 1996, Wendy Davis lost a city council election in Fort Worth, Texas, and filed an utterly ridiculous lawsuit claiming she had been defamed by the local newspaper. (Trust me on this: I’ve recently become an expert on utterly ridiculous defamation lawsuits.)

One of the claims Davis made was that she had suffered damage to her mental health because of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram‘s coverage.

In other words: Wendy Davis is crazy and, she alleged, the newspaper made her crazy. However, I think any sane person perusing her lawsuit would conclude that Wendy Davis was certifiably crazy long before she ever ran for city council.

Wendy Davis is to Texas politics what Amanda Bynes is to Hollywood starlets. Her campaign for governor? A cry for help.

Have we seen this cluster of disturbing symptoms before? Indeed, Ashley Judd’s supporters never seemed to understand why her mental illness made her a less-than-viable Senate candidate, perhaps because (a) Judd’s supporters were liberals and (b) all liberals are kooks.

You may remember that when liberal troll Melissa Brewer melted down, she made her psychiatric disorder the trump card of her defense: “I’m an emotionally unbalanced nutjob, so despite my hateful cyberstalking of political enemies, I’m the real victim here.”

Our natural sympathy for the mentally ill is exploited by the kooks, so that we are expected to tolerate their anti-social behavior without complaint. Their victimhood is thereby converted into an entitlement to be exempt from responsibility, so that even clearly demented actions — e.g., parading half-naked through the streets of Washington, chanting about rape — cannot be criticized.

Sympathy begets tolerance, and tolerance begets entitlement, and next thing you know, the inmates are not only running the asylum, but running for governor of Texas! Where will this madness end?

 

WENDY DAVIS
Government of the crazy, for the crazy, by the crazy

 


68 comments

  1. Very Catholic family. And you’re right. That was back in the day when there were Pro-Life Democrats at the federal level.

  2. I’m quite fond of stigma, at least in a Christian sense, but I suspect it could be quite helpful when shaming #sluts as well.

  4. Poor widdle wendy. PEOPLE WERE MEAN TO ME, BECAUSE I’M USING “I’M CRAZY!!” AS AN EXCUSE FOR MY CRAZY BEHAVIOR!!!

    Go abort yourself, hon.

  6. Ah, Memory Lane . . . you should have heard all the conservative pundits trying to claim Sanford would lose to that ditz – in the district that gave us in the past Tommy Hartnett, “Cousin Arthur” Ravenel, Tim Scott, and Sanford himself 20 years earlier.

    I suppose they are all now claiming they were trying to suck in Democratic donors to a lost cause, but if they were, they were very convincing. And many of them and their commenters chided me for pooh-poohing the idea.

  7. Sad to say, this is all the inevitable result of one of the series of ill-conceived constitutional amendments from the dawn of the first “progressive era” a century ago.

    Our Republic has suffered immeasurably from the damage wrought by Amendments XVI – XIX (inclusive), yet we only mustered the cajones to repeal one of them.

  8. I’m not from South Carolina and I didn’t know it was R+20 until the day after the election. When I did find out my reaction was “The Republicans could have ran a dead cat and it still would have been elected in that district. Instead they chose Mark Sanford.” I still say they should have gone with the cat.

  10. I daresay the voters of SC-1 who were served by Sanford in the House for six years and as Governor for eight were fully capable of judging who was the real conservative reformer in the race and who was the Columbia GOP establishment shill.

Comments are closed.